San Francisco Employment Law Firm Blog

Why You Should Not Wait for DFEH to Complete Its Investigation

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:49:54 -0800

Although there are sometimes strategic advantages to waiting for the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to complete its investigation of a charge of discrimination instead of filing a lawsuit right away, in many cases, waiting for that might not be the best strategic move, especially if you have already been (wrongfully) terminated and you have a "good" case. This is for two main reasons:

1. DFEH rarely issues favorable findings to an aggrieved employee. It seems that in 90% or more of the cases investigated, DFEH concludes that there is insufficient evidence of discrimination and they issues a right to sue letter. This is in large because DFEH has limited resources, and cannot possibly thoroughly investigate every case. In most cases, the investigation of discrimination allegations is limited to interviewing the aggrieved employee and the employer. The employer always denies any wrongdoing, so DFEH has to pick whose word to take. The agency must pick their fights and attend to the most urgent and egregious cases that either affect a larger group of employees or set an example out of a particularly bad employer. They will not issue findings against an employer if the evidence seems to suggest that it's a 50/50 call. An investigation may take from several months and up to a year or more. The right to-sue-letter issued by the agency is a necessary prerequisite to filing a lawsuit, but can be obtained by an attorney online in about 10 minutes without any actual involvement of DFEH.

2. Waiting for a year or longer to file a lawsuit can also create issues of proof, and make your case harder to win or settle. Memories of events tend to fade, documents get misplaced, lost or "intentionally" lost by employers. E-mails get deleted (often a single e-mail can be of critical important to proving a discrimination or retaliation case). Witnesses tend to move away or change their mind about helping you to testify and corroborate your version of the events. Even if you decide to wait for DFEH to complete its investigation, it is important that you secure sworn statements that are written in a proper form by your witnesses. Doing your "homework" early may prove to be very helpful later in the case, especially when the employer files a motion for summary judgment, which they almost always do, if the case is litigated in court long enough.

Of course there are times when it is a good idea to let the DFEH conduct the investigation and not file a lawsuit right away.

Switching Jobs and Handling Non-Compete Agreements

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:41:46 -0800

Switching jobs and employers when you have signed a non-compete agreement with your former or present employer may present unique challenges that require careful consideration in light of the specific circumstances of your industry, the company you are working for and the company you are planning to switch to. Even though it has been well established that generally, non-compete agreements are invalid and unenforceable in California, you must take into account a number of other factors, one of the which is trade secrets and confidentiality agreements you might be bound by.

Among other things, it might be well worth making sure that the reason the new employer wants you is not in order for you to tell them all about the proprietary information or software of your previous employer, and not in order for you to actively try to recruit the your former employer's customers to do business with your subsequent employer.

In some cases, especially when you have a close relationship with your employer, it might be worth having a candid conversation about your employment plans and trying to figure out together and collaboratively how to ensure that your former employer's interests are protected, while your rights are not violated as well.

Despite the fact that most employers, especially larger companies, know that non-compete agreements are unenforceable, they routinely continue to include them in their employment contracts and handbooks as a "deterrent" - to discourage an employee from engaging in an activity that would put the company's success and profits at risk.

FMLA Certification Requirements: Cooperating with Employer to Get Your Medical Leave Approved

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 21:20:46 -0800

Getting FMLA leave approved can be a frustrating process, especially at a large company or governmental agency where every decision, even a relatively small one, has to be run by and approved by a number of supervisors. It's possible that when you request medical leave, you will have to do a few trips back and forth between your doctor and your employer, where employer will request for additional information or clarification of your condition, symptoms, limitations and reasons for your anticipated leave.

In most cases, cooperating with the employer or even putting your employer directly in touch with your doctor is a good idea. You want to show that you reasonable do everything in your power to ensure that the employer is on notice of your condition and the need for FMLA.

Some employees decide to play "hardball" with their management, withholding information due to confidentiality concerns, etc... Unless you have some kind of embarrassing condition or are concerned that your management will not maintain confidentiality of your personnel records, you should disclose the required information, because the employer has the right to know the basic information about the reasons for your need for medical leave before granting that leave.

