by

Some Employers seem to conveniently believe that replacing an older worker with a younger woman who has less seniority and therefore can be paid less is not against the law and is not considered age discrimination, since they believe they have a valid reason for that kind of replacement – saving money. In drafting the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California legislature addressed that specific situation, enacting Gov. Code 12941, which states that the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating employment may be found to constitute age discrimination. It is thus likely that any employment decision based on salary differentials between older and younger workers, such as hiring, promotions, pension benefits, etc., can be challenged as age discrimination if it has a great impact on older workers as a group.
elderlyworker0302.jpg
I believe that as the well known and expected trend of aging of the local San Francisco Bay Area population and the population of its workers, age discrimination and age discrimination claims at workplace will be on the rise in the next several decades. As usually, proving liability of the wrongdoer in court will be challenging, as direct evidence of discrimination such as calling an employee names suggesting age related animus is unlikely to be available, and thorough discovery of circumstantial evidence will be necessary to win such cases, such as the timing of events, replacing older workers with younger workers, and inconsistencies in the employer’s formally given reasons for terminating older workforce.

by

On March 22, 2011, the United States Supreme Court published an important opinion on retaliation law, holding that oral as well as written complaints about wage and labor law violations are protected activities as far as retaliatory discipline or firing go. In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. the plaintiff complained that the location of the time clock prevented workers from receiving credit for putting on and taking off their work clothes. Specifically, plaintiff raised this concern with his shift supervisor and he also discussed the issue with one of the human resources managers. Naturally, the employer denied that that was the reason for plaintiff termination and argued that he was fired for not clocking in and out when he was taking breaks.

In this favorable to employees decision, the court makes an interesting observation that “filing” a complaint within the meaning of at least the FLSA (Federal Labor Standards Act) also mean “oral filing” or complaining verbally. The defendant argued that the employer should have a fair warning of a protected activity and therefore to be protected it has to be reduced to writing. The court agreed with the fair warning part, but rejected the notion that a complaint has to be in writing in order to be a “fair warning” to the employer. The court has articulated a fair warning standard that makes a lot of sense: “to fall within the score of the anti-retaliation provision, a complaint must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection. This standard can be met by oral complaints as well as by written ones.”

by

Despite the fact that FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) has been enacted several decades ago, most people who are familiar with the basic ADA disability protections against discrimination at workplace, are not familiar or have not even heard about the FEHA. Fair Employment and Housing Act – a California version of the federal ADA, is similar and in some ways far more protective of employees than its federal counterpart.

One of the significant differences between the two laws which favors employees in the FEHA is the definition of disability. Under ADA, disability is an impairment that substantially limits a basic physical or mental function of the body. Under FEHA, on the other hand, there is no requirement of “substantial” limitation and basically any limitation of a basic physical or mental function is considered disability, entitling a worker in California to the protections, and generally triggering the employer’s obligation to engage in interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations. California Government Code 12926.1 codifies the definition of disability which is very broad and includes a wide range of chronic and non-chronic conditions that would qualify as a disability at workplace.

For more information, read the full text of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

by

Reversing the lower court’s decision, the US Supreme Court, in Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, a third party retaliation claim proceed. In that case, both the Plaintiff and his fiance worked for the Defendant. Shortly after Plaintiff’s fiancee filed sex discrimination charge with EEOC against the employer, Plaintiff was fired. The Court noted that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision prohibits an employer from discriminating any of his employees for engaging in protected conduct, and further pointed out that it is obvious that a reasonable worker might be discouraged from engaging in a protected activity, such as complaining about discrimination or harassment, if she knew that her fiance would be fired.

The court declined to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals would be unlawful. The court stated however that firing a close family member will almost always meet the standard of a person who is in a “zone of interest” for purposes of establishing retaliation against a third party.

by

Asthma and sensitivity to tobacco smoke and other pollutants are conditions that have been recognized by courts as a protected disability at workplace, entitling the workers suffering from those conditions to a reasonable accommodation.
asthma_health.jpg
In County of Fresno v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1991), the employer (the county) argued that hypersensitivity to smoke is either a non-handicapping respiratory disorder, not covered by the California disability laws, or an “environmental limitation” rather than a physical limitation. The court has rejected both arguments, finding that because of the respiratory disorder, exposure to tobacco smoke produced by other employees substantially limited the Plaintiff’s ability to breathe, rendering the Plaintiff “handicapped” and covered by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) / FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act). In that case, the employer actually attempted to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff, and the following actions were taken: smokers used desktop air filtration machines, employees kept windows open, management separated Plaintiff’s desk from the desks of smokers, Plaintiff was offered an alternative position in another department, where smoking was not permitted. Because all of the above accommodations proved to be either futile or ineffective, the court still found that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff.

by

One of the hallmarks and great advantages of California disability laws, which encompasses employers’ obligation to engage in interactive process to find reasonable accommodations to qualifying employees with a disability or a medical condition, is its flexibility. Generally, the employer must consider various solutions to accommodating an employee and be reasonable creative and considering different types of things that the company can do to help the disabled worker remain in the workforce.
work-from-home-disability-reasonable-accommodation
One of such accommodations, which can be particularly relevant in cases where an employee has a psychological/mental disability is working from home. In Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association, the Ninth Circuit specifically noted that allowing an employee who suffered from OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) to work from home can be one type of reasonable accommodation that should be considered if it may be effective and if performing that employee’s job duties from home would not impose undue hardship on the employer. In that case, the other fact that was helpful to plaintiff is demonstrating that some of her co-workers worked from home, while she was denied that accommodation, and that company had a policy of allowing employee to work from home.

