The 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.

I talk to potential clients every day with tragic stories of loss about being unemployed for months while desperately searching for new employment.  Many of these people are about to lose their homes, have had their automobiles repossessed and even have experienced the demoralizing reality of sending their children off to college this fall without being able to give them any assistance with their tuition or living expenses.

When I hear from these people that their recent poor credit history, which itself is usually a direct result of either unemployment or serious illness, is now the reason they cannot find a job, it makes me angry.  The problem is that many of these employers now receive dozens, if not hundreds of applications for a handful of positions, so the applicant never gets a chance to explain their situation before they are eliminated early in the process based solely on their credit report.

Studies have shown in the past that the average employee’s credit scores has no correlation with their job performance, but as a matter of public policy I think that when unemployment is in the double-digits throughout much of California this is an issue that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

This 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" for wrongful termination.

For example, one of the most prevalent forms of class action employment law claims following a layoff is based on age discrimination.  A company often decides that the best way to cut costs in a layoff is to get rid of those with the most seniority, because they are usually the ones with the highest compensation.

However, California employment laws state that where an employer terminates an employee because of their high compensation relative to other employees, that is proof of age discrimination where the high compensation is a result of that employee's age.

In other situations, the "decider" of who stays and who goes in a layoff may have their own biases (conscious or unconscious) against certain groups of people based on race, gender, national origin or other protected characteristics.

The easiest way to prove this sort of discrimination is through statistics.  I have seen many layoffs where only those over 40 are laid off and then later replaced by new employees fresh out of college.  Similar evidence can be used where a male decision maker only lays off the females because the men have families at home.

Sometimes the only way to tell if this sort of thing is occurring at the time without the benefit of statistics is through anecdotal evidence.  However, under federal employment law if you are part of a mass layoff and over 40 your employer in most cases must provide you with a list of all other employees being laid off, including their ages and position.

It 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 if they had been "terminated".  The only real difference, though, is that when someone is being laid off it usually means several employees are being terminated at the same time.

In wrongful termination cases this does give the employer a bit of an advantage in mounting a defense by pointing out that the employee in question was not singled out but instead terminated as part of a "restructuring" or "downsizing" along with several others.

However, someone still has to decide who to layoff and if that person has biases against older workers, working mothers, employees with disabilities, etc. that can often show through in trends after examining the characteristics of who was let go versus who was kept.

Personal vendettas can also come into play by supervisors who, for example, may not like how one of their employees complains about working long hours without overtime pay and on that basis alone selects them for layoff.

The most important thing a laid-off employee can do to protect their employment law rights is to objectively look at the situation and consider whether it makes sense that they were laid off, but their peers were kept.  For example, who has the most seniority?  Where do they rank in sales performance?  Are their performance reviews better or worse than the others?

The next step is to consider whether there is any illegal reason the decision maker (or someone with their ear) would want them to be terminated instead of another, less-qualified employee.  If there is such a reason and it makes more sense than simply selecting them as the most logical person to be laid off, the employee might want to contact an employee rights attorney to run the situation by them.

The best barometer I have found in employment law cases is that if the employee can look at the situation objectively and feels in their "gut" that something is "fishy," that usually ends up being the case when we start digging deeper.

A 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 experiences (every company has some bad apples and law firms are no exception), I have found most opposing counsel at Littler to be professional and relatively pleasant to deal with under the circumstances.

You will not often hear me singing the "enemy's" praises, but Littler recently received a perfect score (100) on the 2009 Corporate Equality Index.  This rating is given each year by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which is an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered ("GLBT") Americans.

I find it refreshing that a law firm dedicated to defending employers who have been accused of violating their employees' rights has taken the steps necessary to discourage discrimination "at home".

Employment defense counsel are always "talking the talk" to me about how their clients are committed to diversity, non-discrimination, etc. and would have "never" done what we are accusing them doing.

It looks as though Littler actually "walks the walk" (even if their clients do not always follow their example).  Congrats on a job well done.

Some 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 in most cases, which alone could make pursuing a claim worth the effort for both the client and the lawyer.

A good example of this is Harman v. San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 407.  In that case, the jury ruled that the defendant had a policy of "reverse" discrimination against white males, but only awarded the employee $30,300 in compensatory damages, including lost wages, etc.  However, the court also awarded Mr. Harman over $1 million in attorney's fees.

The case lasted almost eight years between the trial and appeals, but in the end the employee prevailed.  When a client wins and is entitled to attorney's fees, the court evaluates how much time the attorney spent on the case and sets an hourly rate comparable to similar attorneys in the community.  Unless the attorney performed substantial, time-consuming tasks for the case which were clearly unnecessary, all of the time will be reimbursed by the defendant.

Although several management-side employment attorneys were outraged by this decision, the employee (and his attorney) should not be penalized for spending the necessary time on the case to win.  While our firm does a great deal of litigation and we do not mind "fighting", we start almost every case with a good-faith attempt at exploring informal settlement options with the defendant employer.  Both sides should want to do this for the simple fact that once attorney's fees start accumulating, both sides become more adversarial and "invested," so they feel they have to "win".

Most savvy employment defense counsel are aware that where a claim appears to be valid, it is very much in their client's best interest to at least try and resolve the case quickly.  This case is a prime example of a situation where the defendant likely could have settled for a fraction of what they ended up paying, yet they instead chose to "fight" and paid the price.

I am not suggesting that employees (or attorneys) should pursue (or refuse to settle) cases solely to rack up substantial attorney's fees, but if a case has merit the employee should not have to wonder if their lawyer's bill will be more than what they actually recover in the case, which is the case is many other parts of the country.

