What Does The California Paid Sick Leave Law Do?

September 15, 2014 by

california flagWhat does the California paid sick leave law do? Our California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law recently the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, which mandates paid sick leave for California employees. According to the governor’s office, nearly 6.5 million people – 40% of California’s workforce  – had no paid sick leave benefits prior to the passage of this law.

California Paid Sick Leave Law

The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, which takes effect in July 2015, mandates the following in California:

  • part-time and full-time employees can receive up to 3 paid sick days per year; employers may allow more paid time off at their discretion
  • workers accrue 1 hour of paid sick time off for every 30 hours worked
  • workers may use accrued time after 90 days of employment
  • sick days may be used to care for an ill family member

The law does not apply to certain employees who are part of collective bargaining agreements, airline flight crews or in-home healthcare workers. Employers will be required to post signs in the workplace informing employees of paid sick leave laws. Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who request paid sick leave and face fines of up to $4,000 a day for refusing to allow employees to take paid sick time as allowed under the new law.

Paid Sick Leave Trending

San Francisco County has had mandatory paid sick leave in place since 2006. California is now the second state in the nation to pass paid sick leave laws. Connecticut enacted a paid sick leave law in 2011. Various localities such as the District of Columbia and New York City have also enacted laws mandating paid sick leave for certain employees. Approximately twenty other states have proposed legislation involving paid sick leave. There is no federal law guaranteeing paid sick leave for employees.

Not Without Controversy

While Governor Brown said of California’s new paid sick leave law, “Whether you’re a dishwasher in San Diego or a store clerk in Oakland, this bill frees you of having to choose between your family’s health and your job”, the law is not without its critics.

Business owners, especially small business owners, have expressed their concern over the additional costs that their businesses will have to bear once the new law goes into effect. California also recently increased the state’s minimum wage. Another increase in minimum wage is scheduled to take effect in January 2016.

Employers will also incur the administrative costs involved with keeping track of accrued paid sick leave, as well as the productivity costs involved with having workers call in sick.

Experienced Employment Attorneys

In light of the passage of the paid sick leave law in California, employers may consider updating their handbooks, trainings and other policies. Beck Law P.C. has years of experience advising employers on how to remain compliant with various laws, including wage and hour laws, paid time off and other issues. Please contact us to discuss your business’s needs.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law, Paid Sick Leave Tagged With: ,

How Long do I Have to Sue My Employer?

September 9, 2014 by

ContractHow Long do I Have to Sue My Employer? If your potential suit is in regards to a Fair Employment and Housing Act Violation, earlier this year, a California Court of Appeals released a decision regarding an employee’s claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  The decision is the first to address the issue of how long an employee has to file a claim, that length of time also known as the statute of limitations. (Non-FEHA claims: intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring)

Fair Employment and Housing Act

FEHA prevents discrimination in employment on the basis of a variety of reasons, including:

  • Age (over 40);
  • Race;
  • Marital status;
  • Gender; and
  • Sexual orientation.

FEHA also protects employees from retaliation for reporting discrimination in the workplace.  Employees may file private lawsuits under the FEHA, but they first must go to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing to exhaust their administrative remedies.  An employee has one year from the date of the discriminatory act to file a claim with the Department to seek what is referred to as a right to sue letter.

Employers Cannot Shorten the Time to Sue under the FEHA

The employee in the case, Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates et al., worked as a security guard for a company in Northern California and alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by a supervisor.  As the court’s decision details, Ms. Ellis reported unwanted sexual advances and unrealized promises to raise her rate of pay.  Ms. Ellis filed a claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and received a right to sue letter.  She then filed a lawsuit against her former employer.

The lower court dismissed Ms. Ellis’ claims because she had signed an employment agreement when she started working for the security company in which she agreed that she only had 6 months to bring any discrimination claims.  While parties to agreements sometimes do agree to shorten the statute of limitations, the practice is one that has been met with varying success throughout the country.  In this particular instance, the Court of Appeals determined that the provision in the contract shortening the statute of limitations was against public policy and it reversed the lower court’s decision.

The Court of Appeals’ decision on public policy was based on the premise that the FEHA is designed to protect employees against discrimination and retaliation in the workplace and provides remedies for employees who have experienced either.  The FEHA also requires employees to exhaust all administrative remedies.  An employee who follows the rules of the FEHA and exhausts all administrative remedies will likely not be able to sue within a shortened amount of time as allowed by an employment contract.  Therefore, if enforced, the 6-month time period that Ms. Ellis agreed to in her employment contract would have the result of not allowing Ms. Ellis to pursue her claims under the FEHA.  The court determined that this was against public policy and the purpose of the FEHA.

