Blog

Animus and Intent in Disability Cases: A Court Clarifies what Workers Must Show to Prevail in California

Hunter PyleMarch 1, 2016March 13, 2017

A recent decision of a California Court of Appeal clarifies that a disabled worker is not required to show that their employer had the intention to discriminate against them in order to prevail in a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Rather, a disabled worker can prevail in their lawsuit by showing that the employer took action against them because of their actual or perceived disability, regardless of whether the employer had an intent to discriminate.

In other words, a worker need not show that an employer harbored any ill will or discriminatory animus toward people with disabilities. This clarification broadens the scope of disability cases, and sets such cases apart from other types of discrimination cases. It should cause employers throughout the state to be more careful when taking action against disabled employees. Continue reading “Animus and Intent in Disability Cases: A Court Clarifies what Workers Must Show to Prevail in California “ →

California Law Prohibits Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Against Interns and Volunteers

Dan MahoneyFebruary 25, 2016March 13, 2017

Did you know that California is one of only three states in the US to protect interns and volunteers from harassment and discrimination in the workplace?

If you are an intern, volunteer or apprentice in California, you have the right to be free from harassment and discrimination at work. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (California Government Code 12940), it is unlawful for an employer to harass or discriminate against an intern, volunteer or participant in an apprenticeship training program on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or any other classification protected by law. Continue reading “California Law Prohibits Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Against Interns and Volunteers” →

Employers Have to Reimburse Workers for Work-Related Cell Phone Expenses Even if Employees Have Unlimited Plans

Tanya TamblingFebruary 23, 2016March 13, 2017

Employees often do not think they are entitled to reimbursement of cell phone expenses if they have an unlimited plan. Likewise, employers may also presume that they are under no obligation to reimburse their employees for using cell phones for work-related issues if the employees have an unlimited plan. However, they are incorrect.

Under California Labor Code section 2802, an employer must indemnify employees for all expenses incurred as a result of performing their duties. Continue reading “Employers Have to Reimburse Workers for Work-Related Cell Phone Expenses Even if Employees Have Unlimited Plans” →

Removability of PAGA actions to Federal Court

Hunter PyleFebruary 15, 2016

This blog is the third in a series regarding recent PAGA jurisprudence. It focuses on developments regarding the removability of PAGA claims to federal court. Continue reading “Removability of PAGA actions to Federal Court” →

PAGA and Arbitration: Representative Actions Are Alive and Well in California

Hunter PyleFebruary 15, 2016

This post is the second in a series of posts on developments in PAGA jurisprudence in 2015. It focuses on the interplay between PAGA and arbitration agreements. Continue reading “PAGA and Arbitration: Representative Actions Are Alive and Well in California” →

PAGA’s Exhaustion Requirements: Guidance from the 9th Circuit

Hunter PyleFebruary 15, 2016

The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code[1] §§ 2698-2699.5) (“PAGA”) was enacted in 2004 in order to allow employees to bring representative actions to recover civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code. Once an afterthought, in recent years PAGA claims have become increasingly popular.[2] As the number of PAGA claims has grown, the PAGA landscape has become ever more hotly contested.

This post is part of a series of posts exploring recent development in PAGA jurisprudence. It focuses on PAGA’s exhaustion requirements. Continue reading “PAGA’s Exhaustion Requirements: Guidance from the 9th Circuit” →

The Arbitration Struggle Continues: One (more) Courageous Judge Stands Up For Workers

Hunter PyleFebruary 12, 2016March 13, 2017

The Chinese philosopher Laozi is reputed to have said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. A corollary is that a long journey only continues if people are courageous enough to continue it, despite the daunting odds they may face.

A California federal judge recently joined the group of jurists who have been courageous enough to push back against the efforts to force workers and consumers out of court and into binding arbitration. The ills and abuses associated with employment arbitration are well documented, and will not be revisited here. (The New York Times ran an excellent series about those ills and abuses in 2015, which revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court was among the attorneys who came up with the legal strategy of forcing people into arbitration.) But it is encouraging that the struggle over arbitration is far from over, and there are some glimmers of hope for workers.

In Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee denied defendant KBR’s motion to compel individual arbitration in a wage and hour class action. Judge Gee did so despite the fact that the plaintiff had signed an agreement to arbitrate his grievances in an individual manner. Judge Gee based her order on the D.R. Horton, Inc. case, a decision of the National Labor Relations Board. In D.R. Horton, the Board found that class actions are protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). As such, private agreements that ban such class actions are unenforceable. Continue reading “The Arbitration Struggle Continues: One (more) Courageous Judge Stands Up For Workers” →

An Employer Cannot Retaliate Against an Employee For Filing a Police Report

Tanya TamblingNovember 25, 2015March 13, 2017

Plaintiff Rosa Lee Cardenas, a dental hygienist, lost an expensive wedding ring in the workplace. Suspecting that a coworker stole the ring, Ms. Cardenas wanted to file a police report. However, her employer expressed his disapproval and requested that Ms. Cardenas not tell the police that she left the ring on the breakroom table at work. Despite her employer’s objections, Ms. Cardenas filed a police report. After the police came to the dental office on two occasions to investigate, Ms. Cardenas’ employer told her the situation was causing great tension and fired her.

Continue reading “An Employer Cannot Retaliate Against an Employee For Filing a Police Report” →

Do I Get Paid Sick Leave?: Decoding California’s New Paid Sick Leave Requirements

Dan MahoneyNovember 5, 2015March 13, 2017

In 2015, the California Healthy Workplace Healthy Family Act (AB 1522) came into effect. Because of this new law, many California employees are now entitled to paid sick leave. Below are answers to some frequently asked questions about California’s new paid sick leave law. Continue reading “Do I Get Paid Sick Leave?: Decoding California’s New Paid Sick Leave Requirements” →

Your Employer is Prohibited from Retaliating Against You for Asking for an Accommodation

Tanya TamblingOctober 30, 2015March 13, 2017

Under Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, an employee who requested an accommodation did not engage in a protected activity for purposes of a Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) retaliation claim. Workers’ rights advocates throughout the State celebrated when Governor Jerry Brown overturned the incorrect result in Rope and signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 987 into law this year.

Under AB 987, employees no longer need to fear retaliation from their employers if they request a reasonable accommodation. Continue reading “Your Employer is Prohibited from Retaliating Against You for Asking for an Accommodation” →