Awarding Court Costs and Labor Attorney Fees in Employment Discrimination Cases

June 11, 2015 by

labor attorney feesClients 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: , , , ,

Religious Discrimination Cases Precedent Set by Supreme Court

June 9, 2015 by

Abercrombie & FitchImportant 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: , ,

Workers Compensation and OSHA Whistleblower Protection Laws

June 3, 2015 by

whistleblower protection lawsWorkers 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: , , , ,

Is It Discriminatory to Fire an Employee for Substance Abuse?

May 20, 2015 by

fire and employee for substance abuseIs 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: , , ,

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

May 14, 2015 by

No Rehire Clause,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: , , ,

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

May 5, 2015 by

same-sex spousesSanta 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: , , ,

Workers’ Compensation Fraud for Employees Who Caused Their Accidents

April 27, 2015 by

workers' compensation fraudWorkers’ 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: ,

Whistleblowers and Employer Retaliation

April 22, 2015 by

whistleblowers and employer retaliation, employer retaliation lawyerWhistleblowers and employer retaliation. Due to the expansion of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s watchful eye, and the lucrative rewards program offered to employees who come forward (10% to 30% of the money it collects) lawsuits involving retaliation and whistleblowing are on the rise.

Employers need to be aware that employees are encouraged to visit the SEC’s website to report claims whenever they believe their employer is failing to comply with SEC guidelines. See the excerpt below taken directly from the website:

Welcome to the Office of the Whistleblower

Assistance and information from a whistleblower who knows of possible securities law violations can be among the most powerful weapons in the law enforcement arsenal of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Through their knowledge of the circumstances and individuals involved, whistleblowers can help the Commission identify possible fraud and other violations much earlier than might otherwise have been possible. That allows the Commission to minimize the harm to investors, better preserve the integrity of the United States’ capital markets, and more swiftly hold accountable those responsible for unlawful conduct.

The Commission is authorized by Congress to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement action in which over $1,000,000 in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected.

Sean McKessy
Chief, Office of the Whistleblower

Recently, a part time employee received a substantial reward for retaliation after reporting that JC Penney was overcharging customers by collecting sales tax on non-taxable purchases.

The law is clear that whistleblowers are protected and cannot be fired for turning in a claim. Here are more recent examples:

  • 2.2 billion, Johnson and Johnson, employees take a percentage in Risperdal whistleblower lawsuit
  • 38 million, Extendicare Health Services, employees take percentage in fraud whistleblower lawsuit
  • Chicago University, 3 million dollar award to employee wrongfully fired for whistleblowing
  • 525 million, Trinity Industries, Inc., employees take percentage in fraud whistleblower lawsuit
  • Playboy Enterprises, 6 million dollar award to employee fired for whistleblowing retaliation

For small businesses, complying with the SEC rules and guidelines is imperative.

Additionally, a disgruntled employee may turn you into the SEC when you may have not violated any regulations which would create increased work for your company during the SEC investigation, which could take away from your profit margin with considerable time, energy and expense on your part to defend the claim.

What we suggest moving forward:

  • Review work protocol to insure SEC regulations are met and sustained;
  • Encourage employees to come forward with their concerns and attempt remediation;
  • Work toward a happy, open work place culture;
  • Reward employees for their loyal service;
  • Periodically meet one-on-one with supervisors to encourage communication; discuss the “talk” around the workplace to get a “heads up” on staff morale, being ever mindful of disgruntled employees;
  • Try to work with employees to encourage constructive improvements in their work rather than fire them;
  • Provide periodic training to supervisors to avoid any conduct that may appear to be retaliatory;
  • Review and revise Employee handbooks with strong SEC compliance policies and codes of conduct;
  • Make sure SEC compliance is mandatory at all levels of your business/work model.
Filed Under: Whistleblower Retaliation Tagged With: , ,

I’m Being Retaliated Against at Work But How Can I Prove It?

April 17, 2015 by

retaliated against at workI’m being retaliated against at work but how can I prove it? As the definition of “protected conduct” in the workplace broadens, the number of employer retaliation lawsuits have increased exponentially. In turn, companies have found clever ways to get rid of employees who have reported them to authorities for protected class violations at work.

If you feel you are being retaliated against at work for protected conduct then you very well may be.

What is protected conduct?

Protected conduct is described by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Basically, there are provisions covered in the EEOC statutes that make it unlawful for an employer/entity to take action against an employee who complains (implicitly or explicitly) about discrimination in the workplace. Areas of protected conduct include employees’ rights to: religious preference, gender identification, race, age, disability, military status, freedom of speech and protest, equal pay, harassment and protection for rape victims.

