Posts

Sexual Orientation and Transgender Status are Protected by Title VII

In the long fight for equality, the Supreme Court officially ruled that dismissing an employee for being homosexual or transgender violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII. In 1964, Congress “outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”. The Supreme Court decision on June 15, 2020, concluded these cases are examples of discrimination based on sex; that sex is a “necessary and undisguised” factor in the employer’s decision.

So, what brought these cases to the Supreme Court?

In 2013, Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman was fired from R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes. Mrs. Stephens was a recently promoted employee in good-standing. In 2013, she announced to family, friends, and co-workers she was starting treatment to transition into a woman. She informed her colleagues she will return to work dressed accordingly. Three days after the announcement, her employer fired her. In response, Mrs. Stephens sued under Title VII, alleging unlawful discrimination based on sex. The Sixth Circuit concluded that Title VII does not allow an employer to fire an employee because the individual is transgender. In Mrs. Stephens case, there was no question her transition was the reason for her termination. Her former boss testified in court that because Mrs. Stephens was “no longer going to present himself as a man”, they felt her relationship with the company would no longer work. Sadly, Mrs. Stephens died at age 59 in May of 2020 due to kidney failure. Her heirs did not let this end her fight for equal rights.

In a companion case, skydiving instructor Donald Zarda was fired after mentioning to a customer that Zarda was gay. Despite sever several years of employment with Altitude Express the company fired Mr. Zarda the following day. This happened in 2010. Mr. Zarda timely sued for discrimination but passed away in 2014 in a BASE-jumping accident.

Bostock v. Clayton County is the case most heavily associated with the Supreme Court’s decision. Gerald Bostock was a child welfare advocate in Clayton County Georgia. Mr. Bostock was a stellar employee for over a decade, having received national awards for his work. In his spare time, Mr. Bostock joined a gay recreational softball league. Members of his community made derogatory commentary regarding Mr. Bostock’s sexual orientation. His boss fired him for “conduct ‘unbecoming’ of a county employee”. Mr. Bostock sued, and the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Title VII does not prohibit employers from firing employees for sexual orientation.

Although Title VII does not specifically mention “sexual orientation,” “homosexuality” or “transgender status,” the court made clear that treating someone differently because of their sexual orientation or transgender status is a form of sex discrimination:

We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex. But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.

Think of it this way, if you fire a man because he wears a dress but won’t fire a woman because she wears a dress, that is treating someone differently “because of” his sex. If you discriminate against men who have romantic relationships with men, but don’t discriminate against women who have romantic relationships with men, you are discriminating against the person “based on sex.”

The origins and the individuals involved is a huge part of understanding why Title VII needed to be articulated. For many people, the ruling was shocking. For others, it was a long-waited landmark. Discrimination costs people their livelihood and puts their future at risk. Although some of these incidents took a decade to resolve, the Supreme Court’s decision and their stories help employees and employers recognize that every individual has the right to be treated equally in the workplace.

We anticipate the ripple effects in several areas of our society. hopefully, we will see positive changes in the workplace, but there is speculation regarding how religious-affiliated schools or workplaces will respond or what decisions will be needed. For now, many will celebrate this decision as a win for LGBTQ+ individuals and communities.

If you haven’t read the opinion, you can read it here. I highly recommend reading it. I think the decision was well-written, and tackles many of the arguments raised when trying to justify differential treatment. Ultimately, the arguments do not withstand judicial scrutiny.

Original article by Hannah Grossen, Legal Assistant. Edited by Robert E. Nuddleman

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of our practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. Mr. Nuddleman advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues and ensures employees are correctly paid wages owed.

Fall 2018 New Employment Laws – Part 5 – Safety Issues

Fall 2018 New Employment Laws – Part 5

2018 has closed and 2019 has begun. This is our final recap of new employment laws in California. The Legislature expanded human trafficking awareness training for certain classes of employers and made changes to workplace health and safety requirements. Employers and employees should ensure they are up to date with these new employment laws.

New Employment Laws Regarding Human Trafficking Awareness

Two new laws require employers to train certain employees who might come into contact with victims of human trafficking or receive reports about such activity. AB 2034 requires “intercity passenger rail or light rail stations” and “bus stations,” to provide at least 20 minutes of training about human trafficking to employees who might interact with victims or receive reports of such activity. Training must include the definition of different types of trafficking, common misconceptions, warning signs, and how to report trafficking. This requirement applies to new and existing employees.

SB 970 is similar, but applies to hotels and motels. It is important to note that existing law requires many businesses, including airports, ERs, rest areas, job recruitment centers, and truck stops, to post notices that include human trafficking hotline and aid organization information.

New Employment Laws Regarding Workplace Health and Safety

AB 2334 changes the amount of time employers are required to keep injury and illness records. This law requires businesses to maintain records for five years. This is in response to recent federal regulatory changes, and more state actions may come in the new year. Another law has little immediate impact on employers but might be a sign of future shifts in the regulatory landscape.

SB 1113 creates a committee to create voluntary standards for workplace mental health. While this framework remains entirely optional for the time being, it signals a new focus on ensuring protections for employees’ mental health in addition to their physical health on the job.

As always, contact our offices with any questions about employment law or if you are in need of legal services. Happy New Year!

Provided by the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Written by J.T. Keane and edited by Robert E. Nuddleman

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Labor Day is NOT the End of Summer

In the Northern Hemisphere, September 22nd marks the end of Summer, not Labor Day. Many think of Labor Day as the end of Summer because many schools start just before or just after Labor Day, and the weather starts cooling off. It is also the last Federal Holiday before the end of Summer.

Labor Day honors the workers who fought for the rights of all workers. For many, Labor Day is a day for picnics, barbecues, getting together with friends and family, trips to the beach, or just plain relaxing.

I thought it would be good to provide a few sites you can peruse for things to do this Labor Day.

Things to do in the San Francisco Bay Area over Labor Day

If you are in the SF Bay Area and looking for last-minute ideas on where to go over Labor Day, check out these options:

Funcheap.com

CBS Local

Labor Day Getaways

Maybe the Bay Area is too close, and you want to really get away. Here are some great ideas to consider:

Forbes Article

7×7 List

Song Lists for Labor Day

While you’re on your way to your destination, load up your phone other music devices, with the following songs for a great Labor Day musical treat:

Billboard List

Top 100 List

Labor Day Party Ideas

Maybe you want to stay at home with some friends or family, but need ideas for your party. Check out:

Party Ideas from Brit.co?

Make my party pretty

Food ideas for Labor Day

Whether you’re cooking for a small group, or a large party, knowing what to cook can make the difference.

Food Network Classics

Delish.com Ideas

Poems about Labor Day

Finally, when its time to calm things down and reflect on the sacrifices our predecessors suffered for the employment rights we now enjoy, consider these thoughtful poems.

A Collection of Poems

Poetry Foundation

Original article by Robert Nuddleman

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

New Sexual Harassment Protection for Legislative Staff

AB403 Protects Legislative Staff from Sexual Harassment Retaliation

Employers cannot retaliate against employees for engaging in protected activity. This includes reporting or participating in an investigation regarding sexual harassment, health and safety issues, patient safety, and other violations of the law. Governor Brown signed AB403 extending similar protections to legislative employees. I suspect AB403 found so much support due to the numerous reports of inappropriate conduct in our legislature.

AB403 defines “Legislative employee” as “an individual, other than a Member of either house of the Legislature, who is, or has been, employed by either house of the Legislature. ‘Legislative employee’ includes volunteers, interns, fellows, and applicants.” Legislative employees are protected from retaliation when making a protected disclosure.

“Protected disclosure” means a “communication by a legislative employee that is made in good faith alleging that a Member of the Legislature or legislative employee engaged in, or will engage in, activity that may constitute a violation of any law, including sexual harassment, or of a legislative code of conduct.” This includes a complaint protected by California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The protected disclosure can be made to a number of agencies or any “individual with authority over the legislative employee, or another legislative employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance.”

So, an intern or volunteer can report concerns regarding inappropriate sexual harassment to his or her supervisor without fear of unlawful retaliation. The law is so important that it became effective when Governor Brown signed the bill on February 5, 2018.

AB403 has some unique features. Violators can be subject to $10,000 fine and imprisonment for up to a year. If the alleged victim brings a civil action and proves “by a preponderance of the evidence” t against a legislative employee,” the burden of proof then switches the allegedly offending party to demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the legislative employee had not made a protected disclosure.” A prevailing plaintiff can recover attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Considering most claims against government entities and persons do not allow punitive damages, this last item is particularly significant.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Ban the Box Goes Statewide

Over the last few years, we’ve seen an increase in “ban the box” legislation. Ban the box refers to employers forcing applicants to divulge information about criminal convictions before the employer even considers the applicant. Governor Brown recently signed legislation prohibiting employers from asking about criminal convictions before the employer makes an employment offer.

Why is Ban the Box Important?

According to AB 1008, “Roughly seven million Californians, or nearly one in three adults, have an arrest or conviction record that can significantly undermine their efforts to obtain gainful employment.” AB 1008 emphasizes the importance of employment in reducing recidivism, and the impact a job can have on formerly incarcerated persons and their families. The bill also cites experts who claim “that people with conviction records have lower rates of turnover and higher rates of promotion on the job.”

The EEOC previously determined that a blanket rule against hiring persons with criminal convictions has an adverse impact on persons of color.

Other Ban the Box Legislation

In 2013, the State of California passed a Ban the Box law passed that only applied to certain public employers. That same year five states have adopted fair chance hiring laws covering private employers. In 2015, President Obama directed all federal agencies to Ban the Box and refrain from asking applicants about their convictions on the initial job application.

Since then, 29 states and over 150 cities and counties have adopted a Ban the Box law. Over 300 companies have signed the White House Fair Chance hiring pledge. Nine states and 15 major cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, adopted fair chance hiring laws that cover both public and private sector employers. Over 20 percent of the United States population now lives in a state or locality that prohibits private employers from inquiring into an applicant’s record at the start of the hiring process.

California’s Ban the Box Law

Effective January 1, 2018, it is an unlawful employment practice for private employers with 5 or more employees “To include on any application for employment, before the employer makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant’s conviction history.”

Employers may not “inquire into or consider the conviction history of the applicant” until after the employer makes a conditional offer of employment.

Employers cannot “consider, distribute, or disseminate information” about arrests that did not result in a conviction, referral or participation in a diversion program, or “convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated pursuant to law.”

What can an employer do? After making a conditional offer of employment, employers can conduct background checks. If the background check reveals a conviction, the employer can “make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position.” In making the assessment, the employer must consider all of the following:

  1. The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct.
  2. The time that has passed since the offense or conduct and completion of the sentence.
  3. The nature of the job held or sought.

The employer can, but does not have to, “commit the results of this individualized assessment to writing.” It will be easy enough to create a criminal conviction consideration form for employers to use in their assessment.

What if the Employer Decides Not to Hire?

If the employer decides not to hire the applicant based on the criminal history, the employer must “notify the applicant of this preliminary decision in writing.” The notification must contain all of the following:

  1. Notice of the disqualifying conviction or convictions that are the basis for the preliminary decision to rescind the offer.
  2. A copy of the conviction history report, if any.
  3. An explanation of the applicant’s right to respond to the notice of the employer’s preliminary decision before that decision becomes final and the deadline by which to respond.

The explanation must also advise the applicant that the applicant’s response can include evidence challenging the accuracy of the conviction history report. The applicant then has 5 days to respond to the notice. If the applicant notifies the employer in writing that the applicant disputes the accuracy of the conviction history report, then applicant gets an additional 5 business days to respond to the notice.

The employer has to consider the information submitted by the applicant before making a final decision. If the employer ultimately denies employment because of the applicant’s conviction history (even if that is only part of the reason), the employer must notify the applicant in writing of all the following:

  1. The final denial or disqualification. The employer may, but is not required to, justify or explain the employer’s reasoning for making the final denial or disqualification.
  2. Any existing procedure the employer has for the applicant to challenge the decision or request reconsideration.
  3. The right to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Exceptions to California’s Ban the Box Law

California’s Ban the Box law does not apply in any of the following positions:

  1. When a state or local agency is otherwise required by law to conduct a conviction history background check.
  2. Criminal justice agency positions under Penal Code Section 13101.
  3. Farm Labor Contractors under Labor Code Section 1685.
  4. Where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history.

The latter category could include:

  • Home Care Organizations hiring home care aides;
  • Childcare and Education services such as daycare workers, school staff
  • Healthcare such as  nurses, doctors
  • Financial Services such as financial advisors, credit experts
  • Government Workers such as police officers, mayors
  • Some Information and Technology such as systems managers, computer analysts, that have access to private information.

Employers will need to rethink and modify their hiring practices and employment applications. The new law impacts every employer with more than 5 employees.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

 

 

Retaliation Claims Get Stronger

Governor Brown just signed SB-306, which significantly strengthens retaliation claims. Employers cannot discharge, discriminate, retaliate, or take adverse action against employees because they engaged in specified protected conduct. Aggrieved employees can seek reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits. Employees can file claims with the Labor Commissioner or pursue a case in court.

Retaliation Claims by Labor Commissioner

Under amdned Labor Code 98.7, the Labor Commissioner can pursue retaliation claims even if no one complains.

The division may, with or without receiving a complaint, commence investigating an employer, in accordance with this section, that it suspects to have discharged or otherwise discriminated against an individual in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner.

The Labor Commissioner can petition the court for injunctive relief, including reinstatement. The court must order injunctive relief if “reasonable cause exists to believe that an employee has been discharged or subjected to adverse action for raising a claim of retaliation or asserting rights under any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner.” The court must consider the “chilling effect” on other employees when determining the appropriate injunctive relief.

An employer that refuses to comply with the injunctive relief can be fined “one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each day the employer continues to be in noncompliance with the court order, up to a maximum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)

Retaliation Claim Process

New Labor Code section 98.74 describes specific timelines and processes for retaliations claims by the Labor Commissioner. The Labor Commissioner issues a citation in writing, describing the nature of the violation and the amount of wages and penalties due. The citation must also include any and all appropriate relief, such as cease and desist orders, rehiring or reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and interest thereon, and posting notices to employees.

Employers have 30 days to request  hearing, or the citation becomes final. The hearing must proceed within 90 days. There is no mechanism for conducting discovery before the hearing, and no limit on how short or how long a hearing can last. The decision must be issued within 90 days of the conclusion of the hearing. The decision must contain a statement of findings, conclusions of law, and an order.

Employers dissatisfied with the results can file a writ of mandate with the superior court within 45 days. Employers must also obtain a bond “equal to the total amount of any minimum wages, liquidated damages, and overtime compensation” owed.  The bond does not have to include penalties. The order becomes final when no writ is filed.

Employers refusing to comply with a final order are subject to penalties of $100 per day per employee, up to $20,000. The affected employees receive the penalties.

Retaliation Claims by Employees

SB-306 allows employees bringing retaliation claims to include requests for injunctive relief. Courts are directed to issue injunctive relief (i.e., reinstatement) when “reasonable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred.”

The court is must consider the “chilling effect” on other employees.

