San Francisco Employment Law Firm Blog

One of the reasons that proving discrimination is such a challenging task in employment law is the fact that proving workplace discrimination requires showing a discriminatory state of mind. For obvious reasons, direct evidence of discrimination is rarely available, as few, if any, employers or supervisors would ever admit that they engaged in unlawful discrimination. Thus, eliciting circumstantial evidence (that evidence which inferred from other circumstances) can be crucial to a successful discrimination claim/lawsuit. This evidence includes demonstrating that the employee was treated differently from other similarly situated employees, certain remarks that would suggest hostility toward an employee because of his/her race, age, disability, religion, etc.

One of the very common ways in which employer try to deny allegations of harassment and discrimination by aggrieved employees and refute circumstantial evidence of discrimination and wrongful termination is by arguing that the reason that they treat the subject employees differently is because of their poor performance. It's not uncommon for an employer who is trying to get rid of a certain employee to create a "paper trail" of performance issues by issuing warning letters, having counseling sessions with an employee, and take other unethical measure to mask the true reasons for the planned unlawful employment termination.

Rebutting the poor performance argument through documentation evidence and statements of co-workers with regard to the employee's good performance is an important part of many, if not most, discrimination and wrongful termination claims, as it casts doubt on the employer's true motives for discriminatory conduct and termination and suggest that the real reason for employee's termination was other than his/her job performance.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workplace Discrimination , Workplace Harassment

Bookmark:

Alameda county is one of the most ethnically diverse areas, which brings lots diversity into workplace. With all wonderful benefits of having a variety of people from different backgrounds and cultures at workplace, this sometimes inevitably leads to animosity and conflicts between different racial groups and claims of race discrimination, racial harassment, and wrongful termination claims based on racial conflicts and claims of retaliation.

Employers who employ two or more large groups of workers from different racial backgrounds are likely to find themselves in situations where members of two or more racial minority groups of employees complain that the members of the other ethnic group engage in unlawful racial discrimination and harassment. For instance, it is not uncommon for the County of Alameda government agencies in Oakland, Alameda and surrounding cities to face these kinds of issues. An employer may find itself in a predicament in such circumstances. On one hand, the employer has an affirmative obligation to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of harassment and discrimination complaints as FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act Requires), and take all appropriate measure to remedy harassment/discrimination. On the other hand, if the employer takes action against the alleged harasser, such as suspension, administrative leave, or termination, the company/agency runs the risk of being sued for racial discrimination by the disciplined employee.

This is one of the major reasons why it is so important for an employer to make sure that the conducted investigation is as thorough, unbiased and well documented as possible, as it will serve as a strong defense against discrimination and harassment allegations, showing that the employer too all reasonable steps to prevent/remedy discrimination and harassment.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Racial Harassment , Workplace Discrimination , Workplace Harassment , Wrongful Termination

Bookmark:

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act basically defines two categories of disability: mental disability and physical disability. Each category contains its own specific definitions. In addition, under FEHA, an employee with a "medical condition" which is not quite considered a disability is also entitled to a reasonable accommodation.

The following are the specific definitions of physical disability under FEHA:having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects one or more of several body systems and limits a major life activity. The body systems listed include the neurological, immunological, muscular and skeletal, respiratory, speech, reproductive, digestive, urinary, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine systems. The major life activity is considered limited if it makes the achievement of that major activity difficult.

It should be noted that sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting form the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs, are specifically excluded and are not protected as disabilities under FEHA.

Once a disability that is protected under the law is established, an employer is obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation unless the accommodation would constitute an under hardship on the employer's business operation.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination , Disability at Workplace , Workplace Discrimination

Bookmark:

It is common for an employee who is subjected to discriminatory conduct or harassment at workplace in California to be afraid to complain about the harasser to his superiors for fear of retaliation and losing a job. However, an aggrieved employee simply has nothing to gain by keeping quiet. In most cases, the harasser's unlawful conduct not only doesn't stop, but becomes progressively more unacceptable and egregious, causing more stress to the victim of potential discrimination and harassment.

