Sexual Harassment In The Workplace – Quid Pro Quo vs Hostile Work Environment

July 1, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

When it comes to sexual harassment in the workplace, there are many people who can easily give examples of it, but know very little about sexual harassment law itself. An important, basic fact about sexual harassment law which very few people understand is that there are two different categories of sexual harassment cases: quid pro quo sexual harassment, and harassment that takes the form of a hostile work environment. Both of these types of harassment are prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and by the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA).

Quid Pro Quo

The term “quid pro quo” means “something for something” in Latin. Quid pro quo sexual harassment is when someone tries to obtain sexual favors from a coworker by abusing their workplace authority. This can be done with the offer of something positive (for example, “If you sleep with me, I’ll give you a raise”), or with the threat of something negative (for example, “If you don’t sleep with me, I’ll fire you.”)

“Sexual favors” does not necessarily have to mean sexual intercourse – or any kind of physical sex act, for that matter. Offering someone a promotion if they’ll talk dirty to you would be a form of quid pro quo sexual harassment. Telling a subordinate employee that you’ll cut their benefits if they don’t go on a date with you is also an example of quid pro quo sexual harassment, even though you weren’t specifically requesting sex from the employee.

If an employee is subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment, s/he will not be prevented from filing a claim on the basis of whether or not s/he gave in to the harassment.

Hostile Work Environment

Sexual harassment that takes the form of a hostile work environment does not necessarily involve threats or propositions. A hostile work environment occurs when an employee is subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct in the workplace, and this conduct is severe and pervasive enough that it unreasonably interferes with the individual’s work performance, or it creates an abusive or offensive working environment.

This conduct can take many forms, including:

Sexual jokes, questions and/or comments
Displaying inappropriately sexual images (such as pornography)
Lewd behavior and/or gestures
Frequent, inappropriate physical contact
Repeated requests for dates
Physical interference with an employee’s movement

The Importance of Proper Legal Advice

If you believe that you have been the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, an employment discrimination attorney will be able to answer your questions, and help you determine your best course of action. Likewise, if you are an employer, and you have concerns about sexual harassment in your workplace (or you have concerns about your sexual harassment policy), speaking to an attorney may help you avoid litigation, and better serve your employees.

The employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. have considerable experience in sexual harassment cases. You can call or email today to schedule a consultation.

Training on Prevention of Abusive Conduct – New Rules for California Employers

June 26, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Assembly Bill (AB) No. 2053, “prevention of abusive conduct”, signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown has added new requirements for employers regarding their harassment policies. AB 2053 amended Section 12950.1 of the California Government Code, which lays out necessary elements in the employee training programs that are required for employers with more than 50 employees. As a result of the new bill, these employers will be required to include training for supervisors on “prevention of abusive conduct.”

What Does “Abusive Conduct” Mean?

AB 2053 contains a definition of abusive conduct. It reads:

“For purposes of this section, ‘abusive conduct’ means conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets, verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance. A single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe and egregious.”

While the law requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide training to avoid abusive conduct, it does not actually ban abusive conduct in the workplace. This is to say, it does not create a cause of action for employees who have been subjected to abusive workplace conduct. (However, many forms of abusive conduct were already illegal under other statutes, such as sexual harassment laws.)

Other Requirements of Section 12950.1, Prevention of Abusive Conduct

Under the previously existing requirements of Section 12950.1, California employers with more than 50 employees must provide their supervisory employees with at least two hours of “classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment.” The training must occur within 6 months of when the employees assume their supervisory positions.

The training must be offered to supervisory employees at least once every two years, and it must include “practical examples aimed at instructing supervisors in the prevention of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.” It must also be presented by trainers or educators with knowledge and expertise in the prevention of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.

12950.1 contains language making it clear that if any particular individual at a workplace does not receive the training, that will not in and of itself cause their employer to become vulnerable to an action alleging sexual harassment. It also states, however, that simply providing the training will not insulate an employer from liability in an action alleging sexual harassment.

(In other words, a sexual harassment suit will not be automatically successful just because a supervisor wasn’t given the proper training. But at the same time, an employer cannot claim that a supervisor cannot be guilty of sexual harassment just because he or she received the training.)

