Orange County Employment Lawyer Blog

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the simultaneous filing and $70,000 settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit brought against Gemmel Pharmacies Inc., doing business as B&B Pharmacy, on behalf of a pharmacist who was denied a reasonable accommodation and fired due to his disability.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the pharmacist was hired at B&B Pharmacy in Bellflower, California in January 2007. The pharmacist was known to have severe diabetes, including renal failure. In August 2007, the pharmacist learned that a donor kidney had become available for him, requiring an immediate kidney transplant. He quickly advised B&B management of the impending surgery and his need for two to three months of unpaid leave of absence to recover. Instead, according to the EEOC, B&B Pharmacy fired and replaced the pharmacist instead of giving him reasonable accommodations. This is an example of a wrongful termination.

Most California employees are "at-will" employees. This means they may be terminated by their employers with or without cause, with or without prior notice. By the same token, "at will" employees may resign from their employment with or without cause, with or without prior notice. There are a few exceptions to "at will" employment, including the following: (1) Where the employee has an employment contract for a specified period of time; (2) Where the employer, by its own conduct, has essentially nullified an employee's "at will" employment status by making certain statements, promises, or representations; and (3) Where the employee engaged in certain legally-protected conduct.

Examples of Legally-protected Conduct:
•An employee may not be lawfully terminated for legitimately reporting sexual harassment (See also "Retaliation");•An employee may not be lawfully terminated for participating in an investigation into allegations of unlawful discrimination or harassment;
•An employee may not be lawfully terminated for filing a worker's compensation claim;
•An employee may not be lawfully terminated for "blowing the whistle" on certain unlawful conduct (See also "Whistle-blowing");•An employee may not be terminated for complaining internally about not receiving overtime pay, proper rest breaks or lunches, or proper wages;
•An employee may not be terminated for filing a complaint with a governmental or administrative agency, such as the Labor Board or DFEH

Continue reading "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Finds Bellflower, California Pharmacist Was Wrongfully Terminated" »

News Break-This week The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing announced that United Parcel Service (UPS) must pay more than $96,000 in damages after the company fired employee Eva Linda Mason because of her disability. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission found that UPS had unlawfully terminated Ms. Mason even though she could perform the essential functions of her job. As an experienced Orange County Employment Law Firm, it is important to understand the difference between a disabled employee "with restrictions" and an employee who is "permanently disabled".

There are a small number of situations where an employer can justify terminating an employee due to a permanent disability. One such example is if the disability substantially inhibits one's ability to perform their job and there is no reasonable accommodation that can be made under such circumstances. An employer can validly terminate an employee without it being a wrongful termination.

UPS hired Ms. Mason in 1997 primarily as an Operations Management Specialist to handle customer calls and complaints on shipments. Although she occasionally located packages in a warehouse, handling packages was not part of her job. After Ms. Mason had knee surgery and took a leave of absence to recover in 2007, she continued to carry out the essential customer service functions of her job. Nonetheless, UPS perceived Ms. Mason as disabled because she had some restrictions, such as limited standing, walking, bending, and kneeling. UPS had a 12-month cap on the length of time employees with disabilities could be reasonably accommodated from their regular duties. UPS applied this cap to Ms. Mason and fired her in August 2008.

The Department of Fair Employment and housing said that "Using a 12-month cap to fire disabled employees is unlawful under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)," and employees with disabilities must be allowed to work if they can perform their essential job duties with or without accommodation."

The Commission ordered UPS to pay $96,170 in damages, including $10,000 in administrative fines to the State. UPS must also post a notice about its liability and develop a policy and train management on disability discrimination.

Continue reading ""California Labor Board Finds UPS Liable For Disability Discrimination"" »

In Part I and Part II of "How to Successfully Litigate Your Sexual Harassment Claim in California Courts," we discussed all the mitigating factors that play a role in successfully litigating your sexual harassment claim and/or retaliation claim. The amount of calls we receive from prospective clients at Our Orange County Law Firm regarding Sexual Harassment is concerning. In deciding whether or not it is a case that our firm will take, we examine among other things, the mitigating factors involved in their claim.

Examples of conduct committed without consent that may give rise to a viable Sexual Harassment claim, include but are limited to, the following:

1. whether or not the conduct was specifically stated, meaning that it is an element of every offense whether the conduct was committed without consent of the employee

2. Examples of instances where their consent is lacking;
A. Forcible compulsion
B. Incapacity to consent

Forcible compulsion means to compel by:
A. Physical force ; or
B. A threat, expressed or implied, that places an employee in fear of their immediate well being or losing their future employment.

