June 6th, 2010 
James PetersYesterday I came across an article about an “English-only” law Tennessee passed just last week. My first reaction was similar to when I first heard of the Arizona immigration law, which is that it clearly violates federal law, will be struck down by the courts in short order, and is really nothing more than a political ploy to seem tough on immigration policy.
Most past legislation along… Continue reading
September 25th, 2009 James PetersThe Los Angeles Times recently reported on a new bill headed to Governor Schwarzenegger for possible signature (though I believe it is likely to be vetoed) generally prohibiting California employers from requiring applicants to allow them to examine their credit report as part of the application process.
The new California employment law would allow employers to do checks on employees who handle large amounts of money or other sensitive positions. While I recognize that in these situations there may be some correlation between a history of poor financial choices and the ability to do certain jobs, in today’s economy the usefulness of this information is, in my opinion, declining at the same time employers’ use of it as a hiring tool seems to be increasing. Continue reading
November 17th, 2008 James PetersThis is our second post in a series on employees’ rights when they get laid-off from work. In our last post, I pointed out that even though an employee may have been “laid-off” with several other employees, that does not necessarily mean they were not wrongfully terminated in being chosen for layoff. This post deals with the situation where a large group may be “singled out”… Continue reading
November 14th, 2008 James PetersIt seems like every day another company announces mass layoffs in the United States. While we are fielding more calls from potential clients than usual, they have not increased quite as much as overall unemployment.
I think part of this might be attributable to a common employment law misconception among employees, which is that they somehow have less rights if they are “laid off” than… Continue reading
September 27th, 2008 James PetersA few days ago I happened upon an article about Littler Mendelson, P.C. They are a large employment law defense firm and have offices in every major metropolitan area of California. I would bet that if I looked at all of the cases our firm has handled over the years, Littler is the firm we are most often pitted against.
Except for a few bad… Continue reading
June 29th, 2008 James PetersSome employees (and some employee-rights attorneys) believe that if they are wrongfully terminated and able to get a new job just days later, they will only be able to recover a few thousand dollars and it would not be “worth it” to pursue a claim, especially if they have to pay an attorney to get it. However, in California victims of employee rights violations can recover their own attorney’s fees… Continue reading
May 17th, 2008 James PetersThis is our third post in our series on “family status” discrimination. The last post dealt with examples of “moral stereotyping” where an employer’s belief on what women should do motivates their discrimination. This post deals with what I call “assumption” stereotyping, which deals with instances where an employer is motivated by their beliefs about what women will do, given their family status…
In these situations, the employer’s concerns Continue reading
May 3rd, 2008 James PetersThis is my second post in our multi-part series on “family status” discrimination, which is becoming more and more common under both federal and state law.
There are many ways family status discrimination can happen in the workplace, some of which are very subtle and difficult to prove. Other types are not subtle at all, such as the topic of today’s post, which is what I call “Moral Stereotyping”… Continue reading
April 16th, 2008 James PetersOne employment law claim that has been quickly becoming more popular these days is “family status discrimination”. That is, discriminating against someone based on their familial obligations or simply because they have a family in the first place.
Widespread use of this claim is so recent that it does not even have a consistent name in legal circles. We call it “family status discrimination”, but others call it “family… Continue reading
February 6th, 2008 James PetersApparently there is a new game show out called “Moment of Truth” that gives contestants a lie detector test before the show and then the host asks them the same questions on the air. If the contestant’s answer on the air is different from the results of the polygraph, they lose (up to $500,000).
Questions include topics such as whether the contestant has cheated on their spouse, wishes to… Continue reading
January 28th, 2008 James PetersA Reuters story this morning deals with what is both one of the most liberal paid leave policies I have ever seen and also one of the most blatantly discriminatory.
Hime & Company, a Tokyo-based marketing firm, offers paid leave to employees who have a bad breakup, termed “heartache leave”. While this is quite generous and one could argue that such a leave is often necessary to regain your… Continue reading
January 25th, 2008 James PetersA timely study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (I4CP) that was released on Tuesday finds that the vast majority of corporations have some sort of formal anti-discrimination policy.
However, failure to adequately communicate such policies is a frequent problem, where only 80% of those companies rate anti-discrimination training “either somewhat or very important”.
This study is certainly timely in the debate over Tribune company’s hopelessly… Continue reading
January 24th, 2008 James PetersWell, the California Supreme Court finally released its opinion in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., S138130, today and I have to say I am disappointed with the opinion, although I think the dissenting opinion was completely on the mark.
The Court decided that employers can terminate employees in California who use medical marijuana with a doctor’s prescription for a valid medical reason and not be held liable for doing so… Continue reading
January 17th, 2008 James PetersIn this third and final installment in our series on Ron Paul’s comments about employee rights in his book Freedom Under Siege, we examine his views on civil rights legislation in general, which can be found in several sections of his book, but is best summed up with the following quote found on page 39:
“[P]eople have the right to discriminate…in choosing…an employee…. Civil rights legislation of… Continue reading
January 16th, 2008 James PetersThis is the second in our series of posts based on Presidential Candidate Ron Paul’s musings on employee rights in his book Freedom Under Siege. This installment’s “Paulism” can be found on page 17 of the book:
The idea that the social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind…The concept of equal pay for equal… Continue reading
January 15th, 2008 James PetersI have tried to tune out most of the political primary hysteria because I (1) made up my mind about who I would be supporting in the election long ago and (2) I live in California, so my opinion is not really that important at this stage.
