San Francisco Employment Law Firm Blog

At the conclusion of leave under Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or California Family Rights Act (CFRA), an employer must reinstate an employee to the same or an equivalent job, unless he or she is a "key employee" who is given appropriate notification. One main limitation on this rules is that the employee returning to work is not entitled to reinstatement if unable to perform an essential function of the position because of physical or mental condition, including the continuation of a serious health condition.

In order to be deem equivalent, the alternate position must be virtually identical to the prior position in terms of pay, benefits, and working conditions, and involve substantially similar duties and responsibilities. In one case, a nurse who formerly worked a day shift was offered a full-time night shift position with the same duties and benefits, or a part-time day position with reduced benefits. As a matter of law, that offer was not an offer of an equivalent position. Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System LLC (2001). An employee returning after FMLA leave may not be disqualified from bonuses which are not related to performance, but need not be credited with time spent on FMLA leave when the bonus is based on employee's total performance or production.

If a salaried employee is deemed a "key employee" and reinstatment would result in substantial and griveous economic injury to an employer, the employer may deny reinstatement after propery notifing the employe and affording that employee an opportunity to forgo the leave or return from leave. 29 USC 2614(b)(2).

A key employee is a salaried employee who is one of the highest paid 10% of all employees within 75 miles of the employee's worksite. The determination of "key employee" status is made at the time an employee gives notice of the need to leave. 29 CFR 825.217(c)(2).

Reinstatement of a key employee may be denied if the return to the position (not the absence) would result in "substantial and grievous economic injury" to the operations of the mployer. However, an employer must give writen notice to the employee of his "key employee" status and the potential consequences of reinstatement rights. An employer who does not give timely notice to a "key employee" loses the right to deny reinstatement even if substantial and grievous economic injury will result. 29 CFR 825.219(a).

No matter what side of the workplace dispute you are on – whether you are an employee, a supervisor or the employer, it is important to remember one fundamental fact about California employment law: not every conduct which seems unfair is actually illegal, and not every violation of the law is worth pursuing through court or other enforcement bodies. Failure to take this very practical reality into consideration leads many employees, companies and attorneys to waste a lot of time, money, energy, and emotions. An aggrieved employee who believes that he was wrongfully terminated and discriminated will usually not bother to actually look up or inquire about the law and find out whether what happened to him was actually discrimination and what exactly makes his termination wrongful. An employee would rely on his anger and pure gut feeling in pursuing legal action without even knowing whether the employer who mistreated him or her actually violated the law.

This employee will likely not listen to the words of a seasoned employment lawyer who would explain to him why he shouldn’t be pursuing the claim, and will continue to look for an attorney to take his “case” until he finds one whose lack of experience in distinguishing meritorious claims from all the others and his possible need for more business will cause him to actually take the case and pursue it toward a dead end.

Employers, especially smaller companies who don’t even have a well-trained human resources department often fall victims to their ignorance of the law as well. They believe that they can avoid liability by simply relying in their actions and relationship with employees on what they think is fair. A common trap into which such employers fall is believing that the at-will employment doctrine gives them more protection when terminating employees than it actually does under the law. In one case, one of my clients was an at-will employee in San Francisco who was terminated two days after notifying his supervisor that he has a disability. When I contacted the owner of the company, he arrogantly told me that I was wasting my time and that he did everything right – according to him, my client was an at-will employee who could have been discharged for any reason or no reason. While this is in part true, his employer didn’t know and didn’t bother to find out that there are quite a few significant limitations on at-will employment doctrine in California. If he did, he would probably recognize that his actions were illegal, and he would opt to engage in settlement negotiations. Instead, he brushed me off. Many months and thousands of dollars in attorneys fees later, he was facing a far greater liability to my client, eventually paying more than twice as much as he could have settled for at the outset of my representation.

Both sides – the employer and the employee – must remember that no matter how emotional and stressful the workplace disputes, acts of discrimination, harassment, and termination might be, at the end of the day, pursuing legal action is a business decision and it should be treated as such. Fighting for the sake of fighting, principles and “justice” might sound like a noble battle in theory, but such an ideological approach to litigation of employment claims often makes little sense in the real world and makes both parties lose more than gain.

I remember a client tell one of my mentoring labor and employment attorneys in San Francisco: “This case is not about money to me; it’s about justice, about principle,” to which the attorney would respond: “No, it is about money, because that’s the remedy that we have and you expect, so let’s not make a mistake about it.”