Even though the employer argued that there was no guarantee that working from home would be an effective accommodation to claimant, the court was not persuaded, as one doctor’s testimony that working from home could have been effective was sufficient to trigger liability against the employer for failure to provide such an accommodation.

by

One of the common mistakes claimants make is coming to the mediation with a set, firm “floor” settlement figure in their mind. This approach has seriously downside. First and foremost, mediation is a process that requires at least some compromise from both parties. Statistically, most cases that go to mediation settle, but it is also true that to be successful at mediation you have to take less than you were initially willing or give more than you initially wanted.

Being open minded about the settlement of your case during the mediation is particularly important in wrongful termination and other employment cases, as these are particularly challenging cases, in which liability is almost always an issue. Unlike in other cases, such as car accident, in which it’s typically clear and uncontested whose fault the accident is, and the only questions is how much the innocent victim should recover in damages, discrimination, retaliation, and other wrongful termination claims require proving motive. Direct evidence of illegal motive by the employer, such as open admission of guilt, is almost never available, and the aggrieved employee has to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove his/her case. In addition, the employer often have defenses that are hard to disprove, which include misconduct, insubordination and poor performance, which are inherently subjective and so easy for the employer to argue, unless you have a stellar, long-standing performance record.

The above and other factors all suggest that it is in your best interest to be open minded about the settlement value of your case at a mediation. It does not mean that you have to sell short a good case with compelling facts and reliable witnesses, but it does mean that you should listen carefully to the arguments of everyone else who shows up at mediation about the strengths and the weaknesses of your case, as all of the other present at the proceedings likely have much more experience in employment law and with trials and juries than you do.

by

Having been regularly representing registered nurses, nursing assistants and medical assistants who work for major hospitals and other healthcare facilities in California, including such groups as Kaiser, Stanford Hospitals, and Sutter Health, I see the same patter of work related injuries over and over. A nurse or an assistant is lifting a patient or moving a heavy object, causing an injury to his/her wrist or back, which often requires time of work, prolonged treatment and even a surgery. Some of those wrist/arm and back problems never go away and force the nurses to switch their jobs altogether.

As simple and as obvious as it might sound, strengthening the major groups of muscles in your back and arms/wrists by regularly working out, and just as importantly – having a brief stretching and warm up routine for the muscles and joints you use the most at work can take you a long way toward preventing those injuries. If, for instance, tennis players take their warm-up of their arms, legs and back so seriously in order to prevent injuries associated with sudden weight or impact, so should nurses and their staff do. While strengthening muscles and 5 – 10 minute warm-up before the shift will not guarantee an injury-free career, these simple steps will likely significantly reduce the frequency and gravity of the symptoms associated with pushing, pulling and lifting heavy objects.

Preventing or minimizing a risk of injury might require a degree of diligence and discipline from you, but it is surely a better option than dealing with the pain resulting from those injuries, and disability issues at workplace that may arise as a result.

by

Under CFRA (California Family Rights Act), an employer is generally required to grant an eligible employee’s request to take up to a total of 12 workweeks in any 12-month period for family care and medical leave. CFRA or FMLA leave may be taken because of an employee’s own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee. A “serious health condition” means “an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition” that involves either “inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health care facility” or “continuing treatment or continuing supervision by a health care provider.” (Gov. Code, § 12945.2(c)(8).)

Thus, for instance, such a common illness as diabetes qualifies as a “serious health condition” within the meaning of CFRA, because the definition includes any illness that involves “continuing treatment or continuing supervision by a health care provider” or a chronic serious health condition which requires periodic visits for treatment to a healthcare provider, which continues over an extended period of time and which may cause episodic rather than a continuing period of incapacity, such as asthma, diabetes, and epilepsy.

In Dudley v. Dept. of Transportation, 90 Cal.App.4th 255 (2001), the court made it clear that it is unlawful to fire or otherwise retaliate (demote, suspend, discipline, etc..) against an employee for exercising his right to FMLA / CFRA leave. Further, the court held, the fact that an employee exhausted his leave rights before being terminated does not necessary change the fact that the termination was considered workplace retaliation and thus unlawful.

by

The recently published case, DFEH v Lyddan Law Group, decided by the agency that reviewing DFEH decision, reaffirms that fact that an employee is unlikely to prevail on a racial discrimination/harassment claim when his/her boss makes racial jokes, off-color comments with regard to different races in an apparent desire to entertain himself and his colleagues and staff members. As inappropriate and as offensive racist jokes at workplace might be, especially when they originate from a manager who is an attorney-partner in a San Francisco law firm, like it was in this case, these jokes do not mean that the alleged harasser discriminates or that he creates an hostile work environment, especially if the relationship between him and the alleged victim is otherwise good and if the alleged victim does not complain about the harassment and does not make it known in any way that he/she is unhappy about the comments she hears.
workplace_racism.jpg
Both, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Court will require more than isolated racist jokes to find racial harassment or discrimination at workplace. Not all conduct at workplace that can be described as harassing creates liability under FEHA and the related anti-discrimination laws. As the Supreme Court has stated, the statutory protections against harassment do not create a “general civility code.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998) 523 U.S. 75, 81. There has to be a showing that the employer created or failed to remedy objectively intolerable working conditions for the victim. The requisite standard involves a shoring that the harasser’s conduct would have interfered with a reasonable employee’s work performance, seriously affecting the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee and that the alleged victim was actually offended. As the court stated in Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 130, “not every utterance of a racial slur in the workplace violates the FEHA or Title VII.”

In this particular case, the DFEH also hinted in their decision that they also believe that at least one reason the employee brought a claim for racial discrimination against her boss was that she was denied her annual bonus and salary increase in a prior year.

Contact Information
San Francisco
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 295-4730
Fax: (415) 508-3474
Sacramento
980 9th Street, 16th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2014 – 2025, The Law Office of Arkady Itkin
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design