California Employment Law: Proving Retaliation at Workplace

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:03:51 -0800

One of the challenges of proving retaliation at workplace in cases where an employee was fired shortly after submitting a harassment/discrimination/safety violation complaint against his/her supervisor or co-workers is showing that the employer knew about the complaint before making the decision to terminate an employee. After all, if the employer can demonstrate that he had no knowledge of the complaint until after terminating or deciding to terminate the complaining employee, then there is no retaliation case, since there can be no retaliation claim for a protected activity that took place after the firing.

The Ninth Circuit Case Hernandez v Spacelabs Medical Inc., is very helpful to Plaintiffs on this point. In that case, the Plaintiff was terminated shortly after complaining about age discrimination. The official reason for his termination was a number of performance issues over the past 6 months, some of which were exaggerated and some of which were simply not true. Hernandez sued for retaliation. The employer, in filing a motion to dismiss the case prior to trial, argued that it had no knowledge of the complaint at the time of deciding to terminate Plaintiff or terminating Plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit, in reversing the motion to dismiss, made a very interesting and valuable observation to Plaintiffs in retaliation cases: "What-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it questions are often difficult to answer, and for that reason are often inappropriate for resolution on motion to dismiss. It is frequently impossible for a plaintiff in Hernandez's position to discovery evidence contradicting someone's argument that he did not know something, and Hernandez has no such evidence...." - in other words, the court recognizes how easy it would be for the employers to deny any knowledge of protected activity prior to firing an employee. A supervisor or a human resources manager could easily say that he never saw or received the complaint or that he didn't look at it until after the firing. The Hernandez case is an additional obstacle for employers in retaliation cases.

Of course, it's much easier and more effective to ensure the employer's knowledge of the complaint by making sure that your complaint is being transmitted and received. Such simple, technical things as fax transmission confirmation sheet or sent e-mail go along way when establishing the employer's knowledge of the complaint in wrongful termination litigation.

Medical Leave and No Fault Attendance Policies

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:30:55 -0800

Many large companies have "no fault" attendance policies, where an employee gets a point or half a point for every absence or for being late regardless of the reason for that. Often these kinds of attendance policies are part of the negotiated bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Under that policy, once the employee accumulates a certain number of points, he is automatically terminated. Such attendance policies do not override the state and federal laws that provide for disability and medical leave, and time off due to qualifying disability or a medical condition should never be counted toward the above-mentioned points. However, it is critical that you notify your management and HR as soon as possible that the reason for any given absence is your medical condition or a disability. If you don't put your employer on notice, then employer will have no obligation to protect you from the consequences of their policy.

Some employee, who are very concerned about their medical privacy, do not disclose any significant details about their medical condition and choose to be vague and say "I wasn't feeling well." This kind of general statement does not put the employer on notice that you have a "serious" medical condition within FMLA/CFRA or that you might have a disability within FEHA or ADA. When your job and disability rights are in jeopardy, this is not the time to safeguard your medical confidentiality, but instead you should find out what information your employer needs in order to be properly informed that you need time off due to the medical reason and possibly other accommodations.

Tip on Requesting an Accommodation to Your Disability

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:26 -0800

Requesting a reasonable accommodation to your disability is an important step to protecting your rights at workplace. Whether your disability or medical condition has developed over time (such as carpal tunnel syndrome) or resulted from an industrial accident, it's important to keep several important things in mind to avoid the common mistake that other employees make when requesting an accommodation:

* The law does not expect the employer to read your mind and assume that you need an accommodation to your condition just because they might have learned that you are sick or have certain pain symptoms. Therefore, you should explicitly ask your employer for a "reasonable accommodation." This is not the time to worry about your medical privacy and confidentiality. You should discuss your pain and the possible solutions that you and your management can work out together to ensure that you are able to continue working at your position or at some other position which is vacant and for which you are qualified.

* Make sure that you request an accommodation in writing. Send a fax or an e-mail to both your human resources department and your management to make sure that later the employer cannot say that you didn't request to be accommodated.

* Be nice! Whether you like your managers or not, they are humans. The respond differently to a different attitude from their subordinates. Being nice and respectful will go along way. Threats or demands don't work. "Accommodate me or I will sue" kind of posture will rarely motivate the employer to go an extra step to help you. Asking rather than demanding and giving an employer reasonable time to find solutions to your medical condition, while understanding that employers have their own challenges that they have to deal with when accommodating an employee, is usually a wise approach.

Retaliation for Suffering an Injury and Filing a Workers Compensation Claim

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:47:08 -0800

Having been prosecuting discrimination and retaliation claims for a while now, I am naturally curious to get into the minds of those managers who retaliate or discriminate against employees who are disabled or who suffered an on-the-job injury (and filed a workers compensation claim).

Recently, during a conversation with an in-house counsel(!) of a relatively large company (over 500 employees), I got some insight into what drivers retaliation. The employer refused to provide reasonable accommodations to my client, who had a serious back injury and two subsequent back surgeries. Some of the comments of the company's lawyer astounded me, and included: "He has a history of filing workers compensation claims," and "he is been pushing it for a while now with asking for things." It is as if the attorney was admitting that they developed hostility or animosity toward my client because of his injury and resulting medical condition.

I firmly believe that the above mindset on the part of the managers at any workplace - the mindset of "I am tired of those injuries and requests for accommodations" is a breeding ground for discrimination and wrongful termination claims. Hopefully, when employers pay out large settlements, verdicts or administrative fines, imposed by EEOC of DFEH, they make the necessary changes to redress discriminatory mindset among managers through training or otherwise, even though that is of course also not always the case.

FAQ: What can I do about favoritism at my workplace?

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:13:14 -0800

I get at least a few calls a week where an employee complains to me about being treated unfairly at workplace. these complaints range from being given more challenging and time consuming tasks than co-workers to being yelled at by the manager to being micromanaged and written up for every little thing.

My answer is the same every time: it is not against the law to do any of the above or to be otherwise unfair to an employee unless the reason for a different treatment is discriminatory or retaliatory. In other words, if there is evidence that the reason for favoritism is because an employee is a member of protected class (due to a disability, age, sexual orientation, familial status, etc.) or due to engaging in a protected class (filing a workers compensation claim, complaining about health and safety issues at workplace, filing a sexual harassment complaint, union activities, etc.) then the aggrieved employee might have a legal claim which can be brought in court.

Otherwise, if it is a matter of inter-office conflict which is not based on any discriminatory criteria, that employee will likely not benefit from having an attorney, and he/she should seriously consider looking for another job, if there is no one in the office who is willing and able to help. This is because the California courts have mentioned many times in the past that their job is not to enforce civility rules at workplace but to only remedy legal violations, such as discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Workplace Issues: How to Deal with Mean Managers Who Are on a on a "Power Trip"

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:43:50 -0800

A mean supervisor who uses or abuses his power and authority in obvious or more subtle ways that none of the workers like, but many have to put up with, at least until the solution to the problem is found, such as transferring to a different department, have a manager transfer or ... finding a another job.

How do you deal with a mean manage who seems to be on a power trip, when everything else seems to be going well at work? - You like what you do, you like the company, the co-workers, the pay, and it seems to be that it's just that one "bad apple" that ruins your experience at work.

Remember - there is no equality between you and your superiors. For some odd reason, many employees think that they have the same rights and privileges as their bosses. They think that if the bosses raises his/her voice, then so can they. Wrong. Why? You can't fire the boss for yelling at you, but he can fire you for any reason due to your likely at will employment, let alone yelling at your manager. There are many other things that your superior can probably get away with that you can't. A workplace is not a democracy and you shouldn't treat it as such. Very few fights are worth fighting over. You have nothing to gain by proving to your boss that you are right and he/she is wrong except getting in trouble and risking being retaliated against. Standing up for yourself is important. However, you have to make sure that what you stand up for really matters to you personally and it's not just a matter or principal. For instance, suppose your boss wrote a performance review, in which he criticizes your work ethic or attention to detail. This kind of criticism is inherently subjective and is a matter of opinion. It's hardly worth getting into a debate with your manager and trying to prove that you are indeed extremely attentive and the hardest worker the company has.

