California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) makes it
unlawful to refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate against a person because of their physical or mental disability or medical condition.[1] Courts have interpreted the term “to discriminate” as used in that context to mean “to treat differently.”[2] An employer “has treated an employee differently ‘because of’ a disability when the disability is a substantial motivating reason for the employer’s decision to subject the employee to an adverse employment action.”[3] Continue reading “Disability Discrimination at Work is Illegal under California Law”
Uncategorized
Retaliation against Employees for Requesting Disability Accommodations: Your Rights under California Law
Section 12940(h) of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides that it is illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has opposed any practices that violated the FEHA. Section 12940(m)(2), enacted in 2015, further provides that it is illegal for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for […]
Read more...Disability Harassment in California — Your Rights at Work
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employers[1] from harassing employees, applicants, unpaid interns, and volunteers because of their “physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, [or] genetic information,” among other things. Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1). It separately provides that employers are liable when they fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment […]
Read more...Meal Break Violations in California: The First 5 Hours Rule and the Importance of Time Keeping Records
This post explores two questions that arise with respect to meal break laws in California: What is the “first five hours” rule, and what role do an employer’s time keeping records play in meal break lawsuits. As explained below, the California Supreme Court has resolved these questions in a way that protects workers and ensures […]
Read more...Minimum Wage, Public Employees, and the University of California
The University of California (referred to in this post as “the Regents”) employs more than two hundred thousand people. Determining which laws apply to the Regents can be challenging. Gomez v. Regents (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 386 provides some guidance with respect to California’s wage and hour laws. In Gomez, the plaintiff challenged the Regents’ policy […]
Read more...Opposing Voter Suppression — The Battle for Georgia
I am writing this from the airport in Atlanta, where I have spent the past five days doing my best to help make sure that the Georgia Senate runoff elections were fair and that all votes were counted. The experience was both inspiring and chilling, so I am going to jot down some thoughts before the press of business and family in the “real world” re-consumes me.
First off, a disclosure: I believe very strongly that the voting process should be as easy as possible. In college (before the internet ruled our lives), I volunteered for a small organization that was trying to get the local city council to adopt a measure that would study, and, hopefully, implement a process by which voters could cast their ballots by telephone. That’s right: pick up the phone, enter your id, cast your vote, and, presto! You are done. No line, no worrying about signatures, no hassle. Despite our best efforts, and many long hours spent gathering signatures in the frigid Colorado winter, the effort failed. (Its leader, a fellow nicknamed “Evan from Heaven,” then went back to busking on the local pedestrian mall.) Continue reading “Opposing Voter Suppression — The Battle for Georgia”
Read more...California Resident Managers’ Workplace Rights
Live-in resident managers face a unique challenge: their bosses are often also their landlords. California law requires an individual to live on the premises if a building has sixteen (16) or more units. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 25, § 42. These individuals are often referred to as resident managers. Resident managers carry out various job […]
Read more...Disabled Prison Guard Wins his Third Appeal Against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Courts can award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing plaintiff in a discrimination or harassment claim brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). These attorney fee awards are designed to incentivize and reward a plaintiff’s counsel for litigating a civil rights case that is generally taken on a contingency fee basis and therefore has inherent risks. Trial courts first calculate the lodestar amount, which is the product of the hours spent and the prevailing hourly rate of attorneys in the community conducting similar non-contingent litigation. Then courts can increase this amount by adding a multiplier or increasing the lodestar amount by looking at various factors, such as the risk of non-payment, the public interest in advancing civil rights cases, the complexity of the issues involved, and the skill of the attorneys. Continue reading “Disabled Prison Guard Wins his Third Appeal Against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation”
Expanded Rights for Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic
The U.S. Department of Labor posted a temporary rule on April 1, 2020 that provides most employees impacted by the coronavirus with some much-needed benefits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). These benefits include public emergency health leave under Title I of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and emergency paid sick […]
Read more...Meal Breaks and Rest Breaks: Guidance from the Second DCA
Cacho v. Eurostar, Inc. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 885, provides some guidance 
regarding when courts will and will not certify class actions claiming failure to provide meal breaks and/or failure to authorize and permit rest breaks under California law.
Continue reading “Meal Breaks and Rest Breaks: Guidance from the Second DCA”
Read more...