by

employee receiving medical leave note from a doctorWhen your doctor takes you off work or extends your medical leave under FMLA or CFRA, getting the note is only part of the job. Make sure it actually reaches the person responsible for handling your leave at your workplace. “My doctor’s office said they would send it” is not the same as “My employer confirmed receiving it.” That difference can have serious consequences.

How a simple delivery problem can put your job at risk

Medical offices get busy. Someone forgets to send the note. An email stays in drafts. A fax machine malfunctions. The office uses an outdated email address or the wrong fax number. Problems can also happen at work. Someone opens the email or picks up the fax but never forwards it to human resources or the person managing your leave. Meanwhile, you believe your employer knows you cannot return to work for a certain amount of days. However, your employer may believe your approved leave has ended and you have stopped showing up without an explanation.

Continue Reading

by

employee relocating
You leave a steady job, move your family, and sign a new lease because an employer describes an opportunity worth relocating for. Months later, the company eliminates your position, or you discover that the job was never what you were told it would be. Does signing an at-will offer letter mean you have no case against that employer? Not necessarily. California Labor Code section 970 prohibits knowingly false statements used to persuade someone to relocate for work. An at-will agreement can create a serious obstacle to a claim based on promised job security. But it does not automatically defeat a claim that the employer lied about the actual job. That distinction was central to the case of White v. Smule, Inc. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 346.

The case: recruited to build a team, terminated five months later 

Kenneth White alleged that Smule recruited him to help reorganize its project management operations. According to his evidence, the company needed an experienced leader to develop and manage a team, improve its processes, and support expansion. White left his job in Washington and moved his family to the Bay Area. He signed an offer letter stating that his employment was at will, and that representations outside the letter were not binding. Five months later, Smule terminated him, saying his position was being eliminated.

Continue Reading

by

Employee reviewing an arbitration agreement before pursuing a wrongful termination claimA recently published California Court of Appeal decision, Morales v. Superior Court, provides an excellent example of why the precise wording of an arbitration agreement matters. A relatively small difference in contractual language ultimately determined whether an employee’s discrimination and wrongful termination claims would be decided in private arbitration or in court. For employees with potentially significant discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination claims, that distinction can be extremely important because the chances of winning a case in court are generally much higher than in arbitration.

Sylvia Morales worked for San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for nearly 20 years. After SDG&E terminated her employment in 2024, Morales filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Her claims were based on California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and California public policy. SDG&E responded by asking the court to force Morales into arbitration.

And initially, the employer won. The trial court concluded that Morales had agreed to arbitrate her claims and ordered the case into arbitration. Morales challenged that ruling in the California Court of Appeal, which reached the opposite conclusion.

Continue Reading

by

Medical work restrictions weighed against an employee’s ability to work under California disability lawEmployees returning to work after an injury sometimes encounter an unexpected problem: their employer decides that a medical restriction means they can no longer perform their job.

But a medical report does not necessarily give an employer a free pass to terminate an employee. A federal court’s decision in Narayan v. Compass Group USA, Inc. provides a useful example. The employee had worked for the company for approximately 32 years, suffered a knee injury, underwent surgery, and returned to work. He then performed his job for months before the company received a medical report that it interpreted as imposing permanent work restrictions.

Instead of resolving conflicting medical information and meaningfully involving the employee in the interactive process as required by both the California FEHA and ADA, the employer terminated him. The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, allowing the employee’s disability discrimination and related claims to proceed.

Continue Reading

by

informing employer of disabilityOne of the fundamental requirements of a disability discrimination claim is that the employer knew, or reasonably should have known, that the employee had a disability. For obvious reasons, an employer cannot be held liable for discriminating on the basis of a disability it did not know existed.

An employer “knows an employee has a disability” when (1) “the employee tells the employer about his condition,” or (2) “the employer otherwise becomes aware of the condition, such as through a third party or by observation.” Faust v. California Portland Cement Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 864, 887. When neither the employee nor a third party informs the employer of the disability, California law imposes a much higher standard. In that situation, knowledge will be imputed to the employer based solely on its observations only when “the fact of disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts.” Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1167.

This is a pretty difficult standard to satisfy. If an employee has not disclosed a medical condition or requested an accommodation, it is often challenging to prove that the employer should have recognized that unusual behavior or performance issues were caused by a disability rather than something else, especially when the condition at issue is mental rather than physical.

Continue Reading

by

Attorney reviewing California PERB retaliation claim involving adverse employment action and public employee labor rights.In most retaliation cases, the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) applies the framework established in Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato USD).

Under the Novato USD framework, the charging party must first establish a prima facie case by proving four elements: (1) The employee engaged in an activity protected by a labor relations statute enforced by PERB; (2) The employer knew of the employee’s protected activity; (3) The employer took an adverse employment action against the employee; and (4) There was a causal connection, or “nexus,” between the protected activity and the adverse action—that is, the protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 26; City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15.)

Once the charging party establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts if the evidence also demonstrates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employer’s decision. In such circumstances, the employer may assert, as an affirmative defense, that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the employee’s protected activity. The employer bears the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. (City and County of San Francisco, supra, at p. 15.)

Continue Reading

by

ChatGPT-Image-Jun-30-2026-09_35_29-AM-300x200In almost every California employment case, the employee and the employer have very different explanations for what happened. An employee may believe that he was fired for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.  The employer will claim that the same employee was fired for performance issues, poor attendance, misconduct, or a combination of the above reasons. Whether those reasons are true is a separate question. The important point is that they will almost certainly become part of the case.

When our office evaluates a potential wrongful termination case, we certainly want to hear why the employee believes the termination was unlawful. However, we also want to know:

  • What criticisms did your employer make about your work?
Continue Reading

by

tech company job interview with recruiterPicture the scene: you’re sitting across from a hiring manager who practically vibrates with excitement. The company, you’re told, is “on the verge of a Series C.” Our new product will “change the industry.” Revenues are “projected to triple.” The culture is “like a family.” Six months later, there’s no Series C, the product flopped, and the company just laid off a third of its staff — including you.

Can you sue them for fraud? In California, the short answer is almost always no — and understanding why reveals something important about the boundary between enthusiastic salesmanship and legally enforceable promises.

The doctrine of puffery: when words are just words

Continue Reading
Contact Information
San Francisco
57 Post Street, Suite 812
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 295-4730
Fax: (415) 508-3474
Sacramento
980 9th Street, 16th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2014 – 2026, The Law Office of Arkady Itkin
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design