Contact Us for Legal Help

Do you feel you have been harassed or discriminated against at your place of employment? The labor and employment attorneys at Beck Law P.C. have experience litigating employment lawsuits, including sexual harassment and retaliation cases and can advise you on these types of matters.  Please contact us if online or by phone at 707-576-7175 to schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys.

Photo Credit: thinkpanama via Compfight cc

Filed Under: Blog, Employee Rights, Employment Law Tagged With: , , ,

Are Waistlines Rising Along With Increased Employee Payroll Taxes? Survey Says Yes!

October 19, 2013 by

Employee Payroll Tax PeanutsA survey by Harris Interactive for the American Institute of CPAs indicates that the 2013 increase in employee payroll taxes has created tremendous stress on employers and employees alike.  Of course it is obvious that paying more in payroll taxes means an employee takes less money home to their families; however, the stress of how to make ends meet is taking its toll in other ways as well:  particularly in employee health and relationships.

Many Americans are feeling tremendous financial stress in this economy and, accordingly, it is taking great toll on their waistlines, their sleep patterns and their friendships.  The Harris survey, conducted on behalf of the American Institute of CPAs asked “1,011 U.S. adults to name all the ways financial stress is affecting their lives. Of those who rated their financial stress as “very” or “somewhat high,” nearly half (47%) said they are sleeping less, while 43% said they have less patience with friends or are seeing them less often; and 31% are eating more junk food or gaining weight.”

The survey seems like it is confirming what most Americans are feeling, and comes as common sense.  Junk food is cheap.  Eating fresh fruits and vegetables is becoming more costly.  And, it appears there is less time to grow a garden, should one have a plot of ground in which to do so.  Americans are working harder and longer hours than ever before.  After a working mom picks up her kids from day care, at 6:00 at night, and it is near payday, she may have only $15 that has to stretch a few days – the solution she may choose – McDonalds, Taco Bell, or the like.  After doing homework and baths with the kids and getting them to sleep, does she have time to meet with friends? There would be no time for that. Finally, she could sleep a lot sounder if she had $200 to last until the next pay check, instead of $15.

AICPA National CPA Financial Literacy Commission chairman Ernie Almonte commented: “Mounting money pressures are making Americans cranky, tired and unhealthy. This can lead to a double whammy, with ensuing physical and emotional stress potentially leading to higher long-term costs. Americans must find ways to cope with money stress even when financial challenges seem daunting.”

Filed Under: Blog, California Labor Law Tagged With: , , ,

Small Businesses Risk $100 Per Day Obamacare Fine

October 3, 2013 by

CautionEven though many of us do not quite understand the rules of Obamacare, or what we will be offering our employees, it is no excuse according to the Department of Labor.  Small business owners who were led to believe that they could “ease” into the Obamacare transition in 2015,  and perhaps thought they had time to absorb the rules and guidelines, may be in for an expensive wake-up call next month.

$100 Per Day Obamacare Fine

Beginning Oct. 1, all businesses with at least one employee and $500,000 in annual revenue must notify all employees by letter about the Affordable Care Act’s health-care exchanges, or face up to a $100-per-day fine. The requirement applies to any business regulated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is mostly all businesses, regardless of size.

 In addition whenever you hire a new employee, you have 14 days in which to give them all the most current information regarding their healthcare options under the Affordable Care Act’s market exchanges, according to the Department of Labor, or penalties and fines will accrue.  In order to get the model notice that must be sent to all employees, visit the Department of Labor website and download the pdf.

Filed Under: Employment Law, News Tagged With: ,

Workplace Harassment or Just Playful Conversation?

August 29, 2013 by

Workplace Harassment

Q: I’m an employer of a local business, and recently there’s been a problem between several employees. One of the employees claims the others are sexually harassing her. I’m not sure the conduct qualifies as harassment, and it seems like just playful conversation. What should I do?

