Discrimination

Subscribe to Discrimination via RSS

Equal pay claims just got a lotLucas Clary 02_web tougher to defend in California.  Last month, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 358, a new law which aims to curb a statewide pay disparity between men and women.  The law, dubbed the California Fair Pay Act, goes into effect on January 1, 2016 and requires immediate, affirmative assessment by most California employers. 

Overview of the California Fair Pay Act. 

Current law already requires California employers to pay men and women the same wage for performing equal work in the same establishment.  The new law broadens that requirement.  It removes the term “equal work” and replaces it with “substantially similar work.”  This means work that is substantially similar when viewed as “a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions.”  The new law also removes the “same establishment” requirement, meaning that employees can now bring equal pay claims by showing the employer paid an opposite sex employee at a different location higher wages for substantially similar work.
Continue Reading California’s New Equal Pay Laws Promise to Bring More Litigation

By:  Vida L. ThomasVida Thomas 04_final

The 2014/2015 California legislative session may go down as one of the most productive in the state’s  history, in terms of legislation passed and signed into law.  According to the Associated Press, Governor Brown signed 808 bills, and vetoed 133 others.   Lest employers worry that they were left out of the…

When people begin to think about cool weather, hot chocolate, Thanksgiving, and this year the constant announcements about El Niño, only one thing always comes to my mind……..

Employer Handbook Season! 

Yes, the end of the year always brings a flurry of revisions to employer handbooks.  This year is no different.  Business owners, general counsel, and human resources professionals throughout California and the County always look at Q4 and ask themselves “when was the last time your employee handbook was updated?”  We are assisting many clients right now with their handbooks so that they are poised for a January 1 launch. With the constant changes in California (including the dozens of new bills just signed by the Governor), employer handbooks that are more than a year old can quickly become a huge liability.
Continue Reading The Three “H”s of Fall: Halloween, Hot Chocolate, and Handbooks

Joining similar holdings from several other circuits, the Ninth CircuitLucas Clary 02_web recently held in Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc. that a depressed employee who threatened to kill his co-workers and was thereafter fired was not a qualified individual under the ADA.  The court therefore affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the employee’s disability discrimination claim.

Stress, Depression, and Bullying Lead Employee to Threaten Co-Workers’ Lives

The plaintiff, Timothy Mayo, welded aircraft parts for PCC Structurals.  In 1999, Mayo was diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD).  Despite the diagnosis, he continued working without incident for years.  In 2010, that changed.  Mayo and some other co-workers felt they were being bullied by their supervisor.  Following a co-worker’s complaint and a subsequent meeting to discuss the bullying, Mayo told three different co-workers that he wanted to kill the supervisor.  He told one co-worker that he felt like bringing a shotgun to work and “blowing off” the supervisor and others’ heads.  He told another co-worker that he wanted to “bring a gun down and start shooting people,” explaining that 1:30 p.m. was an optimal time because all of the supervisors would be present.  Pretty scary stuff.

Mayo’s co-workers reported the threats and HR reached out to him.  He told an HR representative that he “couldn’t guarantee” he wouldn’t carry out the threats.  PCC suspended him and called the police, who in turn took Mayo into custody for six days on the basis that he was a threat to himself and others.  After his release, Mayo spent two months on FMLA leave.  His doctor thereafter cleared him to return to work but suggested that he be assigned a different supervisor.  Instead, PCC fired him.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Says Employee Who Made Death Threats Against His Co-Workers Could Not Sue His Employer For Disability Discrimination

The EEOC issued a press release on July 20, 2015 announcing that the federal appeals court has dismissed Abercrombie & Fitch’s (“AF”) appeal of the EEOC’s religious discrimination case because AF made the decision to settle the case following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

Below is a summary of the court proceedings.Beth-West-15_web

The case arose when Samantha Elauf, then a teenager who wore a headscarf or hijab as part of her Muslim faith, applied for a job at an AF store in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla.  She was denied hire for failing to conform to the company’s “look policy,” which AF claimed banned head coverings.  Elauf then filed a charge with the EEOC, alleging religious discrimination, and the EEOC filed suit against AF charging that the company refused to hire Elauf due to her religion, and that it failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to its “look policy” prohibiting head coverings.  The trial court granted summary judgment on liability to EEOC after holding that the evidence established that Elauf wore the hijab as part of her Muslim faith, that AF was on notice of the religious nature of her practice, and that it refused to hire her as a result.  A jury subsequently awarded Elauf damages for the discrimination.Continue Reading The Final Resolution of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision