LA Unified School District Teacher’s Claims Alleging Harassment and Retaliation Fail

Aurora Le Mere was a Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) teacher for thirteen years.  In that time, she filed a number of complaints and claims arising from her employment, including worker’s compensation claims and administrative complaints regarding LAUSD’s violations of provisions of the Education Code.  In 2007, she filed a lawsuit against LAUSD and two individuals for discrimination, harassment and civil rights violations.  All her claims and cases through 2007 settled.  Then, in 2015, Ms. Le Mere filed another complaint against LAUSD and six individuals claiming that she had been unlawfully harassed and retaliated against since filing the 2007 case and worker’s compensation claims.

The defendants successfully demurred twice to the 2015 complaint.  (more…)

Rancho Santiago Community College District Found Liable for Failing to Accommodate Disabled Employee

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.  (more…)

Plaintiff Denied Attorneys’ Fees even though his Physical Disability was a Substantial Motivating Reason Behind his Termination

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). (more…)

An Employer Can Potentially be Held Liable if a Nonemployee Sexually Harasses an Employee

 

What happens if a nonemployee harasses or sexually assaults an employee in the workplace?  Is the employer liable?  Possibly.  On October 26, 2017, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District considered whether an employee’s claims against her employer for violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for harassment and failing to prevent harassment overcame the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine.  M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management, LLC (D070150, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 10/26/17).  (more…)

California Court Rules that One Year Statute of Limitations to File DFEH Complaint Runs from Last Day of Employment

If an employee is being harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, he has one year to file a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).  Employees and employers alike sometimes question when the one year statute of limitations starts to run.  On August 29, 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that an employee has one year from his last day of employment to timely file a complaint with the DFEH.  Aviles-Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Community College District, No. B278863, 2017 WL 3712199 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017).    (more…)

SLAPP Motions and Discrimination Claims: The California Supreme Court Limits Defendants’ Ability To Attack FEHA Cases

California has a powerful statute that is aimed at protecting our right to engage in free speech.  Known as the SLAPP law, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 allows people who are sued for engaging in free speech to bring a motion dismiss the lawsuit that has been filed against them.  In order to prevail on such a motion, the defendant in such a lawsuit must show that the claims at issue arise from protected activity.  If the defendant makes that showing, the plaintiff must then prove that the claims have some degree of merit.

In recent years, public entities have begun to rely on the SLAPP law to challenge lawsuits claiming discrimination or retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  For example, in Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 65, a hospital brought a SLAPP motion in a case in which a doctor claims to have been discriminated and retaliated against.  The Nesson court held that the hospital’s peer review proceedings were official proceedings.  Therefore, decisions that resulted from those proceedings were protected by the SLAPP law.  See also DeCambre v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1, 22.

However, on May 4, 2017, the California Supreme Court recently limited employers’ ability to rely upon the SLAPP law in discrimination cases.  In Park v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2017) S229728 the Court held that a claim for national original discrimination under the FEHA did not arise from protected activity.  Therefore, it was not subject to the SLAPP law.

The plaintiff in Park sued after he was denied tenure at California State University, Los Angeles.  The University then moved to dismiss Park’s claim on the grounds that it arose from the decision to deny tenure and the communications that led up to that decision.  As such, the University claimed that Park’s lawsuit arose from protected activity.

The Court rejected the University’s argument.  The Court reasoned that the basis of Park’s claim was the decision to deny Park tenure.  The decision to deny tenure may have been communicated either verbally or in writing, but that did not convert the lawsuit into one arising from the exercise of free speech.  Similarly, Park might rely upon certain comments that were made about him to show discriminatory animus.  But that did not convert his case into one that arose from protected speech.

The Court also limited the scope of an earlier decision, Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Distr. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 192.  The Court clarified that its holding in Kibler was only that hospital peer review proceedings could be (not that they always were) official proceedings for the purposes of the SLAPP law.

Interestingly, the Court did not address an issue that arose in an earlier case called Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting Inc. (2013)  221 Cal.App.4th 1510.  In Hunter, the court of appeal found that a defendant news media organiation’s refusal to hire a particular person as a weather news anchor was in furtherance of protected speech.  The defendant in Park tried to rely upon a similar argument, however the Court found that it had not developed that argument sufficiently.

If you have been discriminated against or retaliated against at work, feel free to contact the attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law for a free initial intake.  We can be reached at (510) 444-4400 or at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com

Ninth Circuit Finds in Favor of Plaintiff’s Age Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

icon-scales

Gilberto Santillan will have another opportunity to demonstrate that his employer of 32 years, USA Waste of California, Inc., wrongfully terminated him on the basis of his age and retaliated against him.  On April 7, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that Mr. Santillan established a prima facie case under his claims for age discrimination and retaliation in Santillan v. USA Waste of California, Inc.  (No. 15-55238, 2017 WL 1289971 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2017)).  The Court further held that USA Waste failed to provide any evidence that it had a legitimate reason for firing him. (more…)

If Someone Hugs me in the Workplace, Can that be Considered Sexual Harassment?

If you feel uncomfortable when a boss or colleague hugs you in the workplace, do you have a valid claim for sexual harassment? Possibly. If a co-worker hugs you on several occasions and engages in other inappropriate conduct, you may have a claim. There is no magic number of incidents needed in order to establish liability. (more…)

Can I Get Fired for Taking Time Off to Take Care of a Sick Family Member?

Many people are aware that employers cannot discriminate against an employee with a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the Americans with Gear-and-Gavel_goldDisabilities Act (ADA).  But, what if you have a child, spouse or parent with a disability and need to take time off from work to care for him or her?  What if you need to be home in the evenings to nurse a disabled loved one back to health?  Can your employer retaliate against you for requesting an accommodation or discriminate against your because you are associated with someone with a disability?  (more…)

California Law Prohibits Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Against Interns and Volunteers

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 Gear-and-Gavel_goldEmployment 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.   (more…)