George Washington once said:

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

Letter of Instructions to the Captains of the Virginia Regiments [July 29, 1759]. The advocates of consumer rights, viewing the resources of defense firms and corporate defendants, can relate to the trepidation felt by the out-numbered and out-gunned Continental Army. Because of that disparity in resources, Consumer Attorneys of California ("CAOC") consolidates the voices of consumer attorneys throughout the state to (1) preserve and protect the constitutional right to trial by jury for all consumers, (2) champion the cause of those who deserve redress for injury to person or property, (3) encourage and promote changes to California law by legislative, initiative or court action, (4) oppose injustice in existing or contemplated legislation, (5) correct harsh, unjust and oppressive legislation or judicial decisions, (6) advance the common law and promote the public good through the civil justice system and concerted efforts to secure safe products, a safe workplace, a clean environment, and quality health care, (7) uphold the honor, integrity and dignity of the legal profession by encouraging mutual support and cooperation among members, (8) promote the highest standards of professional conduct, and (9) inspire excellence in advocacy. This post is a multi-blog effort to inform consumer attorneys about CAOC's value and encourage participation in CAOC through membership.

CAOC works tirelessly to protect or advance those causes of import to consumers and their attorneys in California. Often those efforts, though valuable, receive little fanfare. For example, CAOC recently sponsored SB 510, which affects the re-sale of what are known as "structured settlements," in which victims receive financial compensation over a period of time for medical expenses and basic living needs, as determined by a jury. Before SB 510 was signed by the Governor, Courts expressed frustration at their inability to prevent the sale of structured settlements on terms that might ultimately lead to long-term financial hardship for the victim. Now, SB 510 gives judges the information they need to make a reasoned decision about the propriety of a structured settlement sale.

Measures like CAOC-sponsored SB 510 help protect the most vulnerable members of our society and ask for nothing in return. They exemplify the spirit of CAOC. However, CAOC is only as effective in its mission as its membership allows it to be. When consumer attorneys join the ranks of CAOC, its voice gains in power and clarity. But if consumer advocates sit on the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the work of others, CAOC is stretched thin, and we are all at risk as a result.

Now, consumer advocate bloggers from across the state are combining their voices to call upon each and every lawyer and firm that regularly represents plaintiffs to join CAOC, thereby strengthening the consumer's first line of defense. The blogs participating in this unified call to action are:

• The Complex Litigator (H. Scott Leviant)
• The UCL Practitioner (Kimberly Kralowec)
• Bailey Class Action Daily (Matt Bailey)
• California Employee Rights Blog (James J. Peters)
• An Appeal to Reason (Donna Bader)
• California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• California Debt Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• TrialLawyerTips.com (Mitch Jackson and Lisa Wilson)
• California Injury Blog (John Bisnar)
• San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• San Diego Car Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross Jurewitz
• San Diego Injury Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• California Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• San Diego Injury Law Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• California Personal Injury Law Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• Biker Lawyer Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• California Credit Law (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)
• Lemon Law Blog (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)

Show your support of consumers' rights by joining and supporting CAOC. Together we can make an impact that we cannot make alone.

Ok, so this topic has been blogged to death by not only me, but the blawgosphere as a whole. However, I just received this update to the story.

Sam Zell, the head of Tribune Co., met with his employees/journalists last week at the Orlando Sentinel, one of the newspapers covered by his idiotic/inspiring (depending on which side you are on in the debate) new employee handbook.

One employee asked Mr. Zell about the direction the newspaper was heading and asked some follow up questions when she felt like he did not answer her question directly. At the end of the exchange, Mr. Zell simply said: "F*ck you" to the employee and left it at that. Unfortunately for Mr. Zell, a video of the incident quickly made its way onto YouTube.

I would direct Mr. Zell to the following paragraph in the handbook he so proudly introduced just last month:

8. QUESTION AUTHORITY. ...Question authority and push back if you do not like the answer. You will earn respect, and not get into trouble for asking tough questions.

Apparently Mr. Zell isn't very concerned about practicing what he preaches. When "feel good" handbook policies like this are not followed by management, a culture of cynicism and hypocrisy emerges in most companies.

This is probably even more true in the case where the person who created the policy and widely publicized its merits, violates its own terms just a few weeks later just as publicly.

Mr. Zell has stated publicly that he tried to contact this employee twice and not been able to get in touch with her. Also, she has refused to comment about the incident to the media.

Sounds to me like she, and likely other Tribune Co. employees, have learned their lesson about talking out of turn and not to "question authority".

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?

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.

This is the second post in a series on several very important bills the California legislature passed in 2007 to protect employees that the Governor vetoed at the last possible moment last month.

SB 537

Despite supporting a strong new law providing protected leave to military spouses whose husbands or wives are on leave from service, the Governor promptly vetoed similar protections for employees needing leave for other, arguably more important reasons. Senate Bill 537 would have given employees the right to take family medical leave to care for the following persons:

1. The employee's seriously ill children (regardless of their age);
2. The employee's seriously ill in-laws;
3. The employee's seriously ill grandparents or grandchildren;
4. The employee's seriously ill sibling; or
5. The employee's seriously ill domestic partner.

Without this bill, employees who have seriously ill adult children, young grandchildren or siblings may be forced to choose between either losing their job or caring for their loved ones. Some might argue that these individuals are not "immediate" family, so the protections of family medical leave should not extend to them. However, the situation is not always so black and white. For example, if an adult child is not married, a parent might be the only person who is available to care for them. Imagine having to work at your job while your younger sibling is dying at home because your employer will not let you take time off of work to care for them. This is a real dilemma for many employees who have their own immediate families to also think about and cannot afford to be terminated, but are also needed to care for other close family members. These are the kinds of protections that should be "no brainers" under California law. If an employee's domestic partner is seriously ill, they should be able to take time off to care for them. Period.

SB 549

Senate Bill 549 was a similar provision that would have allowed employees four days of bereavement leave if, for example, their spouse dies. You may be thinking to yourself, what employer would fire an employee for going to their wife's funeral? Well, I have seen it happen more than once and there is no law that prohibits it. Family medical leave protections disappear as soon as the person being cared for dies. Do we really want to force someone to choose whether to go to their child's funeral or lose their job?

As the end of the year approached, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed several employee protections the California legislature passed in 2007. While he felt it was important to give full protections to military spouses whose husbands or wives were on leave, he deemed other employees to be less deserving of similar rights.

This is the first in a series of posts on several important employee rights bills that the legislature passed this year, but the Governor vetoed last month.

AB 1707

Assembly Bill 1707 created a $750 penalty provision against employers who refuse to provide employees access to their personnel files.

Employees in California have a statutory right to view almost anything in their personnel files. However, there has never been any penalty in place for employers who refuse to comply with this law.

If an employer refuses to grant access to the employee's file, the employee could bring a lawsuit, but other than ordering the employer to open the records, the court has not real power to punish employers who willfully break this law.

This modest penalty would have provided an employer with more incentive to comply with the law, but since the bill was vetoed employees are left with no threat of any monetary penalty to use against employers who know they really have nothing to lose for refusing to follow the law.

AB 435

Assembly Bill 435 is similar to AB1707. It was a bill that proposed allowing employees to recover double damages from their employers if they do not pay their employees the minimum wage.

Like the law granting access to personnel files, California's minimum wage law allows employees to sue to recover their unpaid wages, but there is no additional penalty they can recover from their employer if they win.

Essentially, the law is currently set up so that an employee who is already making less than minimum wage to begin with must pay an attorney to sue in court and recover their wages, with nothing extra awarded for their trouble (and no further penalty to the employer for not paying).

This law was an attempt by the legislature to provide for stiff penalties against employers who prey on the employees who need the money the most (sometimes not paying their employees at all), but apparently Mr. Schwarzenegger believed no such penalties were needed under the law.

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!

Yesterday, it was reported that Wal-Mart had reached a settlement with the Department of Labor to settle unpaid overtime claims by its employees.

The odd thing about this settlement is that Wal-Mart turned itself in to the Department of Labor and negotiated a quick settlement with the government and the employees had no say in what they settled for.

Apparently, the settlement included absolutely NO penalties, NO interest and it is unclear whether the employees are even getting anywhere near what they are actually owed in unpaid overtime.

A case where an employer admits they broke the law and turns themselves in for it would usually be an easy case to win. Also, federal law allows courts to double the amount of overtime wages due as a penalty for not paying those wages in the first place. It looks as though these employees are actually receiving less than half of what they are owed.

The California labor commissioner is now apparently negotiating with Wal-Mart to settle overtime claims against the company under California law. It would be in these employees' best interest to seek out their own personal legal counsel so that they get every penny they deserve.

Thank you to Wake Up Wal-Mart for the additional information.