There are various, although equally despicable and unlawful kinds of sexual harassment that employees may be subjected to at workplace. One type of sexual harassment may take the form of an economic "quid quo pro" where a supervisor's requests for sexual favors are linked to the grant or denial of job benefits, such as getting or retaining a job, a receiving a favorable performance review, salary raise, promotion, bonus, etc. The typical case involves some for of sexual advance or proposition by a supervisor with an express or implied threat that if the employee refuses, he or she will be terminated or demoted, or lose other job-related benefits; or, the employee may be promised better treatment, such as a promotion, transfer, raise or favorable recommendation, if the employee submits to the sexual advances.

The supervisor's requests for sexual favors in exchange for a certain benefit do not have to be express to constitute unlawful sexual harassment. It is enough that the individual making the unwelcome sexual advance was the victim's supervisor, and that a link to employment benefits could be inferred under the circumstances. Such circumstances might include implied statements or simple the fact that the supervisor persists with demands for sexual favors after plaintiff has declined or stated that he or she is not interested in any kind of sexual interaction with the supervisor.

Thus, in one case a female employee was asked to lunch by her supervisor for the sole and express purpose of discussing his upcoming evaluation of her work and possible recommendation of her for a promotion. He allegedly told her that he continued success and employment at the company were dependent upon her agreeing to his sexual demands. His demand amounted to an additional "condition of employment" imposed upon her because of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Tomkins v. Public Service Elc. & Gas Co. (1977)

Your employer has the right to the undivided loyalty of its employees. The duty of loyalty is breached and may give rise to the employee's liability in a civil suit for unfair competition when the employees takes action adverse to the employer's best business interests. Stokes v. Dole Nut Co. (1995). For example, employees who take for themselves, against their employer's interests and to the employer's loss, business opportunities in the employer's line of business may be subjected to liability.

Normally, the unfair competition actions are governed by California Labor Code 2860, which states that "Everything which an employee acquires by virtue of his employment, except the compensation which is due to him from his employer, belongs to the employer, whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully, or during or after the expiration of the term of his employment. In one case, while still employed, several employees of a company attempted to divert business to their newly formed company by using confidential client information. The court found that their conduct constituted misappropriation of employer's trade secrets. Courtesy Temporary Service, Inc. v. Camacho (1990).

However, an employee may announce a change of his or her employment to the current employer's customers, if no solicitation of customers to switch vendors / service provides takes place. "Solicit" implies "personal petition to a particular individual to do a particular thing" which in the context of employment and unfair competition means personal petition to customers to change the way they conduct business.

If you have any questions about trade secret or unfair competition issues, feel free to contact San Francisco employment lawyer Arkady Itkin to discuss your business and employment issues.

Numerous California laws protect employees against retaliation by their employers. Most of the anti-retaliation statutes protect employees from adverse employment actions ( i.e. demotion, transfer to a less desirable workplace, suspension, administrative leave or termination) for exercising their rights under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), protected political activities, and wage claims.

One of the most common kinds of unlawful retaliation to which California employees are often subjected is FEHA retaliation. FEHA prohibits an employer from retaliating against employee for:

* Opposing any unlawful discriminatory practice prohibited by FEHA; or
* Filing a compliant, testifying, or assisting in any proceeding under FEHA.

To maintain retaliation claim based on oppoisng an unlawful practice, employee only need to show that he or she had a "reasonable" belief that the employment practice he or she protested was unlawful. As the California Supreme Court pointed out in the leading case on the issue, Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005), firing an employee who refused to follow order which he reasonable believed was unlawful, was unlawful retaliation and constituted wrongful termination even though it was later found that the order given did not involve anything illegal.

It is important to point out that unlawful retaliation doesn't always involve wrongful termination. Under FEHA an "adverse employment action" is any action that materially affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Thus, even unfavorable transfer to a less desirable workplace or any other less drastic action by employer than firing an employee may be considered unlawful retaliation.

Different companies and employers have a very different approach to handling disciplinary actions against their employees. While some company simple don't have any formal policy regarding write ups, warnings and other disciplinary actions against employees, other employer have a clear policy of progressive discipline that generally shall be followed by the employer prior to taking a more significant adverse employment action against an employee, such as transfer, demotion, suspension, or employment termination.

