Do I have to agree to arbitration to work?

My employer made me to sign an arbitration agreement that waives my right to a jury. I signed it.  What now?

"You're hired.
Now please sign this arbitration agreement!"

Big business and insurance companies promote arbitration as a good thing for employees. It isn’t.

What is Arbitration?

Arbitration is “alternative dispute resolution” … resolving legal claims outside of court. The arbitrator, usually a retired judge, or an attorney, hears the evidence and decides … no jury.

“Big business” claims arbitration is a rapid, cost effective, time effective method to resolve claims.  Sounds good, right? That depends on whether you are an employer or employee.

Most of the time employees don’t have a choice. It’s either sign, or no job. No opportunity to bargain is offered.   Take or leave it no matter what it says.

Some arbitration agreements have an “opt out period.” Unfortunately, most employees just sign agreements and never read them.  They could have signed a piece of paper that gave away their first born child and would have no idea. Of those that do read them, rarely do they “opt out,” because they think it sends the wrong message to their employer.

So why are these agreements so bad from the employee’s perspective?

Employers wouldn’t push arbitration agreements if arbitration didn’t benefit them.  Which means that the employee losses something in the process; rights. 

Arbitration is rarely faster than court.

Arbitration is rarely faster than regular court proceedings. When it is faster, it is because someone short-circuited the standard process to get things to go faster. The ability to get evidence and testimony is limited.   Since employers control the vast majority of witnesses and documents limiting discovery hurts employees.

How much does it cost?

Arbitration for employees costs what the employee would pay to file a lawsuit in court. The employer pays the rest.

Sounds good?  Not really.  Since Arbitrators are paid by your employer and your employer gets to use the same ones again and again who do they favor? 

Most employees have never sued employers, so this process is new for most of them. Employers become hardened by the process, they know who the best/worst arbitrators are, and they are responsible for paying the arbitrator their time on the case.

Don’t I have a right to a jury?

A jury doesn’t weigh in. The arbitrator makes all decisions in arbitration.

One of our constitutional rights in California is to have our civil disputes heard by a jury. Art. 1 Sec 16 of the Ca. Const. states “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all...” It also says two sentences later that a civil jury trial may be waived by consent. That’s why there is that bold sentence in most arbitration agreements alerts you to this waiver.

Summary

In summary the benefits of arbitration are slim to none, except for confidentiality which helps both parties (employers who don’t want other employees to know about the lawsuit or its outcome/ employee who doesn’t want future employers to have knowledge of a public legal proceeding in court against a former employer.)

If you were to refuse arbitration, most employers would refuse to hire you. But, you need a job and many employers have them so your next job offer could include one anyway. Not many options.

Action

If you think you may have signed an arbitration agreement are thinking about seeking legal action against your employer for something that happened to you at work and want some advise give us a call.

We represent employees in court and in arbitration when they sue their employers.  The best time to talk to us is while you are still on the job.  Call us at 714.508.6422 or email to helpme@firedme.com

Termination for Assisting the Disabled; Associational Discrimination

It would seem that common decency would stop employers from punishing employees for helping disabled people inside and outside the workplace. Surprisingly, it doesn't.

In Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Wash., Inc. (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 635, a California court of appeals for the first time interpreted Federal law to protect California employees from termination for assisting physically disabled people under FEHA’s associational discrimination provision. The court reasoned that when a company has a strong incentive to fire an employee because of their association with a disabled person, and does so, a claim may exist even when the intent is purely monetary.

In Rope the plaintiff asked for more time off from work to donate a kidney to his sister. He used a paid leave and asked for an extension when it became apparent that he would need additional time for the procedure.  He was fired two days before Donation Protection Act (“DPA”) became law, which would have protected his leave.  He asserted a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The trial court dismissed this and other claims. The court of appeals reversed and said he had a potential claim for associational discrimination and sent it back to be tried.

So how is this likely to impact employees who associate with disabled people?

Let’s put it into perspective.  A person with a family member or close friend with a disability may be perceived as someone who will need time off or will be unreliable or inattentive at work because of his or her association with the disabled.  Maybe the employer learns of the disabling condition and fears that their employee could potentially develop it due to a genetic relationship. Perhaps the employer fears monetary loss due to an increase in medical plan costs due to high medical costs associated with a disability or paid leaves or loss of training money.  If an employer were to act on any of these fears and terminate an employee or refuse to hire, an associational disability discrimination claim may exist.

These scenarios were mentioned in Rope, citing Larimer v. International Business Machines Corp. (7th Cir. 2004) 370 F.3d 698 the seminal federal case. However, Rope only considered the “expense” or monetary loss scenario. The Rope court confirmed that FEHA exists to provide greater protection than the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Larimer interprets the ADA.

How does this relate to statutes that protect associations with disabled persons?

An employer, under the California Family Rights Act, may have an obligation to provide time off to care for the serious health condition of an immediate family member or spouse if the employee meets eligibility requirements.  These employees may have dual protection.

But what about non-relatives and those family members that do not satisfy the seniority requirements, full-time employment, and employer size requirements of CFRA?   Associational disability discrimination provides them with protection should an employer terminate them or deny employment because of their association with a disabled person.

The image in this article was provided courtesy of Toa55 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

CA Passes Historic Laws Protecting Immigrant Workers from Abusive Employers

CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT

TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL 7

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 12, 2013

CONTACT:

Steve Smith, California Labor Federation, ssmith@calaborfed.org, (510) 326-4644

Emma Stieglitz, National Employment Law Project, emmaS@berlinrosen.com, (646) 200-5307

Doug Bloch, Teamsters Joint Council 7, doug@teamjc7.org, (510) 333-1179

California Legislature Passes Historic Laws Protecting Immigrant Workers from Abusive Employers

New Laws Would Protect Immigrant Workers from Retaliation

Sacramento, CA-- The California State legislature has passed new protections designed to stop unscrupulous employers from retaliating against immigrant workers who stand up for their rights. The bills await signature by Governor Jerry Brown.  

The California Labor Federation sponsored a package of three bills to protect workers regardless of immigration status. AB 263 (Assemblyman Roger Hernandez) and SB 666  (Senator Darrell Steinberg) will help enforce basic labor laws by prohibiting employers from using immigration-related threats when workers speak out about unfair working conditions. AB 524 (Assemblyman Kevin Mullin) makes it clear that making immigration threats in order to get away with wage theft may constitute criminal extortion.

"Employers should be on notice that with these bills, retaliating against workers who stand up for their basic rights will have serious consequences," said Art Pulaski, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the California Labor Federation. "These new protections are vital to protecting all workers who are afraid to report these abuses. As long as unscrupulous employers can exploit low-wage immigrant workers with impunity, all workers suffer."

The extent of the retaliation against immigrant workers was documented in a recent report by the National Employment Law Project, a co-sponsor of these bills.

"For too long, employers have used the threat of deportation to silence workers who are victims of stolen wages, unsafe working conditions, and abuse on the job," said Eunice Cho, an attorney at the National Employment Law Project.  "Immigrant workers are more likely to suffer from abuses such as wage theft and work in low-wage industries. We celebrate the legislature's support for protecting the rights of some of the most vulnerable workers in the state."

"These laws will protect workers like me who try to speak out and then face retaliation," said Gerardo Aguirre, a former employee at Marquez Brothers, a food manufacturing company, who was one of several workers fired while standing up for their rights.  "The workers at Marquez Brothers are united in standing up to intimidation, at work and in the State legislature. We need laws that allow all workers to speak up and protect immigrant workers from these kinds of abuses."

California has a strong history of protecting the rights of immigrant workers. In 2002, California passed SB 1818, which clarified that immigration status is irrelevant for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws.

More than fifty community organizations, representing civil rights, immigrant rights, and labor rights, are supporting this bill package.  The bills now head to Governor Jerry Brown, who has until October 13th to sign it into law.  "We applaud the State Senate and Assembly for passing these important bills," said Pulaski. "We urge Governor Brown to sign this bill and protect the rights of all workers."

The California Labor Federation is made up of more than 1,200 AFL-CIO and Change to Win unions, representing 2.1 million union members in manufacturing, retail, construction, hospitality, public sector, health care, entertainment and other industries.

The National Employment Law Project is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that conducts research and advocates on issues affecting low-wage and unemployed workers. For more about NELP, visit www.nelp.org.

Teamsters Joint Council 7 represents 100,000 working men and women in 22 local unions in Northern California, the Central Valley, and Northern Nevada.  The Teamsters are the largest organization of immigrant food chain workers in California, with 25,000 members in food processing, packaging, harvesting, and distribution.

Sexual Harassment: Sexual Desire Not Required

It has long been disputed whether sexual harassment needs to be based on sexual desire. This routinely occurs in instances of same sex harassment.  

On August 12, 2013, California Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law SB 292 which amends Gov't Code section 12940(j)(4)(C) to include as the last sentence in the subsection : "Sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire."

In 2011, the  court in Kelley v. Conco Companies (1st Dist. 2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191 cited several cases in deciding that a construction site worker was not sexually harassed despite graphic and vulgar comments made by a co-worker. The court reasoned:

"Unquestionably, the language used by both Seaman and by one of Kelley's coworkers on July 30 was graphic, vulgar, and sexually explicit.   The literal statements expressed sexual interest and solicited sexual activity.   There was, however, no “credible evidence that the harasser was homosexual” or that the harassment was “motivated by sexual desire.” Kelley at 205.

 “[T]o establish liability in a FEHA hostile work environment sexual harassment case, a plaintiff employee must show [he] was subjected to sexual advances, conduct, or comments that were severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create a hostile or abusive work environment.  [Citations.]” Kelley at 207.

This new legislation overturns the court's decision in Kelly. Since sexual desire is no longer a necessary requirement for establishing harassment based on sex, the extent of this new protection is significant. This change in the law protects employees that suffer sexual advances or other explicit comments that are severe or pervasive and interfere with their ability to work even where no sexual desire is contemplated by the harasser and they are made merely in jest.

Same Sex Harassment

While the construction site example in Kelley is a more deplorable example of severe or pervasive same sex harassment, this change in the law may have far reaching ramifications. Since sexual desire is no longer a requirement to show an animus by the harasser, the abuse by co-workers who have no sexual interest in their demeaned victim may now be actionable. Employers now have an obligation to prevent harassment even though it is known that the harasser has no sexual desire for the victim.

Potential Claims - Sexual Gossip/ Sexually Offensive Jokes

The protections of SB 292 could potentially reach other situations such as where co-workers are making fun or gossiping about the sex or sexual relations of co-workers. Where the comments are severe or pervasive and interfere with the victims' work environment, actionable sexual harassment against their employer might be available where previously there may have only been a cause of action for defamation against the individual making false statements.

Gossip could easily be seen as abusive and where done for the purpose of causing harm to the victim. It will be interesting to see how the courts define harassment where sexual comments are made in a disparaging way with the intent to cause harm. Gossip routinely interferes with working relationships. At which point does it become pervasive or severe enough to invoke protection under this new definition of harassment under FEHA?

The image in this article was provided courtesy of Ambro / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

They are going to fire me.

We often get calls from employees who suspect that they are about to get fired.  These employees often think that a lawyer’s immediate intervention will save their job; most of the time these about to be fired employees (ATBFE) are wrong.

But, speaking with a lawyer can still help the ATBFE protect their rights.  Here’s how:

Complain to Human Resources or Management in Writing

Proving that you complained to the company about the problem or discrimination can often be very difficult.  An email sent from your personal email can be a good choice.  Keep copies of all doctor’s notes.

Make sure you have copies

If you are fired it is important to have copies of important document: Employment Policy and Handbook; your Job Description;  any communications between you and Human Resources;  communications between you and your supervisor; and any other relevant documents.

Paper copies are the surest approach.  Storing the documents at home or in your car will make sure that you have what you need should management fire you and walk you out of the building.

However, you must NOT take secret company information like customer list or other potential trade secrets.

DON’T tape conversations

Even if you are sure that taping will “prove” that you are right, DON’T do it.  Generally in California it is illegal to tape conversations.  We recommend that you send a confirming email after any important conversation to the speaker outlining what you believe they said. 

Keep a Log

In the moment, you may believe that you will never forget, but you will.  The exact details are easiest to capture right after they occur.  Limit your log to employment problems and avoid mixing in personal things.

Contacts

If a co-worker has witnessed something about your case, make sure you have their contact information: name, address, and phone number.  Do it now, it will be much harder if you are no longer at the company.

Social Media

When things get tough at the job, you don’t need co-workers spying on your Facebook page.  Defriend them.  Having work friends is probably a bad idea for all of us when it comes to social media.  You also should take a good look at the photos of you which are posted.  Some of the most embarrassing things show up in lawsuits.

Look for a New Job

Update you resume.  Get reference letters, if possible from appropriate co-workers.  Circulate your resume.  Finding a new job makes losing the old one less disruptive.

Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs), Bad Reviews and Exit Interview

Companies will often use these tools to later justify the termination.  It is important that you get your side of the story included. Include your comments on their write up.  Do NOT refuse to sign the write up.  It is okay to ask for 24 hours to review the document before signing it.  Get a copy with your comments included.

Severance Agreements

Do NOT sign them unless you are sure that you have no lawsuit.  These agreements generally give away any rights that you may have against the company.  The company cannot require that you sign any agreement to get your final paycheck. 

Conclusion

The time to get legal advice is while you are still employed.  There are many things that can be done which will improve or destroy your case.  We will discuss your situation at no cost to you to help you determine whether you need to take action to protect your rights.

The image in this article was provided courtesy of winnond/ FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Forced out on leave when you can still work: Workers’ Compensation Injuries and Disability Discrimination in California

Employee injuries happen.  Under the mandatory reporting policy in California, a claim must be submitted to the workers compensation carrier and it will either be approved or denied. Just navigating the workers compensation arena is complicated; a workers’ compensation (“workers’ comp”) attorney is usually needed just to get things moving along to ensure you get the treatment you deserve.  We can refer you to a workers' comp attorney.

Often you’ll need another attorney; an employment law attorney.   Here is why:

Out on leave waiting for permanent stationary status-Employer won’t let you work light duty

What happens when you’re placed on leave even though you can work just not at full capacity? Your worker’s comp attorney is only responsible for the treatment of your work related injury. We help with this issue because it could be Disability Discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”.)

The FEHA interactive process: Employment Law Disability Discrimination Claim

Under FEHA disability accommodation laws, upon notice of your work limitations, usually found in your progress reports from your doctor (“PR-2’s”), your employer must engage in the “interactive process.” Failure to do this may result in liability.  The “Interactive Process” is a back and forth discussion between you, your employer, in concert with your doctor to see if you can do the most important parts of your job with or without accommodation.

Failure or Refusal to provide reasonable accommodation: Employment Law FEHA Disability Discrimination Claim

What if your employer gives you a hard time about coming back to work or says just get better and wants you to be 100% healed before you come back? You may be okay with that, but requiring you to be fully healed is against the law. Light duty is mandatory if it does not create undue hardship on your employer and your employer has more than five employees.

Why can’t I just use my workers compensation attorney?

Simply put, most workers compensation attorneys don’t underst this area of law, and when they try, it limits recovery. Some workers compensation attorneys attempt to navigate these sorts of claims by “forcing a square peg in a round hole.” It's usually a bad decision.  They call the refusal to reinstate or accommodate and sometimes termination, retaliation for filing the workers compensation claim. They  bring a claim under Labor Code sec. 132a ("132a"). That really is only a slap on the wrist, $10,000 maximum recovery, and usually does not fully compensate lost wages, benefits, and emotional damages. FEHA claims may entitle victims to punitive damages in some circumstances.

Example why 132a might not be the best way to go forward:

Let’s say you’re data entry clerk, making $15 an hour, and you broke your ankle carrying a box of papers up the stairs to the next floor because the elevator was not working again. Your duties usually require only desk work and you rarely leave your desk except to go to lunch, get a cup of coffee, or attend the occasional staff meeting.

You filed a workers compensation claim and you are awaiting your “permanent and stationary status.” You feel you could do your job but your employer wants you to be 100% healed before you come back. You know that disability payments don’t pay the same as your regular wages and you have rent/mortgage, bills, and kids to feed. Despite your protests, your supervisor forces you out on disability leave for 18 weeks and then the company fires you for “job abandonment.” 

A 132a claim is weak at best. Showing the termination was because you filed the workers comp claim will be the only solution that most workers comp attorneys will see. The value of a 132a claim pales in comparison to a FEHA wrongful termination claim with an employment lawyer. There is no cap in FEHA disputes and you are able to pursue emotional damages as well punitive damages in some circumstances. 

The math:

Not only would you have made $10,800 during the leave if you would have been placed on light duty, but now since you were terminated you will lose $600 every week until you find a job and all the jobs you are considering are paying less. You’d be entitled to additional damages for any emotional suffering that results not available under 132a. You get the point, it could be well over $30,000.00 by the time you get another job not including any emotional suffering.

Getting an employment lawyer to advise you early on during the workers’ comp case is the responsible thing to do. They can help you prepare for this sort of case, especially if you know your employer hates light duty or has fired others while out on workers’ comp leave.

Normally the doctor will automatically place you as “TTD” or temporarily totally disabled if your employer believes they are unable to accommodate. If you disagree you need to tell your doctor that you think you can do your job and you need an employment lawyer.

Can you be fired while out on Workers’ comp leave?

This is a very common question. It depends. There is no law that says it is illegal to terminate someone who is out on workers compensation leave. There are some laws that protect employees that qualify for them; CFRA/FMLA. Eligibility depends on amount of time worked before the leave (1,250 hours in last year), number of employees (50+), full-time employment held for at least one year. This only protects you up to 12 weeks.

Your employer does have an obligation to accommodate you however. Consider requesting time off through a specified date as accommodation of your disability and do it in writing. Jensen v. Wells Fargo.  This places you in a protected group. If they terminate you, and the leave is not so long it would create an undue burden, it could be considered a failure to accommodate and give rise to a claim.

If you are confused and are in this or a similar situation, contact us to discuss your options.

The image in this article was provided courtesy of Ambro / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

"Harassment" or FEHA Harassment-When is harassment at work actionable?

You’ve probably heard people complain about their jobs. People are quick to say they work in a “hostile work environment.” Most people think their supervisors are harassing them. When does the law protect you?

Not every person that has a difficult job suffers from harassment prohibited under the law.  It’s not against the law for a supervisor to “be a jerk,” “have it out for you,” or even over scrutinize you.  But it is often against the law for a supervisor to do those things if it’s because you are a member of a protected group.

Protected groups

Determining the reason why your supervisor or co-worker is “being a jerk” is really the first step to see if a claim exists. A protected group for purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) is any characteristic or trait identified in the statute. Gov’t Code §12940(j)(1).

FEHA, Gov’t Code §12940(j)(1), makes harassment in employment illegal when it is based on:

• sex;
• age;
• gender;
• sexual orientation;
• physical or mental disability;
• race, color, national origin, or ancestry; 
• medical condition (cancer);
• genetic information; 
• marital status; or 
• gender identity or gender expression. 

If you believe that you are being mistreated because you are in one of the above groups, it’s a good time to talk to an attorney. An attorney can help you stop it and discuss your options.  We give free initial consultations and can help you determine whether it is discrimination or harassment. All FEHA harassment is discrimination but not all FEHA discrimination is harassment.

For FEHA discrimination to be actionable there must be at least five or more employees at your place of employment, but FEHA harassment doesn't require a minimum number of employees Gov’t Code §12940(j)(4)(A). You're protected against harassment even if it is just you and the owner working for the company. You don't even have to be an employee you can merely be "providing services pursuant to a contract." Gov’t Code §12940(j)(1).

 Harassment and the “hostile work environment.”

Harassment is prohibited in employment under FEHA as stated in Gov’t Code §§12940(a) and (j)(1). There are numerous cases that attempt to define what is considered harassment. Here, we are merely providing a general overview of what might be considered FEHA harassment.  What people call harassment in everyday conversation is very different from harassment under FEHA.  

A hostile work environment can result from many acts over a sustained period. It can also be from a “severe” single incident such as sexual assault or rape. It must be “severe or pervasive” Sheffield v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Social Services (2003) 109 CA4th 153, 160-161.  The “totality of the circumstances” are considered in determining whether the hostile work environment exists.

Sexual Harassment has another form besides the hostile work environment claim, called “quid pro quo sexual harassment,” which means “this for that” or a “favor for a favor.” Usually it has an economic aspect, where a supervisor asks for sexual favors in exchange for some employment benefit. For example, like seeking sexual favors in exchange for job placement, promotion, a good performance review, or in order to keep a job.

Many acts over a sustained period of time

Many acts over a period of time which creates a hostile work environment is the most common form of harassment.  It applies to all protected groups in determining whether harassment exists. The severity of  the conduct coupled with how often the conduct occurs is a sliding scale that determines whether a claim exists.

If you have experienced intimidation, ridicule, insult, or other abusive behavior because you belong to one of the protected groups identified above you may have suffered harassment. It must be severe or have occurred with such regularity that it changes your work conditions.  Would a reasonable person agree that it is an abusive environment?  Usually a culmination of severity and regularity results in a finding of an hostile work environment; the phrase you’ve heard so much about.

Single incident

To determine if a single incident is harassment it must be severe; physical assault for example. The majority of case law establishing single incident hostile work environments can be found in sexual harassment cases. Single incident hostile work environment claims are rarely asserted except for in sexual harassment style claims.

What to do.

If you want to stop the harassment, complain.  If you’re not sure but you reasonably believe what is happening to you is harassment or discrimination it is very important to let your employer know so they can correct it.  Unfortunately, sometimes they fail to do the right thing, so protect yourself by complaining in writing.

Complain in Writing

Never make the complaint verbally.  Some human resources managers or supervisors will deny you ever made a complaint.  This becomes a problem if litigation is necessary.  Always complain in writing.  The best method to complain is by email or fax. If you fax your complaint, get a copy of the confirmation report provided by the fax machine. 

Sometimes companies have anonymous hotlines. Employees call in and report things anonymously. Only problem is that if the employer retaliates against you (terminate you or force you to quit) you will have a difficult time proving you made the complaint and that it was you. It may allow your employer to wiggle out of liability since they could possibly deny they knew it was you. A complaint in writing signed by you is much stronger evidence to prove retaliation later.

Don't record conversations. It's a crime in California to record someone without consent. It can't be used in evidence and will create problems in the future if litigation is necessary. It is better to take detailed notes of a conversation, or write down what was said right after. This is much easier to use in litigation.

Send the complaint to the person designated in your company policy. If there is no policy or you are not aware of one, or that designated person is the same wrongdoer, send the email to human resources or the first level of management above the harasser.

This can be a scary process and navigating this process with an attorney will make it go smoother. Having an attorney is best since once an investigation starts your attorney can help you navigate the waters if your employer chooses to do the wrong thing. Sometimes employers retaliate because of the complaint. They start attacking your performance and attempt to get you to quit.

The complaint should identify the protected group. (eg. I believe I have been discriminated against or harassed because of my [race, gender, disability, etc.]). It should state the reasons why you believe you have been discriminated against or harassed. It should focus on why your membership in the protected group is the reason behind the mistreatment.  It should state who is responsible and when it occurred.  It should be short, simple and straight to the point.

AVOID block paragraphs with single spaces with no separate thoughts that make you appear psycho. Simple and short is best. If you fear you might say too much or not enough involve an attorney they can help you. During our free consultation we can discuss making a complaint with you.

Conclusion

So now you have a general idea of what a “hostile work environment” is and is not.  If the conduct is directed to you because of your membership to a protected class, and the nature of the abuse is severe or pervasive to the extent that it interferes with your work environment, you may be in a hostile work environment.  Hostile work environments are against the law and you have rights.

The image in this article was provided courtesy of Ambro / FreeDigitalPhotos.net