Even more importantly, by not complaining, and employee not only doesn't allow the employer to address discrimination and harassment and possibly discipline the harasser, but the victim virtually forecloses possibility of having viable legal claims for discrimination and harassment in the future. Unless the harasser is the aggrieved employee's supervisor, and employer is not liable for discrimination and harassment, if the employer did not know or had not reason to know that such discrimination or harassment took place.

Therefore, if you believe that you are subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or harassment at workplace, it is crucial that you complain about the conduct in writing to your human resources department and higher if necessary. In your complaints, you should outline in detail the facts and the circumstances of what you believe to be an unlawful conduct toward you at workplace, requesting prompt, thorough, formal investigation of your allegations as required by law.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Harassment at Workplace , Hostile Work Environment , Investigation at Workplace , Pregnancy Discrimination , Racial Discrimination , Sexual Harassment , Workplace Discrimination , Workplace Harassment

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability at Workplace , Workplace Discrimination

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workplace Discrimination , Wrongful Termination

Bookmark:

Constructive discharge occurs when an employer engages in conduct that effectively forces the employee to resign or retire. Although the employee may say “I quit,” the employer relationship is actually terminated by the employer’s acts against the employee’s will. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally considered as a firing by the employer rather than a voluntary resignation or retirement by the employee.

To establish a constructive discharge claim, an employee must prove that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign. In determining whether a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign, courts consider such factors as demotion, reduction in salary, reduction in job responsibilities, reassignment to degrading work, badgering, harassment or humiliation by the employer intended to encourage the employee to resign, offers of early retirement or continued employment on terms less favorable than the employee’s former status. The employee must further notify someone in a position of authority of intolerable conditions before he may prevail on a constructive discharge claim. Such notice prevents employers from closing their eyes to wrongdoing and permits employers who are unaware of any wrongdoing to correct a potentially destructive situation.

It is important to remember that this standard is objective, and employee’s subjective feeling of disappointment is not enough to claim constructive discharge. An employee is not permitted to quit and sue simply because he doesn’t like something at his workplace.

So, which working conditions are considered “intolerable” and thus grounds to claim constructive discharge? Intolerable working conditions are those which either are unusually aggravated or amount to a continuous pattern of objectionable conduct. For instance, continuous course of harassment, uncorrected by management, can constitute objectively intolerable working conditions.

Normally, a single or isolated acts are generally insufficient to support a constructive discharge claim. But in some cases, even a single incident may be held to be “aggravated” misconduct by the employer; e.g., a crime of violence against the employee, or an ultimatum that the employee commit a crime.

The following conditions have been found to be “intolerable:”

* continued harassment of an employee due to his sexual orientation (repeated gay jokes and other remarks);
* a supervisor’s continuous “yelling and screaming,” unfair and harsh criticism and threats to fire an employee, uncorrected by management, may constitute objectively intolerable working conditions;
* a supervisor’s extended campaign to get an employee fired, including repeated efforts to invent documentation for her termination, frequent reorganization of her duties and demands that she process unlawful orders, may constitute “intolerable” working conditions when the employee’s medical condition is exacerbated by stress.

The following conditions have been found to NOT be “intolerable:”

* severe verbal abuse of employee (harsh, unfair criticism) in front of other employees and threats to terminate or demote are not intolerable working conditions unless a continuous course of such conduct is involved;
* a poor performance rating or demotion, even when accompanied by a pay cut does not constitute an intolerable working condition necessary to support a claim for constructive discharge;
* failure to promote over a long period of time is normally not enough to show “intolerable” working conditions.

The claim of constructive discharge is not applicable to at-will employment. There is no constructive discharge where there is no contractual right to continued employment. In other words, if you are an at-will employee (and you are presumed to be in the absence of a contract between you and your employer or any other evidence of your employer’s promise to continuously employ you for a certain period of time), you cannot have a claim of constructive discharge.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workplace Discrimination

Bookmark:

Under California law, an employer is required to promptly and thoroughly investigate any claim of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. The obligation to investigate arises out of the affirmative duty under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 12940(j) and (k) to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. The duty to investigate a harassment claim promptly and throughly exists whether or not the claimant consents to an investigation or cooperates with one. Further, neither an employee’s failure to report harassment nor the fact that the harassment stopped before the investigation began conclusively absolve an employer from liability for discrimination and harassment. Moreover, it is not enough for an employer to conduct an investigation without also taking measure to protect the employee from retaliation.

