A Pasadena Employment Law Firm

Committed to Helping Workers

Phone

(626) 380-9000

  • In the below video, Ramit Mizrahi discusses some of the protections that California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) provide to employees with disabilities as they navigate a safe return to the workplace. She discusses reasonable accommodations and the undue hardship standard, and provides examples of how one can approach requesting accommodation in the workplace. The video was created on behalf of the California Lawyers Association on June 4, 2020.

    Ms. Mizrahi’s video of her Facebook Live session with Lupus LA provides even more information, including about leave rights and additional protections.

    While we hope that you find it helpful, this video is posted for informational purposes only and is not meant to constitute legal advice. Please consult with an attorney for your own situation.

  • man putting together final jigsaw pieces to complete a Pride flag

    Today is a day for the history books, and a day for celebration! In Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark decision released on June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In doing so, the Court gave gay and transgender employees throughout the nation workplace protections from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The 6-3 opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, held that an employer who fires a worker for being gay or transgender violates Title VII, as doing so necessarily discriminates against that person because of sex. In doing so, the Court resolved a split among federal courts as to whether Title VII offered these protections—as some courts had held that employees could be fired for being gay or transgender.

    Here in California, our civil rights law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), has protected gay and transgender employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for years:

    • In 2000, the FEHA was amended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
    • In 2003, the FEHA was amended to include “gender” in its definition of sex. The definition incorporated by reference then-Penal Code section 422.76, which defined gender as “the victim’s actual sex or the defendant’s perception of the victim’s sex, and includes the defendant’s perception of the victim’s identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim’s sex at birth.”
    • In 2011, the FEHA was amended to specifically prohibit discrimination and harassment based on “gender,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression.”

    I have traced this history and written before about why workplace protections are so important for gay and transgender employees. Now, workers throughout the nation will be protected.

    Two of the three plaintiffs in these cases, Aimee Stephens and Donald Zarda, did not live to see this day—a poignant reminder that while we may not see the benefits of some of our work, we do it as much for future generations as for ourselves.

  • In the below video, taken from a Facebook Live session with the Lupus LA community on May 29, 2020, Ramit Mizrahi discusses the rights and protections that employees with disabilities have with respect to workplace accommodations and medical leave.

    While we hope that you find it helpful, this video is posted for informational purposes only and is not meant to constitute legal advice. Please consult with an attorney for your own situation.

  • The May 2020 issue of Advocate Magazine features an article authored by Ramit Mizrahi.

    The article — “Sexual harassment litigation in the post-#MeToo era” — discusses recent changes in sexual harassment law in California and the opportunities created by them. Click on the below image to read the article in full.

    Image of first page of Mizrahi article on sexual harassment litigation in the post-#MeToo era

  • With many businesses closing or shifting to virtual work due to the novel coronavirus pandemic, it can be confusing as a worker to understand what the laws are surrounding your rights and benefits as an employee. Below is a summary of protections and wage-replacement options available to employees in various scenarios related to coronavirus.

    • If you are laid off, furloughed, or have hours cut:

      Unemployment insurance is available to those who have lost their jobs or had their hours reduced through no fault of their own. Unemployment insurance benefits have been extended such that workers can collect them for up to 39 weeks. Workers are eligible for up to $450 weekly (based on wages earned), plus an additional $600 per week provided for by the CARES Act through July 31, 2020. While collecting unemployment, a person is not obligated to show that they are looking for work and the normal one-week waiting period has been waived.

      Of note, unemployment benefits have been expanded to cover independent contractors, freelance workers, gig workers, and those who are self-employed. They will be eligible for the $600 per week in benefits provided for through the CARES Act.

    • If you are forced to work in violation of state or local orders or retaliated against for refusing to do so:

      The State of California, counties, and cities have issues orders restricting business operations to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. Employers that do not support sectors/industries deemed critical/essential may only operate remotely. Even those businesses deemed critical/essential must take steps to ensure that they are operating safely, and should allow employees to work remotely where feasible. For example, in Los Angeles, employers in certain essential businesses must provide employees with face coverings, allow for hand washing every 30 minutes, implement social distancing measures, and ensure that restrooms remain sanitary and stocked. An employer that requires employees to work in violation of these orders or retaliates against them for refusing to do so is in violation of California public policy and faces legal exposure for retaliation.

    • . . .

  • The January 2020 issue of the California Lawyers Association’s Labor & Employment Law Review features an article authored by Ramit Mizrahi, Andrew Friedman, and Tony Oncidi.

    The article—”The Top Employment Cases of 2019″—highlights the most important California state and federal employment cases from last year. Click on the below image to read the article in full.

    Image of Labor and Employment Law Article

  • podium

    On February 6, 2020, Ramit Mizrahi will be speaking about leave law rights at the California Lawyers Association’s Employment Law 101—Fundamentals for the New Employment Practitioner conference.

    Here are the details:

    Leaves of Absence—Review of All Leaves and Special Focus on FMLA/CFRA/PDL

    Description: California’s leave laws are among the most difficult for employers to comply with and manage. In this module, panelists will discuss the Family Medical Leave Act, the
    California Family Rights Act, Pregnancy Disability Leave, and various other leaves impacting California employers. Special consideration will be given to the interplay of the various leaves and the potential pitfalls.

    Date and time: February 6, 2020, 10:30 a.m. – 12 p.m.

    Location: St. Anne’s Conference Center, 155 N. Occidental Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90026

    To register, click here.

  • Dollar on a scale

    The federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 per hour for over a decade–not enough to keep a family of two above the federal poverty line. In an effort to keep people out of poverty, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have set their own minimum wage, as have numerous cities and counties. Here in California, we are moving toward a $15 per hour minimum wage for all workers by 2023; Los Angeles will reach a $15 per hour minimum wage for all workers by July 2021. Details about the Los Angeles and California minimum wages can be found in this post.

    Today, the Washington Post reported on powerful new research published in the Journal of Epidemology & Community Health, which found that a $1 increase in the minimum wages was linked to a 3.4–5.9% decrease in the suicide rate among adults with a high school education or less. The largest effects were found when unemployment rates were high.

    In the United States, suicide accounts for approximately 19% of deaths in adults ages 18 to 24 and 11% of deaths in adults ages 25 to 44. Financial stressors are often a factor. For example, the report cited research that “an estimated 1.7% of unemployed US adults attempted suicide in 2017, compared with 0.4% of those working full-time and 0.7% for those working part-time.”

    The report estimates that, between 2009 and 2015, 13,800 suicides could have been prevented among those ages 18–64 years with a high school education or less given an increase in the minimum wage equivalent to $1 above prevailing levels; a $2 increase could have prevented 25,900 suicides.

    I have written many times about the importance of raising the minimum wage and creating a social safety net for those in need (for example, here, here, and here). Indeed, my master’s thesis was about single mothers, poverty, and the minimum wage. This new research shows just how important it is that we ensure that workers can make a living wage to support themselves and their families.

  • 2020 on pink background

    We at Mizrahi Law wish you a Happy New Year!

    We are very much looking forward to the new year. 2020 stands to be a terrific year for California employees, with some exciting new employment laws going into effect on January 1!

    In addition, the State minimum wage increases on January 1 to $13 per hour for large employers (26 or more employees) and $12 per hour for small employers (25 or fewer employees). The City of Los Angeles minimum wage, currently set at $14.25 per hour for large employers and $13.25 for small employers, will increase to $15 per hour and $14.25 per hour, respectively, on July 1, 2020.

  • pregnant worker contemplating her leave

    On October 28, 2019, Motherboard magazine published an article about a particularly egregious case of pregnancy discrimination. The article, titled “Engineer Says Software Firm Cut Her Maternity Leave Short After Her Baby Died,” interviewed Ramit Mizrahi as a subject matter expert on pregnancy discrimination in the tech field. Ramit explained the problem as follows:

    “Pregnancy discrimination is a big issue within Silicon Valley. . . Managers start thinking to themselves, ‘If this person is going to be out for four to six months, how are we going to make do? How are we going to function?’ And, unfortunately, this sometimes leads to them denying the pregnant employee opportunities, taking away her job duties, even replacing her or eliminating her role because she took time off. All of these things are illegal.”

    “If a company was planning to give someone a promotion, and then finds out that the person is pregnant, they still have to give them that promotion,” she said. “They can’t just say, ‘This isn’t convenient for us.’ But situations do play out this way, and pregnant women are denied opportunities.”

    She also explained how Silicon Valley’s gender imbalance and the fact that employees tend to skew younger both contribute to discrimination against pregnant employees/mothers and those who take protected job leaves.

    The article can be found here.

1 2 3 12