Posts

Bay Area Home Care Provider pays $340,000 for Client Harassment

EEOC Obtains $340,000 for Caregivers Harassed Daily by 80-Year-Old Client

 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, R. MacArthur Corp. agreed to pay $340,000 in damages to five former employees resulting from a client’s inappropriate sexual conduct. R. MacArthur Corp.’s successor, San Oak Caring Hands LLC, agreed to implement measures to prevent future harassment.

According to the EEOC’s suit, “caregivers employed by RMC, a franchisee of Home Instead Senior Care, reported that an 80-year-old client in Alameda, Calif., repeatedly groped them, offered lewd com­ments about their breasts and buttocks, and made additional racially and sexually offensive comments while they were providing in-home assistance.” The EEOC claimed that the employer failed to act on employee complaints and even retaliated against one complaining caregiver by refusing to place her in other available assignments.

The employee who brought the charge to the EEOC said, “I’m hoping this settlement will encourage other in-home caregivers to realize that while we take care of people, we also deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and the laws protect us from harassment even when our workplace is inside someone else’s home.”

Under a five-year consent decree settling the suit, RMC will pay $340,000 to five caregivers. San Oak Caring Hands, the entity that now owns and operates RMC’s Home Instead franchises, will institute thorough anti-harassment training and policies that emphasize prevention, prompt correction and compe­tent investigation. San Oak will engage a consultant to review discrimination matters and provide perio­dic reporting of its training, policies and complaint investigation to the EEOC.

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Linda Ordonio-Dixon said, “It’s important that we send a clear message that harassment is not part of a caregiver’s job description and that employers must do what they can to prevent and correct any abuses, even if the workplace happens to be in a client’s home. In-home care­givers can be particularly vulnerable to harassment, and one of the EEOC’s top priorities is to defend vulnerable workers against discrimination.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director William Tamayo noted, “According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, home health aides have been projected to be the fourth-fastest growing occupation in the nation. In fact, California has just passed legislation, AB 3082, ensuring that the state Department of Social Services develop anti-harassment training and a method to track cases of sexual harassment of in-home care providers.”

One of the difficulties in caring for persons with diminished capacity is the lack of impulse control. Some care recipients lack the ability to control their sexual comments and conduct. Placing employees in such an environment creates a risk for the employer, but the person still requires care. The company may have to choose between providing services to a client that requires services and protecting its employees from unlawful harassment. Having handled several similar cases, I know this is a very difficult decision.

There are steps employers can take to protect employees even if the client’s medical condition creates a potentially hostile work environment. Open communication channels are necessary, and the company has to ensure the employees know that their protection is important. If an employer cannot establish sufficient measures to protect the employees, the company may not be able to provide the services the client needs.

Original Article by Robert Nuddleman of the 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 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.

2019 PFAC Conference

I’ll be speaking at the 2019 PFAC Conference taking place May 1-4 at the Disneyland Resort Hotel in Anaheim. This conference provides a comprehensive educational opportunity for professional fiduciaries as well as pertinent learning for estate and trust attorneys, guardians, conservators and probate administrators. I encourage you to take a look at the schedule located at PFACMeeting.org and consider attending. The conference offers up to 20 CLPF CEs and up to 18 MCLEs (non-specialized).

For more information, contact PFAC at 844.211.3151.

I’ll be speaking at the Early Bird Track (yes, that’s at 7:15 in the morning!) on Thursday, May 2nd. I’ll be discussing Working with Caregivers: Solutions to Common Problems

I’ll cover topics such as:

  • Who is the Employer and Why is it Important?
  • Basic Employment Laws for Caregivers
  • The Right Way to Pay
  • Room and Board
  • Workplace Injuries
  • Simplest Solutions
  • What are the Terms?

I hope to see you there.

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.

Will the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Be Extended?

Senator Connie Leyva introduced SB 1015 to eliminate the “sunset clause” in the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. The DWBR (eff. 1/1/14) entitles personal attendants, aka caregivers, to overtime premiums whenever they work more than 9 hours in a day or more than 45 hours in a week.

Sunset Clause in Domestic Workers Bill of Rights

The original statute contained a sunset clause:

This part shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2017, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2017, deletes or extends that date.

Several bills tried to modify or eliminate the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. SB 1015 simply eliminates the sunset clause. The bill passed the Assembly on August 18th. It passed the Senate on August 30th (just before the last day for each house to pass bills).

Governor Brown and the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights

The SB 1015 moves to the governor’s office, where he will have 12 days to veto the bill before it becomes law. I anticipate Governor Brown will sign the bill considering he signed the original DWBR. According to Senator Leyva, the bill was sponsored by the California Domestic Workers Coalition and supported by over 100 community, labor, education and legal rights organizations. The original law required the governor to convene a committee to explore the impact of the law. I have been unable to locate any information regarding the committee or what conclusions it reached.

Is the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights a boon for low-income workers or a bane for the elderly community? Either way, the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights is likely here to stay.

UPDATE 9/12/16: Governor Brown signed AB 1015, so it is official. The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights is here to stay.

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.