The following is a hypothetical story that mimics real life events:

Courtney goes to work on a beautiful sunny Tuesday morning. She arrives at the office at 8 a.m. Upon arriving at her office she runs into Andrew, her immediate supervisor. Her supervisor asks if they can have a meeting in his office at 10 a.m. Without hesitation she responds "yes". He has weekly meetings with her to discuss the work flow and the status of projects, so she isn't expecting anything different from this meeting. She steps into Andrew's office about 2 minutes before the meeting is scheduled too begin. He closes his office door. He gives her a hug and whispers in her ear, "thank you for taking the time to meet with me." She pushed him away from her, as she no longer felt comfortable at all. He responds to her in an aggravated tone, "don't you ever push me away when I hug you."

Continue reading "Part III: How to Successfully Litigate Your Sexual Harassment Claim in California Courts; what is conduct committed without consent?" »

In our previous blog, "How to Successfully litigate your Sexual Harassment Claim In California Court" we discussed a few factors that play a role in litigating your sexual harassment claim and/or your retaliation claim. It is unfortunate that retaliation is far more common than we can imagine. Our Orange County Law Firm receives an abundance of calls wherein people feel they were retaliated against by being wrongfully terminated for reporting to their employer an incident or incidents of sexual harassment.

Examples of conduct that may give rise to a Viable Retaliation claim include, but are not limited to, the following:
•reporting sexual harassment or other legally-recognized harassment or discrimination.
• filing a complaint with (or who otherwise discloses information to) a government or law enforcement agency (Example: Filing a complaint with the Labor Board or disclosing information to the Labor Board during the investigation of another employee's complaint).
•complaining internally about not receiving overtime pay, proper rest breaks or lunches, wages or generally any other wage and hour related matter.
• intendending to file a worker's compensation claim.

The above examples illustrate a few types of conduct which may give rise to claims for retaliation. Please note that these examples are not all-inclusive. There are other circumstances which may protect you from retaliation.

When an employee files a claim for retaliation generally gives rise to the following damages:

• compensatory damages
• emotional distress damages
• punitive damages
• In some cases, reimbursement of attorney fees and costs.

In sum, retaliation can be hard to prove if you do not have the proper legal representation. Every county and every courthouse handles cases differently. It is very imperative to have an experienced attorney who is familiar with employment law in California so that you may achieve the best outcome possible.

Continue reading "Part II: How to Successfully litigate your Sexual Harassment Claim in California Courts; what is retaliation ?" »

As you may already know from reading previous posts, In the state of California, it is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. It is unfortunate that when it comes to sexual harassment women and minorities are subjected to workplace harassment and discrimination.

Recently in the news two women (a current staffer and a former staffer) filed a lawsuit against a city parking authority claiming sexual harassment. Both plaintiffs claimed in their separate lawsuits that they were sexually harassed and suffered retaliation in connection with a lawsuit filed by another former employee. One of the plaintiffs alleged that the director of enforcement touched her breasts and buttocks, attempted to assault her in her home, and even suggested that the baby she gave birth to should have been his. Her suit contends that she was harassed by watching the defendant harass others. The case was settled for $300,000.

In order to have success in litigating a sexual harassment or retaliation case, one must establish that the conduct was committed without consent and the conduct was pervasive and offensive. Other contributing factors concern whether the offender was a co-worker or supervisor and whether the employer had reasonable notice of the conduct. Retaliation occurs when an employer, with notice of the offensive, fails to take action to prevent the conduct or responds unlawfully by terminating or disciplining the aggrieved party.

Continue reading "How To Successfully Litigate Your Sexual Harassment Claim in California Courts" »

It is an unfortunate fact that more and more female employees are subjects of sexual harassment at their place of employment. Recently, our Orange County Law Firm has consulted with several employees who have been the subject of workplace harassment and discrimination. Recently, a school bus company agreed to pay $150,000 to settle allegations that a male supervisor at its Los Angeles, California facility sexually harassed at least four women, including bus drivers and a human resources assistant, as reported by the Beverly Hills Courier.

According to the U.S.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, four female employees of First Student were sexually harassed, retaliated against or forced to quit. First Student builds itself as North America's leading school bus transportation services company. According to an EEOC lawsuit alleging civil rights violations, the supervisor made constant explicit remarks about the employees' body parts and the sexual acts he wanted to perform on them.