Advice on Meeting the Requirements of 12950.1

AB 2053 went into effect on January 1, 2015 – so if you are a California employer with more than 50 employees, and you have not yet updated the trainings that are given to your supervisors, it’s time to make some changes. If you have any questions about how to comply with the requirements of the new legislation, you can call or email the employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C., in Santa Rosa Labor Lawyer, to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: Workplace Harassment Tagged With: employment and labor law attorneys in Santa Rosa, Petaluma Labor Attorney, Santa Rosa employment and labor law attorneys, Ukiah Labor Attorney

Employment Discrimination Based on Genetic Information

June 12, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Employment discrimination based on genetic information. When you think of employment discrimination cases, you probably think about issues like race, gender and age discrimination. What you may not be aware of, though, is that employment discrimination based on genetics is illegal under both federal law, and California law.

In 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), a federal statute, was signed into law. GINA makes it illegal for both employers and health insurance providers to discriminate on the basis of genetic information. Three years later, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (CalGINA), which amended the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. CalGINA is significantly broader than GINA, as it applies not only to employment and insurance coverage, but also to the realms of housing, public accommodations, and education.

Many California employers paid little attention to CalGINA, because they were aware that federal law already prohibited the use of genetic information as a factor in employment decisions. What many of these employers did not realize, however, is that CalGINA made a substantial change to the employment law landscape in California. Unlike GINA, CalGINA places no limits on the amount of damages that an employee can receive, if he or she has been the victim of genetic discrimination. This makes it significantly more important for employers to ensure that they are not using genetic information improperly.

What is Genetic Employment Discrimination?

If your employer (or a potential employer) obtains information about you, or a member of your family, that is related to genetic tests – and uses that information as a factor in any kind of an employment decision – then you have been the victim of genetic discrimination. The same applies if the employer obtains information about your family’s medical history, and uses it as a factor in an employment decision.

It is generally illegal under federal law for employers to even request genetic information. However, the EEOC acknowledges six exceptions to this rule:

When an employer inadvertently acquires an employee’s genetic information.
When an employer offers genetic services, and is offered the genetic information voluntarily (although this is only permissible in some situations).
When an employee seeks FMLA leave in order to care for a family member.
When an employer obtains genetic information through commercially and publicly available documents, such as newspapers. (However, it is impermissible for an employer to use these sources for the purpose of finding genetic information about employees. )
When an employer obtains genetic information through certain voluntary genetic monitoring programs, if the programs are monitoring the effects of toxic workplace substances.
When employers that conduct genetic testing for law enforcement purposes use employees’ DNA for quality control.

Legal Counsel for Employers and Employees

Now that California employers can face substantial damages in genetic discrimination lawsuits, it is well worth their effort to ensure that they have policies on the use of genetic information that are in compliance with both GINA and CalGINA. A skilled employment lawyer can help determine if a company’s policies need revision.

Employees, too, are advised to look into their employers’ practices regarding genetic information. If you believe your rights have been violated, you may wish to speak to an attorney.

Whether you are an employer or an employee, you can schedule a consultation today with the Sonoma County employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C., in Santa Rosa.

Filed Under: Genetic Discrimination Tagged With: Petaluma Employment Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Lawyer

Awarding Court Costs and Labor Attorney Fees in Employment Discrimination Cases

June 11, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Clients involved in employment discrimination cases will often ask, “If I win, will the other side have to pay my labor attorney fees, or my court costs?” The answer often depends on whether the client is the employer or the employee.

Federal Labor Cases

In federal actions involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there is an “asymmetrical rule.” If the plaintiff wins, he or she will automatically receive compensation from the other party for his or her attorney’s fees. But a winning defendant does not automatically receive compensation for attorney’s fees. A winning defendant will only receive such compensation if the court finds that the plaintiff’s claim was “frivolous, unreasonable or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.”

If you’re an employer, you may be thinking that seems awfully unfair. Why is this the rule? The precedent is the result of a Supreme Court decision, Christiansburg vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The ruling held that “Assessing attorney’s fees against plaintiffs simply because they do not finally prevail would substantially add to the risks inhering in most litigation and would undercut the efforts of Congress to promote the vigorous enforcement of the provisions of Title VII.” The Court was concerned that victims of discrimination would be reluctant to come forward if they knew that they would be liable for potentially huge legal fees if they lost.

California Employment Cases

Of course, not all employment discrimination claims involve Title VII. California has its own standards on court cost issues for cases involving the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Unfortunately, these standards have not always been clear.

Section 1032 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states, “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” However, Government Code Section 12695 states that in FEHA cases, “the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party…reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.”

On May 5, 2015, the Supreme Court of California cleared up any confusion as to whether Sect. 12695 is an exception to Sect. 1032. In the case of Williams vs. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, the Court held that Sect. 12695 is an exception – and thus a prevailing defendant in a FEHA case should not automatically be awarded courts costs (or attorney’s fees).

The ruling states that the standard used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Christiansburg should apply to FEHA parties. In the words of the court:

“A prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily receive his or her costs and attorney fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. A prevailing defendant, however, should not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds that the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continues to litigate after it clearly became so.”

Concerned About Labor And Employment Cases Costs and Fees?

If you have any questions about the ruling, or about the prospect of paying your opposing parties’ court costs or attorney’s fees, you may wish to contact the Santa Rosa employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. You can call or email us today to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: California Labor Law Tagged With: attorney's fees, employment discrimination, Petaluma labor attorneys, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyers, Ukiah labor lawyers

Religious Discrimination Cases Precedent Set by Supreme Court

June 9, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Important religious discrimination cases precedent set by the Supreme Court. Employers across the country should take notice of a Supreme Court decision handed down on June 1. The ruling, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., sets an important precedent regarding religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Ruling

The case involves a Muslim woman who was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store. She was deemed to be qualified, but was rejected because she wears a headscarf. The Abercrombie & Fitch management felt the headscarf would be in violation of the store’s “Looks Policy,” which dictates what employees may and may not wear. After she was rejected, the applicant filed a claim against the store, alleging that they failed to accommodate her religious practice.

The applicant won at trial in District Court, but the District Court’s decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Court of Appeals ruled that because the woman did not inform the management of the store that she wears the headscarf for religious reasons – and thus management did not have “actual knowledge” of her need for religious accommodation – then management could not be liable for failing to accommodate her religious practices.

The Supreme Court disagreed. In a 7-2 opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court overturned the Tenth Circuit’s decision. The opinion points out that Title VII focuses on an employer’s motives in religious discrimination cases, rather than the employer’s knowledge. Thus, if an employer suspects that an employee will need religious accommodation, and discriminates against the employee for that reason, then the employer’s actions can be in violation of Title VII – even though the employer did not have “actual knowledge” that the employee required accommodation.

What This Ruling Means for Employers

Since the ruling was handed down, there has been a lot of commentary regarding whether an employer like Abercrombie & Fitch should be required to accommodate an employee’s desire to wear a headscarf. However, the Supreme Court’s decision did not have any effect on what kind of religious practices are protected under Title VII – or what types of employers are bound by Title VII.

The issue that the Court ruled on was whether a plaintiff claiming religious discrimination can prevail in a disparate treatment claim if the employer was never notified of the plaintiff’s need for accommodation. (A disparate treatment claim involves an allegation that someone was the victim of discrimination based on their membership in a protected class – such as their religion.)

In light of this ruling, if an employee claims that an employer discriminated against him or her out of a desire to avoid accommodating the employee’s religious practices, the employee will not have to prove that the employer knew for a fact that he or she needed accommodations. If you are an employer, and you are unsure whether you are meeting the legal requirements for providing religious accommodations for your employees, the Santa Rosa employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. can help. You can call or email our office today, and schedule a consultation.

Photo Credit: The Caze via Compfight cc

Filed Under: Religious Discrimination Tagged With: petaluma religious discrimination attorney, santa rosa religious discrimination attorney, Ukiah religious discrimination lawyer

Workers Compensation and OSHA Whistleblower Protection Laws

June 3, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Workers Compensation and OSHA whistleblower protection laws. A previous blog post detailed the Security and Exchange Commission’s efforts to assist workplace whistleblowers. It’s not just the federal government, however, that protects whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers. California has its own whistleblower laws – including a statute protecting employees who testify in workers’ compensation cases, and another statute protecting whistleblowers in cases involving Occupational Safety and Health.

Workers Compensation

Section 132a of the California Labor Code states it is the declared policy of California that there should not be discrimination against workers who are injured in the course and scope of their employment. It provides protection to employees against any employer who “discharges, threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against any employee because he or she has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim for compensation with his or her employer.”

Many California employers are aware of this prohibition on discriminating against employees who file claims, but are unaware that the law also protects employees who testify in workers’ compensation cases. The statute goes on to say:

“Any employer who discharges, or threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against an employee because the employee testified or made known his or her intentions to testify in another employee’s case before the appeals board, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and the employee shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer.”

The statute also prohibits insurers from encouraging employers to fire, or otherwise discriminate against, employees who are willing to testify in cases before the appeals board.

Occupational Safety and Health

Section 6310 of the California Labor Code states, “No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following:

1) Made any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative.

2) Instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to his or her rights or has testified or is about to testify in the proceeding or because the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself, herself, or others of any rights afforded him or her.

3) Participated in an occupational health and safety committee established pursuant to Section 6401.7.”

Under Section 6310, employees who have been subjected to this type of discrimination are entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of their employers.

Whistleblower Protection Laws and Legal Representation for Employers and Employees

If you believe that you have been subjected to discrimination based on your willingness to testify in a workers’ compensation case, or your willingness to make complaints about Occupational Safety and Health, you may wish to speak to a Santa Rosa whistleblower attorney about your rights. If you are an employer, and you want to ensure that you are in compliance with the above laws, you may also need legal advice. The labor attorneys at Beck Law P.C. employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. in Santa Rosa can give you the counsel you need. You can call or email our office today.

Filed Under: Whistleblower Retaliation Tagged With: petaluma whistleblower attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyer, santa rosa whistleblower retaliation attorney, ukiah whistleblower retaliation attorney

Is It Discriminatory to Fire an Employee for Substance Abuse?

May 20, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Is it discriminatory to fire an employee for substance abuse? Most employers and employees would probably agree that it’s reasonable to fire an employee for getting drunk on the job. But what about firing an employee because you learned that she belongs to Alcoholics Anonymous?

Under both the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the latter would be considered a form of employment discrimination. It is discriminatory to fire an employee (or subject an employee to any adverse employment action) because of the employee’s alcoholism and/or drug addiction. However – and this is a very important “however” – these statutes only apply if the employee is in recovery. They do not apply if the employee is currently abusing drugs and/or alcohol.

Past Substance Abuse vs. Current Substance Abuse

Generally speaking, these statutes prohibit employment discrimination that is based on an employee’s past substance abuse. This may sound simple and straightforward – but like so many aspects of the law, it can get rather complicated.

For example, can an employee be fired for legally using medical marijuana? What if an employee fails an employer’s drug test, and then applies for a position later? What if an employer finds out that an employee used drugs a few weeks ago – does that count as current substance abuse? Or could the employee argue that he’s now in recovery, and he was fired for his past substance abuse? These are the kinds of issues that federal courts, and California courts, have been trying to resolve for years.

Medical Marijuana: While California allows the use of medical marijuana, the language of the FEHA makes it clear that it does not prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of medical marijuana use. The ADA does not protect the use of medical marijuana, either.

Discrimination Based on Previous Failure of an Employer’s Drug Test: The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which includes California) ruled on this issue in the case of Lopez vs. Pacific Maritime Association. The case involved a man who applied for a job in 1997, and was given a drug test. He failed the test, and wasn’t hired. In 2004, after becoming sober, the man applied for a job with the same employer, and was rejected because of the drug test he failed in 1997. The employer had a “one strike” rule, meaning that it refused to hire anyone who had ever failed a company drug test.

The Court ruled that the employer was within its rights to reject the applicant. The ruling held that the discrimination was based on his failure of the drug test, not his drug addiction itself.

How recent “current” drug use can be: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has clarified that the ADA has no specific rule regarding how much time must elapse before an employee’s substance abuse can be considered “past” substance abuse. These matters must be decided on a case by case basis. However, substance abuse that has taken place less than a month ago is generally considered to be current.

Ensuring Compliance

If you are an employer, and you ask your employees if they have ever been treated for substance abuse, you may be violating both state and federal law. If you have any concerns that you may not be in full compliance with the ADA and the FEHA, you may wish to speak to an attorney. The employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C., in Santa Rosa, will be able to answer your questions. You can call or email our office today.

Filed Under: California Labor Law, Employee Rights Tagged With: Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Santa Rosa employment law attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Attorney

New Precedent for California No Rehire Clause – Golden vs. Cal. Emergency Physicians

May 14, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

New precedent for California no rehire clause – Golden vs. Cal. Emergency Physicians. It’s fairly well-known that the state of California doesn’t look kindly on non-compete provisions in employment contracts. Settlement agreements with “no rehire” provisions have not posed many problems for employers, however – until now. In a case that could have major consequences for California employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a “no rehire” clause can violate the same California law that prohibits non-compete provisions.

No Rehire Clause Decision

The decision, Golden vs. Cal. Emergency Physicians, was handed down in April 2015. It held that a settlement agreement’s provisions about re-hiring could be considered overly broad – and thus could be found to impermissibly restrain an employee’s professional practice, which is a violation of Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code.

What Happened in the Case?

The employee, David Golden, was a doctor employed by California Emergency Physicians Medical Group. He was terminated from his position, and then filed an employment discrimination suit. The parties eventually agreed to settle.

The settlement agreement contained a clause stating that he would waive any and all rights to be employed by CEP, or to be employed at any facility owned by CEP. The clause also stated that if Dr. Golden were to become employed at a facility unaffiliated with CEP, and then CEP bought or contracted with that facility, then Dr. Golden would be terminated without any liability.

Dr. Golden was unhappy with this clause, and refused to sign it. He argued that the clause violated Section 16600, which states that a contract “by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

When his case went to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the court ruled against Dr. Golden. The district court held that because the agreement didn’t prevent him from working for a competitor of CEP (or for a hospital or facility operated by someone other than CEP), then the agreement could not be considered a violation of Section 16600.

This decision, however, was overturned by the Ninth Circuit, which sent the case back to the district court. The Ninth Circuit held that the language of 16600 is broad, and should not be interpreted to apply only to non-compete clauses. The court, however, did not take a stance on whether the agreement actually violated Section 16600.

What Does This Case Mean For You?

If you are an employer in California, and you have signed no-rehire agreements with former employees, there’s no need to panic. The ruling does not prohibit no-rehire agreements altogether. But it does mean that some no-rehire agreements could conceivably be considered violations of Section 16600.

Before you sign any new settlement agreements, it may be wise to ensure that the language you use does not go overboard in restricting the employee’s rights. If you are concerned about the enforceability of your agreements, you may wish to speak to a lawyer. The employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C., in Santa Rosa, have a great deal of experience with employment contracts. You can call or email them today to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: California Employment Law, Employment Contract Tagged With: petaluma labor law attorney, Santa Rosa Labor Attorney, Santa Rosa labor law attorneys, ukiah labor law attorney

Department of Labor Policies on Same-Sex Spouses and the FMLA

May 5, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Santa Rosa labor and employment law attorney blog. Department of Labor policies on same-sex spouses and the FMLA. On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a final rule regarding the recognition of legally married same-sex couples under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It allows an eligible employee who has been legally married to a same-sex partner to use FMLA leave to care for their spouse – regardless of whether they live or work in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. If you run a business that operates in any states that do not currently recognize same-sex marriages, it is important that you take note of this change in policy.

The final rule, which went into effect on March 27, 2015, is based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States vs. Windsor. The Windsor ruling held that it was a violation of the Fifth Amendment to restrict the federal definition of marriage to include only heterosexual couples.

Prior to the Windsor ruling, employees who were covered by the FMLA were only able to take leave to care for their spouses if their marriage was recognized by the state in which they resided. As a result of the Final Rule, the current policy of the Department of Labor is based on the laws of the state in which the marriage was performed.

