Year: 2013
California expands definition of unlawful sex harassment
California has officially clarified that its employment discrimination law (the Fair Employment and Housing Act, "FEHA") prohibits harassing comments that in any way relate to sex, even if they are not motivated by sexual desire. California Governor Jerry Brown signed...
Must be able to hire and fire to be considered a “supervisor”, says U.S. Supreme Court
Resolving long-standing confusion over how to determine who is a supervisor under Title VII, the Court adopted the more stringent, pro-employer standard that people must have authority to take adverse employment actions (e.g., hiring, firing, demotions, etc.) to be...
Employees working 24-hour shifts not entitled to be paid for designated sleep time
So long as they provide suitable sleeping quarters and have clear contracts, employers can refuse to pay employees working 24-hour shifts for time they can be sleeping. In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., a California appellate court clarified that all...
Time spent doing both management and routine work should be paid overtime
To paraphrase Mr. Miyagi from the (original) "Karate Kid", work activities that are entirely exempt are okay; those that are entirely non-exempt are okay; but those that straddle the fence will likely get employers squished, just like grapes. In Heyen v. Safeway,...
Random sampling no shortcut for class action certification
Continuing to crack down on overtime class actions, a California appellate court has ruled that random employee sampling cannot establish cases as class actions if the entire class of employees is not provably similar. In Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., a group of...
Mothers can receive additional pregnancy leave as a disability accommodation
Employers cannot reflexively fire working mothers who exhaust the four months of leave they are entitled to under California's Pregnancy Disability Leave Law ("PDLL"). Even if they have used all their PDLL leave, mothers can still be entitled to additional time off as...
No damages for employees fired for both lawful and unlawful reasons
Further muddying the issue of "mixed motives" in employment discrimination, the California Supreme Court ruled that, when employees are fired for both lawful and unlawful reasons (i.e., with mixed motives), they can seek injunctions and recover attorneys' fees but not...
Refusing to participate in workplace investigation justifies termination
In McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, a California appellate court held that an employer was justified in firing an employee who refused to participate in an investigation of alleged workplace harassment. The long-time employee, who apparently had an excellent work...