The harassment turned physical when the supervisor exposed himself, grabbed the breasts of a bus driver and rubbed his private parts against her body, according to the EEOC. The harasser cut another bus driver's hours upon refusal of his advances and promised extra hours to female employees who might submit, according to the EEOC, which reported that three of the victims felt forced to resign as a result of the ongoing harassment.

According to the EEOC, aside from the monetary relief, the parties entered into a consent decree, valid through 2012, which requires First Student to hire an outside employment consultant to revamp the company's policies, complaint procedures, investigations and training of its employees on sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Continue reading "Los Angeles School Bus Company To Pay $150,000 To Settle A Los Angeles California Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

On a previous blog we stated that when it comes to sexual harassment women and minorities are unfortunately subjected to workplace harassment and discrimination far too often. Our Orange County Law Firm constantly receives calls from prospective clients regarding this issue. However, it is unfortunate that many sexual harassment cases go unreported because the employee is afraid of retaliation or wrongful termination

Recently, the Beverly Hills Courier reported that a female Sargent was awarded $211,000 by a Los Angeles Superior Court Jury. The jury determined that she endured about three years of sexual harassment by her one-time mentor. The plaintiff's lawyer argued that the harassment against his client ranged from asking her out on dates to uninvited physical contact, including two forced kisses. The defense attorneys said criminal and internal investigations conducted into her complaints exonerated her one-time mentor.

Her mentor was in charge of her orientation and began tormenting her according to her lawyers, who said she initially tried handling the problem without telling her superiors. She eventually complained and was transferred to the another department and given a position tantamount to a receptionist and normally held by interns in the training unit, her lawyers said. White is currently in another inferior position in which she proofreads documents and cannot earn overtime, her lawyers said.

If your or anyone you know is the subject of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation contact our Orange County Law Firm for a free consultation.

Our Orange County Law Firm receives a number of calls involving illegal workplace harassment. In the state of California, it is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. Harassment can include sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person's sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both the victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex. Unfortunately when it comes to sexual harassment women and minorities are unfortunately subjected to workplace harassment and discrimination far too often.

Recently, Hewlett-Packard's board forced its former CEO to resign amid allegations of sexual harassment and expense-account abuses. The case stems from allegations by an independent contractor that the CEO sexually harassed her and falsified expense reports to cover up a relationship, the Los Angeles Times reported.

In the wake of the company's handling of the sexual harassment complaint, four members of the Hewlett-Packard Company are going to step down. Among the incoming board members is Meg Whitman, the former CEO of Ebay and losing candidate in last fall's Californias governor's race.

The Times also reports that court documents filed by HP show the company is planning its own independent probe into Hurd's departure, stemming from a shareholder suit over Hurd's severance package. The ouster of the board members is largely the result of the perception of rash decision making -- The CEO was forced to resign despite HP's determination that he did not violate the company's sexual harassment policy.

If you need to speak to an attorney about an issue with discrimination, sexual harassment, unpaid wages contact our Orange County Law Firm for a confidential consultation to discuss your rights as an employee.

Any California employee who feels they were discriminated against at work due to a disability falls under the auspice of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). As discussed in my prior blog post, disabilities used to be defined as "conditions that affect one or more of the body systems, such as the musculoskeletal and neurological systems, and that limit an individual's ability to participate in a major life activity." On September 23, 2009, the new Amendments to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) were published, which included some of the following items:

• The definition of "disability" was broadened, making it easier for an employee to establish that she has a disability. Specifically, where it once said "substantially limiting a major life activity", the new amendment does not require the disability to be significant or severely restricting a major life activity.
• The definition of "major life activities" was significantly broadened.
• If a disability is in remission but would substantially limit a major activity when "active" it still would be considered a disability.

RELATED RESOURCES

EEOC Notice Concerning the ADA Amendments Act of 2008

A Riverside County Superior Court jury awarded $25 million in punitive damages to the nearly $1 million in compensatory damages they had awarded the previous day to a former Kmart manager for age discrimination. In the case of Harkins v. Kmart, the plaintiff alleged that Kmart's unlawful conduct was part of a sequence of events designed to get him to retire. Plaintiff had provided exceptional service to Kmart for 20 years, and claimed he was being terminated solely due to his age (64). He alleged that in the months before his termination, he was unlawfully demoted and disciplined in veiled attempts to "work on him" to quit or retire. When he did not "retire" or quit, he was fired. This firing, plaintiff alleged, was retaliatory due to his refusal to quit and due to his age.

My Orange County Employment Law Firm was recently retained on a case where age discrimination was the primary claim. In assessing such cases, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a company's need to reduce its work force due to budgetary concerns and a company using that reason as a pretext for its true motive, ridding itself of an "old" employee. Factors that tend to sway the scales in one direction or the other tend to be things like whether other job positions were eliminated, if other employees lost their jobs (and their ages in comparison to the rest of the workforce) and if the company intends on hiring (or has hired) new employees to replace or fill the holes left by the dismissed employees.

Almost all California employees are "at will" employees, meaning they can be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not an unlawful reason. So, if most employees are at will employees, what separates a termination from a wrongful termination?

California employees can essentially be terminated for any reason, so long as the reason is not an unlawful reason. Here are some of the more common unlawful reasons that would make a termination a wrongful termination:

1. An employee may not be terminated for lawfully reporting sexual harassment to a supervisor or to Human Resources;
2. Similar to above, an employee cannot be terminated for participating in an investigation of someone else's claims of sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination;
3. For exposing certain unlawful wrongdoings by the company or by a higher ranking employee of the company, commonly known as whistle-blowing;
4. For submitting a worker's compensation claim from injuries suffered at work;
5. For complaining to management or Human Resources about not receiving proper wages, overtime compensation, lunch breaks or rest breaks;
6. For filing a complaint with a governmental or administrative agency such as the DFEH or the Labor Board; and
7. Lastly, an employee is not at will if that employee has an employment contract designating a specific period of time.

California law prohibits employers with at least five or more employees from discriminating against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or pregnancy-related medical condition.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) generally provides that an employee who is disabled on account of pregnancy is entitled to up to four months of leave from work. All time off needed for routine prenatal care, such as doctor's visits, as well as, time off for medically-ordered bed rest, severe morning sickness, childbirth, recovery from childbirth or other pregnancy-related condition may be counted against the leave time. Furthermore, if the employee does not exceed the leave time, she is guaranteed the right to return to work at the same position or a comparable position.

Like any physical disability, an employee disabled on account of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related medical condition has the right to request a medically-advisable reasonable accommodation, such as a request for less strenuous or less hazardous duties. The request needs to be based upon the recommendation of your doctor. Whether the accommodation must be provided is generally based upon whether the accommodation is reasonable and whether the requested accommodation unduly burdens the employer.

Any violation of the rights described above may give rise to a claim of sex (pregnancy) discrimination against your employer.

RELATED RESOURCES

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

A recent Orange County case on appeal in the Fourth District (Scotch v. Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc.) affirmed summary judgment (a motion to have the entire case dismissed before trial) for the Defendant was proper because the Plaintiff did not identify a reasonable accommodation that was available at the time the interactive process (meeting between the employer and the employee) occurred.

FEHA protects individuals with "disabilities." "Physical disability" has been defined to include cosmetic disfigurement and physiological and anatomical conditions that affect one or more of the body systems, such as the musculoskeletal and neurological systems, and that limit an individual's ability to participate in a major life activity. Employers may not bar or discharge from employment an employee based upon his/her's disability, or otherwise discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION / INTERACTIVE PROCESS

The law imposes an affirmative obligation on both parties to engage in the "interactive process" to determine whether reasonable accommodations are possible. A lot of litigation concerns whether an employer engaged in good faith discussions with the employee concerning the availability of reasonable accommodations, including alternative positions. Failure to engage in the good faith "interactive process" by either an employer or employee can be determinative on the validity of certain disability discrimination claims. The accommodation process is a dynamic one with many considerations to be evaluated. The FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disabilities (mental or physical) of employees to enable them to perform a position's essential functions, unless doing so would produce undue hardship on the employer's operations or would create a danger or threat of safety to the disabled employee or others. Some possible reasonable accommodations that may be considered include, but are not limited to:

• Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities;
• Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities; or
• Providing a finite leave of absence for a disabled employee to recuperate or care for his or her disability.

However, as Scotch v. Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc., demonstrates, claims by an employee against an employer for failing to engage in the interactive process must identify a reasonable accommodation that was available at the time the interactive process should have occurred. The court recognized that during the interactive process itself, an employee may not have the same access to information about possible accommodations as the employer. However, the court states that through litigation, particularly discovery, the employee must be able to identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available during the interactive process.

RELATED RESOURCES

California Employment Lawyers Assocation (CELA)
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)