A: A claim of harassment by an employee should be taken very seriously by the employer, as harassment of any type, sexual, discriminatory or otherwise, continues to be a common problem in the workplace in California. The California Code of Regulations is helpful in identifying several different layers of sexual harassment, but these principles may also be applied to other types of harassment as well:

  1. Where submission to harassment is a condition of employment;
  2. Where the choice to submit or not affects employment decisions;
  3. When the purpose or effect of the conduct alleged as harassment unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance;
  4. When the purpose or effect of the conduct alleged as harassment unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance; or
  5. When the conduct alleged to be harassment creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Fair Employment and Housing Act

2 Cal Code Regs §§7287.6(b), 7291.1(f)(1). These categories set the prohibitions on the variety of conduct by employers and co-employees. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California law defines two types of methods to prove sexual harassment in the workplace: conduct which establishes a quid pro quo, and conduct creating a hostile work environment. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 11.

Sexual Favoritism

Does your employee contend that the harassment is a result of some quid pro quo arrangement with another employee or manager? The California Supreme Court defined such quid pro quo harassment as conduct that leads to “sexual favoritism”, including the award of job benefits or bonuses if the employee submits to sexual advances. Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 461-462. However, this also incorporates the converse, such as a manager threatening to demote or take punitive action against an employee should they not submit to sexual advances or conduct requested, expressly or impliedly.

Your employee may also be referencing a claim of a hostile work environment. The California Supreme Court has also set forth the standards in Lyle in relation to what constitutes a hostile work environment sufficient to create harassment:

Under Title VII, a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim requires a plaintiff employee to show she was subjected to sexual advances, conduct, or comments that were (1) unwelcome (see Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at p. 68, 106 S.Ct. 2399); (2) because of sex (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 75, 80-81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (Oncale)); and (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work environment (id. at p. 81, 118 S.Ct. 998; Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at p. 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399). In addition, she must establish the offending conduct was imputable to her employer. (Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at pp. 69-73, 106 S.Ct. 2399.)

Lyle, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d at 12. Whenever an employee performs any type of investigation prompted by a claim of harassment, these three elements are necessary and essential questions to ask and conclusions to determine before taking any action. It may very well be that such “harassment” is in fact nothing more than workplace conversation which the employee has taken out of context, for the mere discussion of sex or vulgar, sexual language is generally insufficient to show the harassment was “because of sex”; the conduct must involve some treatment to the employee on the basis of sex itself.

In either sense, every employer should take a claim of harassment seriously. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law, Employment Law, Labor Law, News, Workplace Harassment Tagged With: , , , , ,

Employer Retaliation

July 25, 2013 by

Employer RetaliationQ: I have a question about employer retaliation. I’ve worked at the same company for years.  Recently there was a problem on a job site where safety precautions weren’t implemented correctly by management, and someone was hurt.  I made my supervisor aware of the problem, but he said if I want to keep my job, I should simply let management worry about those problems, and go about my day.  What should I do?  Can my employer really get rid of me for telling them about that?

California Employer Retaliation Protections

A: California law is designed to protect employees from employer retaliation for raising issues which either violate legal statutes, rules, or other improprieties at the workplace.  For example, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA, California Labor Code §§6300-6718) provides for protections to employees who make complaints or notifications regarding the safety conditions of the workplace or job site.  Such employees who make complaints, regardless of whether written or oral, to the employer or to a government agency, cannot be subject to discharge, reprimand, or adverse action by the employer because of those complaints.  Taylor v Lockheed Martin Corp (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 472, 485.

How serious does your complaint need to be?  Generally, the complaint to the employer or to the administrative body need only be reasonable.  In other words, even if an employee makes a complaint about safety code violations, but the employer’s conduct otherwise complied with the relevant rules, they are still protected from any adverse action as long as the employee held a reasonable belief of the violation.

What does an employee do if an employer does take such adverse action against them for making those complaints?  An employee may file an administrative complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Office of the Labor Commissioner.  California Labor Code §98.7.  The complaint must cite the issues raised by the employee, the adverse action taken by the employer in retaliation, and must generally be filed within six (6) months of the action by the employer in question.  If the Labor Commissioner should find a violation of any law, rule or regulation, the Commissioner will order the appropriate remedies for the employee, including “rehiring or reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and interest thereon, payment of reasonable attorney’s fees associated with any hearing held by the Labor Commissioner in investigating the complaint, and the posting of notices to employees.”  Section 98.7(b).  It is possible the employee may not be required to exhaust this administrative remedy before proceeding to file a civil lawsuit against the employer should they choose to do so.  Daly v Exxon Corporation (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 39, 46.  Even so, filing an administrative complaint with the Labor Commissioner is generally less costly than a civil lawsuit, and the employee might consider that remedy first, in order to see if the administrative body can resolve the problem.

Your complaints about workplace hazards and safety, however, are not the only category of complaints protected under California law.  Employers may not retaliate against employees for refusing to perform any acts which the employee reasonably believes would result in a violation of the rules of law.  Section 2856; Tameny v Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 174 fn8.  While this would encompass safety violations, the provision is also broad enough to encompass administrative violations, crimes, or other conduct which would otherwise violate the rules of any state or local law.  In fact, Section 98.6 provides that employers may not take any retaliation against employees for exercising their rights under the Labor Code, and that doing so may entitle the employee various remedies such as reinstatement, reimbursement for back wages, and possible criminal penalties.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law, News Tagged With: , ,

California Labor and Employment Law Update – Human Trafficking

June 17, 2013 by

California State FlagAs taxpayers around the country scramble to meet the April 15th tax deadline, a California labor and employment law deadline has already come and gone.

Governor Brown back in September of 2012 signed into law SB 1193 which adds section 52.6 to the Civil Code relating to human trafficking. SB 1193 requires specified businesses to post an 8.5″ x 11″ notice, on or before April 1, 2013, that contains information about organizations that provide services to eliminate slavery and human trafficking. The Department of Justice will develop a model notice that complies with the requirements of SB 1193 and make the model notice available. This notice will also be made available on HRCalifornia after the Department of Justice has created it.

Here is a summary of the Public Notice Requirements

The following is a summary of the requirements set forth by Senate Bill 1193. This summary is not a regulation as defined by the California Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code § 11340.5) and does not constitute an agency interpretation of Civil Code § 52.6.

1. Who Must Post a Public Notice

Civil Code § 52.6 mandates that the following businesses post the notice:

  1. On-sale general public premises licensees under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code).
  2. Adult or sexually oriented businesses, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 318.5 of the Penal Code.
  3. Primary airports, as defined in Section 47102(16) of Title 49 of the United States Code.
  4. Intercity passenger rail or light rail stations.
  5. Bus stations.
  6. Truck stops. For purposes of this section, “truck stop” means a privately owned and operated facility that provides food, fuel, shower or other sanitary facilities, and lawful overnight truck parking.
  7. Emergency rooms within general acute care hospitals.
  8. Urgent care centers.
  9. Farm labor contractors, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682 of the Labor Code.
  10. Privately operated job recruitment centers.
  11. Roadside rest areas.
  12. Businesses or establishments that offer massage or bodywork services for compensation and are not described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the Business and Professions Code.

2. Where Must the Public Notice Be Posted

Civil Code § 52.6 requires that a specified business or other establishment must post the notice in a conspicuous place near the public entrance of the establishment or in another conspicuous location in clear view of the public and employees where similar notices are customarily posted.

3. What the Public Notice Must Say

Civil Code § 52.6 requires that the public notice to be posted must be at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches and written in size 16 font. Additionally, the public notice must state:

“If you or someone you know is being forced to engage in any activity and cannot leave — whether it is commercial sex, housework, farm work, construction, factory, retail, or restaurant work, or any other activity — call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center at 1-888-373-7888 or the California Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST) at 1-888-KEY-2-FRE(EDOM) or 1-888-539-2373 to access help and services. Victims of slavery and human trafficking are protected under United States and California law.

The hotlines are:

  • Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  • Toll-free.
  • Operated by nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.
  • Anonymous and confidential.
  • Accessible in more than 160 languages.
  • Able to provide help, referral to services, training, and general information.”

4. What Languages the Public Notices Must Contain

The specified businesses and other establishments must post the notice in English, Spanish, and in one other language that is the most widely spoken language in the business or establishment’s location (and for which translation is mandated by the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, et seq.). For those counties where a language other than English or Spanish is the most widely spoken language, Civil Code § 52.6 does not require the public notice to be printed in the non-English and non-Spanish language.

5. The Attorney General’s Model Public Notice

The Attorney General of California has developed a “model notice” available for download on the California Department of Justice’s Internet website as of March 27, 2013. The model notice is available in English and Spanish. The Attorney General has also provided a list of counties in which a third language other than English and Spanish is the most widely spoken language.

6. Liability and Penalty for Failing to Post the Public Notice

Civil Code § 52.6(e) creates civil liability for a business or establishment that fails to comply with the posting requirement. The penalty for violating this law is $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

If you have any questions on the Human Trafficking posting, please contact the California Attorney General’s Office, Victims’ Services Unit.

Filed Under: Employment Law, News Tagged With:

Human Trafficking Notice Posting Required of Certain Businesses

June 15, 2013 by

Liquor Store Human Trafficking NoticeA human trafficking notice must be posted at bus stations, truck stops and several other types of businesses.

SB 1193 requires specified businesses to post an 8.5″ x 11″ notice, on or before April 1, 2013, that contains information about organizations that provide services to eliminate slavery and human trafficking. The Department of Justice will develop a model notice that complies with the requirements of SB 1193 and make the model notice available. This notice will also be made available on HRCalifornia after the Department of Justice has created it.

 Summary of Human Trafficking Notice Requirements

The following is a summary of the requirements set forth by Senate Bill 1193. This summary is not a regulation as defined by the California Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code § 11340.5) and does not constitute an agency interpretation of Civil Code § 52.6.

1. Who Must Post a Public Notice

Civil Code § 52.6 mandates that the following businesses post the notice:

  1. On-sale general public premises licensees under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code).
  2. Adult or sexually oriented businesses, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 318.5 of the Penal Code.
  3. Primary airports, as defined in Section 47102(16) of Title 49 of the United States Code.
  4. Intercity passenger rail or light rail stations
  5. Bus stations.
  6. Truck stops. For purposes of this section, “truck stop” means a privately owned and operated facility that provides food, fuel, shower or other sanitary facilities, and lawful overnight truck parking.
  7. Emergency rooms within general acute care hospitals.
  8. Urgent care centers.
  9. Farm labor contractors, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682 of the Labor Code.
  10. Privately operated job recruitment centers.
  11. Roadside rest areas.
  12. Businesses or establishments that offer massage or bodywork services for compensation and are not described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the Business and Professions Code.

2. Where Must the Public Notice Be Posted

Civil Code § 52.6 requires that a specified business or other establishment must post the notice in a conspicuous place near the public entrance of the establishment or in another conspicuous location in clear view of the public and employees where similar notices are customarily posted.

3. What the Public Notice Must Say

Civil Code § 52.6 requires that the public notice to be posted must be at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches and written in size 16 font. Additionally, the public notice must state:

“If you or someone you know is being forced to engage in any activity and cannot leave — whether it is commercial sex, housework, farm work, construction, factory, retail, or restaurant work, or any other activity — call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center at 1-888-373-7888 or the California Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST) at 1-888-KEY-2-FRE(EDOM) or 1-888-539-2373 to access help and services. Victims of slavery and human trafficking are protected under United States and California law.

The hotlines are:

  • Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  • Toll-free.
  • Operated by nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.
  • Anonymous and confidential.
  • Accessible in more than 160 languages.
  • Able to provide help, referral to services, training, and general information.”

4. What Languages the Public Notices Must Contain

The specified businesses and other establishments must post the notice in English, Spanish, and in one other language that is the most widely spoken language in the business or establishment’s location (and for which translation is mandated by the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, et seq.). For those counties where a language other than English or Spanish is the most widely spoken language, Civil Code § 52.6 does not require the public notice to be printed in the non-English and non-Spanish language.

5. The Attorney General’s Model Public Notice

The Attorney General of California has developed a “model notice” available for download on the California Department of Justice’s Internet website as of March 27, 2013. The model notice is available in English and Spanish. The Attorney General has also provided a list of counties in which a third language other than English and Spanish is the most widely spoken language.

6. Liability and Penalty for Failing to Post the Public Notice

Civil Code § 52.6(e) creates civil liability for a business or establishment that fails to comply with the posting requirement. The penalty for violating this law is $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

If you have any questions on the Human Trafficking posting, please contact the California Attorney General’s Office, Victims’ Services Unit.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law, Human Trafficking, Labor Law Tagged With:

Sexual Harassment on the “Big Bang” Theory

June 13, 2013 by

WHAT EMPLOYERS NEED TO KNOWSexual Harassment and the big bang theory

“The whole universe is in a hot dense state . . .” well, in regard to sexual harassment in the work place, yes, it is.  Employers often find sexual harassment lawsuits as quite a surprise, or as the labor lawyers at Beck Law call it, a very expensive “Big Bang.”

Sexual Harassment In The Workplace Today

A recent episode of The Big Bang Theory on  CBS  shows us the realities and confusion of the human experience in conjunction with current laws regarding what is considered sexual harassment in the workplace today.