Employer’s failure to investigate an employee’s complaint adequately may violate California anti-discrimination laws. To be adequate, the investigations should be commenced immediately, and be completed as soon as circumstances reasonably allow. Investigations commenced within a day or days of a complaint and completed within a two-week period have been routinely upheld as timely. Waiting until after the complainant has filed an administrative charge with DFEH or EEOC will be presumed inadequate.

While the complaint is undergoing investigation, the employer should take steps to prevent contact between the complaining employee and the alleged harasser, such as rescheduling or placing the alleged harasser on leave.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workplace Discrimination

Bookmark:

Several laws protect California women from pregnancy discrimination at workplace. These laws interact with each other in complex ways. Each law and protection may or may not apply depending on the size of the employer, the employee’s length of service, and other facts. Some leaves run concurrently, while others don’t.

There are three statutes that directly related to leave during and after pregnancy: California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL), California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave Law is the most inclusive and should be looked at first in determining a woman’s entitled to protected leave. All California employers with at least five employees are covered. Pregnancy disability leave is available regardless of a woman’s length of service with a covered employer, and it is available to both full and part-time employees.

The PDLL provides women with up to four months of leave for disabilities caused by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. PDLL also requires employers to reasonably accommodate any restrictions tha are advised by a woman’s health care provider. According to the Employment Development Department, women with normal pregnancies typically receive disability benefits for up to six weeks after giving birth. Women who have c-sections or any number of other complications relating to pregnancy or childbirth will likely be entitled to longer leave periods.

It is important to note that the fourth months of protected leave is a floor, not a ceiling. While the law provides that it is unlawful for employers to refuse to allow a leave “for a reasonable period of time not to exceed four months,” Gov. Code section 12945(a), it also provides that if a pregnancy related medical condition or disability requires more than four months of leave, “the employer must treat the employee the same way regarding reinstatement rights as it treats any similarly situated employee who has taken a similar length disability leave.

California’s PDLL has more protective reinstatement rights than other leave laws. Under this law, a woman must be returned to the same position at the end of her leave. There are only two exceptions to this rule: (1) when the employee would not otherwise have been employer in her same position at the time reinstatement is requested for legitimate business reasons unrelated to the employee taking a pregnancy disability leave or transfer;” and (2) when “each means of preserving the job or duties for the employee would substantially undermine the employer’s ability to operate the business safely and efficiently. If an employer is excused from reinstating a woman to her same position, she must be reinstated to a comparable position unless there is no comparable position available.

PDLL is an essential protection because many women who become pregnant are not entitle to leave under the more familiar FMLA and CFRA provisions. Those laws only apply to employers with at least 50 employees working within a 75 mile radius of the affected employee’s job site. In addition, FMLA and CFRA only apply after a woman has worked for her employer for at least one year and 1250 hours during that past year.

The important difference between FMLA and CFRA is that FMLA leave generally runs concurrently with the pregnancy disability leave CFRA does not, and in fact it expressly excludes disabilities due to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Thus, some women may qualify for four months of disability leave and an additional twelve weeks of leave under CFRA. It is important to note that if a woman decides to take both, the pregnancy disability leave and CFRA leave, her right to reinstatement will be governed by CFRA and not PDLL. This means that she will be entitled to a comparable position rather than the same position when reinstated.

It should be noted that the PDLL, CFRA, and FMLA all provide for unpaid leave. State disability and Paid Family Leave (PFL) may provide partial wage replacement during a period of leave.

If you believe that you have been singled out, treated unfairly, discriminated against or terminated due to pregnancy, contact Arkady Itkin, San Francisco employment lawyer to discuss your claims.

Posted by Arkady Itkin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pregnancy Discrimination , Workplace Discrimination

Bookmark: