Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. Under FEHA, it is illegal for an employer to harass an employee based on race and unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who reports racial harassment. These laws are critical for ensuring that employees can work without fear of being targeted due to their race and without worrying about reprisals for speaking out against discriminatory behavior.

Key Takeaways from the California Supreme Court on Harassment and Retaliation Protections

The California Supreme Court recently issued a critical ruling that further defined what constitutes actionable harassment and retaliation under FEHA. In this case, an employee reported that a coworker had directed a racial slur at them. After the incident was reported, the employee faced obstruction from their employer’s human resources department and was subjected to threatening behavior.

The Court addressed two important issues. First, it confirmed that even a single incident of racial harassment could be considered sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment. This decision underscores that racial harassment doesn’t have to be part of a prolonged pattern of behavior to be actionable; one extreme incident may be enough to alter the conditions of employment and violate FEHA protections.

Continue Reading ›

A recent case from the Fourth Appellate District highlights the challenges employees face when seeking justice for discrimination in the workplace. An employee sued her supervisor and employer for age and national origin discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The employer moved for summary judgment, claiming it did not meet the definition of an “employer” under FEHA, as it had fewer than five employees. The trial court ruled in favor of the employer, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. This case underscores the importance of a knowledgeable California employment lawyer focusing on employee rights.

Why You Need a California Employment Lawyer

Navigating employment law can be daunting for employees facing discrimination or harassment. Employers often have legal resources and expertise to challenge claims, making it difficult for employees to achieve a fair outcome. A dedicated employment lawyer can provide essential support and advocacy, ensuring your rights are protected and your case is presented effectively.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District found an arbitration agreement between the University of Southern California (USC) and its employee (plaintiff) to be unconscionable. The employee filed a lawsuit against USC and two coworkers, alleging discrimination and harassment. USC sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement the employee signed as a condition of her employment. The trial court denied this motion, ruling that the agreement was unconscionable and could not be severed. USC appealed the decision, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s findings.

The case underscores the importance of having a skilled attorney when dealing with arbitration agreements. These agreements often contain complex and sometimes unfair terms that can heavily favor the employer. Without legal assistance, employees might unknowingly waive their rights to pursue specific claims in court, as seen in this case.

The Difference Between Procedural and Substantive Unconscionability

The Los Angeles County Superior Court’s decision to deny USC’s motion to compel arbitration highlights key aspects of procedural and substantive unconscionability under California law. Procedural unconscionability occurs when an agreement is presented as a contract of adhesion, meaning it is offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with no opportunity for negotiation. In the case involving USC, the arbitration agreement was forced upon the employee as a mandatory condition of employment, illustrating a classic example of procedural unconscionability.

Continue Reading ›

For individuals in California or elsewhere who believe they have been victims of sexual harassment or discrimination, pursuing these claims against a large multinational corporation can be a daunting task. A California woman recently sought relief from the California Court of Appeals to proceed with her claims of sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on the conduct of the employer and management while she worked with the defendant.

The Alleged Harassment and Discrimination

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the appellant was a senior marketing manager for the defendant company. She alleges she faced sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation starting in 2012. Her initial supervisor made her uncomfortable by following her around the office. Later, while working internationally, her new supervisors engaged in unwanted sexual conduct, creating a hostile work environment, and unfairly targeted her by gathering personal information and reprimanding her. After raising compliance issues, she claims these supervisors retaliated by restricting her budget, ridiculing her, and sabotaging her job opportunities. Following her termination at the end of 2018, she sued the company and her supervisors for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful discharge, labor code violations, and negligent hiring and supervision.

The Discovery Dispute and Attorney-Client Privilege

After filing her lawsuit, the appellant requested evidence from her employer related to internal investigations into her claims that were performed by an attorney hired by the defendant company to evaluate the claims. The company rejected her request, citing attorney-client privilege in refusing to turn over the documents. The trial court agreed with the company and prevented the woman from obtaining the evidence, seriously hampering her case. The woman appealed the ruling to the California Court of Appeals, arguing that the challenged documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent California Court of Appeals case decided in February 2023, the court’s decision illuminates the burden that employees bear, specifically employees who are bringing disability discrimination claims against their employers. In this case, a registered nurse’s employment was terminated by the County after the County determined that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job after the nurse sought to return to her position under new restrictions after an absence. The County also decided that an accommodation was not possible. The nurse filed a lawsuit against the county on various claims of disability discrimination, in addition to a retaliation claim.