The new law will go into effect January 1, 2018. You can read the full text of the bill here.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties

New San Francisco Employment Laws

San Francisco tends to be on the forefront of passing new employment laws to protect San Francisco workers. The following are two new San Francisco Employment Laws that companies and workers in San Francisco need to consider.

New San Francisco Employment Laws No. 1:

Mayor Lee signed the “Lactation in the Workplace Ordinance” on July 30, 2017.  This “first of its kind in the country” ordinance establishes new standards to ensure employers accommodate lactation.

The ordinance amends the Police Code to require employers to provide employees lactation breaks and a location for lactation. Employers must have a policy regarding lactation in the workplace that specifies a process “by which an employee will make a request for accommodation.” The ordinance defines minimum standards for lactation accommodation spaces and requires that tenant improvements or renovated in buildings designated for certain uses include lactation rooms. The ordinance also outlines lactation accommodation best practices.

The ordinance becomes operative on January 1, 2018. 

You can review the full ordinance here.

New San Francisco Employment Laws No. 2:

On July 14, 2017, Mayor Lee signed the “Employer Consideration of Applicant’s Salary History Ordinance,” also known as the “Consideration of Salary History Ordinance“.  This ordinance (which also becomes operative on July 1, 2018, applies to employers in San Francisco and to the City and County of San Francisco’s contractors and subcontractors. The intention is to “ensure that an individual’s prior earnings, which may reflect widespread, longstanding, gender-based wage disparities in the labor market, do not continue to weigh down a woman’s salary throughout her career.”

The ordinance amends the Police and Administrative Codes and ban employers from considering current or past salary of an applicant in determining whether to hire an applicant or what salary to offer the applicant. The ordinance prohibits employers from asking applicants about their current or past salary. Employers cannot disclose employee salary history without that authorization (unless the salary history is publicly available).

You can review the full ordinance here.

You can review some of my prior articles about some of the San Francisco Employment Laws passed over the years:

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Expensive Disability Accommodation Lesson

Caltrans in Nevada County learned the hard way that you cannot ignore an employee disability accommodation requests. More importantly, you can’t retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation. An article in the Sacramento Bee provides many of the details. I’ve written several articles regarding the importance of proper accommodation policies and procedures in the workplace.

Employee Awarded $3million in Disability Accommodation Lawsuit

John Barrie claimed his supervisors harassed him and ignored his requests for accommodations related to his allergies. Mr. Barrie has severe reactions to certain smells, such as chemical cleaners and perfumes. Although Nevada County Caltrans accommodated Mr. Barrie for years, Barrie alleged supervisors started harassing him and denying the disability accommodations in 2010. Barrie allegedly sought help internally through various channels, but the harassment continued. The jury believed Mr. Barrie, and awarded him $3million for the retaliation and harassment related to his allergies.

Allergies Can Constitute a Disability

State and federal laws broadly define “disability.” In short, a disability is any medical condition–psychological or physiological–that impairs one or more major life functions. Severe allergies can impair major life functions such as breathing. Some people experience severe skin rashes, headaches, nausea and vertigo from allergic reactions.

Disability discrimination laws require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations, and in some instances failing to engage in the interactive process of determining what disability accommodations are appropriate, is a violation of the law.

From the pleadings, it appears Caltrans HR department tried to accommodate Mr. Barrie. A regional administrator affirmed his allergies in 2011, and wrote an order compelling workplace accommodations. Barrie alleged his supervisors ignored the order, and retaliated against Barrie by giving him job duties outside his normal scope and moving him to less convenient job sites.

Every Disability Accommodation Request is Serious

Supervisors oftentimes fail to recognize they must treat every disability accommodation request seriously. While HR may know the requirements, ensuring supervisors comply with the law can be difficult. In Barrie’s case, an HR note revealed that Barrie’s supervisors wanted to discipline Barrie for going to HR because he went outside the “chain of command.” I suspect this factored heavily in the juries $3million award. Employers cannot retaliate against employees for requesting accommodations or raising complaints in the workplace.