Many workers become very upset, stressed out and nervous about the stability of their employment when they get written up or get a negative performance review, especially if they believe (and have good reasons to believe) that the write-up was unfounded or retaliatory (in response to an exercise of a legal right by an employee such as taking approved medical leave, serving on a jury duty, filing a workers compensation claim, complaining about harassment at workplace, etc...) Many employee are afraid of disputing their write-up, believing that any further escalation of the situation will lead to termination. Thus, the prefer to remain quite and passive. However, in the vast majority of cases, this is not a good strategy to follow for two main reasons: first, if you are reprimanded and written up for no reasons, chances are that your supervisor already has a plan to get rid of you and simply creating the necessary paperwork to make it comply with the company's policies regarding discipline and termination which are usually outlined in the handbook. Secondly, but not contesting the write-up, you practically admit the allegations/accusations made in the disciplinary documentation, which will make it much harder to argue later that your termination was not justified and was motivated by unlawful factors.

Thus, it is very important that upon receipt of a repriment, a warning letter, or a negative review, you submit a rebuttal as you are entitled, in which you will address and dispute every allegation made specifically. You should also seriously considering requesting your employer to conduct an investigation into the merits of your negative review. This means that responding with "this is not true" is not sufficient, and you should explain why the facts in the write-up are not correct and suggest your versionof the events/conduct that is subject of the negative performance review. This will build your own paper-trail which often proves to be useful or even crucial in handling a wrongful termination claim.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disabilities of applicants and employees to enable them to perform a position's essential functions, unless doing so would produce under hardship on the employer.

"Reasonable accommodation" means that employers have an affirmative duty to accommodate disabled workers. Some highly appointed executives often argue that their company should not be liable for failure to provide reasonable accommodation because the disabled employee did not inform them personally of his condition and only informed his/her immediate supervisor. However, this argument will not allow the employer to escape liability because a supervisor is the employer's agent for purposes of the duty to accommodate. That is, if a supervisor has acquired knowledge that he or she had a duty to communicate to the employer information about an employee's disability or medical condition, a conclusive presumption arises that the supervisor had done so. California Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n v. Gemini Aluminum Corp (2004).

This law makes perfect sense, as it would be unreasonable to expect a disabled or sick employee to notify of his condition every person superior to him in the company, especially if that company is large and employees hundreds of supervisors and managers. Arkady Itkin, San Francisco employment lawyer.

Physical violence at workplace is more common than we would like to believe. Recently, a client approached me describing the outrageous conduct of his former employer - while being notified of his termination, his employer, during a mild verbal confrontation violently pushed him against a furniture store in his office, which resulted in severe leg and back injury to the terminated employee and disability. That was a classic case of battery at workplace.

Battery requires a showing that (a) the victim was touched with an intent to harm or offend victim; (b) the victim did not consent to be touched; and (c) the victim was harmed or offended by the conduct in question. Even a touching that doesn't inflict physical pain would be considered "offensive" if it would have offended a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity. Act of sexual harassment which involve touching may also be actionable as battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by one employee upon another if those acts occurred during the "course and scope of employment" (or later ratified by the employer. In those cases, the basic question is whether the employee's conduct "may fairly be regarded as typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise undertaken by the employer. The logic behind holding responsible for the acts of violence at workplace is that losses fairly attributable to an enterprise - those which foreseeably result from the conduct of the enterprise - are allocated to the employer as a cost of doing business.

By way of illustration, in one case a supervisor pointed a gun at employee and threatened to kill him because the employee refused to sign a termination notice as requested. This constituted a "willful physical assault by the employer within the meaning of California Labor Code section 3602 because the supervisor's conduct occurred during the course and scope of employment and also because Employer later ratified the supervisor's conduct. Herrick v. Quality Hotels, Inns & Resorts, Inc. (1993).

An issue often arises in connection with the off-duty conduct of employees of whether an employee can be disciplined or even discharged by his employer based on such off-duty conduct. This answer to this question will often depend on the facts surrounding the employee's conduct. Where the conduct is offensive and egregious, however, the courts will often rule in the employer's favor.

In a recent New York case, for example, a male nurse employed in a hospital visited the hospital while on vacation. The employee, who was intoxicated, got into a violent scuffle with security guards at the hospital and was terminated. The employee brought action for wrongful termination arguing that his off-duty conduct should not have been considered by the jury. The court disagree, however, holding that his off-duty conduct was relevant to the issue of whether he posed a threat to the safety of others.