Instead, take it constructively. Ask for help and guidance on how you can become better. What specific steps can you take to become a better employee? Your belief that the criticism is unfounded is irrelevant. It's what your manager sees in your work that matters - that is, if you care about keeping your job and doing well, rather than allowing your relationship with your boss to deteriorate, where he/she would start looking for reasons to make your life harder and/or eventually get rid of you.

If, on the other hand, your superior's actions are far more grave than doing something which is simply unfair or hurtful, such as giving you unfavorable reviews, and these more serious actions include violent insults, humiliating you, sexual or other kinds of harassment, fraud or compelling you to commit fraud, etc., you should report the acts to his superiors and to your human resources in writing as soon as possible.

Waiting and hoping that the harassment will stop, like so many employees do, is rarely productive. As a rule, a boss who can get away with something will continue doing it or get worse until he is stopped. You might be afraid to get in trouble by complaining to the higher ups, but... in this kind of situation, you don't really have a choice. It's either taking a chance and standing up for yourself, and asking the company to do the right thing - to investigate and discipline the wrongdoer and/or deter the manager from abusing his/her power or continuing putting up with the situation and allowing it to make your life miserable.

The Misunderstood Term of "Harassment" at Workplace

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:09:12 -0800

I almost feel like the word "harassment" is the wrong term of the legal claim entitled "harassment at workplace" in the legal world because its legal meaning is so different from the meaning of the word in the ordinary, day-to-day life. Under the law, an actionable claim for harassment / hostile work environment requires showing that you are treated differently because you are a member of protected class. The courts have repeatedly held that simple being mean and rude or unfair without a discriminatory animus is not harassment and that they are not in the business of enforcing the rules of civility and proper manners at workplace; they are in the business of enforcing civil rights. As an illustration of this critical difference, consider that if your employer uses foul language or screams at you is generally not against the law and doesn't give a rise to any claim without more. However, the same cussing and yelling accompanied by a racial slur or statement that suggest age/disability/religious/gender/sex discrimination are likely to make a claim, especially if repeated. Plainly, "you are no good junk" is not illegal, while "you are no good peace of old junk and it's time to retire and bring some fresh blood to the company" is a strong evidence of age discrimination, or if the manager says: "you are no good cripple, and we need strong/healthy people in here" this would be a strong evidence of disability discrimination.

Even such harsh words as a "bitch" do not give rise to a legal claim. On the other hand, statements such as "you are a bitch, and I never hire another woman" or "you are a bitch and I want to have sex with you before I promote you" is likely to be evidence gender discrimination and sexual harassment respectively.

Unemployment Benefits Appeal: Resigning for "Good Cause"

Tue, 03 May 2011 07:54:13 -0800

Generally, a claimant is not qualified to receive unemployment benefits if she voluntarily resigns from her employment, unless there is "good cause" for quitting. Good cause must be a significant and compelling circumstance that makes is increasingly difficult or impracticable for an employee to continue working.

In a recent case I handled, which I did not hope to win, the claimant was awarded benefits even though she quit. The circumstances of her resignation were unique and interesting. She resigned on the same day that she was placed on a performance improvement plan. The disciplinary action outlined her 30-day goals that she knew she could not completely. The warning made it clear that she is likely to be terminated if she doesn't complete all the outlined goals. Interestingly enough, the claimant was given an option to take severance and resign during the same meeting she was given the warning. The claimant elected to take the offered severance and resign.

The Unemployment Appeals Board found in my client's favor, specifically focusing on the fact that the employer refused to give the claimant additional time to complete the tasks in the PIP.

Age Discrimination: When the Employer Replaces You with a Younger Worker for Less Pay

Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:06:15 -0800

Some Employers seem to conveniently believe that replacing an older worker with a younger woman who has less seniority and therefore can be paid less is not against the law and is not considered age discrimination, since they believe they have a valid reason for that kind of replacement - saving money. In drafting the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California legislature addressed that specific situation, enacting Gov. Code 12941, which states that the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating employment may be found to constitute age discrimination. It is thus likely that any employment decision based on salary differentials between older and younger workers, such as hiring, promotions, pension benefits, etc., can be challenged as age discrimination if it has a great impact on older workers as a group.

I believe that as the well known and expected trend of aging of the local San Francisco Bay Area population and the population of its workers, age discrimination and age discrimination claims at workplace will be on the rise in the next several decades. As usually, proving liability of the wrongdoer in court will be challenging, as direct evidence of discrimination such as calling an employee names suggesting age related animus is unlikely to be available, and thorough discovery of circumstantial evidence will be necessary to win such cases, such as the timing of events, replacing older workers with younger workers, and inconsistencies in the employer's formally given reasons for terminating older workforce.

Employees who Make Oral Complaints Labor Law Violations May Be Protected from Retaliation

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:27:07 -0800

On March 22, 2011, the United States Supreme Court published an important opinion on retaliation law, holding that oral as well as written complaints about wage and labor law violations are protected activities as far as retaliatory discipline or firing go. In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. the plaintiff complained that the location of the time clock prevented workers from receiving credit for putting on and taking off their work clothes. Specifically, plaintiff raised this concern with his shift supervisor and he also discussed the issue with one of the human resources managers. Naturally, the employer denied that that was the reason for plaintiff termination and argued that he was fired for not clocking in and out when he was taking breaks.

In this favorable to employees decision, the court makes an interesting observation that "filing" a complaint within the meaning of at least the FLSA (Federal Labor Standards Act) also mean "oral filing" or complaining verbally. The defendant argued that the employer should have a fair warning of a protected activity and therefore to be protected it has to be reduced to writing. The court agreed with the fair warning part, but rejected the notion that a complaint has to be in writing in order to be a "fair warning" to the employer. The court has articulated a fair warning standard that makes a lot of sense: "to fall within the score of the anti-retaliation provision, a complaint must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection. This standard can be met by oral complaints as well as by written ones."

ADA (American Disabilties Act) and FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act)

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:52:31 -0800

Despite the fact that FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) has been enacted several decades ago, most people who are familiar with the basic ADA disability protections against discrimination at workplace, are not familiar or have not even heard about the FEHA. Fair Employment and Housing Act - a California version of the federal ADA, is similar and in some ways far more protective of employees than its federal counterpart.

One of the significant differences between the two laws which favors employees in the FEHA is the definition of disability. Under ADA, disability is an impairment that substantially limits a basic physical or mental function of the body. Under FEHA, on the other hand, there is no requirement of "substantial" limitation and basically any limitation of a basic physical or mental function is considered disability, entitling a worker in California to the protections, and generally triggering the employer's obligation to engage in interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations. California Government Code 12926.1 codifies the definition of disability which is very broad and includes a wide range of chronic and non-chronic conditions that would qualify as a disability at workplace.

For more information, read the full text of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The US Supreme Court Allows a Third Party Retaliation Claim to Go Forward

Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:44:30 -0800

Reversing the lower court's decision, the US Supreme Court, in Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, a third party retaliation claim proceed. In that case, both the Plaintiff and his fiance worked for the Defendant. Shortly after Plaintiff's fiancee filed sex discrimination charge with EEOC against the employer, Plaintiff was fired. The Court noted that Title VII's antiretaliation provision prohibits an employer from discriminating any of his employees for engaging in protected conduct, and further pointed out that it is obvious that a reasonable worker might be discouraged from engaging in a protected activity, such as complaining about discrimination or harassment, if she knew that her fiance would be fired.

The court declined to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals would be unlawful. The court stated however that firing a close family member will almost always meet the standard of a person who is in a "zone of interest" for purposes of establishing retaliation against a third party.