A Pasadena Employment Law Firm

Committed to Helping Workers

Phone

(626) 380-9000

  • podium

    On October 21, 2017, Ramit Mizrahi will once again be speaking about the year’s most important employment law cases. The panel will be part of the California Employment Lawyers Association’s 30th Annual Employment Law Conference. She will be speaking alongside Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman, LLP.

    Date and time: October 21, 2017, 10 a.m.–12:05 p.m.

    Location: Oakland Marriott City Center

    Additional information can be found on the CELA events page.

  • Dollar on a scale

    Despite the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 being on the books for over 50 years and California having its own Equal Pay Act, the gender wage gap has persisted.

    According to research cited by the California legislature, women in California still earn 84 cents for every dollar earned by a male counterpart. This is sightly better than the nationwide average of 80 cents. The wage gap is even wider for women of color (for example, African-American women earn 63 cents and Latinas earn 54 cents per male dollar). Closing the wage gap would give an additional $8,000 on average to each working woman in California—an additional $39 billion in total, benefiting families and the economy.

    As I have written before, one of the reasons that the wage gap persists is that women’s lower prior salary is used to justify paying them less at new jobs. This means that a new employer without intentional bias can perpetuate the pay gap by relying on what may have been the result of bias elsewhere. The lifetime cost to women can be tremendous.

    AB-168, authored by Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) and signed into law by Governor Brown, seeks to close the gender pay gap. The newly enacted bill adds California Labor Code section 432.3.

    Under section 432.3, effective January 1, 2018:

    • Employers can no long ask job applicants about their salary history, including compensation and benefits.
    • Employers can no longer consider prior salary as a factor in determining whether to offer an applicant a job or what salary to set for the position.
    • Employers are required, upon request, to provide a job applicant with the pay scale for the position.
    • A job applicant may still decide to voluntarily (without prompting) disclose their salary history information, and employers may consider voluntarily disclosed information when setting compensation.
    • The bill applies to all California employers, private and public.

      Exempt from Section 432.3 is salary information that is subject to public disclosure pursuant to state and federal law, including the California Public Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

      Hopefully, this new law will have a major impact on closing the wage gap.

  • son and father enjoying family leave

    Expansion of bonding rights for California parents

    Thanks to the SB-63, introduced by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, California parents who work for smaller employers will now be allowed to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave to bond with a new child. During that time, their employers will be required to continue their group health coverage benefits. Government Code Section 12945.6, known as the New Parent Leave Act, will make bonding leave available to millions of additional workers — an estimated 16% of the California workforce who did not previously have this right.

    Eligibility requirements

    To be eligible for the 12 weeks of leave under the New Parent Leave Act, the following criteria apply:

    1. The employee must have at least 12 months of service with the employer;
    2. The employee must have at least 1,250 hours of service during the prior 12 months; and
    3. The employee must works at a worksite with at least 20 employees within 75 miles.

    The employee can take the bonding leave within one year of a child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement.

    Existing law, the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), provides similar parental leave rights…


  • This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

    #10 – Failing To Return Employees To Vacant Positions For Which They Are Qualified

    Even if a disabled employee is unable to return to her own position, an employer’s obligations do not end there. If there is a “comparable” or “lower graded” vacant position for which the employee is qualified and capable of performing with or without accommodation, the employer must offer it to her. (Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 377 [citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (d)(1), (2).]) Note that the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) does not require the employer to promote the employee or create a new position for the employee to a greater extent than it would create a new position for any employee, regardless of disability. (Ibid. [citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (d)(4)].)

    An employer must offer a disabled employee the vacant position without requiring the employee to compete against other employees. (See Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 245, 265 [“[T]o the extent Wells Fargo rejected Jensen for positions for which she was qualified because it had applicants who were more qualified or had seniority, it overlooks that when reassignment of an existing employee is the issue, the disabled employee is entitled to preferential consideration.”]). The onus is on the employer to search its positions and to make the offer (rather than simply telling the employee that she is free to search for vacant positions).

    Even if there are currently no vacant positions, but openings are anticipated in the near future, the employer should extend the employee’s leave until that time. (See Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952, 968 [where employee was terminated after her doctor placed her on a medical leave and extended it seven times, for a total of approximately nine months of leave, and indicated that at the end she would need to return to a different position, summary judgment was improper because “it may have been a reasonable accommodation for Neiman Marcus to extend Nadaf–Rahrov’s leave of absence for a limited period of time until a position became available that Nadaf–Rahrov could perform, particularly if Neiman Marcus could have anticipated the future opening”].) . ..


  • This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

    #9 – Forcing Employees To Be Out On Leave Instead Of Offering A Different Reasonable Accommodation

    An employer may not force an employee to go out or remain on leave if the employee can work with a reasonable accommodation. (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (c).) Yet, employers frequently force employees to remain on unpaid leaves of absence because they incorrectly assume that the employees cannot perform their essential job functions or because they are not willing to offer reasonable accommodations that would allow the employees to work.

    In Wallace v. County of Stanislaus, a deputy sheriff was placed on an unpaid medical leave of absence because of his employer’s incorrect assessment that he could not safely perform his duties even with reasonable accommodation. ((2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 134, reh’g denied (Mar. 24, 2016), review denied (May 11, 2016).) The court of appeal held that the employer must face the consequences of its error:

    [T]he Legislature intended to “provide protection when an individual is erroneously or mistakenly believed to have any physical or mental condition that limits a major life activity.” (§ 12926.1, subd. (d), italics added.) In light of this clear expression of legislative intent, County cannot rely on its mistaken beliefs about Wallace’s physical condition and safety to claim its reasons were legitimate under California law. . . .


  • This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

    #8 – Misidentifying Medical Leave As “Indefinite”

    There is only one bright-line rule when it comes to leave as a reasonable accommodation: an employer is not required to provide an employee with “indefinite” leave. (See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (c).) The rationale behind this rule is that leave as a reasonable accommodation is meant to allow an employee to recuperate and return to work. If the employee cannot say whether and when he can return to work, an employer cannot be required to hold that employee’s position.

    Sometimes employers deem a leave request indefinite because the return-to-work date is not precise or may be subject to reevaluation. However, an employee seeking leave need not show that the leave is certain or even likely to be successful in proving that it is a reasonable accommodation; the employee need only show it would plausibly enable the employee to return and perform his job. (Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n (9th Cir. 2001) 239 F.3d 1128, 1136.)

    The EEOC has made the following point: “In certain situations, an employee may be able to provide only an approximate date of return. Treatment and recuperation do not always permit exact timetables. Thus, an employer cannot claim undue hardship solely because an employee can provide only an approximate date of return.” (EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the ADA (Oct. 17, 2002), at Q&A 44.)

    Thus, an employer may not treat as indefinite leave one with an approximate return date or where the situation changes and the original return date has been revised. (See Garcia-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc. (1st Cir. 2000) 212 F.3d 638, 648-50 [discussing difference between indefinite leave and one with approximate or revised return dates].)


  • This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

    #7 – Instituting a “No Fault” Attendance Policy

    Also subject to challenge are “no fault” attendance policies in which employees are subject to discipline for reaching a certain number of absences, regardless of the cause of the absences. Such policies adversely affect people with disabilities, and can evidence a failure to accommodate if they do not make exceptions for individuals whose “chargeable absences” were caused by their disabilities. In 2011, Verizon entered into a settlement with the EEOC in which it agreed to pay $20 million to settle a nationwide class disability discrimination lawsuit that challenged its no-fault attendance policy. (See Verizon to Pay $20 Million to Settle Nationwide EEOC Disability Suit (July 6, 2011).)


  • This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

    #6 – Instituting A Maximum Leave Policy

    Many employers have “maximum leave” policies, under which employees are automatically terminated after they have been on leave for a certain period of time. These can violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Simply put: a maximum-leave policy does not satisfy an employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process and provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee who needs additional leave. (See EEOC, Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act (May 9, 2016).) This is the case even if the amount of leave time the employer permits is seemingly generous (for example, permitting employees on short-term disability to be out on leave for a year).

    The ADA and FEHA require that an employer assess each disability accommodation request on a case-by-case basis. This means that it is unlawful to simply apply an inflexible maximum leave policy to an employee with a disability who needs more leave. Instead, the employer must provide additional leave unless granting the time off would cause an undue hardship or there is another effective accommodation that will allow that employee to work.

    What this means to a worker who needs additional disability-related leave time: …


  • This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

    #5 – Failing To Treat A Request For Leave As Protected

    When an employee needs medical leave, he should provide notice sufficient to make the employer aware that he needs the leave, as well as the anticipated timing and duration of the leave. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11091.) However, the employee need not use any legal terms or buzzwords to request medical leave. As the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) regulations confirm:

    The employee need not expressly assert rights under CFRA or FMLA, or even mention CFRA or FMLA, to meet the notice requirement; however, the employee must state the reason the leave is needed, such as, for example, the expected birth of a child or for medical treatment. The mere mention of “vacation,” other paid time off, or resignation does not render the notice insufficient, provided the underlying reason for the request is CFRA-qualifying, and the employee communicates that reason to the employer. The employer should inquire further of the employee if necessary to determine whether the employee is requesting CFRA leave and to obtain necessary information concerning the leave (i.e., commencement date, expected duration, and other permissible information). An employee has an obligation to respond to an employer’s questions designed to determine whether an absence is potentially CFRA-qualifying. Failure to respond to permissible employer inquiries regarding the leave request may result in denial of CFRA protection if the employer is unable to determine whether the leave is CFRA-qualifying.

    (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11091.)

    Oftentimes, even when employers know that the employee needs time off for a CFRA/FMLA- or ADA/FEHA-qualifying reason, they may claim that …


  • This series, beginning here, explores the top ten ways that employers deny employees their medical leave rights.

    #4 – Failing To Provide Employees Information About Their Leave Rights

    Employers have an obligation to inform employees about their leave rights. For example, an employer must “give its employees reasonable advance notice of employees’ [Fair Employment and Housing Act] rights and obligations regarding pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” including by posting a notice of leave rights in a conspicuous location, including it in a handbook or distributing it to employees separately, and giving a copy to the employee “as soon as practicable after the employee tells the employer of her pregnancy or sooner if the employee inquires about reasonable accommodation, transfer, or pregnancy disability leaves.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11049, subd. (a), (d).)

    Similarly, “[e]very employer covered by the [California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”)] is required to post and keep posted on its premises, in conspicuous places where employees are employed, a notice explaining the Act’s provisions and providing information concerning the procedures for filing complaints of violations of the Act with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11095.)

    If the employer fails to provide an employee reasonable advance notice of their leave rights under the…

1 2 3 8

Search The Mizrahi Law Blog