Retaliation and Wrongful Termination

Subscribe to Retaliation and Wrongful Termination via RSS

By:       Lizbeth V. West, Esq.

Most employers are aware of the federal law known as the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) which is designed to protect those who serve in the armed forces from discrimination and retaliation. However, many California employers are unaware that section 394 of the California Military and Veterans Code also prohibits employers from discriminating against members of the armed forces (“Section 394”). Therefore, an employee who believes he/she has been discriminated against based on his/her military status has the right to pursue a claim under one or both laws.Continue Reading When Can a Supervisor be Held Individually Liable for Discriminating Against an Employee Based on His or Her Military Status? It Depends on Whether Federal or California Law Applies

By: Chuck Post

Over the last year, Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin has tripled the size of its employment law department. In addition to enhancing the services we can provide to our clients, this growth has allowed us to continue presenting our quality seminars and maintaining our Labor and Employment Law Blog. Our results…

Big news! Weintraub’s L&E Law Blog is one of the nominated candidates for the LexisNexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs of 2011.

We need your help! Click here, log onto the Labor and Employment Law Community and then leave a comment at the bottom of the page saying “I vote for The…

By: Meagan D. Christiansen

The Third Appellate District for the California Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that provides hope for those employers who unknowingly hire undocumented workers throughout California. In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the court used the after-acquired evidence and unclean hands doctrines to bar Salas’ Complaint, ruling that undocumented workers are not entitled to recourse on a wrongful failure to hire claim, where they misrepresent their lawful ability to work in the first place.

Relevant Facts:

Vicente Salas was a seasonal worker at Sierra Chemical, a swimming pool chemical business. In 2006, he injured his back while working. After returning to work for a short time on modified duty, he reinjured his back when he was re-assigned to his regular duties. Following this injury, he brought a workers’ compensation claim against the company. In December 2006, Salas was laid off as part of Sierra Chemical’s annual reduction. In 2007 Sierra Chemical contacted Salas, informing him that he could return to work, provided he could establish he had received a medical release. Salas could not produce such a release and was precluded from returning pursuant to Sierra Chemical’s policies.Continue Reading The California Court of Appeals Limits the Remedies for Undocumented Workers

With the TV networks cancelling daytime Soap Operas left and right, it seems up to the NLRB to provide us with our daily dose of drama. As has been previously reported here and in countless other articles, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has been closely scrutinizing employers’ decisions to terminate employees for posts on Facebook. Until very recently, that scrutiny has universally led to unfair labor practice complaints having been filed against the employers, claiming the terminations were a violation of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Those cases have unceremoniously ended in settlement, without employers being able to obtain much guidance for the limits of future actions or gauge the cost and dangers associated with acting in response to employees’ Facebook rants. Employers were left to wonder whether all Facebook postings by employees would be considered protected activity by the NLRB.
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: As The Facebook Page Turns: The Continuing Drama Surrounding Employee Facebook Postings and the NLRA