Take it from Sheldon Cooper, who tries to counsel an employee by showing her photos of venereal diseases and  telling her “Your ovaries are squirting so much goofy juice into your brain you don’t know which way is up.”

Sheldon believes he is being completely professional here.  Sheldon understands science, not social nuances.  Employers must take heed of Sheldon’s fumbling and carefully train supervisors with in depth role playing to ensure that they fully understand what actions are permissible in the workplace.

To make matters worse, because he is Sheldon, he tells his HR manager that she is “brown sugar . . . a slave to her biological urges” and called her “an egg salad sandwich.”

The episode demonstrates that although an employee’s intentions can be very innocent and honest, and meant to provide positive re-enforcement, it does not necessarily matter what the employee/ supervisor meant to say, or what their intentions were. What matters is how the receiver of the information perceived what was said. An employer must perform due diligence training of supervisors and employees to ensure that they deliver the correct message, in the correct tone and manner.

Employees, like Sheldon Cooper, may be totally unaware of what they are saying and how they are affecting those around them.

The difficulty here lies in social nuance. The skill is in the delivery of the message, rather than the intent, although one would never show web photos of venereal diseases under any circumstances to a fellow employee, this is just for TV.  Clearly, Sheldon’s intent is not malicious, the effect is.

Language training in the workplace, so that employees deliver the correct message is complex for an employer and a supervisor to grasp:  it is more about the meaning behind the words, and not always the words themselves (although with Sheldon the words were clearly wrong as well).

Employers need to keep abreast in knowing the current legalities of what to say and what not to say in the workplace. It is about what the law determines to be appropriate, yet not all persons understand how to behave, nor is it necessarily in their nature to grasp the meaning of what the laws dictate, even when they try to behave with well intentions to all employees.

Any time a harassment complaint is filed, the employer is legally obligated to investigate and reconcile the issue. Some situations require that the employee no longer works in close proximity to others until an independent outside investigation is performed, and sometimes employees must be terminated. There are many factors to consider when handling a sexual harassment complaint as an employer. Legal counsel and independent investigations are provided by the attorneys at Beck Law PC regarding sexual harassment in the workplace.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law, Employment Law, Labor Law Tagged With: ,

My Facebook is my Personal Life and no Business of my Employer

May 16, 2013 by

facebook iconCalifornia Assembly Bill AB 1844 (Employer Use of Social Media) prohibits employers from requesting employees or job applicants to provide user names or passwords for personal social media accounts, such as Facebook. California law limits exceptions, including an exception relating to employer investigations.

Employer Use of Social Media

California’s AB 1844 does not allow employers to require an applicant or employee to provide logon information to access their social media websites in the employer’s presence.  However, in addition, it may be a future requirement that employers may not be able to request that they be a “friend” to an employee or potential applicant, thereby giving the employer no access to information that is otherwise available through the interview process.

The current law does not prohibit employers from researching the background of potential applicants; however, should employers look into the history of an applicant, under no circumstances should that information be a deciding factor in not hiring an applicant, and online information cannot be used as a reason to not hire a potential employee.

Employer Should Be Cautious

What this means is:  employers should be cautious in conducting online searches of employees and potential applicants because such searches often uncover information that employers cannot lawfully use to make hiring decisions.  Employers still have the right to hire who they choose, but the decision making process  must be thoughtful and based upon the employee’s or applicant’s job experience, talent, attitude, willingness to do the job, etc., and not based upon information from Facebook such as:  beer pong pictures, fraternity comments, family dynamics, religious beliefs, etc.

Suggested at this point would be to conduct multiple interviews and thoroughly question applicants regarding their job experience and willingness to be a team member to your business.  Also recommended is calling all references and using intuition as a source of guidance.  Further recommended is having several key management persons take notes while conducting multiple interviews, providing insight that is cumulative to the decision making process.

Further, after the decision to hire a new applicant has been made, it’s suggested that letters be sent to all interviewees explaining why they were not chosen for the job:  for example:  the applicant did not meet the skill set that was required;  or, the applicant did not meet the current needs for the position at hand. [Read more…]

Filed Under: News, Social Media Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Disclaimer

The information on this website should not be considered to be legal advice, nor construed to be the formation of any manner of attorney client relationship. Prior to taking any form of legal action, please consult with an attorney experienced in the appropriate area of law germane to your situation. Case results and testimonials presented on www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net or any of its related websites are germane to the facts present for each individual case and is not a promise of similar outcomes for any other cases. This website is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California.