Plaintiff Maria Hernandez worked for Rancho Santiago Community College District on and off for several years without having any performance issues. In 2013, the district hired her as an administrative assistant. Per the district’s protocol, Ms. Hernandez was put on probation for one year. The district would evaluate her performance at three months, seven months and eleven months. At the successful completion of the probationary period, Ms. Hernandez would then become a permanent employee.
Eight months into her probationary period, Ms. Hernandez went out on district-approved temporary disability leave to have surgery. The district had not evaluated her performance at three and seven months. She was scheduled to return shortly after the one year anniversary of her hiring date.
Rancho Santiago Community College District terminated Ms. Hernandez while she was out of disability leave. She sued the district alleging that it has violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by failing to reasonably accommodate her and failing to engage in the interactive process. Continue reading “Rancho Santiago Community College District Found Liable for Failing to Accommodate Disabled Employee”
Read more...
William Bustos brought several disability discrimination-related claims against his employer Global P.E.T., Inc. Mr. Bustos was fired just a day before he was scheduled to have carpal tunnel surgery. The case went to trial and resulted in a defense verdict. Despite the defense verdict, the jury found that Mr. Bustos’s disability was a substantial motivating reason for Global P.E.T., Inc.’s decision to terminate him. However, the jury also found that Global P.E.T., Inc.’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Mr. Bustos. Bustos v. Global P.E.T., Inc., et al., Fourth Appellate Court of Appeal, No. E065869 (published Jan. 16, 2018). 
On December 29, 2017, the California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District held that an employee who settled and dismissed his individual wage and hour claims against his former employer no longer had standing to maintain a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cause of action against that same employer. Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., 2d. Dist. Case No. B278642 (filed December 29, 2017). 
The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying men and women differently for equal work. However, is it unlawful for an employer to have a policy that offers its new hires a salary that is five percent higher than their previous salary if the policy results in a female worker getting paid less than all her male colleagues?