Oakland Personal Injury Attorney BlogWhen you are pursuing your employer for employment discrimination, there are paths you can choose and sometimes some hurdles to clear in choosing a course that will give you a good chance of obtaining the successful outcome you need and deserve. Sometimes, one of these hurdles is avoiding having your case sidetracked into binding arbitration. In a recent case from Southern California, the California Court of Appeal concluded that an employer couldn’t use a signed employee handbook to force the employee into arbitration because the employer had written into the handbook express language stating that it did not create a binding contract.
Articles Posted in Employment Law
California Worker Can Pursue Employment Contract, But Not Disability Discrimination, Claim Based Upon Medical Marijuana Use
A recent federal court ruling issued an important reminder about how far the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s protections against disability discrimination do, and do not, go. The federal district court in the Eastern District of California explained that the FEHA clearly does not prohibit employers from terminating employees for using medical marijuana. However, if the employer creates personnel policies promising not to punish medical marijuana-using employees in states where the practice is legal, the employer may face a breach of employment contract claim for firing an employee for no reason other than his medical marijuana use.
California Employee Allowed to Continue Disability Discrimination Case Despite Failure to Obtain Doctor’s Note About Limitations
A recent federal court ruling in a disability discrimination case filed under the Fair Employment and Housing Act can offer important knowledge to employers regarding the interactive process when it comes to employees with disabilities. In this ruling, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California refused to award a summary judgment to an employer, even though the employee did not satisfy the employer’s request for a doctor’s note. The information the employer already had on hand, even without the requested note, was enough to put it on notice that the employee had certain disabilities and therefore placed the employer under the obligation to engage in an interactive process.
California Employees, Fitness-for-Duty Psychological Exams, and FEHA Compliance
A recent ruling by a federal District Court in San Francisco provides a useful reminder to both employees and employers of the narrow circumstances in which the employers may demand psychological fitness-for-work examinations without violating the Fair Employment and Housing Act, due in part to the potentially powerful negative impacts of requiring employees to undergo such exams. In the recent case, since the exam in question never actually took place, the court concluded that neither side was entitled to summary judgment, and the issue of the exam demand’s compliance with the FEHA should proceed to trial.
EEOC’s Investigation in California Man’s Discrimination Claim Extends Filing Deadline, Making Lawsuit Timely
When you have a potential employment discrimination case, there are many legal procedural hurdles you may have to clear. One of these is making sure that you file the appropriate legal documents before the deadline for filing passes. Filing late could mean losing out entirely on the chance to pursue your case. In one recent Fair Employment and Housing Act case, the California Court of Appeal ruled that, contrary to the decision of a lower court, the man had not missed the applicable deadline and could proceed with his claim of racial discrimination.
California Appeals Court Upholds $16M Judgment in Age Discrimination Case
An employer who was 64 years old when his employer terminated his employment, allegedly for stealing a bell pepper from the workplace cafeteria, recently received some good news from the California Court of Appeal. That court upheld a lower court’s verdict in his favor and the $16 million damages award that went with it. The appeals court made its ruling because the employee had provided ample proof at trial to allow the jury to conclude that the employer didn’t really fire an employee with a relatively clean record for possibly stealing a 68-cent vegetable. Additionally, the employer’s acts of hiding its illegal motives behind false non-discriminatory reasons constituted the sort of malice that permitted a punitive damages award.
Courts Refuse to Allow San Francisco Mechanic to Pursue Title VII, FEHA Claims Over Noose Hung in the Workplace
The imagery of a hanging noose often carries with it strong connotations, particularly for African-Americans. Despite this image’s potency, a federal court decided that an African-American worker’s discovery of a noose hanging at his work site was not enough to allow the employee to proceed with a hostile work environment claim. Generally, successful hostile work environment claims require proof of “pervasive or severe” race discrimination, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that a single noose-hanging incident was neither pervasive nor sufficiently severe.The employee, Jon Henry, had worked as an HVAC mechanic at the University of California at San Francisco since 2006. During his time there, Henry claimed that he experienced multiple instances of racial animus that created a hostile work environment. These included inappropriate racial comments, the use of racial epithets, and, in July 2012, the hanging of a noose in the workplace.
California Deputy Wins Appeal Because Disability Discrimination Cases Don’t Require Proof of an Employer’s Ill Will
A recent California Court of Appeal case from Northern California reaffirms the difference between disability discrimination cases and other types of disability matters. In this 2016 decision, the court re-affirmed that, if an employee is alleging that his employer discriminated based upon his disability or perceived disability, he is not required to prove that the employer’s adverse actions were the result of an intent to discriminate.
The employee in the case, Dennis Wallace, was a sheriff’s deputy in Stanislaus County. Wallace, who had previously injured his left knee at work, received a 12-month assignment as a court bailiff in 2010. Six months into the assignment, in October 2010, a medical exam revealed that the deputy’s knee was seriously damaged, and the doctor placed Wallace on further restrictions. Despite Wallace’s claims that he could perform the duties of his job, the employer decided to place him on leave. The employer made its decision based upon the mistaken belief that the October 2010 medical report left it no choice but to place the deputy on leave. Wallace remained on unpaid leave for more than a year, when he passed a fitness-for-duty exam.
California Appeals Court Rules that FEHA Protections Cover Employees who Have Family Members With Disabilities
A groundbreaking new California Court of Appeal ruling has expanded the rights of workers under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, establishing that not only does that law protect employees with disabilities, but also it protects employees with family members who have disabilities. In the recent case, the court announced, for the first time, that employers have a legal responsibility to reasonably accommodate employees who have family members with disabilities and who depend on the employee for assistance.
Luis Castro-Ramirez, the employee in the case, had a son who required daily dialysis. When the man sought employment as a truck driver with Dependable Highway Express, Inc. in 2009, he told his prospective employer about the child’s needs. Specifically, he notified the employer that the child needed dialysis every day and that Castro-Ramirez was responsible for administering that daily dialysis. Only people who have completed classes in administering dialysis can perform the task, and Castro-Ramirez was the only person in his household who qualified.
Arbitration Clauses in Employment Contracts and Your California FEHA Violation Claim
Two actors who accused their employer of maintaining a hostile work environment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act successfully persuaded the California courts not to enforce the arbitration clauses in their employment contracts. While employers can demand arbitration of FEHA claims in some situations, the California Court of Appeal has twice ruled that this employer could not enforce its arbitration clause because it would have forced the employees to pay arbitration fees that they lacked the financial means to afford, which would have closed off all avenues for pursuing their hostile work environment claims.
Both cases involved actors who signed on to a musical theater production, “Beautiful,” performed in the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills. One action was launched by an actress in the production, Jessica Prince. Another was initiated by Keith Somers, an actor in “Beautiful.” In Prince’s case, she alleged that the owner of the production company and producer of the musical, Mitchell Pletcher, sexually harassed her. She also stated that her employer altered her schedule and reduced her compensation, ultimately replacing her with an understudy.