Today I happened to stumble across some of Ron Paul’s comments in Freedom Under Siege, a book is a bit shocking… Continue reading
January 15th, 2008 James PetersIn the United States, employers must actively engage in an “interactive process” with disabled employees to try and find a “reasonable accommodation” for their disability, even if no such accommodation actually exists.
What is an “Interactive Process”?
What this means is if an employer knows one of their employees is disabled and they suspect that employee might need some sort of accommodation (e.g. ergonomic keyboard, wheelchair ramp, a chair to sit in… Continue reading
January 12th, 2008 James PetersLet me first say that I rarely disagree with decisions by California state or federal appellate courts (at least those I am not personally involved in and therefore biased against). However, I occasionally come across a case where I just think the court got it wrong. In Mokler v. County of Orange, et.al. (Cal.App.Dist.4 11/26/2007), No. G036029, a former Orange County employee sued under several different claims, including sexual… Continue reading
November 20th, 2007 James PetersAccording to an article in today’s Los Angeles Times, Congressional Republicans are pushing to amend federal anti-discrimination laws to do away with the provision that prohibits employers from requiring employees to only speak English at work.
Currently, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act such an “English-only” policy is considered national origin discrimination. There is a “business necessity” exception to this rule where speaking English is necessary to… Continue reading
November 7th, 2007 James PetersYesterday the California Supreme Court heard arguments in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.
In this case, the employee was refused employment because his pre-employment drug test came back positive for marijuana. The employee had been using medical marijuana at the direction of his physician to deal with lower back strain and muscle spasms.
Under California’s Compassionate Use Act, patients cannot be prosecuted under state law for using or possessing… Continue reading
November 5th, 2007 James PetersCalifornia Senate Bill 836 was heralded nationwide as the first law prohibiting employer discrimination against employees based on their “family status”.
For example, discrimination against employees who are single parents who have to take their child to the doctor would be… Continue reading
November 2nd, 2007 James PetersCalifornia has passed a law providing employees whose spouses are on active military duty with protected leave from work to be with their spouses when they are on leave from duty.
Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 392 into law last month and it became effective immediately. The Bill has two main components:
1. An employer of more than 25 people must provide an employee with up to 10 days of unpaid leave… Continue reading
March 4th, 2007 James PetersSometimes it is easy to forget that discrimination against women, minorities and (of course) minority women still occurs in this country.
This might bring to mind examples where uneducated, unskilled women are denied employment and/or harassed by uneducated men who think of them as sex objects, such as in the movie North Country.
However, as discussed on Susan Cartier Liebel’s blog, this subject comes up… Continue reading
February 15th, 2007 James PetersOne of the strongest job protections for employees in the United States is for those who take a leave of absence to serve in the armed forces. I have seen a dramatic increase in these claims in just the past year and I recently filed a federal lawsuit for a client in San Francisco for some egregious violations.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) requires… Continue reading
January 16th, 2007 James PetersI took a one-month FMLA medical leave for surgery, but my employer laid me off two weeks into the leave. I have always heard that an employer cannot terminate an employee who is on a medical leave. Is this true?
A: It is a common misconception among employees that employers cannot terminate them if they are on a medical leave. While in practice most… Continue reading
January 15th, 2007 James PetersI moved to California from Wisconsin six months ago to take a job with a company here. I quit a good job back home, my wife sacrificed a job she loved, and our kids had to leave all of their friends behind, and we moved our family to California. I was stunned last week when I was suddenly laid off by my new company… Continue reading
Posted in Discrimination, Fraud, Q&A, Wrongful Termination 
Tags: California Employment Law, Discrimination, Fraud, Q&A, Wrongful Termination 
5 Comments » January 14th, 2007 James PetersOne of my co-workers has asked me to testify for in her discrimination case against our employer. I want to help, but I am afraid that my employer will retaliate against me if I help her.
A: Both state and federal discrimination laws prohibit retaliation by employers against employees for participating in an investigation or prosecution of an employment discrimination or harassment… Continue reading
January 5th, 2007 James PetersMy boss is a real jerk. She harasses me for no good reason, calls me names and belittles me in front of other employees. Today I finally told her not to treat me like that anymore, because it interferes with my work and it is unprofessional. She fired me on the spot for complaining. Please tell me this is not legal in California!… Continue reading
January 3rd, 2007 James PetersLast week I found out I was pregnant. The next day, I went into work and told my boss. He said that he does not allow pregnant women to work there because they disrupt scheduling when they take time off to have the baby. He terminated me and said I could re-apply for my position after I have… Continue reading
August 1st, 2006 James PetersOur employment law firm spends most of our time representing clients throughout California who have been wrongfully terminated.
The term “Wrongful Termination” encompasses many things with regard to California Employment law. At its narrowest, this means any termination that is illegal under state or federal law. At its broadest… Continue reading
RSS Feed