Here are some examples of complaints/actions that an employer may not retaliate against: 

  1. A threat from a 56 year old employee to file a complaint against alleged age discrimination because of demotion
  2. A female employee who complains that her male co-worker is making more money performing the same job
  3. Employees who picket the workplace
  4. Employees who slow production as a form of protesting unfair labor practices
  5. An employee who suddenly comes to work wearing a hijab
  6. Complaints about graffiti in the workplace that are derogatory to women
  7. A concerned employee who complains that her supervisor is making fun of the receptionist in a wheelchair
  8. An employee who refuses to obey an order that they believe is discriminatory
  9. An employee who requests reasonable religious accommodation to take a half day off for Good Friday

There are various tactics that employers can use that may violate retaliation laws, some subtle and some not, that may be intended to coerce you into quitting your job. Be aware that retaliatory tactics can and often include what psychologists call the “outcast effect” that is best described when co-workers socially align with the “in crowd”. You will know this is happening when your friends at work shun you and label you as socially undesirable. Basically, the entire workforce may turn against you in a big way and it can be cruel.

 This Forbes Magazine article clearly describes just how miserable co-workers and supervisors can make an employee feel who reports protected conduct to authorities.

I’m Being Retaliated Against at Work

Social isolation does not stand on its own as a case for retaliation. It is only one cog in the wheel of a divisive harassment campaign that companies may use against you. A typical retaliation campaign might include, along with social isolation, poor performance reviews, petty reprimands, cuts in duties and pay, unequal treatment between complaining and non-complaining employees, hostility, being moved from a bright office to a dull cubicle, loss of responsibilities and increased work load meant to make you fail.

What must an employee go through to prove a workplace retaliation claim?

Employees must provide evidence:

  • that they engaged in protected conduct;
  • that they suffered a tangible, adverse employment action; and that there is a causal connection between their protected conduct and the adverse action.
  • that there is a causal connection between their protected conduct and the adverse action.

Further, employees must prove causation by providing incidents, documents, witnesses and dates, with tangible evidence of:

  1. unfair treatment between employees;
  2. the timing between the adverse actions and the protected conduct (courts expect employers to retaliate quickly);
  3. lack of a formal investigation into the employee’s complaint;
  4. petty or vague reasons for reprimands, demotions, loss of status or duties;
  5. a documented timeline of systematic company harassment after the time of the protected conduct.

If you feel you are being retaliated against at work and think you need assistance in proving causation please contact us at our Beck Law P.C. Santa Rosa Labor and Employment Law office so that we can discuss the circumstances of your situation.

Filed Under: Workplace Retaliation Tagged With: , ,

Understanding Workplace Age Discrimination Laws

April 8, 2015 by

workplace age discrimination lawsUnderstanding workplace age discrimination laws. Age discrimination occurs when a person is treated differently, or denied a benefit, right or service because of their actual or perceived age. Age discrimination is more subtle than other forms of discrimination, but can be just as pervasive in a workplace.

Workplace Age Discrimination Laws

Both federal and California state laws provide specific prohibitions against age discrimination in the workplace. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against all persons 40 years or older. The ADEA is applicable to employers with 20 or more employees, and this includes labor organizations, employment agencies and also state and local governments. This law prohibits unfavorable treatment against those who are 40 years or older, though it is not illegal for employers to favor an older employee over a younger employer, even when both workers are over the age of 40. Furthermore, age discrimination can be conducted by a person who is also over the age of 40.

The ADEA prohibits age discrimination from occurring during any part of the employment process, which includes firing, hiring, job assignments, training, promotions, layoffs, benefit payouts, and for any other condition or term of employment. Harassment is also prohibited by the ADEA. Harassment can take an assortment of forms and can include offensive remarks about an employee’s age and ability to perform job functions as the result of their age. Furthermore, an employment practice/policy that has general applicability to all employees, regardless of their age, can still be found illegal under the ADEA if that practice/policy is not based on a reasonable factor other than age, and has a negative impact on employees 40 years of age or older.

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides specific prohibitions against discrimination in California workplaces. The FEHA applies to all employers with five or more employees, and this includes government bodies, labor organizations, apprenticeship programs, employment agencies and private employers. Under the FEHA, there is an exception to the five-employee minimum when harassment has occurred in the workplace. Under this exception, all employers with one or more persons, or those receiving the services of at least one independent contractor, are subject to the FEHA’s prohibition against workplace harassment. This exception also allows individual co-workers who are harassing other employees to be held strictly liable for their actions.

Both the ADEA and the FEHA provide employees with a cause of action to file suit against their employers because of workplace age discrimination laws. However, state administrative remedies provided under the FEHA must first be exhausted before a civil action is pursued under the ADEA. In order to pursue age discrimination suit under federal law, the age discrimination suit must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the alleged discrimination, or within 30 days after the EEOC receives notice from the California’s Department of Employment & Housing (DFEH) that they will not pursuing the age discrimination claim.

Age discrimination in the workplace is a very important issue that is prohibited by both state and federal laws. If you work in Sonoma County, Mendocino County, or Lake County California and feel that your employer is in violation of workplace age discrimination laws, contact the employment law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. in California today.

Filed Under: Age Discrimination, California Labor Law 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.