This 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 about how an employee or job applicant's home life could affect their job performance are often valid in theory, but not in application. In cases such as these the employer only assumes that the employee will not be willing or able to do the job and has no reason (other than stereotypical views of women) to make their assumptions.

One common example is where an applicant is not hired because the employer assumes she will not be willing or able to work the long hours the job requires because of her (assumed) duties at home. However, it is quite possible that the husband/father or another family member has taken on some of the childcare duties to allow her to work more. Because this decision relies on the employer's stereotypical assumptions about women, this could constitute illegal discrimination.

It is true that it might be valid in certain cases not to hire an employee because she cannot perform the job due to family responsibilities, but the employer would have to have some actual proof on which to base their decision. For example, if during the interview the employer mentioned the job would require her to work no less than 80 hours per week and the applicant responded that she could not possibly work more than 40 hours with two kids at home, then this could be a valid reason not to hire her.

One oft-cited case of this type is Trezza v. Hartford, Inc., 1998 WL 912101 (S.D.N.Y.). In that case, an attorney was not even considered for a promotion because it would have required extensive travel. Her employers simply assumed that she would not be interested in the position because of her family and promoted a less-qualified man instead.

The employee was also told that once her husband made enough money she would be "sitting at home eating bon bons" and the company's vice president commented on the "incompetence and laziness of working mothers".

This 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".

Moral Stereotyping Defined

Generally in family status discrimination claims the employer is largely concerned about how the employee's caregiver responsibilities affect them, such as increased absences, less dedication to the job, less focus, unreliability, etc. However. one of the unique aspects of moral stereotyping is that the employer is often more concerned about the well-being of the employee, her child her family or other paternalistic rationale.

Yes, it is true that even in 2008 there are many employers out there who still believe a woman "belongs" at home and that their primary duty is to raise children even to take care of their husband. In these situations, employers might even terminate an employee (to their own detriment) in an effort to force the employee to do what they believe is "right".

Some commonly-cited motivations based on this theory are discussed below.

"Women Belong at Home"

The notion that a woman simply "belongs at home" is the most common way in which these issues are expressed by management. This is a prime example of the sorts of gender stereotypes that foster discrimination against these employees.

The motivation here is not necessarily what is best for the employee or her child, but instead what the employer thinks she "should" do based on traditional gender roles. These employers think that even if the wife makes twice as much as her husband, she should quit her job to raise the children.

A more poignant way of expressing this can be found in Knussman v. Maryland, 272 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2001), where the employee was simply told "God made women to have babies". Speaking of God, several employers do cite their religious views as a basis for this discrimination, which exposes the employer to an additional claim for religious discrimination.

"Children Need Their Mothers"

The traditional notion that children must spend as much time as possible with their mothers is certainly ingrained in our society. This category of cases usually involves an employer who believes they know what is best for the child and believes they are acting in the child's best interest when they terminate or failure to hire the employee.

For example, in Moore v. Alabama State University, 980 F.Supp. 426 (MD Ala 1997), the employee's supervisor told her he believed women should stay at home with their family and denied her a promotion because the new job would involve too much travel for a "married mother", despite the fact that she applied for the job and had already worked out a plan with her husband to accommodate the travel.

Moral stereotyping is not limited to male management employees. Often these issues can come into play when an employee's female supervisor either has grown children or grandchildren and holds strong views on these issues they are not afraid to make known.

A variation on this theme is where an employee's supervisor expresses their belief that placing a child in day care is harmful to their development.

Men are the Breadwinners

Gender stereotypes are also commonly used against men. It is no longer unusual for a husband to drop down to part-time when a child is born while his wife, who might make more money than he does, continues to work full-time.

In certain testosterone-fueled workplaces, this can lead to harassment of "Mr. Mom" by co-workers or he might simply be denied the opportunity to work part-time, even though females are allowed to do so.

This type of claim is rapidly becoming more common as working mothers continue to enter the workplace and men volunteer to help with caregiver duties.

"Reverse" Caregiver Discrimination

Occasionally I come across a case where an employee has suffered "reverse" caregiver discrimination.

For example, if a layoff occurs in a company and a supervisor decides to terminate an above-average, single male employee and instead keep the below-average, married father of two.

In California, this more of an example of "marital status" discrimination, which is specifically prohibited under California law, but these facts could also constitute family status discrimination.

I use this example here because the supervisor is simply applying his own stereotypes and morals to "protect" the man with a family based on his own morals and values instead of what is "fair" to the better-performing employee or what is in the company's best interest.

Bringing Moral Stereotyping Cases

Moral stereotyping cases tend to be the most lucrative and easiest to prove among the various types of caregiver discrimination for a number of reasons.

First, they often involve the most inflammatory evidence that is offensive to the highest number of potential jurors. If a supervisor testifies to his belief that "God made women to have babies" and that this belief was why he did not hire the plaintiff, you can bet that many on the jury may be quite hostile towards the company when awarding the plaintiff damages.

Second, the supervisor who takes the wrongful actions against a plaintiff in such as case is often quite vocal about their motivations when they terminate or refuse to hire because (1) they truly believe they are doing the "right" thing, (2) they want the employee to know that this is the "right" thing and (3) it never crosses their mind that they are handing the employee a substantial lawsuit by "lecturing" them.

One 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 responsibilities discrimination", "FSD" or "FRD" for short, "caregiver discrimination" and countless other names, but they are all the same idea.

This post is the first in a series on the subject which is fairly expansive, quite interesting and can also get confusing.

The Impetus

The reason I bring this subject up now is because I just started a case representing two women against the same former employer who violated almost all of the various family status discrimination theories in dealing with one or both of them.

It is a very interesting case for several reasons, not the least of which is the ironic twist that the employer is an organization that actively promotes equality for women and the building of strong families as its mission.

While settlement discussions are under way, I cannot speak too much about this case in particular, but if it does end up in litigation I will post more details such as the identity of the employer.

The Legal Basis

I should first point out that the term "family status" is not mentioned anywhere in federal or California employment law statutes.

Instead, these claims are based on other existing employment laws, such as gender, marital status or pregnancy discrimination. The Family Medical Leave Act, California Family Rights Act, Pregnancy Disability Leave and other statutes also come into play.

Family status discrimination is one of those areas where employee-rights attorneys are very "creative" in crafting their legal theories. New ways of approaching the claims are constantly being tested in courts across the country and often prevailing.

This series is meant to be an exploration of these various theories and how they can be used under California law to protect employees.

Apparently 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 cheat on their spouse, has various addictions and other very personal areas.

I have no idea who would volunteer to go on this show, especially after knowing the questions in advance. If you know that you could be about to reveal on national television that you cheated on your spouse, why would you go through with it?

Employment Law Issues

I want to clarify that I myself have never actually seen the show, because the ads alone made me cringe. However, an article yesterday on CNNMoney.com questioned the employment law implications for those who go on the show and may be disciplined at work for what is revealed.

Past questions have included whether a personal trainer ever touches female clients more than necessary. He answered "no," but apparently the lie detector revealed that the true answer was "yes". On the same episode, a contestant admitted to looking through their co-workers' desks.

CNN Got Bad Legal Advice

Unfortunately for the author of the CNN article, the attorneys he spoke to gave extremely bad legal advice when asked whether employers could legally discipline these employees based on the show.

The responses from the lawyers included that the information would be "fair game" for discipline and that "It would be neither illegal nor unfair" to do so.

However, these answers are just plain wrong. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (29 USC 2001-2009) specifically makes it illegal to:

discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take such action against...any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test."

There is no requirement that the employer itself administer the test and any employer who violates this law is liable to the employee for lost wages, benefits, costs, attorney's fees, and a $10,000 civil penalty.

It Could Happen

It is not unprecedented for an employee to be terminated from a job for what they say or do on a TV show. For example, on the second season of The Apprentice, one of the candidates was terminated (from her "real life" job, not by Trump) for describing some elderly women as "two old Jewish ladies".

If an employee is "caught" in a lie on Moment of Truth and the employer terminates the employee for it, then it would be a clear violation of the prohibition of adverse action "on the basis of the results of any lie detector test".

Should it be legal to terminate an employee for essentially admitting on national TV that he likes to touch his female clients a little too much? Probably.

Is it legal? No.

A 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 composure, the terms are quite interesting.  Employees 24 years old or younger only get one day off, those between 25 and 29 get two days off and those 30 or older get three days.

CEO Miki Hiradate explains the reason for these different policies: "Women in their 20s can find their next love quickly, but it's tougher for women in their 30s, and their break-ups tend to be more serious."

I won't go into the age discrimination implications for women over 40, because this story is from Japan and the odds of this happening in the US are virtually none (unless you work at Tribune, Co.--then all bets are off).

A 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 inadequate anti-harassment policy. Training employees using such a policy might actually have a negative effect, since it does not even recognize creation of a hostile work environment as illegal harassment.

Well, 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 Decision

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 under state employment discrimination laws.

The majority spent almost all of their opinion talking about how the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the referendum that decriminalized medical marijuana under California law) does not explicitly say employers are prohibited from terminating an employee for using medical marijuana at home.

However, the majority seems to have forgotten that the case was brought under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") and not the Compassionate Use Act ("CUA"), seemingly concluding that because the CUA was not violated, neither was the FEHA.

The only reason that the CUA has any application here at all is by virtue of the fact that it is the reason that the plaintiff can say he was not breaking state law. Arguably, if state law says something is illegal, then state anti-discrimination laws cannot be held to protect an employee who breaks it. However, the fact that the plaintiff broke no California law should mean that the legality or illegality of the conduct is a non-issue.

FEHA Disability Discrimination Analysis

In California, employers are required to "reasonably accommodate" individuals with disabilities, which basically means that they need to work with the employee and their doctor to determine what the employee needs to be able to do their job and treat their disability. In Ragingwire, the employee simply wanted his employer to allow him to use medical marijuana at home during non-work hours.

The employer generally must allow any accommodation that does not cause it to suffer an "undue hardship". In order avoid liability for refusing a particular accommodation, the employer must demonstrate what sort of undue hardship it would suffer.

Here, the Defendant pointed to virtually no undue hardship it would suffer by letting Ross use his medical marijuana at home during non-work hours. Instead, it pointed to "red herrings" (which the majority readily adopted as some of its justifications) such as:

• We cannot be forced to allow him to use drugs at work--The Court admits that Ross explicitly stated he was not asking for the right to use medical marijuana at work.
• We cannot be held responsible for him coming to work under the influence--Again, Ross was not asking to be allowed to be under the influence at work. This is exactly the same as if an employee had an Oxycotin or Vicodin prescription and could potentially show up at work under the influence of their medication.
• We cannot condone our employees violating the law--If you let your employees bet on sports such as running football pools, this is essentially the same thing. Under federal law simple possession of a small quantity of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable with a maximum $1,000 fine and/or a year in jail, whereas gambling in California is punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. However, this argument is irrelevant where an employee is only using medical marijuana at home during non-work hours because an employee breaking a law on their own time does not create an undue hardship.

