by

Requesting a reasonable accommodation to your disability is an important step to protecting your rights at workplace. Whether your disability or medical condition has developed over time (such as carpal tunnel syndrome) or resulted from an industrial accident, it’s important to keep several important things in mind to avoid the common mistake that other employees make when requesting an accommodation:

* The law does not expect the employer to read your mind and assume that you need an accommodation to your condition just because they might have learned that you are sick or have certain pain symptoms. Therefore, you should explicitly ask your employer for a “reasonable accommodation.” This is not the time to worry about your medical privacy and confidentiality. You should discuss your pain and the possible solutions that you and your management can work out together to ensure that you are able to continue working at your position or at some other position which is vacant and for which you are qualified.

carpal-tunnel.jpg* Make sure that you request an accommodation in writing. Send a fax or an e-mail to both your human resources department and your management to make sure that later the employer cannot say that you didn’t request to be accommodated.

Continue Reading

by

Having been prosecuting discrimination and retaliation claims for a while now, I am naturally curious to get into the minds of those managers who retaliate or discriminate against employees who are disabled or who suffered an on-the-job injury (and filed a workers compensation claim).

Recently, during a conversation with an in-house counsel(!) of a relatively large company (over 500 employees), I got some insight into what drivers retaliation. The employer refused to provide reasonable accommodations to my client, who had a serious back injury and two subsequent back surgeries. Some of the comments of the company’s lawyer astounded me, and included: “He has a history of filing workers compensation claims,” and “he is been pushing it for a while now with asking for things.” It is as if the attorney was admitting that they developed hostility or animosity toward my client because of his injury and resulting medical condition.

I firmly believe that the above mindset on the part of the managers at any workplace – the mindset of “I am tired of those injuries and requests for accommodations” is a breeding ground for discrimination and wrongful termination claims. Hopefully, when employers pay out large settlements, verdicts or administrative fines, imposed by EEOC of DFEH, they make the necessary changes to redress discriminatory mindset among managers through training or otherwise, even though that is of course also not always the case.

by

I get at least a few calls a week where an employee complains to me about being treated unfairly at workplace. these complaints range from being given more challenging and time consuming tasks than co-workers to being yelled at by the manager to being micromanaged and written up for every little thing.

My answer is the same every time: it is not against the law to do any of the above or to be otherwise unfair to an employee unless the reason for a different treatment is discriminatory or retaliatory. In other words, if there is evidence that the reason for favoritism is because an employee is a member of protected class (due to a disability, age, sexual orientation, familial status, etc.) or due to engaging in a protected class (filing a workers compensation claim, complaining about health and safety issues at workplace, filing a sexual harassment complaint, union activities, etc.) then the aggrieved employee might have a legal claim which can be brought in court.

Otherwise, if it is a matter of inter-office conflict which is not based on any discriminatory criteria, that employee will likely not benefit from having an attorney, and he/she should seriously consider looking for another job, if there is no one in the office who is willing and able to help. This is because the California courts have mentioned many times in the past that their job is not to enforce civility rules at workplace but to only remedy legal violations, such as discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

by

A mean supervisor who uses or abuses his power and authority in obvious or more subtle ways that none of the workers like, but many have to put up with, at least until the solution to the problem is found, such as transferring to a different department, have a manager transfer or … finding a another job.

How do you deal with a mean manage who seems to be on a power trip, when everything else seems to be going well at work? – You like what you do, you like the company, the co-workers, the pay, and it seems to be that it’s just that one “bad apple” that ruins your experience at work.

Remember – there is no equality between you and your superiors. For some odd reason, many employees think that they have the same rights and privileges as their bosses. They think that if the bosses raises his/her voice, then so can they. Wrong. Why? You can’t fire the boss for yelling at you, but he can fire you for any reason due to your likely at will employment, let alone yelling at your manager. There are many other things that your superior can probably get away with that you can’t. A workplace is not a democracy and you shouldn’t treat it as such. Very few fights are worth fighting over. You have nothing to gain by proving to your boss that you are right and he/she is wrong except getting in trouble and risking being retaliated against. Standing up for yourself is important. However, you have to make sure that what you stand up for really matters to you personally and it’s not just a matter or principal. For instance, suppose your boss wrote a performance review, in which he criticizes your work ethic or attention to detail. This kind of criticism is inherently subjective and is a matter of opinion. It’s hardly worth getting into a debate with your manager and trying to prove that you are indeed extremely attentive and the hardest worker the company has.

Continue Reading

by

I almost feel like the word “harassment” is the wrong term of the legal claim entitled “harassment at workplace” in the legal world because its legal meaning is so different from the meaning of the word in the ordinary, day-to-day life. Under the law, an actionable claim for harassment / hostile work environment requires showing that you are treated differently because you are a member of protected class. The courts have repeatedly held that simple being mean and rude or unfair without a discriminatory animus is not harassment and that they are not in the business of enforcing the rules of civility and proper manners at workplace; they are in the business of enforcing civil rights. As an illustration of this critical difference, consider that if your employer uses foul language or screams at you is generally not against the law and doesn’t give a rise to any claim without more. However, the same cussing and yelling accompanied by a racial slur or statement that suggest age/disability/religious/gender/sex discrimination are likely to make a claim, especially if repeated. Plainly, “you are no good junk” is not illegal, while “you are no good peace of old junk and it’s time to retire and bring some fresh blood to the company” is a strong evidence of age discrimination, or if the manager says: “you are no good cripple, and we need strong/healthy people in here” this would be a strong evidence of disability discrimination.

Even such harsh words as a “bitch” do not give rise to a legal claim. On the other hand, statements such as “you are a bitch, and I never hire another woman” or “you are a bitch and I want to have sex with you before I promote you” is likely to be evidence gender discrimination and sexual harassment respectively.

by

Generally, a claimant is not qualified to receive unemployment benefits if she voluntarily resigns from her employment, unless there is “good cause” for quitting. Good cause must be a significant and compelling circumstance that makes is increasingly difficult or impracticable for an employee to continue working.

In a recent case I handled, which I did not hope to win, the claimant was awarded benefits even though she quit. The circumstances of her resignation were unique and interesting. She resigned on the same day that she was placed on a performance improvement plan. The disciplinary action outlined her 30-day goals that she knew she could not completely. The warning made it clear that she is likely to be terminated if she doesn’t complete all the outlined goals. Interestingly enough, the claimant was given an option to take severance and resign during the same meeting she was given the warning. The claimant elected to take the offered severance and resign.

The Unemployment Appeals Board found in my client’s favor, specifically focusing on the fact that the employer refused to give the claimant additional time to complete the tasks in the PIP.

by

Some Employers seem to conveniently believe that replacing an older worker with a younger woman who has less seniority and therefore can be paid less is not against the law and is not considered age discrimination, since they believe they have a valid reason for that kind of replacement – saving money. In drafting the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California legislature addressed that specific situation, enacting Gov. Code 12941, which states that the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating employment may be found to constitute age discrimination. It is thus likely that any employment decision based on salary differentials between older and younger workers, such as hiring, promotions, pension benefits, etc., can be challenged as age discrimination if it has a great impact on older workers as a group.
elderlyworker0302.jpg
I believe that as the well known and expected trend of aging of the local San Francisco Bay Area population and the population of its workers, age discrimination and age discrimination claims at workplace will be on the rise in the next several decades. As usually, proving liability of the wrongdoer in court will be challenging, as direct evidence of discrimination such as calling an employee names suggesting age related animus is unlikely to be available, and thorough discovery of circumstantial evidence will be necessary to win such cases, such as the timing of events, replacing older workers with younger workers, and inconsistencies in the employer’s formally given reasons for terminating older workforce.

by

On March 22, 2011, the United States Supreme Court published an important opinion on retaliation law, holding that oral as well as written complaints about wage and labor law violations are protected activities as far as retaliatory discipline or firing go. In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. the plaintiff complained that the location of the time clock prevented workers from receiving credit for putting on and taking off their work clothes. Specifically, plaintiff raised this concern with his shift supervisor and he also discussed the issue with one of the human resources managers. Naturally, the employer denied that that was the reason for plaintiff termination and argued that he was fired for not clocking in and out when he was taking breaks.

In this favorable to employees decision, the court makes an interesting observation that “filing” a complaint within the meaning of at least the FLSA (Federal Labor Standards Act) also mean “oral filing” or complaining verbally. The defendant argued that the employer should have a fair warning of a protected activity and therefore to be protected it has to be reduced to writing. The court agreed with the fair warning part, but rejected the notion that a complaint has to be in writing in order to be a “fair warning” to the employer. The court has articulated a fair warning standard that makes a lot of sense: “to fall within the score of the anti-retaliation provision, a complaint must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection. This standard can be met by oral complaints as well as by written ones.”

by

Despite the fact that FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) has been enacted several decades ago, most people who are familiar with the basic ADA disability protections against discrimination at workplace, are not familiar or have not even heard about the FEHA. Fair Employment and Housing Act – a California version of the federal ADA, is similar and in some ways far more protective of employees than its federal counterpart.

One of the significant differences between the two laws which favors employees in the FEHA is the definition of disability. Under ADA, disability is an impairment that substantially limits a basic physical or mental function of the body. Under FEHA, on the other hand, there is no requirement of “substantial” limitation and basically any limitation of a basic physical or mental function is considered disability, entitling a worker in California to the protections, and generally triggering the employer’s obligation to engage in interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations. California Government Code 12926.1 codifies the definition of disability which is very broad and includes a wide range of chronic and non-chronic conditions that would qualify as a disability at workplace.

For more information, read the full text of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

by

Reversing the lower court’s decision, the US Supreme Court, in Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, a third party retaliation claim proceed. In that case, both the Plaintiff and his fiance worked for the Defendant. Shortly after Plaintiff’s fiancee filed sex discrimination charge with EEOC against the employer, Plaintiff was fired. The Court noted that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision prohibits an employer from discriminating any of his employees for engaging in protected conduct, and further pointed out that it is obvious that a reasonable worker might be discouraged from engaging in a protected activity, such as complaining about discrimination or harassment, if she knew that her fiance would be fired.

The court declined to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals would be unlawful. The court stated however that firing a close family member will almost always meet the standard of a person who is in a “zone of interest” for purposes of establishing retaliation against a third party.

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