Wrongful Death Lawsuit Related to Coronavirus Plagues Safeway

August 27, 2020 by

wrongful death lawsuitWrongful death lawsuit filed against Safeway. Pedro Zuniga was one of 51 employees who contracted COVID-19 while working in a Tracy, California Safeway warehouse in April 2020. After over two decades of employment there, he succumbed to complications of the disease on April 13. He was just 52 years old. His widow has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Safeway, alleging that her husband would not have died had the company adhered to federal and state safety guidelines and enacted common-sense policies. Instead, the suit claims, Safeway focused on company profits at the expense of employee safety and health. 

Precarious Conditions Alleged 

According to the wrongful death lawsuit, warehouse employees were beginning to exhibit symptoms of COVID-19 in the spring of 2020. Nonetheless, the company did nothing to address the situation: 

  • No personal protective equipment was issued to employees;
  • Signage in the warehouse actually discouraged the wearing of PPE in March;
  • Social distancing was never attempted and workers were obligated to work in close contact with one another;
  • Employees were “deterred” by managers from calling in sick;
  • Workers who experienced symptoms and expressed concerns about working were threatened with the loss of “points,” which could ultimately result in termination.

In fact, the company made efforts to conceal the warehouse outbreak, which affected at least 3% of the 1,700 employees.   

Zuniga’s Situation 

Mr. Zuniga tested positive for coronavirus on April 1, and was hospitalized shortly thereafter with pneumonia, a serious cough, fever, and trembling. In a matter of hours, he was put into an induced coma in the ICU, only to die days later of cardiopulmonary arrest and respiratory failure. 

Safeway Wakes Up 

After Zuniga perished, Safeway apparently woke up to the seriousness of the situation and began to enact appropriate protective measures at the warehouse. Employees began to have their temperatures checked prior to entering the warehouse in Tracy in an attempt to prevent symptomatic employees from spreading the disease. While it is a step in the right direction for current employees, the change in approach does nothing for Zuniga and his widow, children, and grandchildren.   

CDC Guidelines 

The Centers for Disease Control have a number of guidelines for the workplace, including making workplace hazard assessments, conducting health evaluations on a daily basis, encouraging mask wearing, improving ventilation systems, and implementing social distancing protocols.  Furthermore, disinfection strategies should be employed in common areas, and employees should be reminded of appropriate hygiene practices.  Essentially, workers who feel ill should stay home.  [Read more…]

Filed Under: California Labor Law, News, Wrongful Death Tagged With: , ,

Sex Discrimination on the Job

August 20, 2020 by

sex discriminationSex discrimination is a pervasive problem in America. Over 40% of female workers indicate that they have experienced on-the-job discrimination due to their gender. This discrimination occurs regardless of experience, education, or age. Bias and discrimination in the workplace occur in a number of ways, and include a range of unacceptable behaviors, such as: 

  • Lesser earnings than male counterparts for essentially the same work;
  • Being treated as incompetent;
  • Being subjected to seemingly insignificant slights on a regular basis;
  • Getting less support from superiors;
  • Being overlooked when it came to promotions or projects;
  • Being denied job positions all together.

Consider the case of a California woman who attempted to make telecommuting  work, only to experience sex discrimination from her employer: 

When Drisana Wallace was let go from her position as an account executive at the insurance firm HUB due to a reduction in staff, she suspected the company was playing fast and fancy with the facts. She quickly filed a lawsuit against the company detailing her experience and claiming bias and sex discrimination were the real reasons behind her termination. 

Pandemic Accommodations 

Due to the pandemic, Wallace was allowed to perform duties from her home in San Diego.  According to her claim, her supervisor, Daniel Kabban, had a number of complaints about her job performance. In particular, Kabban did not appreciate the fact that Wallace was caring for two young children at home while working, one of whom was still nursing. Despite her best efforts to manage all of the demands of her busy schedule, including working at night when the children were asleep, Wallace fielded complaints from her employer that sometimes her children could be heard in the background on phone calls. Wallace contacted human resources in an attempt to get direction on how to deal with the situation, and was advised that the company anticipated that their managers would deal with situations with more flexibility. She felt better, but not for long.

According to Wallace, Kabban continued to schedule calls for her during times when her children were active, making it impossible to keep them from being heard. Sometimes he assigned her tasks that were on an expedited turnaround schedule, and he was displeased when she was unavailable to accept them. Wallace accuses Kabban of repeated sexist comments, and asserts that fathers who worked from home were not held to the same standard that she was.

When she contacted HR again, she was laid off. She believes the company is hiding behind the pandemic to justify getting rid of an employee who required some basic scheduling accommodations that any man would have been granted without a second thought.  [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Sexual Discrimination Tagged With: , ,

Big Win for LGBTQ Workers

June 24, 2020 by

lgbtq workersLGBT workers win big just days since the Trump administration put forth regulations denying health care benefits for Transgender Americans, literally denying the civil rights for patients who seek medical services. In a major contrast to the Administration’s view, however, the Supreme Court ruled that LGBTQ workers should be afforded the same protections as every other American. 

Discrimination on the Basis of “Sex” 

At issue is the meaning of the word “sex” in discussions of discrimination. Under the Obama administration, provisions related to sex discrimination included issues related to gender identification. The current administration however, believed that the legal reality separated transgender people from others in terms of discrimination rules. That gave doctors the right to refuse to treat transgender people if they choose. 

The LGBTQ Workers Supreme Court Ruling 

It appears that the Trump Administration came into direct conflict with a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed federal laws stating that government must fully protect transgender individuals from discrimination. In a 6-3 vote, the court stated that employers cannot fire workers simply because they are homosexual or transgender. The ruling was embedded in the 1964 statute—Title VII of the Civil Rights Act–barring discrimination on the basis of several factors, one of which is sex.  Conservative voices have contended that the law was written without  transgender people in mind decades ago.  However, as Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority decision, “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discrimination based on sex.”  The landmark decision will provide a safety net for LGBTQ workers and individuals across the country, especially since only about half of states have protections for these individuals on the books. Notably, President Trump agreed to bend to the new ruling, stating that the court is very powerful, and the findings must be adhered to. 

California Law 

In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) has protected the rights of Californian LGBTQ workers from employer discrimination for years. Gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual individuals may not be discriminated against when it comes to job applications and interviews, hiring, compensation, promotions, firing, working conditions, and opportunities in the workplace. In the event discrimination does occur, courts may rule that companies may be on the hook to address a number of issues, including: 

  • Past and future earnings;
  • Attorney’s fees;
  • Emotional distress;
  • Punitive damages;
  • Changes in company policies;
  • Training to address discrimination issues.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Employment Discrimination Tagged With: , , ,

Sex Bias in Employee Performance Evaluations?

June 18, 2020 by

sex biasThe sex bias referred to in this article may actually surprise you. Sometimes it is difficult to know precisely what is expected in the workplace. You would think that performance evaluations are generally a good indicator of just how well you are performing.  Unless they are not. 

The Sex Bias Study

Researchers studied supervisor responses to essays written by an unknown author. They then were asked to judge the writing on several criteria, with essays appearing to have been written by either Sarah or Andrew. When supervisors assumed the work was done by a female, truthful remarks were rendered less than 10% of the time. In contrast, when essays were presumed to have been written by males, truthful comments were given in more than 90% of cases. In fact, females were given feedback that consisted of outright lies in two-thirds of cases, compared to just 33% of males being given similar feedback.

Why it Happens

Are supervisors acting with ill-will with regard to their female employees? One strategist from a California-based consulting firm believes bosses tend to water-down reviews for female employees in an attempt to salvage relationships and preserve feelings. Females are viewed as less capable of taking hard truths, so employers lean toward soft-selling difficult information. Despite best intentions, it is extremely harmful to women in the workplace.

Why it Matters

It turns out that generally speaking, supervisors give women more positive feedback than they give their male counterparts, and it is often much less honest. Why does it matter? If you are not getting the constructive criticism you deserve from your boss, chances are it will impact your ability to progress and move up the ladder. This formerly unstudied issue has likely led to restricted access in the workplace for women across careers simply because they are not made aware of the shortcomings in their daily performance. In fact, it could be viewed as a form of gender discrimination.

A number of studies indicate that, although females receive fewer negative comments related to their work, and more praise, they are also given significantly fewer resources with which to perform their jobs. Certainly, the connection between feedback and being allocated the means to do a job well are a real problem. 

Meaningful Feedback Matters

Researchers note that all employees, regardless of gender, deserve to be given accurate feedback.  Positive, but untrue comments about a woman’s performance in the workplace are a serious problem, whether or not they are benign in delivery.   [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Sexual Discrimination Tagged With: ,

Women’s Soccer and Gender Discrimination

August 12, 2019 by

womens soccer and gender discriminationAfter winning the World Cup title, the U.S. women’s soccer team has amassed a huge amount of support as they fight for equal pay and better working conditions. Their claim of the institutionalized gender discrimination dominating the sport for years will now be heard in a Los Angeles courtroom. 

Specifics of the Women’s Soccer Claim

While the obvious complaints around pay inequity are well publicized, the women assert a number of other discriminatory problems, including:

  • Where they are allowed to play;
  • The number of games played;
  • The quality/quantity of medical treatment and coaching available;
  • Travel arrangements for away games.

The suit against U.S. Soccer is a prime example of similar struggles in the world of women’s sports in this country. W.N.B.A. players and American hockey players have all been struggling to improve working conditions and salaries for women for years, and have been coordinating with the U.S. soccer players and their union to bolster the efforts.

Equal Pay Grievances Aired

Taking the lead in speaking up for the women’s team is Megan Rapinoe, the team’s captain. She notes that the women’s team plays more games than the men’s team, and has a significantly better record. Nevertheless, they have spent decades getting far less pay than the men’s players.  The problem extends beyond U.S. Soccer. FIFA, the world-wide governing body for soccer, has been charged with a number of discriminatory actions, involving issues related to World Cup bonuses and standards for referees to soccer fields made of artificial turf. FIFA has responded by doubling World Cup prize money for women and by eliminating play on artificial turf for the past couple of years. The women were also afforded the luxury of flying on a chartered plane for the tournament, and provided improved meal and accommodation stipends.

Nothing Simple Here

Although many people agree that equity is essential in the world of sports, some point out that the contracts for men and women are very different, and it is not a simple apples-to-apples comparison. Even if the contracts were identical, women’s sports are simply not as popular or as profitable as their male counterparts’ games, and that is a fact that must be part of any compensation calculation, according to the naysayers on the other side of the argument. Yes, women work just as hard and experience incredible success. But ticket sales directly connect to compensation, and therein lies the rub.

That being said, does it make sense that the prize money for the men’s World Cup is nearly 10 times the amount for the Women’s championship? The women answer with a resounding no. It remains to be seen how the court will respond to these complicated issues. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Gender Discrimination Tagged With: , , , ,

Unsafe Working Conditions? Fight for Your Rights

July 27, 2018 by

unsafe working conditionsHave you been injured in a workplace accident due to unsafe working conditions? If so, you may wish to seek civil penalties from your employer. In California, employers who have accrued workplace safety violations from the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration may be held liable for damages in a civil court. An experienced labor & employment attorney can advise you further.

Workers Injured Due to Unsafe Working Conditions

Unfortunately, employees are exposed all too often in the workplace to unsafe working conditions.  Over the years, a number of serious incidents have been the result of lax workplace policies and shoddy enforcement of safety procedures:

  • When an employee was installing a solar panel for Elite Electric, he slipped and crashed through a skylight, landing 29 feet below. He was not strapped into any type of protective harness, and no protective measures of any kind were available in the area.  
  • Custodial employees at the Kaiser Foundations Hospital were expected to dispose of collection boxes that were filled with uncapped needles, even though the boxes often were filled to overflowing and the lids would not properly close. Employers must protect all workers from blood-borne disease, and were clearly negligent here.
  • Ashley Furniture faced several safety violations that imperiled employees, including failing to appropriately separate oxygen cylinders from fuel gas cylinders, failing to repair or replace damaged cords on industrial trucks, and failing to provide appropriate guards on a vertical band saw.
  • One employee was injured and another killed in an electrocution incident at Five Star Plastering Inc. when the metal scaffolding came into contact with a live power line. The workers had received no safety training prior to the accident.
  • Two Disney workers experienced a fatal, 80-foot fall from a platform that had been hoisted from a crane. The crane involved had not been inspected, and the operator had not performed necessary test runs or had rigging materials inspected prior to the accident.
  • Three employees were sprayed with molten metal after Tesla Motors failed to repair a damaged safety lock. None of the employees had been trained in potential hazards of working with the machine, and none were wearing protective headgear.
  • An employee for Three Frogs Inc. was killed after using incorrect procedures while cutting down a Eucalyptus tree. Appropriate training and rigging were not provided to the employees.
  • Two individuals contracted Valley Fever because employees were not protected from airborne dust at First Solar Electric.

[Read more…]

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

Transgender Discrimination: A Case Study in California

October 31, 2017 by

Transgender DiscriminationImmediately after pronouncing herself a transgender woman, 53-year-old Meghan Frederick experienced transgender discrimination via a lack of respect, isolation, and outright harassment. As a correctional officer in a maximum-security prison, she discovered that colleagues as well as supervisors were more likely to react to her with rejection than acceptance. Ultimately, she felt she had no choice but to file a discrimination lawsuit. If you can relate to this case, you may wish to contact an experienced employment attorney, as well.

Meghan’s Transgender Discrimination Story

A career in finance segued into a position in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for Meghan. There, colleagues welcomed an athletic man. But some years later Frederick began to transition, and after five years announced that she wished to be identified as a woman.

Since then, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains have all misidentified her gender. She filed internal complaints against them, but nothing changed. Her vehicle has been vandalized multiple times since her announcement, as well, signaling the loathing fellow employers feel toward her.  She has spent years walking into rooms in the workplace, only to be ignored or stared at wordlessly. Meghan has been insulted over the intercom and has repeatedly had to correct peers who refer to her as “sir.” The least desirable assignments were given to Frederick, and her movements were frequently restricted for unusual periods of time. More significantly, Frederick claims her life was put in danger.

When inmates witnessed colleagues undermine her and openly disrespect her, it made her a target. In fact, inmates made death threats against her more than once – threats that her superiors failed to inform her about in a timely manner. Typical protocol requires that correctional officers be separated from inmates who have stated they wish to harm them personally. In Frederick’s case, she was not informed of the threats until weeks after they occurred, and she was required to work with the menacing inmates despite the accentuated risks associated with such threats.

Options When Transgender Discrimination / Discrimination is Pervasive in the Workplace

Why not find another job, some might wonder. Frederick says she will not be bullied. She is proud of herself and her work, and refuses to back down to transgender discrimination and retaliation. Frederick believes that fighting back through the courts will improve life for her, but the impact of the transgender discrimination suit may have much larger implications. Transgender men and women throughout the country experience workplace discrimination every day. This lawsuit shines a light on the types of behaviors condemned by state law. In California, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) specifically prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. Additional protections are in place related to housing, education, workplace dress codes, bathroom use, and hate crimes.

Aggressive Legal Help for Transgender Discrimination

If you have experienced discrimination in the work place, the law is on your side. At Beck Law, our aggressive employment team will go to the mat for our clients in Sonoma County, Mendocino County, and Lake County California discrimination cases. Contact us in Santa Rosa today for a confidential consultation.

Filed Under: Blog, Gender Discrimination Tagged With:

Workplace Age Discrimination

July 24, 2017 by

workplace age discriminationLabor law and workplace age discrimination. You have worked for your employer for some time, and you are starting to notice a disturbing trend. Younger employees seem to be passing you by at an alarming rate. Are these colleagues outperforming you, or are you experiencing workplace age discrimination? If you suspect ageism is at the root of the issue, it may be worthwhile to consult an employment attorney for advice.

What is Workplace Age Discrimination?

When individuals who are 40 and older experience roadblocks in the workplace and age is a primary factor, it is age discrimination. Federal law addresses the issue through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Under ADEA, making age a factor in employment decisions with regard to hiring and firing, promotions and assignments, and compensation and perks is unlawful. In addition to the ADEA, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) support fair practices for aging workers and potential workers.

Workplace Age Discrimination Complaints on the Rise

If you suspect workplace age discrimination is holding you back, you are not alone. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (USEEOC), the number of workplace age discrimination complaints in this country has grown from 19.8%in 1997 to 22.8% of all discrimination complaints. Nearly 21,000 such complaints were filed last year.

Whether or not complaints have been filed, older Americans report that age discrimination is alive and well in America. In fact, nearly 70% of workers aged 45-75 note that they have either seen or personally experienced the problem. Astonishingly, age is cited as one of the biggest obstacle to workers over the age of 35, particularly in high tech industries. The most common form of age discrimination, in fact, is related to not getting hired in the first place.

What We Know About Older Workers:

Research confirms several key points about older workers and what they need and want from their jobs:

  • Most older Americans are working for economic reasons. They need a salary, or benefits, or both;
  • Many older Americans are simply working because they enjoy it, and some are working on building up a nest egg for the future;
  • Older workers want respect;
  • These workers wish to be in a position that utilizes their particular talents and abilities.
  • Older workers report being significantly more engaged in their work than their younger counterparts.

How do I Know if Workplace Age Discrimination is the Problem?

Proving age discrimination requires a significant burden of proof. Some things that may tip your employer’s hand include:

  • Younger workers are being hired to replace fired older workers;
  • You are assigned unenviable tasks in an attempt to get you to leave voluntarily;
  • Your boss informally chats you up and asks when you are planning on moving on to greener pastures;
  • After receiving glowing performance reviews for some time, you suddenly see your reviews take a significant dip. It looks like someone’s building a case to let you go;
  • Everyone around you seems to be getting raises, but your pay is stagnant, despite equivalent job performance.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Age Discrimination, Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Defamatory Job Reference from Former Employer?

February 28, 2017 by

Defamatory Job ReferenceIs your former employer going to decimate any chance you have for future employment with a defamatory job reference? Let’s say that you left your previous job under less than favorable circumstances. Obviously, you need to find a new job, and any potential employer is going to want a list of previous work experience, including the last place you worked.

Verifying Work History With Your Former Employer

Your current application is likely going to undergo scrutiny that includes some investigation into previous job performance. Supervisors are legally allowed to share both positive and negative information about a former employee if it is done correctly under the legal doctrine of “qualified privilege.” That means, among other things, that information must be shared in good faith; it must be based on facts, not suspicions, suppositions, or generalizations.

Defamation

A defamatory job reference occurs during background checks when information shared is not necessary for the inquirer to have, especially regarding reasons for resignations or terminations. There are legal doctrines for individuals who provide a reference, and if a former employer goes outside those guidelines, you may have grounds for a defamatory job reference libel suit. A good labor law attorney can help you to determine the validity of your case. Here are some general guidelines:

Relevance: Information shared must be directly related to questions asked and pertinent to the position being applied for. If you were formerly a classroom teacher with horrible classroom management, and are now applying in for a sales position, you ability to control children is not relevant.

Critical to job performance: Minor issues that did not have a serious impact on job performance need not be shared with a potential employer. If applying for an accounting position, and serious calculation errors were a problem in the previous position, by all means, that is information that should be shared. On the other hand, if you had a disheveled desk but produced flawless accounting reports, the desk issue would be unimportant to relay.

Truthfulness: Accurate statements about observable behavior are appropriate; generalizations or personal musings about those behaviors are not. Your former employer may legitimately share a record or excessive tardiness; drawing a conclusion that you are lazy is another matter.

Information shared must be job-related:  Information about your marriage or other non-work issues is inappropriate.

Proper manner of dissemination: Information should always be provided in a proper setting and manner. Chatting at the water cooler in the office where unauthorized ears are lurking would be problematic. Discretion is the bottom line. If it is lacking, the potential for a legal remedy arises.

Defamatory Job Reference? Next Steps

If your reputation is harmed and you are brought into disrepute, you may have been defamed.  The criteria for defamation includes that those statements made about you were either false, or made with malice; the statements were slanderous (made verbally) or libelous (made in written form) to a third party; and the statements damaged your reputation or character. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Termination of Employment

Gender Wage Gap – California Fair Pay Act

November 28, 2016 by

Gender Wage GapThe gender wage gap has been around for a long time, and came to the forefront with Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House. Although Clinton lost the election, the issue she ran on is still alive and well. Are you a woman who suspects disparate wages due to gender discrimination?  You need an experienced legal team to help you recoup the wages you deserve.

Gender Wage Gap in California

An analysis of California wages demonstrates that women were earning about $8,000 less per annum than men in 2012. Women of color lagged even further behind. Latina women earned only 43 cents on the dollar, Black women earned 63 cents on the dollar, and Asian women earned 72 cents on the dollar in comparison to white men. The situation has improved with time, but women on average earn just 79 cents to every dollar a man earns in this country.

Why the Gender Wage Gap?

Research indicates that women traditionally gravitate toward lower paying jobs, such as nursing and teaching. Even in professions such as marketing and technology, women actually ask for roughly $14,000 less than their male counterparts for the same job. That makes it easy for employers to offer women about 3% less than men for the exact same position.

Discrimination may play a role in wage disparities. A Cornell study concluded that when women compete for men for the same job while holding equivalent credentials. Their study corroborates with census data indicating that across industries, job functions, and educational background. Women earn significantly less than men for the same work.

Closing the Gender Wage Gap in California

This fall, Governor Jerry Brown took a step to improve matters when he signed a tough new pay equity law that will come into effect in January 2017. Supplementing state and federal laws requiring equal pay for equal work, the new California Fair Pay Act prohibits bosses from paying employees less for “substantially similar work” when their titles or locations differ. It also bans retaliation against employees who discuss their disparate salaries.

Now, more than ever, rather than differentiating pay at will, employers must apply a reasonable standard based on seniority, merits, quantity or quality of production, education, or experience.  Furthermore, employers must keep accurate records of pay for three years.

Remedies for Discrimination and Retaliation

Under statute, employees may recover wages plus interest and attorney’s fees. If unfairly discharged as retaliation, an employee may pursue civil action and seek reinstatement, as well as pay for lost wages and benefits, plus interest. The employee must make such a claim within one year of the perceived actions. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Labor Law, Gender Discrimination Tagged With: , ,
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.