If you require a workplace accommodation, or if your employee requests an accommodation, talk with an attorney familiar with disability accommodation and discrimination issues.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

IMDb Halts Age Discrimination Law

New Age Discrimination Law in the Entertainment Industry

In 2016, the California legislatures passed AB 1687, “to ensure that information obtained on an Internet Web site regarding an individual’s age will not be used in furtherance of employment or age discrimination.”  The statute prevents IMDb from publishing factual information (information about the ages of people in the entertainment industry) on its website for public consumption. Although Governor Brown signed the new age discrimination law, IMDb sued the government, arguing the statute violated its first amendment rights.

Injunction Prohibiting Enforcement of Age Discrimination Law

On February 22, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria issued an injunction prohibiting the government from enforcing the statute. According to Judge Chhabria’s order, “it’s difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the First Amendment.” Although the government established a valid “goal” of limiting age discrimination, the government failed to show that the restriction is “actually necessary” to serve a compelling government interest. The government “presented nothing to suggest that AB 1687 would actually combat age discrimination (much less that it’s necessary to combat age discrimination).” The court held “there is an exceedingly strong likelihood that IMDb will prevail in this lawsuit.”

So, for the time being, IMDb can continue to publish the ages of actors. I guess Hollywood will have to find another way to combat age discrimination in the entertainment industry. The judge’s order, although not the conclusion of the litigation, is a definite preview of how the court views this new age discrimination law.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

 

Marlon Wayans Accused of Discrimination

Discrimination in the Movies

In a recent case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, an actor working as an extra in a Marlon Wayans movie (A Haunted House 2) claims he was the victim of racial discrimination and harassment. According to Pierre Daniel, the alleged victim, during his one day of work on the movie he was compared to a Black cartoon character and called “ ‘[n]igga.’ ” Wayans filed an anti-SLAPP motion claiming Daniel’s claims arose from Wayans’s constitutional right of free speech. Wayans argued the comments were protected. He claimed the “core injury-producing conduct” arose out of the creation of the movie and its promotion over the Internet.  The trial court agreed with Wayans finding Daniel failed to establish the probability of prevailing on any of his claims.  The trial court entered judgment for Wayans, awarding him attorney fees.

On appeal, Daniel argued that the conduct at issue was not part of the “ ‘creative process’ ” inherent in making the movie because it occurred when the cameras were not rolling. Daniel claimed the comments did not involve the right of free speech or an issue of public interest.  Daniel also argued that even if the statements implicated Wayans’s right to free speech, Daniels established a probability of prevailing.  The 9th Circuit rejected Daniels argument and  affirmed judgment for Wayans.

Marlon Wayans (Wayans) co-wrote, produced, and starred in the movie, which came out in 2014.

Discrimination and Harassment in the Entertainment Industry

This is not the first time the entertainment industry avoided discrimination and harassment claims based on the “creative process.” In 2006, the California Supreme Court threw out a sexual harassment lawsuit against the makers of the hit comedy “Friends”, ruling that vulgar and coarse comments by the show’s writers reflected the “creative workplace” for a comedy with sexual themes.

Employers should not see these decisions as free license to allow racists or sexually inappropriate comments in the workplace. Employers have an obligation to provide a workplace free of sexually or racially inappropriate comments. These “entertainment” cases are outliers resulting from the unique circumstances in the studios. If the same comments were made on a factory floor or a typical office environment, I suspect the court would have gone the other way.

I will use this case in the sexual harassment prevention trainings to emphasize the importance of maintaining an appropriate work environment. The alleged comments occurred in 2013. Four years later Wayans and the other defendants were still defending the case. You can expect they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve a favorable result. Although the court ordered Daniels to pay Wayans’s attorneys fees, what are the chances that the movie extra has the ability to pay those fees?

If you have a question about inappropriate workplace conduct, contact the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. We help employers and employees in a wide range of employment disputes, including race and gender discrimination claims.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.