San Francisco Employment Law Firm Blog

February 1, 2009

Layoff or Discrimination & Wrongful Termination?

It is perfectly legal for an employer to implement layoffs of its workforce unless this right is limited by an express or implied contract to employ a worker for a set period of time or if the duration of employment and termination terms are protected by the collective bargaining agreement between an employee, a union member, and the employer. This makes sense as the owner of the business should have freedom to choose to reduce its workforce for legitimate business reasons.

However, workforce reduction is illegal if discriminatory criteria are applied to selecting which employees stay and which have to go. In other words, if the employer tries to disguise his desire to get rid of workers who are members of a certain protected class (gender, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, etc…) this is unlawful discrimination.

It is not easy to determine whether the layoff is legitimate or it’s just another form of workplace discrimination, as direct evidence of the employer’s motive, such as admissions, is rarely available for obvious reasons. However, there are certain signs that should create suspicion and case doubt on the legality of a layoff. Here are four general questions that should be asked to determine whether the discrimination likely took place during your layoff:

January 28, 2009

FMLA and CFRA Notice Requirements

by Arkady Itkin

One common issue with regard to leaves of absence between an employment and an employee arises when the employee is absent due to being sick or other health-related reason. The employer may try to avoid it’s obligations under FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) or CFRA (California Family Rights Act) by claiming that the employee’s absence while being sick was unexcused and thus unprotected under the law, if the employee didn’t specifically request FMLA / CFRA.

This argument is without merit, however, according to California courts, which repeatedly held that an employee doesn’t have to use “magic words” such as FMLA and CFRA to be eligible for a qualified leave of absence. It is generally sufficient to place the employer on notice triggering the employers obligation under California law if the worker contacts the employer shortly before or shortly after being absent, advising the employer of the reasons of his absence and providing medical documentation or other objective proof of having the underlying health condition.

This position of California courts makes sense, as it would be unreasonable to expect an employee to be familiar with the specific legal terms, such as FMLA and CFRA, and actually use them in order to receive the medical leave of absence benefits that he or she would be entitled under the law. It is sufficient that the employer is placed on reasonably clear notice of its employee’s medical condition to trigger the employer’s FMLA/CFRA obligations.

January 20, 2009

Discrimination and Injured Workers Rights

by Arkady Itkin

The California Labor Code section 132(a) is yet another device prohibition discrimination against injured workers (in addition to California Fair Employment and Housing Act or “FEHA”). This section prohibits employer discrimination against an employee based on:

* Applying or intending to apply for workers’ compensation benefits; or

* Receiving a rating, award or settlement; or

January 19, 2009

Failure to hire after criminal background investigation

by Arkady Itkin

California Labor Code section 432.7 generally prohibits California employers from using as a factor in hiring, or asking an applicant to disclose, an arrest or detention that did not result in conviction or participation in pre- or post-trial diversion programs.

However, the above general rule is subject to various exceptions. For example, the rule does not apply to applicants for peace office, Department of Justice, or other criminal justice agency positions. Further, employers may ask applicants about arrests for which the applicant is currently out on bail or on his own recognizance pending trial. Employers that are health facilities may ask applicants for positions with regular access to patients to disclose information regarding arrests for sex offenses, and ask applicants for positions with access to drugs and medication to disclose information regarding arrests for controlled substance offenses.

The penalties for violating the above laws are relatively mild, and generally amount to a few hundred dollars plus costs and reasonable attorneys fees. An intentional violation of this section by the employer is also considered a misdemeanor. In addition, this section doesn’t prohibit pursuing remedies for violation of other laws, such as California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provisions that may come into play and other prohibitions on discrimination in hiring and promoting employees.

January 17, 2009

False harrassment, violence & misconduct accusations at workplace

by Arkady Itkin

You have been dedicating yourself to your company for years. You have been working hard, proved yourself and your efforts weren’t wasted. You have been promoted multiple times and now you are manager holding an executive/supervisory position. You are happy and proud of your achievement and are excited about the authority you will have at your company to make bigger and more critical decisions about the financial, administrative or a marketing direction that you company will be moving in.

But not everyone is as happy as you are. You former co-workers, or your new subordinates might become jealous and bitter about your success especially if their work ethic doesn’t match yours and/or if they feel that they should have been promoted and not you. There is a chance that they will conspire against you and will try to hurt your career by falsely accusing you of misconduct, harassment or even violence at workplace.

You feel upset, especially if those allegations are unfounded and if they are likely to slow down your further promotion in the company. How should you handle a situation in which your superior or a human resources manager contacts you out of the blue, informing you that an investigation has been initiated against you into certain allegations filed by your co-workers or subordinates?

January 13, 2009

California Disability Laws at Workplace

by Arkady Itkin

Both ADA (Americans with Disabilities act) and its California counterpart – FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) cover disabled employees as well as employees whom the employer has regarded or treated as having had any physical or mental disability or medical condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult.

California Government Code section 12940(m) requires covered employers to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental disability of an employee, unless undue hardship on the employer’s business would result. Under section 12940(f)(2) states that an employer may require any examinations of inquiries so long as they are job related and consistent with business necessity to determine its employees’ health condition for the purpose of compliance with disability laws.

The FEHA’s requirement of reasonable accommodations is triggered when the employer becomes aware of an employee’s disability, which may occur because it is an obvious disability, the employee has disclosed the condition,or the employer has obtained a medical opinion through a fitness for duty examination. The three primary results of a medical examination are: (1) the employee is qualified to perform the job without the need for any accommodation and poses no safety risk; (2) the employee will be able to perform his job with a reasonable accommodation; or (3) the employee is not qualified to perform the job due to his condition or due to a safety risk, and there are no reasonable accommodations that would enable for that worker to perform the essential duties of his job.

January 6, 2009

Hostile Work Environment: Harassment by Co-workers

by Arkady Itkin

Many workers intuitively believe that just because their co-workers act toward them in a rude or unfair way or just because they are not friendly to them, this is ground for harassment claim in court. It is important to remember, however, that under California law, a conduct is considered harassment only if it’s “sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of the alleged victim’s employment.” This standard is quite high, and isolated incident of rude or inappropriate behavior usually don’t qualify as harassment.

Thus, in one recent case, the Second District court considered a situation where the worker sued her employer for harassment hostile/work environment after several of her co-workers teased her on several occasions in front of the customers and called her a “retard,” and refusing to change her schedule so that she could avoid working during the same shift as those employees who teased her. Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp. The court held that, as a matter of law, the evidence did not establish harassment sufficiently severe and pervasive to be actionable under the FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) to alter the condition of Young’s employment.

Admittedly, it takes a more egregious conduct to constitute harassment. Many companies can be characterized by being stressful workplaces with office politics, “backstabbing,” and other manifestations of people’s dissatisfaction of being forced to work together, but to constitute harassment, these working conditions must clearly be beyond the typical disagreements, and conflicts between co-workers, and a common stress that is brought about by most jobs.

January 3, 2009

Staring and Sexual Harassment at Workplace

by Arkady Itkin

Under California law, to be actionable/unlawful the harassment at workplace must be sufficiently “severe and pervasive.” This means that, generally isolated comments and incidents, unless egregious, do not rise to the level of sexual harassment as defined by FEHA (California Fair Employment and Housing Act). But, what about staring? Can staring be grounds for a sexual harassment claim? On one hand, staring might be a very subjective complaints, as some people might think that someone is staring at them when in fact no one does. On the other hand, overt staring might be very threatening and indicate a kind of obsession and other threatening behavior.

The California Court of Appeal confronted the issue of whether staring can be considered sexual harassment in Birschtein v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (2001). In that case, a forklift driver approached the female assembly worker and asked her out several times. After she refused his propositions, he started sharing his explicit sexual fantasies about her, and drive around and look for her when she was not around. After the claimant complaint about harassment to the management, the forklift driver stopped speaking to her and never spoke to her again. Instead, he began staring at her. He would drive to her work station five or more times per day and stare directly at her for at least several second each time. He would also sit behind the forklift and stare at the plaintiff for five to ten minutes at a time.

When the female employee sued her employer for sexual harassment and failure to prevent harassment, one of the arguments that the defense attorneys had was that staring is not a sufficiently severe and pervasive behavior to constitute harassment as a matter of law. The court disagreed. In its holding, the court suggested that staring is particularly likely to be actionable as harassment if there is a prior history of prior acts between the harasser and the victim of harassment that would cause the victim to feel threatened and intimidated when the harasser, who engaged in the more overt acts of harassment, engages in staring in retaliation for the victim’s complaints. In other words, the court seemed to suggest that while staring alone might not be sufficient to constitute harassment, when combined with other (prior acts) by the same harasser, it may be sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute sexual harassment.

December 31, 2008

When the employer’s harassment policy is ineffective

by Arkady Itkin

Most employers, especially larger companies include detailed provisions on their anti-harassment at workplace policy. These policies generally serve several purposes. First, the employers are required to implement various harassment training and prevention procedures at workplace. Secondly, these policies are designed to provide an opportunity for employee to address and eliminate harassment at workplace. Lastly, and not less importantly, existence of those policies in the employee handbook is commonly used as a strong defense against sexual harassment, racial harassment and other hostile work environment claims, if the employee claims that he/she was harassed but failed to use the grievance procedures as provided by the employer’s harassment policy.

However, the anti-harassment policies and the grievance procedures that the employee who believe to be harassed are encouraged to follow often have a fundamental flaw that entire defeats their use – many harassment manuals provide that the employee who feels that he/she is harassed should complain to his/her immediate supervisor or manager. The problem is that the immediate supervisor is often the source of harassment. If that’s the case, that kind of policy will neither provide effective help to the employee, as it goes without saying that complaining to the source of harassment about his own harassment would be pointless.

Moreover, the employee’s failure to use anti-harassment grievance procedures of the company in this case will likely not serve as a valid defense to the employer. As the United States Supreme Court stated in a leading case on harassment: “the employer’s grievance procedure apparently required an employee to complain first to her supervisor. Since in this case the supervisor was the alleged perpetrator, it is not altogether surprising that the victim of the harassment failed to invoke the procedure and report her grievance to him. The employer’s argument that the harassed employee’s failure should insulate it from liability might have been substantially stronger if its procedures were better calculated to encourage victims of harassment to come forward…” Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson.

December 28, 2008

Should you tell your boss that you are pregnant?

by Arkady Itkin

Many female employees are afraid of telling their boss about their pregnancy. They are concerned about being perceived as less capable and desirable employees and about being terminated. This is especially likely to be the case if a female worker has a well-paying job and cares about her place in her workplace and her career advancement in the near future.

However, the reality is that there are simply no advantages to not disclosing pregnancy to the employer. First, sooner or later the employer will find out that the employee is pregnant as the pregnancy will become visible. Secondly, informing your employer that you are pregnant and have a difficulty in performing certain duties of your job, you may be entitled to certain protections, such as reasonable accommodations to your condition.

If you are concerned about pregnancy discrimination, this is yet another reason to put your employer on notice that you are pregnant as soon as possible. Employers who are sued for pregnancy discrimination ordinarily argue that they had no knowledge of the suing employee’s pregnancy. This is often grounds for dismissal of the discrimination claim. By notifying your employer of your pregnancy promptly, you take this argument away, creating a further legal protection for yourself. After all, the more risky the position that the employer puts itself in when planning to terminate you, the less likely you are to be terminated.