I am pleased to release our latest whiteboard video! This video is all about how to prove to HR or management that you are a victim of discrimination. It also details how discrimination lawyers prove discrimination.
If you want to learn more about unlawful workplace discrimination in California, visit our main discrimination page here.
Comments Off on New Video! How to Prove Discrimination at Work
Filed under Discrimination, FEHA
I am pleased to release our latest whiteboard video! This video is all about how much money discrimination lawsuits in California settle for. It focuses entirely on the monetary value of unlawful discrimination. It details how much cases are worth and why.
If you want to learn more about unlawful workplace discrimination in California, visit our main discrimination page here.
Comments Off on New Video! How Much Money are Discrimination Lawsuits Worth?
Filed under Discrimination, FEHA, Settlements, Severance, Verdicts
We all hear the typical workplace stories of the male supervisor being overly generous to the young and attractive female subordinate. But at one point does sexual favoritism become a hostile work environment, and therefore a violation of law? This is a tricky question with an answer that is not exactly clear cut.
Interestingly enough, it is not unlawful for a supervisor to favor a subordinate with whom he or she has a romantic relationship. However, it may be unlawful and create a hostile work environment if the favoritism is based upon the granting of sexual favors, it is widespread throughout the workplace, and employees witnessing the favoritism do not welcome such conduct. It does not matter if the employee claiming hostile work environment was the target of such conduct, they can merely be a witness to the conduct.
Under California law, an employee may establish a claim of sexual harassment by demonstrating that widespread sexual favoritism was so severe as to alter his or her working conditions and create a hostile work environment. What is severe as to alter the employee’s working conditions depends on the fact of the case.
Salinda is a great example of widespread sexual favoritism in the workplace. Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant for several years. After a few years of employment with Defendant, Plaintiff witnessed favoritism for young and attractive female employees by male managers and superiors. Further, these female employees would perform sexual favors for the male managers and superiors.
After she complained of this, certain managers and employees were fired. However, years after this first incident, sexual favoritism ensued again. She again complained about the widespread sexual favoritism. Around the same time, Plaintiff was diagnosed with disease of the eye. When she requested a reasonable accommodation, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by verbally reprimanding her on her job performance. Soon after, Ms. Salinda was fired.
Plaintiff argued that, among other things, she was retaliated against for her complaints regarding widespread sexual favoritism in the workplace. Defendant argued that Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate reasons having to do with poor job performance. The jury sided with the Plaintiff, and awarded the Plaintiff $1,178,341 in damages.
Sexual favoritism in the workplace is not an uncommon occurrence whether it is between a male and female, male and male, or female and female. Sadly, some larger companies give their star executives too much discretion in the workplace, and sometimes these executives will have employees engage in sexual favors to get ahead in the workplace. If you feel you are a victim of widespread sexual favoritism at your work, then contact an employment lawyer to see if the law was broken.
Filed under FEHA, Harassment
Employers have an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate disabled employees. Our firm gets quite a bit of calls from potential clients who have a disability, yet their employers fail to accommodate them so they can perform their job duties. While not all disabilities are protected under the law, generally, employers are required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s known disabilities so that the employee can perform the essential functions of the job.
How to reasonably accommodate an employee depends on the employee’s disability and what he or she can perform given his or her limitations. Therefore, there is no one specific way to accommodate an employee. Rather, there are many different ways an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee.
FEHA provides a list of just some of the ways in which an employee can be reasonable accommodated. This list includes some of the following.
This listed examples is not exhaustive, there are many more ways an employer can reasonably accommodate a disabled employee.
Here is something very interesting related to reasonable accommodation. Under California law, an employer must allow for assistive animals in the workplace as a form of reasonable accommodation. Assistive animals include guide, support, or service dogs. This includes animals that provide emotional support to a disabled employee suffering from post-traumatic stress disorders and even depression.
Unfortunately, a lot of times employers can be lazy and do not want to work with the disabled employee. But there are often multiple ways an employer can reasonably accommodate a disabled employee. If you are a disabled employee and your employer is failing to provide reasonable accommodation, or has fired you because they do not want to provide a reasonable accommodation, then call an reasonable accommodation & disability employment lawyer for a free consultation.
Filed under Disability, FEHA
This year the California Legislature enacted various new employment laws. Most likely, the typical employee is unaware of the new employment laws enacted by the Legislature, thus it may be good to review some of the new 2015 labor laws from time to time. One of the more interesting newly enacted labor laws passed by the Legislature includes expanding anti-discrimination and anti-harassment protections under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to unpaid interns and volunteers.
Prior to 2015, unpaid interns and volunteers were not protected from under the FEHA anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws. Rather, prior to 2015, the only unpaid workers who were protected by FEHA were those unpaid workers that were engaged in a program that would lead to a paid employee position.
Now, the 2015 law expands FEHA to protect unpaid interns and volunteers from discrimination and harassment based on, among other things, race, religion, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, age, or military and veteran status. Now, any discrimination or harassment based on a protected characteristic against an unpaid intern or volunteer is unlawful if it occurs at any time while the intern or volunteer is working for the employer. For example, it is now unlawful for an employer to sexually harass a volunteer or unpaid intern in the workplace.
At the end of the day, this is a win for Californians who are using a volunteer position or unpaid intern position to obtain a paid position. At a time when securing employment is rather difficult, it is important that those who are working unpaid with the hopes of securing a paid position are also protected from employer misconduct. If you are a volunteer or an unpaid intern, and your employer is discriminating against you or harassing you, then call a California employment lawyer immediately.
Filed under FEHA
Branigan Robertson is proud to announce that his law firm, along with the incredible Lawrance Bohm of the Bohm Law Group, just obtained a verdict in Orange County Superior Court in front of Hon. Ronald Bauer. The case was a pregnancy discrimination case in which the Plaintiff, Kimberly Perry, was terminated after delivering a stillborn child. Mr. Robertson has handled many pregnancy discrimination cases.
Ms. Perry worked at eGumball, Inc. In three years of employment as the HR Manager, Ms. Perry was never reprimanded in writing. In February of 2013 she told her boss, the President, that she was pregnant. Ms. Perry went on leave on August 30, 2013, approximately a week before her baby was due. A few days later she delivered a stillborn child. She and her husband were devastated. Her son’s name was Trenton.
On October 4, Ms. Perry informed the President via email that she intended to return to work on October 31st. According to witnesses, this made the President uneasy as he thought she would be depressed and gloomy. He did not think Ms. Perry would return from leave after what happened. The President forwarded Ms. Perry’s email to his assistant, Chelsea Patterson. Ms. Patterson was the President’s most trusted employee, and she replied to the President stating that despite the situation Kimmy had done a “good job” in the HR Department, but they should move forward with their “most recent decision.” Ms. Patterson confirmed at depo that this email meant “terminating Kimmy Perry.” She changed her testimony at trial and said it didn’t mean termination, it meant they were going to “make some kind of change.”
But since eGumball did not write up Ms. Perry in three years of employment, they needed a paper trail if they were going to fire her since her termination was going to follow the death of her child. eGumball hired an auditor to look into the HR Department on October 14, 2013. The auditor came in and interviewed two employees who were not qualified to give the answers. eGumball used the audit’s results as its main justification for terminating Ms. Perry. But during the case it was discovered that eGumball did not get the results of this audit until weeks after Ms. Perry was already fired.
The jury awarded $138,000 in damages for Ms. Perry. The jury then heard testimony as to whether or not punitive damages should be awarded. The jury felt they were needed awarded $400,000 for a total verdict of $538,000.
California law requires that employer make reasonable accommodation for the known disabilities of employees to enable them to perform the job’s essential functions unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer’s operations. This is an affirmative duty for employers to accommodate disabled workers. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (also known as FEHA) provides a list of possible accommodations including making facilities readily accessible for disabled employees, job restructuring, modifying work schedules, or even allowing an employee to work from home. Disability discrimination and employment lawyers ensure that employers in California will be held accountable for failing to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled employees.
In Doe Psychiatrist v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Plaintiff was a full time psychiatrist for CDCR since 2006. After medical leave of absence, Plaintiff informed the employer that she had ADHD and depression. She then asked for reasonable accommodations and presented the employer with a list of possible accommodations such as a more secluded and quiet place to work. CDCR refused to provide the accommodations. The employer notified the Plaintiff that she would need to decide whether to return to work or not. Plaintiff ended up being terminated shortly thereafter. Plaintiff retained an employment lawyer to represent her against the CDCR.
The employer argued that Plaintiff did not give the employer sufficient medical information to the employer, and that reasonable accommodation was already provided to the Plaintiff when she took a leave of absence. The jury did not buy the employer’s arguments. The jury awarded Plaintiff a gross verdict of over $1 million for employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and failure to engage in good faith in the interactive process.
Sadly, employers fail to provide employees with reasonable accommodation all the time. Many times employers may do this to cut costs. However, as the above case shows, employers will be held accountable for failing to provide disabled employees with reasonable accommodation. If your employer has failed to provide you with reasonable accommodation, contact an employment lawyer immediately.
Filed under Disability, FEHA