None of these arguments proves that the employer would suffer an undue hardship under these circumstances. Under the FEHA, a claim of hardship generally must be based on either (1) the fact that the accommodation would cost the employer too much to implement, or (2) it would be too inconvenient to implement the accommodation. (See Cal. Gov. 12940(m).)

The majority in this case simply glosses over this whole analysis (which is really the only question they needed to answer here) by conclusively stating "The FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs" with virtually no support for that statement. (p. 5)

The majority tries to support this statement by going into a long analysis of cases where it has held that (1) employees can be drug tested under certain circumstances, and (2) employees can be terminated for "abusing" drugs that have no "legitimate medical explanation". Of course, neither of these arguments really has any application to this case, but I guess it sounds good.

Me and the Dissenters Make 3

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Kennard (who was joined by one other justice to make the decision 5-2) gets the analysis right and reaches the right conclusions, in my opinion. Of course, my earlier post about this case makes his same points, but because we both seem to be in the minority it will probably be quite some time before our opinions are adopted.

It will, however, be interesting to see what the rest of the blawgosphere things about this decision.

In 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 the past thirty years has totally ignored this principle. Many 'do-gooders,' of course, argue from the 'moral high ground' for their version of equal rights, knowing that they can play the sympathies and the guilt of many Americans.

It appears Mr. Paul is not only against protection of women in the face of discrimination, but virtually all protected minorities and classifications, including race, religion, and age.

What else is there for me to say about Mr. Paul's views other than I disagree completely and as someone who thinks of himself as a "do-gooder," they offend me. I would think the majority of independent voters tend to agree with me, but recent polls showing independent support for him seem to tell a different story.

This will likely be my last foray into political commentary for this election cycle. It has been an eye-opening experience and at least solidified who I will not be supporting in the upcoming elections.

This 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 work is...an impossible task.... By what right does the government assume the power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?

Mr. Paul's opinion that only attractive women should work as flight attendants is amusing, but it does bring up some employment law issues, both explicitly and implicitly.

Gender Identity Discrimination

As a general principle, it is not illegal in California to choose an attractive job candidate over a candidate who is equally qualified but unattractive, as long as this is the actual reason for the decision.

However, issues such as the person being unattractive because of a disability or the person doing the hiring would simply rather work with the less-qualified attractive woman than the highly qualified male applicant, discrimination claims become more of an option.

Another issue this brings up is known as "gender identity discrimination". Essentially, this refers to an employer refusing to hire or firing someone for not "acting like" their gender. For example, a woman who is not feminine enough is rejected for employment by Victoria's Secret or a man who acts too effeminate is terminated from his job as an auto mechanic.

This theory of gender discrimination is still fairly rare, but is much more common than it was even five years ago, especially concerning transgendered employees. The crux of the legal argument is that because adverse employment actions are taken against these employees because they are not conforming to the stereotypical behavior and appearance of their gender, these actions are taken because of their gender, thus making it gender discrimination.

There have been a few cases where employees have made arguments similar to Mr. Paul's hypothetical, but usually not successfully. For example, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that female casino employees can be required to wear makeup even when their male counterparts are not.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

The undercurrent of Mr. Paul's quote, however, is its reference to "equal pay for equal work." This refers to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act and says that, all other things being equal, women must be paid as much as their male counterparts in a company (and vice-versa).

Under Mr. Paul's view, an employer should be free to pay each employee whatever they wish for whatever reason they wish. While this makes sense when all employees are on equal footing when competing for jobs, it ignores the realities of the United States' (and the rest of the world's) ingrained discriminatory attitudes towards women.

The EPA was passed to curtail employer behavior based on outdated stereotypes of women. For example, paying women less because of an employers' belief that:

• Women belong in the home and should be discouraged from entering the workplace;
• Women will eventually quit once they "find" a husband;
• Women will eventually leave to have babies; or
• Women are inherently less qualified or less intelligent than men.

Study after study has shown that women are still paid less than men for doing the exact same job. The EPA was passed in an attempt to remedy this and since its passage the disparity in pay has substantially decreased.

However, when Mr. Paul wrote his book in 1987 the gap was much larger than it is today and blatant discrimination against women in the workplace was much more prevalent.

Conclusion

Apparently Ron Paul thinks bias against women is a perfectly good reason to make pay-level decisions. While he is entitled to his opinion, I am unable to understand how his supporters are more than 50% female.

At first I thought this was similar to his prior racist and homophobic rants, which are somewhat buried in history and do not get much coverage. However, this book is actually heralded by his supporters, including rave reviews by women.

I guess I just don't get it.

I 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 (the link is to a 160 page pdf file of it) he published in 1987. Although I have heard in the past about racist, homophobic, intolerant, etc. comments he has made, I had not heard about some of the things he says about employee rights in this book.

I am neither a proponent of Ron Paul, nor am I an active opponent of his. I believe he has many great ideas, but like most people with a few great radical ideas, he also has a few radical bad ideas. These will be chronicled in a series of posts over the next few days. Originally this was going to be just one post, but the more I read this book, the more material I came up with.

"So-Called Harassment"

The first passage that jumped out at me is on page 17 of the book where he states the following about employees who are sexually harassed by their employers:

Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? ...[H]ow can the harassee escape [any] responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable...pressure and submission is hardly an example of a violation of one's employment rights.

Mr. Paul apparently believes that employers should be free to demand sexual favors from their employees and then terminate them if they are refused. Clearly this viewpoint is offensive to women and is not going to be adopted by anyone other than the far-far-far-right wing of American politics, but it also defies logic from a pure policy standpoint.

Why Don't they Just Quit?

In Ron Paul's view, an employee who is sexually harassed should just walk down the street and get a different job. Apparently the employer's "punishment" is that the employee quits.

However, this ignores the reality that employees cannot just start a new job right away without suffering any damages. What if that employee left a good job to work for this new employer? What if the employee moved to take this job and it is the only company where she can practice in her field (e.g. the only hospital or school in the area)?

"Hardly" a Violation of Employment Rights

Take this hypothetical of a single mother who works hard at her job as a secretary to put food on the table for her children. She has a disabled child who needs frequent medical care and had to wait a full year to get coverage under her employer's health plan. She has received steady raises in her pay to where she finally has enough money coming in to pay her bills and feed her family.

One day, the owner of the company asks her into his office, closes the door behind her and asks her to have sex with him on the couch. She refuses and he says if she is not undressed and on the couch in thirty seconds she is fired.

Current Law

Under current law in both California and the rest of the United States, the employee could simply refuse her employer's advances and sue for lost wages and benefits (until she gets another, comparable position), emotional distress, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees.

Not only does this serve to compensate an employee who is forced to go through such an ordeal, but it also acts as a deterrent because employers would expect to be sued if this happened.

Ron Paul's View

Apparently Ron Paul believes that in this example the employee has the "right" to quit on the spot and no longer provide services to the employer. However, the employer also has the "right" to demand sex from his employees and terminate them if they do not comply.

The employee is forced to choose between food, shelter and healthcare for her children and being degraded at the hands of her employer. At the instant she makes her decision the "right" decision is far from clear.

This type of scene already plays out far too often in the United States, but imagine if employers had absolutely no liability for taking these sorts of actions.

Conclusion

Sexual harassment laws were passed in large part to deal with the extreme difference in power between employers and their employees.

Employers can make their employees do virtually anything they want within the boundaries of the law, but society has decided that employees should not be forced to choose between being a sex slave and surviving financially or professionally.

Does Ron Paul seriously believe that employees should be forced to make this decision and employers who force them to should not suffer any consequences? If so, do the 10% of people voting for him the primaries agree with him on this?

In 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 while working, etc.), they must approach that employee and work with them to determine if such a reasonable accommodation exists.

The employee does not have to ask for an accommodation to be entitled to one, because many employees do not know their rights and that should not effect their entitlements under the law.

Additionally, if an employee requests an accommodation for their disability, the employer must work with the employee to either find a reasonable accommodation or determine that no such accommodation exists.

The employer cannot simply ignore the employee or deny the request because the accommodation requested is not feasible. For example, if an employee requests to telecommute and work from home as an accommodation, but the employer legitimately needs them in the office, then even though the requested accommodation might not be "reasonable," the employer is now under a duty to see if there is some other accommodation both sides can agree upon. If the employer simply says "no" and leaves it at that, then a violation has occurred.

California Takes this One Step Further

In California, if the employer refuses to engage in this "interactive process," the employee can sue based on this violation alone. This was the case in Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (Cal.App.Dist. 2 11/9/2007) No. B191028.

In Wysinger, the jury determined that (1) the employer failed to engage in the required interactive process, but also that (2) the employer did not fail to accommodate the employee's disability because no such accommodation was available. The employer appealed the decision, arguing that these two verdicts were inconsistent, because they were held liable for not working with the employee to agree on an accommodation that did not even exist.

However, the court upheld the award to the employee of over $2 Million, because the employer's failure to even respond to the employee's accommodation requests is a completely separate question and independent from whether an accommodation actually existed or was denied.

Employees must realize that they have a right to a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities at work and employers have to realize that they have to at least try to explore possible reasonable accommodations with an employee who is disabled.

Let 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 towards). 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 harassment of her by a county supervisor. While I agree with the court's decision on most of the issues presented by the case, I do disagree on their sexual harassment analysis and decision.

The Facts of the Case

Without going into too much detail, Ms. Mokler had to interact with Orange County Supervisors "on almost a daily basis" as part of her job duties, including Supervisor Chris Norby. Mokler introduced herself to Norby at a budget hearing in 2003 and he promptly asked her if she was married. When she said no, he called her an "aging nun". Mokler reported the incident to her supervisor, but he did nothing about it and actually told Mokler to "be careful".

Mokler next encountered Norby at a hotel where a political event was being held. Norby took her arm, pressed her body up against his and said "in a flirtatious manner: 'Did you come here to lobby me?'" Mokler responded that she was not there to lobby him and he asked "Why not? These women are lobbying me," gesturing to two women standing next to him. Norby continued to hold her body up against his, looked her up and down, and told her she had "a nice suit and nice legs". Mokler was finally able to push her self away from him and again went to her supervisor who again told her to "be careful" and further suggested she "needed 'to win him over'".

Mokler's final encounter with Norby occurred in his office. When she arrived, he put his arm around her and told her she looked "nice". He walked over to a large map on the wall and asked her where she lived. When she hesitated, he "demanded she provide her exact address." He put his arm around Mokler again and rubbed her breast with his arm until she pushed herself away from him and apparently a male co-worker interrupted them.

The Trial Court's Decision

The jury found in Mokler's favor on her sexual harassment claim against Norby, but awarded no damages to her for the claim. While uncommon, this does occur where an employee suffers no economic damages as a direct result of the harassment and they are unable to prove any emotional distress or other special damages. However, the trial court ultimately "entered judgment on this claim against Norby, but nonetheless declared him the 'prevailing party' and awarded costs in his favor."

In California sexual harassment cases, the "prevailing party" is entitled to attorney's fees and costs, but I am still scratching my head on how Norby had a judgment entered against him and is still considered to have "prevailed".

The only reason for this I can come up with is that there as an offer made under California Code of Civil Procedure 998.  Under that statute, if a party offers to settle for a set amount, the offer is rejected, and then the other party gets less than was originally offered to them, the opposing party can get their costs reimbursed.  However, this is not mentioned anywhere in the opinion and there are several reasons why even this does not make sense as a reason.  But this is not the point of the post, so I will let it go...

The County appealed several of the trial court's rulings, including the finding of sexual harassment by Norby for creating a "hostile work environment".

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that no hostile work environment was created by Norby. The court ruled that Norby's conduct was not "severe or pervasive" enough to justify the trial court's finding that sexual harassment occurred.

It is extremely rare to find a case where both the jury and the trial court found that sexual harassment occurred and the appellate court reverses that decision. In almost all cases that are reversed like this, it is usually very clear that sexual harassment did not occur and the jury got it wrong. I would submit to you that in this case the jury was right and the appellate court was in error.

The appellate court based its decision on a number of factors, including their findings that the incidents "involved no physical threats," "the touching...was brief and did not constitute an extreme act of harassment," and the demand for her address was "brazen," but "[did not create]...a hostile work environment."

To me, if a manager rubs a subordinate's breast, this does constitute "an extreme act of harassment". This is sexual assault, plain and simple, which is punishable as a crime in California! How this conduct could ever not qualify as "severe" or "extreme" is beyond me. Further,holding her body up against his and telling her she has nice legs also borders on extreme.

The court suggests that no "physical threats" occurred. However, when a supervisor grabs an employee's breast after demanding to know where she lives and getting no response, to me this certainly does qualify as a "physical threat".

Additionally, while it is unclear whether Mokler brought her sexual harassment claim against just Norby or against Orange County as well, I believe the county should have liability here. When Mokler complained to her supervisor about Norby's conduct, he simply told her to "be careful" and that she "needed to win him over." I do not know whether these remarks were intended to suggest that she go along with Norby's behavior or if this was a veiled threat against her for complaining, but the way the court's opinion reads it seems the county did absolutely nothing to stop Norby's conduct and possibly tried to stop her from bringing it up.

This is simply one man's opinion, but I call them like I see them and to me this case was decided incorrectly by the appellate court. I do not know if Mokler plans to file an appeal, but I would be very interested to see what the California Supreme Court would decide after reviewing the case.

According 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 do the job. For example, a nurse who assists with surgeries must be able to speak English to communicate with the medical staff.

This amendment is unlikely to pass and is likely just pre-election posturing to bring the debate over immigration into the forefront of the electorate's consciousness.

However, most employees in California would not be effected by such a change, because California's Fair Employment and Housing Act also prevents English-only policies and is far more protective than Title VII in virtually all respects.

Yesterday 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.

Case Background

Under California's Compassionate Use Act, patients cannot be prosecuted under state law for using or possessing medical marijuana.

However, while federal authorities do not usually pursue prosecution against those who simply use marijuana and do not sell it, the federal Controlled Substances Act still makes possession of marijuana illegal.

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") makes it illegal for an employer to terminate an employee as a result of their disability or to fail to "reasonably accommodate" their disability.

The collision of these three laws is messy and the answer as to which should prevail is very unclear.

Criminal Law Meets Employment Law

The Supreme Court now has to interpret the FEHA while considering the two drug laws as a backdrop.

To simplify the discrimination issues in terms of a "normal" disability discrimination case, just substitute the word "Vicodin" for "marijuana". Generally, an employer could not terminate an employee for using Vicodin in connection with their disability.

Under these facts, the employee would have a fairly sound disability discrimination case under California law. However, the fact that marijuana use or possession is illegal under federal law complicates things considerably.

Employment Law Meets Criminal Law

For the Court to hold in Ross' favor, they would essentially prohibit employers from terminating employees for engaging in what is essentially criminal conduct.

The FEHA does not really address whether employers must allow employees to engage in illegal conduct outside of work as part of a "reasonable accommodation" for a disability.

Basically, the law is silent on this issue, but this analysis could turn on the word "reasonable". Is allowing an employee to break the law at home on their own time reasonable?

I do not pretend to know the answer to that question.

My Opinion

If I was deciding this case, I would say that the question of legality or illegality on the part of the employee does not enter into the analysis for the purposes of FEHA liability. Illegality should only be considered if it affects the employer.

It is important to note that Ross only used the marijuana at home and did not bring it to or use it at work. As long as the employee does not use the medical marijuana during work hours, I think it is no concern of the employer. I bring this caveat up because if they were to use at work, the employer would essentially be helping the employee commit a crime if they provide a place or time to use it.

I also think that employers would not have to allow the employee to work if they are under the influence at work and doing tasks that would make them dangerous to themselves or others.

Many of the opponents to Ross point to this as a major issue. How can an employer know if the employee has recently used and is safe to have at work? However, I think this is a red herring, because this would also be a problem where an employee has to use Vicodin, which arguably can impair function much more than marijuana does.

The Court's Opinion

Of course, my opinion does not matter much. What really matters here is what the California Supreme Court thinks.

Based on the transcripts from the arguments yesterday, it roughly seems to be a 3-3 tie among the justices present in deciding the case.

