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

by

We receive more and more calls from potential clients in the banking industry, and especially from Well Fargo Bank, who believe that they are being mistreated, discriminated and disciplined because of their age. While some of those claims don’t have much merit, in some cases there is significant evidence that the reason that an employee is mistreated is his or her age. This is particularly prevalent in sales and IT departments, but for two different reasons:

Age Discrimination in Sales

Age Discrimination in sales and marketing is mostly driven by the fact that companies won’t to put the prettiest, the youngest and the most energetic people to the front line to interact with their customers, primarily for “aesthetic reasons”. This is not a defense to an age discrimination lawsuit, but for some banks it’s worth taking the risk of facing liability for discrimination for the sake making its sales teams younger and more physically attractive.

Continue Reading

by

There are a few basic things every California state employee should know about the AWOL policies that agencies have the right to invoke how these agencies can use and abuse this policy to wrongfully terminate state workers:

* AWOL stands of “Absent Without Leave”. It was enacted to prevent abuses of time off by state employees and allow agencies to terminate its employees by invoking the AWOL statute.

* Generally, an employee who is absent without approved leave for 5 consecutive days, may be deemed AWOL and be separated from his state service.

Continue Reading

by

The Department of Labor has recently issued an opinion holding that mortgage loan officers performing typical job duties, regardless of the title affixed to them (i.e. loan originator, loan consultant, etc…) and who spend the majority of their time working in the employer’s place of business of the employee’s own office, would not qualifiy as bona fide exempt employees.

One of the three requirements for being exempt from overtime under administrative exemption is that an employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers. The Department of Labor pointed out that mortgate loan officers’ duties are contacting potential customers based on the information generated by the employer or databses to discuss or sell loan products. These are not administrative duties because the qualify as “making sales” and not running the business.

Although this determination is not limited to just mortgate loan officers, it may be applicable to other professionals selling products out of their employer’s office.

Continue Reading

by

I am surprised by the amount of calls I get from older workers who work for banks who are clearly driven out of their workplace during age. Most of these calls come from Wells Fargo Bank branches. Many of them hold high level positions and have been working for the same bank for fifteen, twenty or more years. Usually the process starts with the older worker being written up by his or her manager for petty violations or fabricated violations or being issued unsatisfactory performance reviews. Because there are no laws that regulate these performance reviews, and the employer has almost full discretion in expressing their opinion about an employee’s performance, the management can basically include what they please in employee’s evaluation.

A negative performance review or several such reviews are followed up with a 30 or 90-day performance improvement plan (PIP), and then “termination for unsatisfactory performance”.

Shortly after the older employee is terminated, he is replaced by a significantly younger employee.

Continue Reading

by

There is a number of benefits to pursuing both, the arbitration of your union grievance and a wrongful termination lawsuit (if there are grounds to bring such a claim). One of the main such benefits is the fact that losing one does not really affect the other, so in a way you get to have two shots of handling the same problem. This is because the two proceedings are fundamentally different.

First, a union arbitration takes place before an arbitrator and outside of court, while a wrongful termination lawsuit is pursued in court (State or Federal). More importantly, the standard of proof in both proceedings is very different. Generally, at a union grievance arbitration, the issue will be whether there was just cause for a discipline imposed against the aggrieved employee, and whether the discipline imposed was proportional to the alleged violation. In court, however, whether there was just cause for employee’s termination has no legal relevance, because a wrongful termination plaintiff needs to present evidence of discrimination or retaliation – to prove that he/she was either (1) treated differented due to being a member of protected class (i.e. age, religion, disability, familial status, gender, sexual orientation) or (2) suffered an adverse employment action due to engaging in a protected activity (i.e. complaining about unlawful discrimination or harassment, complaining about safety violations, engaging in political activities, reporting embezzlement of public funds, etc…)

Thus, if an employee loses at arbitration and fails to prove that there wasn’t just cause of discipline imposed, he can still be able to prove in court that the true reason for the discipline was discrimination or retaliation. Or, if an employee loses his case in court and fails to prove discrimination or retaliation, he still has an opportunity to prove that there was no just cause for discipline or tetermination.

by

The Board of Chiropractic Examiners may impose discipline against a licensee-chiropractor in California only when that chiropractor’s misconduct is substantially related to the qualification, functions or duties of such a license. It has been held that sexual misconduct with a patient and a conviction involving use of dangerous drug alcohol, such as DUI, are events that can lead to a discipline against a chiropractor’s license. Further, certain types of advertising are forbidden and constitute ground for discipline.

Like in disciplinary actions against other types of professional licenses, a chiropractor may and should present evidence of mitigating circumstances during the license defense proceedings.

Hiring the right attorney, experienced in professional license defense, who can present the case and the mitigating circumstances in the most favorable light without overreaching can be critical in reducing the discipline from revocation to probation with or without suspension, or reducing the penalty from suspension to a letter of admonishment, which letter can also be appealed subsequently.

Continue Reading

by

The California Board of Registered Nursing is charged with investigating licensed nurses and taking disciplinary actions when appropriate. These kinds of actions are brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Board’s executive officer files the disciplinary action against, but the board itself is the ultimate decision maker in any such action. The board may only impose discipline against a licensed nurse only when the licensee’s misconduct or violation is substantially related to qualifications, functions, or duties of the nursing license. The criteria for determining whether such substantial relationship exists is outlined in the board’s regulations. The typical disciplinary actions involve penalties ranging from a citation to license suspension or revocation.

The most common charges leading to disciplinary actions against registered nurses are “incompetence” and “gross negligence” as well as “substance abuse” and “charting errors.”

disciplinary action against registered nurses in CaliforniaOne of the very important elements of making the case for reducing the discipline imposed is showing either rehabilitation or other mitigating evidence. This is especially important in substance abuse cases, where showing active rehabilitation can be critical to maintaining a license or at least not having it revoked. Usually, simply attending AA meetings or similar meetings is not enough to show rehabilitation at a disciplinary hearing, and being involved in a more formal rehabilitation program is required in order to demonstrate to the board that the nurse is on the right track toward recovery from addiction.

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 – 2025, The Law Office of Arkady Itkin
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design