This is a very common question. At-will employment does not mean that the company can fire you for any reason they want. That is incorrect. In this video, employment attorney Branigan Robertson explains the at-will doctrine and how it actually works.
Category Archives: Pregnancy
New Video! How Much are Leave of Absence Lawsuits Worth?
Do you want to know how lawyers value leave of absence cases? Then you should watch this video.
Branigan made this video to add value to his Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California Family Rights Act (CFRA) webpages. To learn more about these robust and complicated areas of law, visit whatever page most applies to you. Hint: if you are in CA, visit the CFRA page.
Comments Off on New Video! How Much are Leave of Absence Lawsuits Worth?
Filed under Leave of Absence, Pregnancy, Settlements, Verdicts
New Video! Branigan Explains CFRA to Employees
Branigan has just release a video on the main leave of absence law in California. This video was made to add more value to our extraordinary California Family Rights Act (CFRA) page. If you need information about your leave of absence rights, we recommend that you start your research there.
Filed under Leave of Absence, Pregnancy
Parental Leave Expands for California Workers
California workers with blossoming families got an extra bit of good news this month. On October 12, Governor Jerry Brown signed a new law expanding the state’s leave of absence rules so that more workers can spend time and bond with their newborn babies. The new law, which will take effect January 2020, expands the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to cover smaller businesses with fewer employees.
While CFRA have long provided job-protected time off for workers in order to spend time with newborns, until now, it’s only applied to companies with at least 50 employees. The new law expands leave protection to California workers employed by companies with 20 to 49 workers. This is a huge deal for women seeking to take maternity leave but who work for smaller employers.
According to an article published on October 12 by the Orange County Register, the expansion will cover 16 percent of the state’s labor force that had heretofore been neglected by existing law.
“This is a great victory for working parents and children in California,” said the bill’s author, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson. “With more parents struggling to balance work and family responsibilities…no one should have to choose between caring for their newborn and keeping their job.”
What the Expansion Offers
The new expansion will specifically allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave in order to bond with newborn children, newly adopted children, or a recently placed foster child. This means an employer cannot fire, fine, suspend or otherwise discriminate against an employee for exercising their right to parental leave – that would be pregnancy discrimination.
While the law doesn’t require the employer to provide the employee’s salary during the leave, the employer is prohibited from refusing to maintain or pay health coverage supplied under a group plan during the leave.
Who Qualifies?
In order for an employee to qualify under the new act, just like under CFRA, he or she must meet the following requirements:
- Have been employed by the company for more than 12 months
- Have at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12 months
What Happens if an Employee is Denied Leave?
While the expansion has yet to go into effect, an employee who is denied their rightful leave under the law will have a number of different options. A good attorney will look at the facts of the case and seek the best outcome for the client. This could involve seeking lost wages, back pay, pain and suffering damages and possibly punitive damages.
An employee who wins their case might be reinstated at their job if wrongfully terminated, or entitled to monetary compensation. If you have questions about changes to the family leave law, or some other employment issue, contact this office for more information.
Comments Off on Parental Leave Expands for California Workers
Filed under Pregnancy
Pregnancy Discrimination Verdict – $538,000 in Damages
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.
CA Jury Awards $185 Million Dollars in Punitive Damages in Gender Discrimination Case
Employers often assume that they can fire an at-will employee at any time for any reason. This is not entirely true. In California, a company can fire an employee for any reason except for something that violates the law. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee for his or her gender. Unfortunately, an employee getting fired for their gender or being pregnant is still common.
In Jaurez v. AutoZone, plaintiff (represented by the amazing Lawrance Bohm) sued AutoZone in San Diego Federal Court for sex discrimination and retaliation under California law. Over the course of her employment, plaintiff noticed that male employees were treated more favorable than female employees. For example, less experience male employees were being promoted more often than female employees. Even though she was very qualified, plaintiff was consistently brushed aside for promotion and inexperienced and unqualified male employees would be promoted instead. Several years into her employment, plaintiff became pregnant and almost instantly adverse action was taken against her by her employer upon her telling the employer the good news. The district manager made snarky comments to her about her being pregnant, nitpicked at all her work, placed her on a performance improvement plan and was even demoted back to assistant manager. She as replaced by a male store manager. She was fired after she returned from maternity leave for allegedly not being trustworthy.
AutoZone’s lawyers argued that there was no evidence to support Plaintiff’s case. AutoZone’s lawyers further argued that Plaintiff was a manipulator who lied and made threats to receive promotions.
Plaintiff presented testimonies and evidence of the contrary. Former employees testified about the aura of retaliation at the company. Another witness testified that the reasons Plaintiff was terminated was unknown to him although he was the employee who was deemed by AutoZone as most knowledgeable about Plaintiff’s termination. Finally, AutoZone did not have any female employees testify as to the fair treatment by the company of female employees.
Fortunately, the jury did not buy defense counsel’s arguments. The jury returned a stunning verdict in favor of Plaintiff awarding her roughly $800,000 in lost wages and emotional distress, and issued an enormous $185,000,000 punitive damages verdict.
At the end of the day, this is huge for employees who have been and potentially will be terminated by their employees for discriminatory reasons. Large corporations such as AutoZone need to be held accountable for breaking the law or else these corporations will keep doing it without any consequences.
While this case is not a typical employment verdict, contact an employment lawyer immediately if you believe that you have been wrongfully terminated. You should not wait as the statute of limitations may waive you case. The firm who represented Plaintiff in this case was the Bohm Law Group, a firm that Mr. Robertson works frequently with on employment cases. This is not a typical employment verdict. This information should in no way be construed as an estimate or guarantee of what you or your loved ones may win in court even if they suffered similar abuse.
Filed under FEHA, Pregnancy, Wrongful Termination
The EEOC Releases New Guidance Regarding Pregnant Employees
On July 14th of this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) issued new enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Among other things, the guidance addresses when an employers’ actions constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions; obligation of employers under the Pregnant Discrimination Act (“PDA”) to provide pregnant workers equal access to benefits of employment; and how Title I of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was amended to broaden the definition of disability to include individuals with pregnancy-related impairments. Both the PDA and the ADA apply to private and state and local government employers.
The EEOC is part of the federal anti-discrimination legal landscape. California has additional laws that provide equal (and in many cases) and stronger discrimination protection. But the CA laws are modeled off of the federal laws so it is important that CA lawyers are aware of any EEOC changes.
The PDA states that discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions is a prohibited form of sex discrimination, and the PDA requires that employers treat women who are pregnant or affected from related medical conditions the same way the employers would treat non-pregnant applicants or employees. The EEOC’s July 14th guidance regarding pregnant employees clarifies this as the guidance focuses on employers’ obligation to provide pregnant employees equal access to benefits such as leave, light duty (or work with accommodations) and health benefits.
In the past, employers and the EEOC have struggled with applying the appropriate forms of leave of and treatment for pregnant employees. The new guidance addresses these problems. In the guidance, the EEOC states that pregnant employees and pregnant job applicants are not excluded from the ADA’s protection, and thanks to ADA amendments in 2008, changes to the definition of disability make it much easier for pregnant employees to show they have disabilities and thus are protected under the ADA. The guidance also states that pregnancy-related impairments are ADA covered disabilities if they substantially limit one or more major life activities (for example, walking, standing, lifting, etc.), as well as substantially limits major bodily functions.
Ultimately, the EEOC’s guidance on pregnant employees entitles employees with pregnancy related impairments to ADA accommodations even if the impairments are temporary. In addition, through this guidance, the EEOC take on the position that the PDA entitles pregnant employees to reasonable accommodations in the workplace. This is a huge win for pregnant employees in the workplace.
However, it should be noted that the EEOC’s guidances are not binding law and do not have the strength of the laws and regulations. But, as seen in the use of them by the courts, the guidances form the foundation for the EEOC’s enforcement efforts and basically act as persuasive authorities to the courts. Employers should strongly consider taking steps to safeguard themselves in light of this newly released guidance. The last thing an employer should want is to oppose a pregnant employer in a jury trial – especially one that is represented by the best employment lawyer in California.
Filed under Pregnancy