A number of recent California appellate decisions reveal hidden traps that may ensnare employers in administrative proceedings involving employee claims for unemployment or workers-compensation benefits. Such proceedings typically appear routine and uncomplicated. Nonetheless, missteps in handling those routine and relatively low-risk claims can greatly increase an employer’s exposure to liability in a separate civil action alleging wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or similar claims.
The San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has now prohibited the widely used criminal history check box for employment applications. Unless the Mayor vetoes it, the “ban the box” ordinance will become law no later than Thursday, February 13, 2014. In addition to banning the box, the new San Francisco legislation imposes a host of additional…
Robert v. Board of County Commissioners of Brown County, Kansas, et. al. (10th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012) No. 11-3902
The job description for Robert’s job as a supervisor of felony offenders included 18 “essential functions.” Some of those included functions like performing drug screenings, ensuring compliance with court orders, testifying in court, and “field work,” which consisted of visiting the homes of individuals who had been released from prison to assist them in their reentry into society. The job required “considerable fieldwork . . . throughout the 22nd Judicial District," "visits in less than desirable environments," and "potentially dangerous situations in field/office contacts."