One such protection involves providing leave to new parents. California business owners will be interested to hear that, according to an analysis recently conducted by the National Partnership for Women & Families, California received a grade of A- for the protections the state offers to new parents beyond federal requirements. This was the highest score received by any state.
]]> Women make up 46 percent of California's workforce, and 65 percent of children in California live in a household in which both parents work.The federal Family and Medical Leave Act was enacted in 1993 and provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to certain employees who need time off work to care for new additions or ailing family members. In 2002, California took things a step further and instated the first ever paid family leave insurance program. This program is largely what got our state the A- rating. Even today, California is only one of two states that have this type of program.
Business owners in California should take pride in their top position for protecting their employees. The report that placed California at the top noted that millions of working parents throughout the country don't have the same protections.
By understanding and following the law, business owners can not only prevent potential business litigation filed by employees, but can also ensure that their companies are places where people will want to come to work.
Source: Central Valley Business Times, "California gets 'A-' for workplace and leave policies for new parents," May 8, 2012
]]>The EEOC has determined that refusal to hire, along with other forms of discrimination based on gender identity, are officially considered sex discrimination under federal law. This does not necessarily mean that the woman experienced discrimination. However, what it does mean is that she is now able to bring a civil lawsuit against the potential employer.
]]> This situation began when the woman, who is an Army veteran and former police investigator, applied for a position as a ballistics technician. However, at the time of her application, she was a man. Later, when the employer learned that she had undergone a procedure to change her gender, the woman was told the position had been cut. She later found out, though, that the employer had moved forward anyway and filled the position.Although some states have already set this standard of workplace discrimination, the EEOC decision sets a national standard that must be followed by employers in all states from this point forward. It has been common for transgender complaints to be rejected in the past. This will no longer be the case.
Now that this California woman has been given the right to claim discrimination based on gender identity, the next step will likely be civil litigation. Business owners with employee law concerns will want to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the EEOC's latest ruling.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, "Federal agency says transgender people protected," Sam Hananel, April 25, 2012
]]>This litigation began in 2004 when a class of 60,000 employees filed suit against the parent company of the Chili's restaurant chain and Romano's Macaroni Grill. The class action lawsuit claimed that employers were forcing workers to skip the breaks to which they were entitled. The plaintiffs alleged that employers prevented break times by either leaving the restaurants inadequately staffed or by threatening to cut hours.
]]> The employer in this case argued that the workers should be given the flexibility of deciding when to take their own breaks. When a California appellate court agreed with the employer, the case went to the California Supreme Court.The high court made the following rulings:
Although it is still the responsibility of the employer to prove that the appropriate breaks are being offered to employees, the ruling is considered a significant victory for employers in California.
Source: Home Channel News, "Ruling Seen as victory for California employers," Joanne Deschenaux, April 25, 2012
]]>The lawsuit has been brought by five software engineers who claim that the companies are working together not only to limit pay but also to limit job movement within the industry. The engineers' claims are part of a class-action lawsuit.
]]> The technology companies moved to have the claims dismissed. However, the judge in the case denied the motion, ruling that the companies' "Do Not Cold Call" agreement was most likely an instance of collusion on behalf of the employers.The engineers' class-action complaint is similar to claims made in 2010 by the U.S. Department of Justice. That year, an antitrust probe conducted by the agency was settled when the companies in question agreed not to hinder competition in the labor market. According to the Department of Justice, the companies were effectively capping wages by agreeing not to poach employees from one another.
The controversy goes back to a 2007 email written by Apple's Steve Jobs and sent to former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. The email was sent after Google attempted to recruit an engineer from Apple's staff. In the email, Jobs requested that Google stop poaching employees. The judge in the most recent class-action suit noted the "significant influence" Jobs, Schmidt and Google director Arthur Levinson had in the anti-poaching agreements among the companies.
The recent class-action litigation underscores the fact that employee-related lawsuits are often multi-faceted and have the potential to become very costly and complicated. Californians with business litigation concerns will want to be fully aware of the available options for ensuring an equitable resolution of any employee-related dispute.
Source: Los Angeles Times, "Apple, Google, others to face antitrust suit over staff poaching," Jessica Guynn, April 19, 2012
]]>The dispute originates from a 2005 agreement between the two businesses. At that time, Helinet purchased a lease for space at the Van Nuys Airport from a business called Basenet. The following year, a third company called Pentastar bought out a majority of the Basenet business. However, Helinet was still allowed to lease the area where the helicopters were housed. In addition, Helinet still owned a small interest in Basenet when the larger part of that company was purchased.
]]> After Pentastar took over a majority of the Basenet business, Helinet decided to sell its interest in Basenet back to Pentastar. At that point, Pentastar told Helinet it would need to remove its helicopters from the leased space. When Helinet failed to act, Pentastar threatened eviction and business litigation.Helinet owns 15 helicopters at the Van Nuys Airport. The company transports injured or severely ill children throughout Southern California to Children's Hospital Los Angeles. If Helinet is evicted, the company could initially face flight cancellations or delays, potentially having serious effects for ill children and organ recipients until Helinet is able to find a new location to house its equipment.
As this case illustrates, business disputes over leasing agreements or property interests can become very complicated. When this kind of conflict arises and heads toward litigation, fluency in federal and California business law is indispensible to obtaining an equitable resolution for all parties involved.
Source: Los Angeles Times, "Dispute threatens emergency flights for injured children," Anna Gorman, April 11, 2012
]]>First of all, employers are not allowed to discriminate based on religion, race, sex or national origin. Similarly, employers are not allowed to partake in or knowingly permit sexual harassment in the workplace. That means a manager or employer could be held accountable if the work environment isn't harassment-free.
]]> Second, employers are prohibited from discriminating against disabled individuals when hiring for positions. If a disabled person is qualified and capable of performing the duties of a job, an employer cannot turn down employment strictly based upon the applicant's disability. Additionally, business owners must provide reasonable accommodations for disabled employees.Third, companies with 50 or more employees are required to allow family and medical leave in qualified situations. A qualified employee is one who has been with the company for at least one year. These employees are entitled to up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year to take care of themselves or an ill family member. This leave also applies to child birth and adoption.
Fourth, employment law states that employers are not allowed to discriminate based on age if the employee or job applicant is over 40 years old.
Lastly, all employers are required to pay the federal minimum wage, and as Californians know, some states set their minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. In addition, hourly employees must be paid time and a half for any amount of hours over 40 worked in one week.
This list offers five of the basics for preventing employee-related lawsuits. While employment law cases are quite complex, employers can prevent many of them by taking into account the basics listed here. Likewise, employees will want to be aware of their rights under federal and California laws.
Source: Business Management Daily, "Business alert: The 10 employment laws every manager should know," April 4, 2012
]]>Prior to his termination, the man who filed the lawsuit claims that he not only opposed the CEO's supposedly illegal behavior but also reported it to the Board of Trustees. The former employee says the CEO participated in illegal activities including the following:
The lawsuit doesn't indicate the specific amount the plaintiff is seeking in damages, though he has asked for a jury trial.
Although the employer claims that the plaintiff's accusations are false, it will be up to this California business to show that none of the reasons for the employee's termination were inappropriate or unwarranted.
Source: The Hollywood Reporter, "Fired Employee Sues SAG Pension & Health Plan for Wrongful Termination," Jonathan Handel, March 22, 2012
]]>Palo Alto's city council finally approved the project unanimously last year. However, there is a risk the plan will lose funding because of two lawsuits brought by local business owners. Most of the claims in the lawsuits were dismissed in court, but the construction litigation has effectively forced the city to delay construction as well as forego a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. That grant would total $1.2 million, and the city was counting on that funding to complete construction.
]]> Opponents of the lane reduction say the project will slow down traffic on California Avenue and thus hurt business. They also say the city broke state law by not properly analyzing the environmental impacts of the construction project. Specifically, it was argued that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act by evaluating only a portion of the streetscape rather than the impacts of the project as a whole.One lawsuit has already been dismissed by the courts, since the city apparently approved its grant applications and environmental documents in the wrong order. That ruling required that the city council revote on the documents in November, a process that effectively delayed construction.
The business owners who oppose redesigning the street appear to be in the minority, and it will be interesting to see how effectively their construction litigation can postpone or even prevent changes to how they conduct business.
Source: Palo Alto Online, "California Avenue redesign stalled by lawsuits," Gennady Sheyner, March 21, 2012
]]>This real estate litigation resulted after the landlord -- a California management company -- refused to accept payments in paper form. Although the landlord claims this is a "green" initiative, the tenants believe it is a strategy to evict the elderly low-income renters who currently benefit from a rent stabilization program.
]]> The landlord gave the tenants a list of nearby Internet cafes where they could go to pay their rent. However, the tenants claim that forcing them to pay their rent online is illegal and unfair. Those who do not own a computer or do not have Internet in their homes may not want to spend the money or time to obtain those items and that knowledge.One tenant stated, "I am 86 years old and I am computer illiterate. I'd have to buy a computer and learn how to use it; at 86 I want to travel and do other things." In addition, some tenants do not like the idea of paying rent online due to a fear that their information won't remain private.
The tenants feel that the move to online-only payments is an effort on the part of the management company to create a "digital divide" among the lower-income, rent-subsidized tenants and the higher-income tenants.
The rental company denied these allegations and pointed out that many residents are pleased with the change.
The organizer of the displeased tenants is concerned that the problem will become widespread. This particular management company owns over 38 buildings and almost 3,000 housing units throughout California. The management company would not take paper payment until the tenants organized a demonstration in which they brought their money, in paper form, en masse to the landlord.
This tenants' rights dispute has caught the attention of a state senator who has since introduced a bill that would make online payment requirements illegal in California. The legislation is currently pending.
Source: Los Angeles Times, "L.A. tenants battle landlord's online-only rent payment rule," Alejandro Lazo, March 7, 2012
]]>The woman worked in the cardiovascular surgery unit for two years. She witnessed conversations among the physicians concerning their sex lives that made her uncomfortable. In addition, she said she experienced sexual touching and advances, sexually explicit comments and discriminatory comments regarding her nationality.
]]> After making complaints to her supervisors regarding her lack of comfort with the sexual comments, substandard treatment of patients and missed lunch breaks, she then began to experience retaliation in the form of disciplinary action.The hospital claims that they fired the 45-year-old woman because she did not show up for her on-call weekend shift. However, she said no one ever called her to come into work.
Her former employer claims the woman was written up multiple times prior to her termination. In addition, the woman received a denial of her application for benefits because the hospital claimed the termination resulted from misconduct on the job, making her ineligible for unemployment benefits. However, an administrative law judge disagreed.
The employment-related trial lasted 11 days, and the jury deliberated for two days. Upon returning with the verdict, the jury awarded the woman $125 million in punitive damages for the hospital's "unlawful conduct" and $42.7 million to compensate her for humiliation, reputation damage, loss of enjoyment of life, mental suffering and lost income.
Employers and employees alike have certain obligations under federal and California laws. People who have employment-related concerns will want to be fully aware of their rights to ensure an equitable resolution to any dispute that could require the payment or reception of compensation.
Source: The Sacramento Bee, "Sacramento jury awards $167 million to former Mercy hospital employee," Denny Walsh, March 1, 2012
]]>This employee-related litigation came about when Freedom Communications, Inc., categorized numerous newspaper carriers as independent contractors and denied them the pay and breaks to which regular employees are entitled.
]]> According to the lawsuit, the Register denied meal breaks, failed to reimburse for business-related expenses, kept inaccurate payroll records, and conducted business in a manner that was generally unfair.In many cases, independent contractors can cost an employer less money than fulltime employees because contractors are not necessarily entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. But if a company involved in employment litigation fails to show that certain workers are really contractors, then major reparations could be owed to the misclassified employees.
There are a number of employment and business law statutes that protect employees but do not protect independent contractors. Those laws relate directly to the claims that were raised against the parent company of the Register. Issues such as overtime, meal times and minimum wage requirements are often central to the complaints filed by many California employees. And as this case involving the Register shows, wrongly categorizing an employee's relation to a company could entitle a worker to significant monetary compensation.
Source: Washington Post, "Newspaper carriers say lawsuit against OC Register's owner settled for $30 million," Feb. 28, 2012
]]>When a state embarks on an eminent domain action against a private landowner, it means the state is trying to take that property from the owner according to that state's water, air or land rights. If the state is successful in taking the land from the owner, the landowner is still owed fair and equitable compensation from the state.
]]> The California government is currently building a water tunnel that will possibly become the largest in North America. The project includes fish screens up to a quarter of a mile in length, levees that are dozens of miles long, and two-foot thick concrete tunnels.In order to accomplish the task, the state needs to utilize land currently owned by some California residents. The land will serve multiple functions, including use of an area for the state to drill holes to test the soil and areas for the state to develop large, 20-acre intakes.
While some property owners already granted the government access, others are resisting. They are preparing for real estate litigation and a court battle over the land.
For one of the landowners, the state's exercising eminent domain would mean tearing down a 120-year-old farmhouse where he raised his children. The man hopes to pass the home down to his children when he dies.
It is important for all Californians who are facing an eminent domain action to know their rights. As one landowner put it, "They can't take away my joy unless I let them."
Source: The Sacramento Bee, "Water tunnels would be huge projects -- if they clear huge obstacles," Matt Weiser, Feb. 20, 2012
]]>When the mechanic began his employment with the pasteurization company, he signed an employment contract. This contract included a non-compete agreement, which stated that the man would not work for a competitor if he decided to discontinue his employment with the pasteurization company.
]]> After the man left the company, his former employer not only tried to enforce the non-compete agreement but also threatened the man with deportation, even though he is a United States citizen. Further, the man claims that, as an intimidation tactic, the employer indicated that the company was aware of the location of the man's family in India. The former employee is now claiming that the non-compete agreement is invalid.In most situations, non-compete agreements are unenforceable against employees in California, since California law invalidates any non-compete clause as it applies to an employee. However, California law does allow employers to protect trade secrets and client lists with the use of nondisclosure and non-solicitation agreements.
Depending upon the nature of the agreement the mechanic signed, the non-compete portion may or may not be enforceable. In this type of situation, it is helpful to obtain the services of a legal professional who is fluent in the enforceability and validity of employment agreements in California.
Source: Courthouse News Service, "Suit Says Green Company Made Harsh Threats," Ramona Young-Grindle, Feb. 9, 2012
]]>At the time of the man's termination, he was the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation, which was launched because a camera that the man had checked in as found property contained pictures of his family. The former officer states that he regularly kept his wife's digital camera in his work bag and accidentally logged it as found property at the station.
]]> However, when he was fired, the man was also experiencing serious health issues and had applied for disability retirement. But his application for disability retirement was denied by the station.The former police officer had a pre-existing heart condition. When his Internal Affairs investigation began, he was told it would be confidential and that he should not discuss it with other officers. But upon receiving notification from a colleague that his investigation had been leaked, he claims his heart condition worsened due to increased stress.
There is a continuing investigation into the man's claim that his personal information was leaked. However, although he says he was wrongfully terminated, his employer believes that his application for disability retirement was appropriately and legally denied and that he was lawfully terminated. In disputes such as this, it is typically indispensible that employers and employees alike seek advice from legal professionals who are familiar with employment law. The ins and outs of employee-related lawsuits can be complicated, and an experienced civil litigation attorney can help ease the process of reaching an equitable solution.
Source: The Orange County Register, "Former H.B. cop claims wrongful termination, wants $500,000," Jaimee Lynn Fletcher, Jan. 13, 2012
]]>An unpaid intern who worked for Harper's Bazaar has brought an employee-related lawsuit against Hearst Corporation, the publisher of the magazine. The intern claims her unpaid internship violated labor regulations and employment laws.
]]> Unpaid internships, although legal, must meet the standards set by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the FLSA, an unpaid internship is legal if it meets the following requirements:The careers website of Hearst Magazines states that the interns will not be paid for their internship, but will instead receive academic credit if they so desire. The website also states that "internships are to provide opportunities for students to gain valuable experience and exposure to the world of publishing."
Whether the commitments stated above by Hearst Magazines are enough to meet the standards of the FLSA will be determined by this intern's lawsuit.
The intern and her lawyers intend seek out other unpaid Hearst Corporation interns to join the class-action lawsuit against the publishing company.
Source: Reuters, "Unpaid intern sues magazine for minimum wage, overtime," Jonathan Allen, Feb. 1, 2012
]]>