In a dramatic twist, Justice Carol Corrigan was out with the flu and could not attend oral arguments. She will be watching a videotape of the arguments to help her decide, but we have no way of guessing what she thinks of the case.

The Court has 90 days to issue a ruling. It should be very interesting reading.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below...

This is our final installment in a series dealing with employee rights laws that California's legislature passed in 2007, but which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed last month before they could take effect.

SB 836

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 prohibited. Also, if the child is sick at home and has nobody else to care for them, the employee could actually take protected, unpaid leave to do so.

I think this bill was a step in the right direction, but I do have to agree that its reach was far to broad to avoid the Governor's veto stamp. If certain limits can be added to the measure to keep its use reasonable, I believe the legislature can pass a satisfactory bill in the near future.

California 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 when their spouse is on leave from military duty; and
2. The employer is prohibited from retaliating against a qualified employee for requesting or taking this leave.

To me, one of the most surprising aspects of this law is that the employer must grant the leave, regardless of the circumstances-no exceptions. This is uncommon in employment law where there are usually at least some exceptions where the employer can deny the leave.

Under the Family Medical Leave Act, for example, non-emergency medical leave requests the employer can make the employee wait to take the leave if they are a "key employee" or if it is a very busy time of the year for the employer. Other leave laws allow similar exceptions where it will cause a "hardship" on the employer.

However, under this new California leave law, it looks like employers have no right to deny the leave request, no matter how essential it is that the employee be at work. This does make sense, of course, because the employee's spouse will only be off of leave during a set period of time.

This is a very interesting development in the law and the fact that it went into effect immediately makes me wonder how many spouses and military personnel know about it. If you know someone who has a spouse in the military, be sure to remind them of this opportunity to take time off from work to be with their spouse!

Sometimes 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 in all areas of employment, including lawyers. Susan discusses the recent Wall Street Journal blog post: "When You Land The Job Interview, Should The Ring Come Off?", which discusses whether lawyers should ditch their wedding ring for job interviews.

At first glance, some might think of this as paranoia, but an anonymous legal recruiter actually explains how the partners at law firms specifically tell him they prefer male over female recruits because they think these women will eventually get pregnant and either take time off or leave to start a family.

Sometimes employers are ignorant of the law and actually come right out and ask applicants about their family life for this very purpose. They ask things such as whether they plan to have children, what their husband thinks of them working outside the home and other questions that are not only illegal, but often extremely offensive.

While I would take this as a "red flag" that this is someone you might not want to work for, here is an article about how to deal with such questions "tactfully".

In California, it is illegal to hire a man over a married (or unmarried) woman for any of these or similar reasons. Marital status discrimination is not hard to prove when an employer makes it a habit of doing this. All you have to do is look at the list of who is hired and who is not when new employees are hired.

One 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 employers to provide employees with up to five years of leave to serve in the military.

When an employee returns from military service, their employer must return them to their old position at the same rate of pay without any loss of seniority or benefits based on seniority, such as raises and vacation pay.

These protections still apply even if the employee has been replaced. If the employee's position no longer exists, the employer usually must give them an equivalent position.

Additionally, an employee who returns from military leave cannot be terminated without cause for 180 days following their return. This is by far the strongest job protection provided by any federal or state employment law.

Of course, the real reason for this law is to tell recruits that their jobs will be protected if they need to take a military leave. However, if the Democratic Congress succeeds in pulling our troops out of Iraq sometime in the near future, the real effect of these protections will come into play as thousands of troops reenter the workforce.

As these employees begin returning to work and employers have to deal with accommodating them, some will simply ignore the law and hope the employee does not sue them. If you know someone who is returning from military duty, make sure they know their rights.

Q: I 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?

--Unemployed (CA)

A: It is a common misconception among employees that employers cannot terminate them if they are on a medical leave. While in practice most employer are reluctant to terminate an employee who is out on a medical leave, the law does not explicitly prohibit terminating such an employee.

The Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and its California counterpart, the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), protect employees from being terminated because they take a medical leave. It does not totally prohibit termination of an employee while they are on a medical leave. The difference is subtle, but it is there.

For example, assume a salesperson is out on FMLA leave and his company lays off their entire 100-person sales force. The employer is not required to keep the salesperson on medical leave on their payroll and terminating the salesperson would not be an outright violation of the FMLA.

However, if the salesperson is the only one out of the 100 salespeople to be laid off and there is no other clear reason for the termination, it begins to look more like the employee is being laid off because they are on an FMLA leave.

So, in response to your question, what really matters is why you were terminated while out on a medical leave, not just that you happened to be out on a medical leave when you were terminated.

Q: I 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.

I have heard from some other employees that I was really only hired to do one important project in my area of expertise (which we had just finished two weeks ago) and that they believe it was the company's intention to fire me all along after it was completed. Can I sue them?

--Stranded in California

A: I am truly sorry about what has happened to you and your family, but luckily you moved to a state with specific laws against this sort of thing.

Labor Code § 970

California Labor Code § 970 prohibits employers from "fraudulently inducing" employees to relocate to accept new employment. In this situation, "fraudulent inducement" essentially means lying to someone to get them to move and accept employment with your company.

If you can prove that you were lead to believe you were not being hired for one specific assignment, that your employer knew you believed that and that your employer's intention was to terminate you after that assignment was completed, then you will be able to sue your former employer.

Proof Can Be Easy in These Cases

In your situation, however, most judges and juries would easily believe you did not uproot your family and move to California just to take a six month temporary position. They also would be unlikely to believe the employer thought you agreed to that as the deal. The only thing left to prove is what the company thought would happen after the project was finished. This can be proven through e-mails, testimony and various other ways.

Damages are Tripled

Under Labor Code § 970, you can recover virtually any damages you can attribute to moving to take the new job and then being laid off. Your lost wages during unemployment, the cost of moving to California, the cost of moving back to Wisconsin if you move back, any costs you or your wife incur to get a new job, attorney's fees, and countless other damages are recoverable under this statute.

The best part of Labor Code § 970, though, is that you are entitled to recover "treble" damages. What this means is that whatever damages you are awarded get tripled as a penalty against the company. So, if you can recover $100,000 of damages for what the company did, you would be awarded $300,000 total.

The California legislature realized what an extreme hardship situations like these place on employees and their families. Often they find themselves having moved for a job that suddenly vanishes and they are left stranded.

Q: One 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.

--Want to Help But Scared (CA)

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 case.

Investigation Outcome Irrelevant

Even if it turns out that the employee who complains about discrimination was not discriminated against, or even if that employee turns out to be lying, you are still protected from retaliation.

The law protects the act of speaking up for someone else, which is evaluated independently of the underlying discrimination claim.

Retaliation Can Be Subtle

This year's landmark Supreme Court case of Burlington Northern v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006), clarified and strengthened protections for employees against retaliation in discrimination cases.

The Court decided that any actions by an employer that would "dissuade" a "reasonable employee" from making or supporting a discrimination complaint is illegal retaliation and proper grounds for that employee to sue.

What this boils down to is that if you are retaliated against and in hindsight you would not have participated in the investigation if you had known what your employer would later do to you for it, then those actions are likely illegal.

Co-Worker Assistance is Crucial

One of the major motivations for the Court in the Burlington case was the strong public policy in this country to encourage those employees who witness discrimination against others to speak up and testify if needed.

It is important for these witnesses to feel comfortable testifying against their employers on other employees' behalf if there was wrongdoing.

Q: My 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!

-- A Woman Wronged (CA)

A: You are in luck. In California it is illegal under Labor Code § 232.5 to retaliate against an employee for complaining about "working conditions".

Unfortunately, the term "working conditions" has not been clearly defined by California Courts under this statute. For example, if an employee complains about the poor selection in the break room's vending machine and is terminated for the complaint, the language of the statute suggests that this would be illegal.

I actually believe that this example would be illegal. However, the employee would have to prove that their employer actually terminated them for complaining about the vending machine. The less believable it is that an employer would terminate an employee for a complaint, the less likely a judge or jury would be to decide the complaint actually triggered the termination.

However, your situation is almost certainly covered by the statute. If your complaint about how your boss treated you is really what motivated her to terminate you, then you would likely be able to pursue a wrongful termination case against your former employer.

Under such a claim you might be able to recover all of your lost wages, attorney's fees and certain penalties.

Q: Last week I found out I was pregnant and my husband and I were overjoyed. 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 the baby. Help!

--Pregnant and Unemployed (CA)

A: As you probably know, it is illegal under both federal and California law for an employer to terminate an employee because she becomes pregnant.

Pregnancy Discrimination Claims

Pregnancy discrimination is actually a form of gender discrimination. The rationale is that only women can become pregnant, so discriminating against a woman for being pregnant is essentially discriminating against her for being a woman.

Medical Leave Claims

Your situation also constitutes discrimination under the California Family Rights Act and other medical leave laws. If you are terminated because your employer anticipates you will be taking time off that is protected by the law, it is basically the same as if you were terminated for taking that leave after the fact.

Pregnancy Discrimination Claims More Successful

A recent survey showed that pregnancy discrimination cases seem to have a higher success rate than other employment discrimination claims. I believe this is the result of a few related factors.

First, an employee can point to a specific date when their employer found out they were pregnant and if the employer terminates or otherwise discriminates against the employee a short time later, it is clear that pregnancy was the reason.

Second, it just "makes sense" that an employer would tend to discriminate against pregnant employees. In California an employee can take up to four months of protected leave for the birth of a child. The employer essentially gets a few months notice that an employee will definitely be taking such a leave in the near future. It is only human for a manager to decide that things might go more smoothly if the pregnant employee was replaced.

This, of course, does not make it right.

Damages in These Cases are Sobering for Employers

When the inconvenience of employing a pregnant woman is compared to the potential damages a company might be forced to pay her later if she successfully sues them, it should be all to clear to them that not terminating her is much cheaper than terminating her.

This is especially true for employers in California, where they can be forced to pay an employee her lost wages, attorney's fees, and virtually unlimited emotional distress and punitive damages.

The term "Wrongful Termination" encompasses many things with regard to California Employment law. At its broadest, this means any termination that is illegal under state or federal law. In its narrowest use, it means terminations that violate California's "public policy" and which courts have ruled are an illegal basis for termination.

In California, this doctrine has been widely expanded by courts and provided employees extra protections that are far too numerous to detail here. In a very narrow "nutshell," some general things which suggest a termination might be wrongful include:

1. You were terminated for refusing to do something illegal;
2. You were terminated for doing something California or federal law gives you the right to do;
3. You were terminated for complaining about something at work;
4. You were terminated for complaining to a third party about your employer;
5. You were terminated for reasons that just do not "feel" right; or
6. The reasons you were given for your termination just do not make any sense and seems to be a "cover up" for another reason.

If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, we invite you to contact us today for a free consultation to discuss this and any other employment law questions you might have.

Our employee rights attorneys practice employment law and only represent employees not employers and we are committed to enforcing your rights as an employee. We also offer competitive fees, including contingency fee arrangements in most cases.