by

In the recent decision of Natkin v California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the appellate court clarified the term “wages” within the meaning of unemployment benefits rules. In that case, the claimant was an attorney who was laid off and who started his own law practice. On his application for unemployment benefits he calculated the wages that he was to report on his EDD claim by subtracting his business expenses from his income, which included various office purchases, such as office furniture, office supplies, etc.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and concluded that under Unemployment Ins. Code 1279, the term “wages” is plain and unambiguous, and it means “any and all compensation” received within a given period. Nothing in the law allows or even talks about the option to subtract business expenses from the total income generated by the claimant.

by

The 14th Amended of the Constitution provides that no state shall deprive any person of… property without the due process. Before the state deprives someone of a protected property interest, the right to some kind of prior hearing must be provided. Regents of State Colleges v Roth (1972). Property interest is not created by the Constitution. Rather, it is created and defined by the existing rules and understandings that stem from an independent source, such as state law-rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.

The Supreme Court explained that government employees can have a protected property interest in their continued employment, if they have a legitimate claim to tenure or if the terms of their employment make it clear that the employee can be fired only for cause. Perry v Sindermann, 408 US 593 (1972). Thus, such employees as assistant college professors, who are hired for a fixed one-year term and are not tenured, do not have a property interest in their job if their contract is not renewed after its expiration.

Thus, the first main step in determining whether an employee has property interest in his/her job under the 14th Amendment is asking whether the position can be terminated only for cause and/or whether it is tenured.

by

The Pregnancy Disability Leave regulations provide that all employers must provide a leave of up to four months, as needed, for the periods of time an employee is actually disabled because of pregnancy even if an employe has a policy or practice that provides less than four months of leave for other similarly situated temporarily disabled employees. If an employer has a more generous internal leave policy for similarly situated employees with other temporary disabilities than is required for pregnancy purposes under the regulations, the employer must then provide the more generous leave to employees temporarily disabled by pregnancy. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 2, section 7291.9(b)).

Thus, under PDLL, an employee disabled by pregnancy is entitled to up to four months of disability leave, regardless of any hardship to her employer. Under the FEHA, a disabled employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation – which may include leave of no statutory fixed duration – provided that such accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

It is been held that an employee may be entitled to both – the pregnancy leave and then, if needed, additional disability leave for a qualifying disability, and that disability is not in place of pregnancy by leave but a benefit in addition to pregnancy leave to a qualifying employee. (Fuentes Sanchez v Swissport, Inc.)

by

Recently, one of our cases was dismissed after nearly two years of litigation in Sacramento Superior Court, because one key piece of evidence was missing. In that case, a State employee was deemed AWOL after not returning to work by the date, noted by her doctor. She requested an additional leave from her supervisor after having been on medical leave for nearly a year already at that time.

The supervisor refused to provide the same despite knowing about the claimant’s long history of injury, pain and treatment. That manager was firm that he was going to follow the instructions of then existing medical note, ordering the the employee return to work with specific restrictions. The employee did not return to work, but instead went to see her doctor who apparently extended her medical leave.

However, the claimant was not able to produce that medical note at the time the motion to dismiss the case was heard and also wasn’t able to prove that she provided the note to any of her manager prior to being deemed AWOL and terminated.

Continue Reading

by

One of the more common wrongful termination scenarios that Kaiser employees seem to face is retaliation for complaining about patient safety or other violations of safety and patient care. It’s easy for management to retaliate against registered nurses or nursing assistants, and it’s as easy as finding minor job related mistakes, such as charting errors that have no actual significance, in order to set the employee who complained about an unsafe practice for termination.

If you feel you are being targeted and retaliated against, you might not be able to save your job, unless you manage to transfer to work under a different management as soon as possible and before your are terminated. However, there are a few things you can do to make your future claim stronger, in case you choose to pursue a retaliation and/or wrongful termination case against your employer:

1. Keep track of all the important documents, e-mails, and your own chronology of any events that would suggest that your employer was unhappy about your complaints or other protected activities, and was trying to set you up for failure and for being fired.

Continue Reading

by

One of the common disability law issues that may arise at workplace is when an employee suffers an industrial injury, obtains FMLA leave for that injury and also goes on workers compensation leave, as instructed by his workers comp doctor. That employee may have also accrued paid time off.

Two common questions arise in this kind of situation:

1. Can the employer count FMLA and workers compensation leave concurrently?

Continue Reading

by

There are several compelling reason for an unusually high number of discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination complaints an claims filed against John George Hospital and other facilities of ACMC (Alameda County Medical Center). However, the most significant reason seems to be the grossly inadequate and undereducated human resources management staff and those managers who are in charge of both preventing discrimination and harassment from occurring and handling it properly and properly when it occurs.

Many of the human resources managers and high level directors and administrators at ACMC have no skills, experience or (formal) qualifications to deal with harassment and discrimination at workplace, and they often don’t both to consult with their attorney before making important decisions, such as suspending, demoting, or terminating and employee.

Having deposed several of ACMC’s managers, I found that some of them think that they are well qualified to handle the employees’ disability rights and discrimination and retaliation concerns just because these managers have been in their position for decades. They seem to not grasp the fact that length of service alone does not make you more qualified with certain workplace issues.

Continue Reading

by

Some employers assume that just because their employee is on temporary but total disability, i.e. he is completely incapable of performing his job duties for a limited period of time, this means that the employee is not qualified to accommodations under ADA or FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) and therefore can be terminated. This is often incorrect and can be basis for a wrongful termination claim.

It is well established that an employee who is temporarily disabled and who needs leave of absence to recover from his disability or medical condition may nevertheless be a qualified individual under ADA or FEHA and may be entitled to reasonable accommodations.

A reasonable accommodation can include providing the employee accrued paid leave or additional unpaid leave for treatment…if it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties. Hanson v Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999).

Continue Reading

by

when your fmla leave is deniedAn employer who without intent to deceive makes a definite but erroneous representation to this employee that he is eligible for FMLA leave and has reason to believe that the employee will rely upon it, may be estopped to later claim that an employee wasn’t eligible for FMLA and therefore should not have been granted that leave. It does not matter for the purposes of this issue whether the employer intentionally mislead the employee initially about being eligible for FMLA or whether it was an innocent mistake on that employer’s part.

A number of cases recognize this doctrine of “equitable estoppel”. The Kosakow v New Rochelle Radiology Assocs. (2001) court held that the employer was estopped to claim that the employee was not eligible for FMLA when the employer’s unintentional misleading behavior caused the employee to justifiably rely on the FMLA leave. In Woodford v Community Action of Greene County, Inc. (2001) the court cited with the employee, where the employer initially approved notice of eligibility for FMLA leave, but later sought to challenge it.

This doctrine of equittable estoppel is an important tool for employees who initially have their

Continue Reading

by

It is well established that a retaliation claim may be brought by an employee who has complained of or opposed conduct that the employee reasonably believes to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by FEHA. Strong policy considerations support this rule. Employees often are legally unsophisticated and will not be in a position to make an informed judgment as to whether a particular practice or conduct by their employer or a manager actually violates the anti-discrimination laws. A rule that permits an employer to retaliate against an employee with impunity whenever the employee’s reasonable belief turns out to be incorrect would significantly deter employees from opposing conduct they believe to be discriminatory.

Moreover, a mistake of either fact or law may establish an employee’s good faith but mistaken belief that he or she is opposing conduct prohibited by FEHA.

To have a claim for retaliation, an employee does not necessarily have to be terminated. Creation of tolerance of hostile work environment for an employee in retaliation for the employee’s complaining about prohibited conduct is an adverse employment action within the meaning of California Gov. Code section 12940(h). Moreover, an employer’s alleged retaliatory responses may be considered collectively to determine whether the employee was subjected to an adverse employment action under the same section. However, mere ostracism in the workplace is insufficient to establish an adverse employment decision. Brooks v City of San Mateo (9th Cir. 2000) 229 F.3d 917, 929.

Continue Reading
Contact Information
San Francisco
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 295-4730
Fax: (415) 508-3474
Sacramento
980 9th Street, 16th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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 – 2024, The Law Office of Arkady Itkin
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design