A closer look at the details of the case reveals that the plaintiff, a registered nurse, suffered an injury while pushing a patient on a gurney. The nurse did not immediately report the work incident, hoping her injury would improve, but once she realized that it was not improving, she sought medical treatment. After her healthcare provider indicated that she should be placed in a sit-down job that required no standing, the County employer accommodated the work restrictions. Before the lawsuit, multiple incidents occurred, including the County determining that the nurse could not perform her essential job functions. Ultimately, the nurse decided to file a lawsuit against the County.

The lower trial court ruled in favor of the County, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of discrimination, and the plaintiff filed an appeal. The appellate court ultimately agreed with the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence. In the opinion, the appellate court lays out the elements required to establish disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Under the Act, a plaintiff is required to present evidence that he or she (1) suffers from a disability, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability.

In a recent opinion decided by the Napa County Superior Court, the court decided against the plaintiff in an employment lawsuit, bringing to light the importance of meeting filing deadlines and understanding and following the legal rules put in place regarding certain filing requirements. In this case, an employee of the California Department of State Hospitals was disciplined by her employer with a temporary salary reduction and was later terminated. The employee unsuccessfully challenged the salary reduction and termination in administrative proceedings before the State Personnel Board but failed to seek judicial review of those adjudications. She ultimately sued the Department under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act for retaliation, race-based harassment, and failure to prevent harassment. She also amended her complaint to assert a claim under the California Whistleblower Protection Act.

The plaintiff was a Black woman who was employed by the Department. She filed the lawsuit in April 2019 and filed her first amended complaint in March 2021. The amended complaint, amongst multiple other incidents, alleges multiple incidents of racist terms by coworkers and alleges multiple instances of disciplinary actions that the plaintiff believed were in retaliation for reporting her coworker’s racist comments. The incidents span from 2015 to 2018. The Plaintiff appealed to the State Personnel Board, and after two-day evidentiary hearings, the Board sided against the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the higher court that reviewed the Plaintiff’s case found against her for multiple reasons. One reason provided is that two events that she discussed in her complaint occurred much earlier and were outside of the filing deadline. The court also considered whether certain claims she made were barred because they were not distinguishable from earlier claims made. Additionally, the court found that her whistleblower claim was barred because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In other words, because the plaintiff did not seek judicial review of the administrative decisions that the State Personnel Board made by timely filing a required petition, she was no longer able to bring the claims that she brought. Certain legal rules require that all judicial remedies are exhausted first. This means that the legal rules prevent plaintiffs from bringing claims that should have been brought in a previous suit involving the same parties and also bars litigating the same issues that were argued and decided in the first suit.

In a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeals Division in California ruled on an appeal involving a former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) who lodged wrongful termination allegations against Ampla Health, a nonprofit healthcare provider serving low-income families. The plaintiff sued her former employer for race and gender discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination after Ampla Health eliminated her CFO position and designated her responsibilities to other employees. Ampla Health filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. The trial court granted the motion in full, and the plaintiff appealed. In its recent opinion, the Appeals Division affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

Soon after the plaintiff was hired as CFO of Ampla Health in 2016, the CEO received complaints about the plaintiff’s attitude toward staff and expressed concern that she disclosed confidential and inaccurate information to the board. Ampla Health claimed the plaintiff repeatedly left work without requesting time off, resulting in a threat to dock her pay. After a poor annual review, she did not receive a raise. However, every other executive received a raise, despite negative findings in their performance audits. Finally, after she reported Ampla Health’s various financial woes to the board, the nonprofit eliminated her position to reduce costs. The CEO further cited poor performance and interpersonal skills as reasons for her termination.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged discrimination and retaliation. First, she lodged complaints of racial and gender bias against other high-level staff members. Second, she claimed CEO allowed non-Black employees to bypass attendance policies. She also noted that she was terminated while on paid family leave. She brought causes of action for race and gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and retaliation under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), among other claims.

Continue Reading ›

Earlier this month, an employee appealed the lower court’s decision in favor of his employer in a wrongful termination case. When the case was before the lower court, the plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that he should succeed because his employer engaged in disability discrimination. On appeal, the higher court agreed with the lower court, ruling again in favor of the company that had employed the plaintiff.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the plaintiff began working as an assembler in 1989 for a fairly large company. In 2015, the plaintiff took an extended medical leave because he was having problems with his liver. These medical issues eventually led to a liver transplant in October 2016.

The plaintiff had been unable to work for approximately 13 months. In late October 2016, the plaintiff’s employer sent him a letter informing him that his unpaid medical leave had expired many months ago, and that he had one week to return to work before the employer would assume he had resigned. The plaintiff failed to return to work, and the company terminated his employment one week later.

In November 2018, the plaintiff filed a claim for disability discrimination. He alleged that the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation given his medical condition.

Continue Reading ›