Employers should avoid taking adverse action against the lawful off-duty conduct of employees unless:

* The conduct represents a conflict or potential conflict of interest (e.g., working for a competitor or engaging in self-employment in competition with one's employer).
* The conduct impairs an individual's job performance (e.g., drop in an employee's productivity because a second job makes the employee too tired to work at expected performance levels).
* The conduct puts the employee in a position where his judgment or authority can be compromised (e.g., a manager dating a subordinate and having authority for employment decision affecting that individual.) It is important to note, however, that the adverse employment action against the manager should be based on job-related factors and not his off-duty conduct. Such job-related factors may include a loss in confidence in the manager's ability to manage the subordinate; on-the-job conduct, such as spending excessive time with the subordinate with no business justification; or making decisions that negatively affect other employees and could be in violation of the company's sexual harassment policy (e.g., showing favoritism with respect to a promotion).

Many employees who request leave under FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) for one of the approved medical conditions are concerned about their ability to work at a different job, possibly part time, while being on FMLA leave. The are some good news for employees on FMLA. The California Supreme Court recently held in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central that if a full-time, during the period in which medical leave was sought, continued to perform a similar job for another employer on a part-time basis, this does not conclusive establish the ability to do the job for the original employer. A showing that an employee is unable to work in the employee's current job is enough to demonstrate incapacity.

The court further explained that when a serious health condition prevents an employee from doing the tasks of an assigned position, this does not necessarily indicate that the employee is incapable of doing a similar job for another employer. For example, a job in the emergency room of a hospital that commonly treats a high volume of life-threatening injuries may be far more stressful than similar work in the emergency room of a hospital that sees relatively few such injuries. And again, the circumstance that one job is full time and the other is part time may be significant.

Generally, it is always a good idea to memorialize the terms of any agreement, including employment contracts, in writing. This helps avoid confusion, misunderstanding, lack of clarity in terms, and it also allows to not rely on their memory as to what they agreed on.

However, it is well established under California law that an oral agreement can be valid and enforceable. This is usually the case when the conduct of the parties suggests that they must have had an agreement about their relationship. For instance, if a worker is hired by his employer without signing any written employment agreement, a contractual employee-employer relationship is still created. The parties might later dispute the terms of employment (most commonly compensation and wages due), but if the employee presents evidence of performing work for the employer, statements from witnesses, and history of past compensation by the same employer, lack of written contract will not relieve an employer from his obligation to pay his employee wages and fulfill other applicable duties.

Still, certain contracts must be in writing in order to be valid under the "Statute of Frauds" exception. The most common such contracts are: (1) contracts for sale of goods for over $500; (2) a contract for services that will take one year or longer to perform, marriage, divorce, land sale transactions, and a promise to pay for debts of another (surety or loan guarantee).

As one California court recently pointed out in Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005), downsizing alone is not necessarily a sufficient explanation, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, for the consequent dismissal of a worker. An employer's freedom to reduce its workforce and to eliminate positions in the process, does not mean that it may use the occasion to conveniently get rid of protected workers.

Invocation of a right to downsize does not resolve whether the employer had a discriminatory motive for cutting back its work force, or engaged in intentional discrimination when deciding which individual workers to retain and release. At least two facts were considered by court as casting serious doubt of discriminatory motive on the employer's decision to terminated a pregnant employee, when the employer tried to argue that the reason for that termination was a reduction in force in the Stamps.com case: (1) the employee's track of excellent performance; (2) hiring a new employee, who was not pregnant, instead of the terminated pregnant woman.

If you have been, or are about to, be laid off due to the alleged downsizing of your employer, but you suspect that the true reason for your termination might be discriminatory and has little to do with the downsizing itself, contact Arkady Itkin - San Francisco employment lawyer to discuss your situation at work.

Under Federal Law

Federal law exempts certain employees from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. These exemptions include:

* Workers employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity;
* A list of certain other employees, including outside salespersons, amusement park/recreational employees, agricultural employees, newspaper business employees, switchboard operators, seamen, criminal investigators, computers systems analysis, and baby-sitters and personal attendants.

Further, under Federal law, certain employees are subject to special provisions regarding maximum hours worked without overtime compensation.

Under California Law

Under State law, three groups of employees are exempt from some of the state law requirements. The first two groups are exempt from both overtime and minimum wage requirements. These groups are:

* Executive, administrative, professional ("white color") emlpoyees; and
* Other employees: state and local government employees, members of employer's families, employees licensed under the Fish and Game Code, live-in employees in substance abuse alternative housing, students nurses, and carnival ride operators.

Overtime and Collective Bargaining Agreement

Under California Labor Code section 514, State overtime law does not apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides and hourly rate of at least 30% higher than the minimum wages and "premium" wage rates for overtime work.

I get calls from many workers in the San Francisco Bay Area who turn to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or California Department of Fair Employment and Housing for help, filing a complaint against their employer with one or both of those agencies for harassment, discrimination and/or wrongful termination. There is a tendency among workers to expect that these agencies will actually aggressively defend employees' rights pursue resolution of their discrimination and harassment claims, when in fact this hardly ever happens.

While the objective of establishing those agencies was to prevent unlawful discrimination, In the vast majority of cases, EEOC and DFEH are of little use in representing employees in their discrimination, harassment and/or wrongful termination claims. These agencies commonly send a notice to the aggrieved employee that they were not able to determine whether discrimination or any other wrongful conduct took place due to "insufficient evidence." Unless the employer admits fault, these agencies will not issue any clear findings. Having said that, there is still value in having those agencies involved and having them contact your employer, which will likely "motivate" the employer to take some action to remedy the situation. This is especially useful if you continue being employed by the same employer.

However, if you have been unlawfully terminated, waiting for EEOC of DFEH to take action is a waste of time as those agencies have no power to either reinstate you or force your former employer to pay damages for unlawful conduct. You are much better off requesting an immediate right to sue letter (which can be obtain online at the DFEH site after filling out a simple questionnaire) and filing a civil complaint against the employer and/or individual harasser.

If you would like to discuss your situation at workplace, feel free to contact San Francisco employment lawyer Arkady Itkin.

Once your local Employment Development Department (EDD) denies your unemployment benefits, you have an opportunity to appeal that decision in front of the Administrative Judge of the Board of Appeal. At that hearing, you will have the opportunity to explain to the judge why you should be entitled to unemployment benefits, and the employer will try to convince the Board while the decision of EDD should be upheld.

In many ways, that hearing reminds the bench trial, as the parties have the opportunity to make opening statements, present relevant evidence (documents) , as well as direct and cross examine their own as well the opposing witnesses.

An employee may be represented by an attorney, and such representation is highly recommended for three main reasons: (1) an experienced employment attorney will make more compelling arguments based on the law and the past case law, analogizing the employee's situation to other claims where the benefits were granted; (2) examining witnesses and eliciting from them the necessary information can often be tricky and requires experience that few, if any, non-attorneys have; and (3) at the end, most judges will take the lawyer's words much more seriously than the arguments of any other person.

Under California Business and Professions Code section 16600, any agreement entered into with the purpose of limiting trade or business of any kind is to that extent void and unenforceable. California courts have consistently declared this provision an expression of public policy to ensure that citizens shall retain the right to purpose any lawful employment and enterprise of their choice. The interest of employees in their own mobility and economic prosperity are deemed paramount to the competitive business interests of employers as our society is built on and strongly encourages competition in trade and business.

This means that despite having agreed not to compete, a former employee has the right to enter into competition with his former employer, even for the business of those who had formerly been customers of the former employer. It makes no difference that the covenant not to compete is reasonably limited in time and geographic scope.

In one case, an employment agreement provided in part: “Employee will not render services, directly or indirectly, for a period of one year after separation of employment with Employer to any person or entity in connection with any “competing product.” This agreement was held to violate Bus. & Prof. C. section 16600 and was therefore found void and unenforceable.

Parties cannot avoid the above section by including provision designating another state’s law as governing their employment agreement.

The only limitation is that the former employee’s competition must be fairly and legally conducted. Thus, disclosure of former employer’s trade secrets of other confidentially information may be regarded as unfair competition.

The only times when covenants not to compete are upheld are when the restrained imposed is narrow in scope, leaving a substantial portion of the market available to the employee. Thus, a covenant not to solicit to specific customers was one held valid because it limited access only to a “narrow segment” of the relevant market.

Non-compete agreements may be enforceable when give by anyone selling the goodwill of a business. The seller of a business and its goodwill may agree to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a specified county or counties, city or cities, or a part thereof, so long as the buyer or any person deriving title to the good will carries on a like business therein.

There are several requirements that must be satisfied in order for such an agreement to be valid:

* First, a covenant not to compete must be reasonable in scope. The covenant must be shown to be reasonable and necessary to protect the business buyer’s interest in terms of duration, activity and territory.
* Secondly, the duration of time for which the given agreement not to compete prohibits competition is also a factor in determine the reasonableness of such an agreement. In other words, the shorter the period of time for which an agreement limits competition, the more likely such an agreement to be valid and enforceable.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects individuals who are at least age 40 from discrimination based on age in hiring, firing, compensation, and the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Because the legislature has included age among the specific categories protected by FEHA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of age in the terms of employment as well as in the hiring or firing of employees.

FEHA also prohibits mandatory retirement for employees who are capable of performing their jobs adequately, with a few limited exceptions:

* Tenured faculty members at institutions of higher education, if the institution permits reemploying such individual on year-to-year basis.
* Any physician employed by a professional medical corporation who is at least age 70, if the corporation's bylaws provide for compulsory retirement; and
* Any employee who is at least age 65 who, for the two years preceding retirement, held a bona fide executive or high policy making position, if the employee is immediately entitled no a non-forfeitable annual retirement benefit of at least $27,000.

An employer may not deduct from employee's wages moneys lost due to ordinary losses, such as cash shortages, breakage or loss of equipment, etc.) in the absence of showing of dishonesty, willful acts or gross negligence. As the court noted, the law prevents the employer from using wages to shirt business losses to employees, or to make employees insurers of such losses. (Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Inc.)

An employer who resorts to "self-help" in deducting wages of his employees for ordinary losses does so at his own risk. If the employee is found not to have engaged in a dishonest, willful or grossly negligent act, the employee will be entitled to recover the amount of wages withheld, plus any waiting time penalties due.

The above rule applies seems to apply to non-exempt employees only. There is no prohibition on deductions from the earnings of exempt (management level) employees, many of whom work on incentive plans entitling them to a share of profits. Their incentive plan computation of profits properly includes a full range of revenue and expense items, including cash and inventory shortages.

Further, the prohibition on deducting business losses from employees' earnings only applies to "wages." "Wages" includes sales commissions or bonuses based on the employee's individual performance. The prohibition on employer deductions does not apply to payments under an "incentive plan" that is supplementary to regular wages and rewards a group of employees for their collective performance, and is based on the employer's profits.

The executive exemption that relieves employers from the obligation to pay overtime compensation applies to any employee:

* Whose duties and responsibilities involve the management of the enterprise in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department of subdivision of that enterprise;
* Who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees in that enterprise;
* Who has the authority to hire or fie other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of the status of other employees will be given particular weight;
* Who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers; and
* Who is "primarily engaged" in duties that meet the test of the exemption.

"Primarily engaged" means that more than one-half of the employee's work time must be spent engaged in exempt work.

Many employees give in the temptation of accepting a lump sum severance upon termination, even when the lawfulness of that termination is questionable. If you find yourself with an offer of severance, I highly recommend that you take your time to consider the severance offer before you accept it.

One of the common reasons that an employer may offer severance to the employee who is about to be terminated is because the circumstances of the termination are questionable and might give rise to legal action by employee. An employer usually requires an employee to sign General Release of All Claims in exchange for severance compensation. By signing that release, the terminated employee waives any and all rights to pursue legal action against the employer. Often, by accepting the severance package, the employee, gives up on his ability to pursue legal claims that might be ground for a much greater compensation / damages. But even if the employer conduct is not tainted with unlawful practice and termination, your severance offer might be highly negotiable.

Regardless of of the terms or your employment and severance payment, you have the right to consult an attorney when executing the severance agreement (most severance agreements remind the employee that he has the right to be represented by an attorney in accepting the severance contract).

If you would like to discuss the terms of your lay-off/resignation/termination with a qualified professional, contact Arkady Itkin - San Francisco employment lawyer to discuss your employment separation.

It is not unlikely for employees to have their words and/or conduct to be misinterpreted by their co-workers and have their colleague accuse them of sexual harassment without sufficient reason. An employer has a duty to investigation all sexual harassment allegations. Failure to do so may subject the employer to liability for both sexual harassment and failure to prevent sexual harassment. However, employee accused of harassing often feel helpless and without remedy to prove their innocence.

An employee who is falsely accused of sexual harassment is not without remedy however. That employee is also entitled to a prompt, thorough investigation of the facts and evidence of any alleged harassment. If the employer fails to conduct thorough investigation and instead summarily terminates a worker, he / she may have a defamation claim against the employer. Generally, false complaints of harassment and discrimination are conditionally privileged and do not constitute defamation, unless those accusation are made with malice. To show malice on the part of the accuser, the accused may be able to show whether the accuser had a history personal issues/hostility toward the accused, a pattern of unfounded complaints against co-workers, or any other ulterior, personal motive against the accused. If malice is shown, the liability for defamation of character may be attached to both the employer and employee personally.

If you believe that you have been a victim of defamation at workplace, contact Arkady Itkin - San Francisco employment lawyer to discuss your claims.

In the ever increasing occurrence of mergers, dissolutions and restructuring of businesses it is not uncommon for an employee to face a situation where he/she is owed wages for work performed, but these wages are unpaid because the entity that purchases the original employer is not willing to pay the wages due or is unable to pay compensation because of dissolution, bankruptcy and/or claims of creditors who argue that they have priority in repayment over other claimants.

Under the circumstances where the assets of a company are sold or transferred, employees may have a priority lien over other creditors for the proceeds of the sale or transfer of assets of a company under California Civil Code section 1205. Under that section all wages earned during the 90 days prior to corporate dissolution or other "not ordinary" business event have priority over virtually all other claims and must be paid first from the proceeds of the sale and transfer. One court noted that wage earners will prevail over other statutory lien holders, including secured creditors such as mortgage lien holders (Myzer v. Emark Corporation (1996)).

Under California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), an employer must make "reasonable accommodation" for individuals with known disabilities unless it can demonstrate that doing so would be an undue hardship on the business. Failure to make a reasonable accommodation is itself an unlawful practice than can give rise to a civil suit and damages under FEHA.

Under the law, the employer must engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation may, but does not necessarily include the following: making existing facilities readily accessible to and usual by individuals with disabilities, such as wheelchair users; restructuring job schedules and responsibilities to allow an employee to attend medical appointments or reduce work load; acquiring or modifying equipment or devices, such as ergonomic chairs and keyboards, etc. Further, the employer has affirmative duty to inform a disabled employee of other job opportunities and lean whether the employee is interested in and qualified for them.

It is important to remember that an employer is not obligated to choose the best accommodation or the one sought by the employee. Rather, the employer has the ultimate discretion to choose among effective accommodations.

Further, under FEHA the employer does not have to provide reasonable accommodation if the employee or job applicant cannot perform the essential duties of the job, even with an accommodation. In that case, the employer can discharge or refuse to hire the individual.

Many employee who are about to be laid off are concerned about accepting the offered severance package, as they fear that accepting a lump sum severance from their employer will disqualify them from unemployment benefits. However, the good news for employees is that under California law, severance pay is not grounds for disqualification for unemployment insurance benefits. One court held that dismissal and severance pay received by employees from employer upon termination of employment was not “wages” for unemployment compensation purposes within provision of § 1265 that payments under plan established by employer for purpose of supplementing unemployment compensation benefit shall not be construed to be “wages”, and benefits shall not be denied because of receipt of payments under such plans. Powell v. California Dept. of Employment (1965) 45 Cal.Rptr. 136.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act specifically prohibits harassment based on “race, religious creed, color, and national origin.” Hostile work environment claims based on racial harassment are reviewed under the same standard as those based on sexual harassment. Thus, allegations of a racially hostile workplace must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person belonging to the same racial or ethnic group as plaintiff.

Harassment Standard under California Law

To constitute racial harassment, the conduct must be sufficiently “severe” or “pervasive” to later the conditions of the victim’s employment. The victim of the racial harassment must show a concerted partner of harassment of a repeated, routine or a generalized nature” and that the conduct constituted an “unreasonably abusive or offensive work-related environment or adversely affected the reasonable employee’s ability to do his or her job.”

Although occasional, isolated incidents are usually not enough to create hostile work environment, even a single act by a supervisor may be severe enough to alter the conditions of employment. Thus, while the co-workers single racist remark may not be sufficient to constitute harassment, the same statement by the victim’s direct supervisor might be actionable, due to the authority that the supervisor has over a victim and the increase stress/injury resulting as a result of being subject to harassment by the person in a position of authority.

Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment

As with sexual harassment claims, an employer has a duty to prevent and remedy instances of racial and national origin harassment. An employer who fails to remedy problems of which it has actual or constructive knowledge may be held liable for harassment despite the existence of a formal policy against harassment.

Harassment by member of same race

At least one federal court held that racial slurs may constitute harassment even if made by one member to another member of the same race, as the court held in Ross v. Douglas County (8th Cir. 2000).

When harassment is aimed at others

Because the injury from harassment focuses on the workplace environment as a whole, a hostile environment may exist even if some of the hostility is directed at other workers. Thus, where racial slurs have been directed at a minority race of which plaintiff is a member, similar slurs directed at other minorities may contribute to the overall hostility of the working environment.

In 2007, the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of reimbursement of mileage expenses incurred by traveling employees under California Labor Code 2802 in the case of Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. The court held that when calculating costs that an employee incurred using his or her automobile, for purpose of statute requiring employers to indemnify employees for costs necessarily incurred in discharge of their duties, use of mileage is permissible, even though it is less accurate than calculating actual expenses incurred. But if employee can show that reimbursement by mileage is less than actual expenses, the employer must make up the difference.

In calculating reimbursement amount due to employee under the labor code section 2802, the employer may consider not only actual expenses that employee incurred, but also whether each of those expenses was "necessary," which in turn depends on the reasonableness of employee's choices.

Thus, the employer will probably not be obligated to reimburse employee for lavish or extravagant expenses such as five-star hotels, extravagant dinners, etc.

Negative job performance evaluations are usually held to be statement of opinion rather than fact, and hence not properly the subject of a defamation action, unless an employer's performance evaluation falsely accuses an employee of criminal conduct, lack of integrity, dishonesty, incompetence or reprehensible personal characteristics of behavior. Thus, in one case the court held that no defamation action lies even when the employer's opinions about the employee's performance are objectively wrong and cannot be supported by reference to concrete, provable facts. (Jensen v. Hewlett Packard, Co.) Even calling a teacher at a particular school a "babbler" and the "worst teacher" was found to be a subjective judgment and again - not grounds for defamation. (Moyer v. Amador Valley J. Union High School Dist.)

As stated above, while a statement of opinion is not grounds for defamation, a publication of false fact may be actionable. Thus, while a statement accusing plaintiff of poor performance is clearly a statement of opinion, a statement that an employee made a $100,000 mistake in estimating a business bid is a statement of fact and therefore, if false and published to third parties, is actionable (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc.)

Under California Labor Code section 221, an employer may not take back any wages from an employee after they are earned. The statute provides: "It shall be unlawful for any employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee." The labor code section 200 defines wages broadly to include "all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation. The statute illustrated California's strong public policy favoring the protection of employee's wages.

Some employers and especially retailers have the "chargeback" policy under which the employees' incentive that is to be paid, is charged back if the consumer of the products/services returns the purchased product to the store. It is important to note that such a policy is only valid and legal if agreed upon by an employee in writing. If the worker does not expressly agree to the chargeback policy in writing, it will likely be found to be unlawful.

Under California Labor Code section 510(a), all employees who work in excess of 40 hours in one workday or in excess of 8 hours per day must receive overtime pay. This provision, however, doesn't apply to any employee "whose earnings exceed one and a half time of the minimum wage if more than half of that employee's compensation represents commissions." (California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 11040, subdivision 3(D)).

It is important to understand which compensation exactly is considered commissions for the purposes of the issue in question. A commission is a compensation paid for services rendered in the sale of property and services, and based proportionately upon the amount of the value of the services rendered. Under the Supreme Court definition, the compensation is commissions if (1) the employee receiving compensation is involved in selling a product or a service; (2) the amount of compensation in question is a percent of the price of the product or service." (Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999)).

Thus, if, for instance, the employer's "bonus" or "incentive" pay does not depend on the volume of products/services sold by an employee, the overtime protections laws probably apply to that employee.

It is common for an employee who charges the public employer (government office) with discrimination and harassment claims to receive a response from the government attorney, claiming that the employee's claims are rejected for non compliance with the Tort Claims Act. This legal argument, however, has no merit, when it comes to claims made under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). It is well established that actions seeking redress for employment discrimination and harassment pursuant to the FEHA are not subject to the claim presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act. Snipes v. City of Bakersfield 145 Cal.App.3d 861 (1983). A local government entity may not impose a claims requirement where, because of special procedural provisions of the FEHA, the California Tort Claims Act provisions do not apply. Pasadena Hotel Development Venture v. City of Pasadena 119 Cal.App.3d 412, 414-415 (1981). Thus, the compliance with the Tort Claims Act is not necessary in order to purse legal action under FEHA.

Under California law (California labor code section 501), an employer can authorize alternative workweeks of workdays exceeding eight hours without overtime pay if specified criteria are met. Such flexible scheduling requires full disclosure to affected employees and the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the employees in the affected workplace voting in a secret ballot election before performance of the week.

Any type of alternative schedule that is authorized by Cal. labor code section 501 may be repealed by the affected employees. An employer shall not reduce an employee's regular rate of hourly pay as a result of the adoption repeal or nullification of an alternative week schedule.

However, the employer must pay overtime at one-and-a-half times the regular rate after 10 hours per day in a 40 hour workweek, and a double the regular rate after 12 hour per days and for any work in excess of eight hours on those days worked beyond the regularly scheduled alternative workweek days.

Thus, if, for example, the alternative workweek is 3 12-hour workdays per week, the employees on that schedule must be paid overtime at 150% of their regular rate for the two hours per day, exceeding the ten-hour limit on each workday.