For example, let’s say a man was legally married to another man in California in 2014, and then he and his husband moved to Texas, where they both currently live and work. Under the old policy, if the man’s husband became ill, the man would be unable to take FMLA leave to care for him, because Texas does not currently recognize same-sex marriages. Under the new policy, the man would be eligible to take leave under the FMLA, because the laws of California (where same-sex marriages are currently recognized) would determine his eligibility, rather than the laws of Texas.

FMLA and the Rights of Same-Sex Spouses

The FMLA allows eligible employees to take 12 workweeks worth of leave during a 12-month period under the following circumstances:

The birth of a child, and caring for a child within one year of the child’s birth;
The placement of a child with the employee via adoption or foster care, and caring for a child within one year of the child’s placement;
Caring for a spouse, child, or parent with a serious health condition;
The employee having a serious health condition; or
Any qualifying exigency arising from an employee’s spouse, child or parent being a covered military member on active duty.

The FMLA also allows 26 workweeks worth of leave in a 12-month period if an employee’s spouse, parent or child is a servicemember with a serious injury or illness.

As a result of this final rule, eligible employees who are legally married to same-sex spouses will be allowed to take FMLA leave for any of the reasons above, regardless of which state they live in. These employees are also entitled to take FMLA leave to care for their spouses’ children.

Another result of the rule is that an employee will be able to take FMLA leave to care for a same-sex spouse of their parent.

Questions About Same-Sex Spouses and Employee Leave

If you have any questions about your company’s policies on same-sex spouses and family leave, you should seek the advice of an attorney. The Beck Law P.C. Santa Rosa labor and employment law attorneys can address your concerns. You can call or email us today.

Filed Under: Employee Rights, Employment Law Tagged With: Petaluma Labor Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Attorney

Workers’ Compensation Fraud for Employees Who Caused Their Accidents

April 27, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Workers’ Compensation fraud. A memorable scene from the television series Shameless featured William H. Macy’s character – who was desperate for money, but too lazy to work for a living – taking a job just so that he could intentionally injure himself with a staple gun, and collect workers’ compensation benefits. The scene reflects a fear held by many employers about employees taking advantage of the workers’ compensation system. It also reflects a fear held by some employees who are injured on the job – a fear that they’ll be accused of abusing the system in such a manner.

A No-Fault System

In California, workers’ compensation is a no-fault system. This means that an employee can be compensated for an injury resulting from a work accident, even if the accident was the fault of the employee.

For example, let’s say a factory worker is carrying a heavy object improperly, and as a result, the employee accidentally drops the object on his or her foot. If the worker’s employer has workers’ compensation insurance, the injury will be covered. It will be considered irrelevant that the employee was at fault for the accident.

But what if the injury wasn’t an accident at all? If the employee intentionally caused the injury, then the situation will be treated quite differently. In this case, the employee would not only be considered ineligible for workers’ compensation benefits – he or she would be guilty of workers’ compensation fraud.

California Laws Prohibiting Workers’ Compensation Fraud

Under Section 1871.4 of the California Insurance Code, it is unlawful to “make or cause to be made a knowingly false or fraudulent material statement or material misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining or denying any compensation.” This means that it is not only illegal for an employee to make a false statement in order to collect workers’ compensation – it is also illegal for an employer (or anyone else) to make a false statement in order to prevent someone from collecting workers’ compensation.

The California Penal Code also prohibits workers’ compensation fraud. Under Section 550, it is illegal to:

Knowingly make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent claims for payment of a health care benefit.
Knowingly submit a claim for a health care benefit that was not used by, or on behalf of, the client.
Knowingly present multiple claims for payment of the same health care benefit with the intent to defraud.
Knowingly present for payment any undercharges for health care benefits on behalf of a specific claimant – unless overcharges for the same client are present for reconciliation at the same time.

The Code specifically states that for the offenses described above, the term “health care benefit” includes workers’ compensation benefits.

If You Have Questions

As you can see, both employees and employers can face legal penalties if they are found to have committed workers’ compensation fraud. If you have any concerns about whether you are handling a workers’ compensation claim properly, you may wish to consult an attorney. If you are located in the Santa Rosa area, you can call or email the employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C., who can answer your legal questions.

Filed Under: Employee Rights Tagged With: Santa Rosa employment law attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyer