by

In California, there are several ways that an employer can fire an employee that is against the law. One of those ways is if the employer terminates the employee based on the employee’s disability without first engaging in a good faith effort to make a reasonable accommodation for that worker’s disability.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act demands that employers provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. The law requires many employers, in crafting the employee’s accommodation, to engage that employee in an “interactive process” in a good faith way. If you were fired because of your disability, and you were not afforded a reasonable accommodation or a good-faith interactive process, then you may be entitled to compensation and you should consult a knowledgeable Oakland employment law attorney promptly.

The case of paint store employee E.C. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC620114 / JAMS Arbitration Case No. 1210033499) is a good example. E.C.’s position required workers to lift heavy loads up to 72 pounds. The worker’s job application stated that she had a disability and could lift no more than 20 pounds.

Continue reading

by

When you are called upon by an investigator who has appeared at your workplace to investigate one or more of your co-workers, it can be a stressful time, even though you’re not the person under investigation. Being sought to answer questions or give testimony can be scary, especially if the knowledge you hold (and the investigators are asking for) is potentially harmful to your employer and/or your supervisor. Even if that’s true, you should be entitled to speak freely, openly and honestly, without fear of reprisals that could damage or end your employment just because you spoke the truth.

If you suffer a loss of your job simply because you cooperated with investigators’ investigation into your supervisor, then you may have a claim for wrongful termination in California. If that situation describes you, you should act without delay to reach out and retain an experienced Oakland employment law attorney to represent you.

The type of scenario described above actually happened to one state government worker recently. As reported by the Sacramento Bee, S.T. was a fraud investigator for a department within the state government when the State Auditor’s office opened an investigation into the department’s director. The director was suspected of engaging in improper hiring practices; specifically, nepotism in hiring her daughter and a friend.

Continue reading

by

Sometimes, the key evidence in your employment discrimination case focuses a spotlight on what the employer wrongfully did or did not do. Other times, though, your disability discrimination case may turn on the acts you did or did not undertake prior to litigation. That’s because, while your employer is obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation for your disability, both your employer and you are required to engage in an interactive process in good faith for determining what that accommodation should look like.

An interactive process is when employer and employee exchange essential information directly with each other to work toward an appropriate accommodation. One of the ways in which you can succeed in a disability discrimination case is by demonstrating that you engaged in the interactive process in good faith, while your employer did not. For the assistance you need in clearing this and other evidentiary hurdles, be sure that you have the legal advice and advocacy you need from a knowledgeable Oakland employment attorney.

The issue of good faith participation in the interactive process was a key to the outcome of the disability discrimination case of M.M., a civil transportation engineer for the California Department of Transportation. The engineer suffered from both physiological and psychological disabilities, including a heart anomaly, anxiety and depression. The engineer’s disabilities allegedly impaired his ability to sleep properly and, as a result, limited his ability to concentrate and to deal with stress.

Continue reading

by

When you’re injured in a rear-end crash with a distracted driver, there is a lot of potential evidence that can help you achieve the full compensation you deserve. Because yours is a rear-end accident, the rear driver will generally be considered to be at fault, so you may not need as much proof of fault, unless the defendant driver alleges that you caused the crash with some inappropriate and unexpected maneuver.

Nevertheless, you may still need to do extensive discovery and put on considerable evidence in order to show the court how bad your wreck was and how extensive your harm was, among other things. In other words, you need an experienced Oakland car accident attorney on your side to be sure you have what it takes to get what you deserve.

A few months ago, there was a ruling from a court in the Central Coast involving a rear-end crash with a distracted driver. According to news reports, a Santa Maria police officer, who the city alleged was on a call, was viewing suspect information on his in-dash computer while driving. Because of that, he was delayed in noticing stopped traffic in front of him. He eventually did notice and, though he slammed on his brakes, he rear-ended the truck of two plumbers on their way to a job.

Continue reading

by

In any employment discrimination lawsuit in California, there are certain things that you absolutely must have in order to have a successful case. For example, one thing you must show is that you were harmed in some way at your job. This is something that the law calls an “adverse employment action.” With evidence of it, you could be well on your way to a successful outcome. Without it, you may be vulnerable to having your case thrown out of court before you ever get to trial. To be sure your case has this and other vital pieces for a positive result, be sure to obtain legal representation from an experienced Oakland employment attorney.

There are many different things that you can point to as the adverse action you suffered at your job. They include, among other things, being fired, being demoted, losing pay or benefits, having your hours reduced or being threatened with being reported to immigration authorities.

Notice that the first item on that list was “getting fired.” The fact that you resigned does not necessarily mean that you cannot pursue a discrimination case based upon your improper termination, however; it just means that you need additional proof in order to succeed. Specifically, as one case recently showed, you have to demonstrate that your resignation met the legal standards for something called a “constructive discharge.” A constructive discharge occurs when your employer makes the conditions of your job so objectively intolerable that a reasonable person would believe that she had no choice but to resign and leave. When that happens, your resignation is treated the same as if your employer fired you.

Continue reading

by

In some vehicle accidents, determining which driver was at fault can be something close to obvious. In a rear-end accident, the blame very often (but not always) lies with the rear driver for following too closely. Other accidents, such as a “T-bone” collision, are not so obvious. A T-bone collision may be the result of the either of the two drivers improperly failing to yield the right of way.

When you are faced with the latter type of scenario, you need all the evidence you can get to establish that your version of events is the correct one, that your version matches the physical evidence of the accident scene and that you are entitled to compensation. To get that proof you need to put on the most persuasive case possible, be sure you have an experienced Oakland injury attorney representing you.

With the necessary evidence, the outcome can be one that results in a substantial payout. Take, as an example, the recent case (Los Angeles Superior Court Case. No. BC660851) of J.M., a Southern California driver. J.M. was driving home in afternoon rush-hour traffic on Victory Boulevard in Van Nuys when she suffered a serious injury. Reportedly, J.M. was traveling in the outside westbound lane when a limo driver tried to cross all seven lanes of Victory Boulevard. He made it across the first six OK, but when he slid into the seventh lane — J.M.’s lane — it was mere moments before J.M. reached that spot. J.M. t-boned the limo.

Continue reading

by

If you’ve been the victim of discrimination at work or have otherwise been wrongfully terminated from your job, you obviously face many challenges and numerous stresses in your life. One of them may be an employer who seeks to prevent you from getting your day in court by instead forcing your dispute into arbitration. Don’t let that happen without a fair legal fight, and don’t try to handle that stressful challenge on your own. Be sure you have an experienced Oakland employment attorney on your side advocating for you.

Recently, the case of a San Francisco law partner who alleged that she was the victim of sex discrimination was again in the news, as mid-June 2019 brought the filing of a flurry of amicus briefs supporting the employer in this case. To recap, the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor the employee last year, concluding that the employer was not entitled to demand that the two sides resolve their Fair Employment and Housing Act dispute through arbitration, even though the partner’s agreement with the firm called for arbitration of disputes like FEHA discrimination claims. (In this circumstance, the partner had alleged that the firm had effectively forced her out of her job due to her being a woman.)

The reason that the partner won in the appeals court was a legal concept that is known as “unconscionability.” In contract law, a contract or contract provision is unconscionable if it is so one-sided as to be unreasonable. The partner’s arbitration agreement was not enforceable because it contained unconscionable terms related to payment of arbitration costs and attorneys’ fees. It also contained an unconscionable confidentiality term that could impair the lawyer’s ability to interview witnesses.

Continue reading

by

When your employer has fired you, or has implicitly forced you out, based upon your disability or perceived disability, it is undeniably an incredibly difficult time for you. You may be uncertain about what to do. You may be uncertain about where to turn. If you’re in this challenging position, one of your first steps should be to protect your legal rights by contacting an experienced Oakland employment attorney.

C.R. was an employee who faced that type of circumstance in his case. C.R. was a deputy district attorney for a county in Southern California. In 2013, he began exhibiting symptoms of a serious neurological problem. The attorney asked his supervisor to transfer him to a different assignment, but the supervisor declined. He later asked not to be assigned any new cases while he was undergoing testing, but that request was also initially refused.

The attorney’s doctors concluded that he had a concussion syndrome related to his past military service and also suspected he had an autoimmune disorder. The employer asked for written documentation from the lawyer’s medical providers clinic, but the attorney didn’t provide it because the clinic he used “had a practice of not supplying such documentation.” When the paperwork did not come, the employer at first refused to engage in a good-faith interactive process.

Continue reading

by

In any civil lawsuit, you have the potential to go up against well-funded opposition with powerful attorneys. To achieve a positive end, then, you must also be well equipped and ready to take on the other side. That includes making sure you have knowledgeable Oakland employment counsel on your side. You undoubtedly are intimately familiar with the facts of your discrimination case, but your skilled attorney can employ useful legal techniques on your behalf to strengthen your position and to stop your opposition from making arguments the law says aren’t allowed.

As an example, there is the case of T.F. T.F. worked as a counselor for an entity providing services to people with mental health disabilities. After 22 years with the employer, the counselor lost his job due to involuntary termination. Allegedly, the employer fired the counselor for performance-related reasons, including his improper personal use of employer equipment, requesting vacation leave “at the last minute,” excessive use of sick time, an inappropriately large number of phone calls at work, a failure to return voice mail messages and a failure to complete documentation on time.

The counselor, who was African-American, identified a different reason for his termination: his race. He asserted that supervisors treated him differently at staff meetings and gave him disciplinary punishments for violations that were not enforced against white employees.

Continue reading

by

California is often among the leaders in establishing legal mechanisms to protect workers from various employment harms, including discrimination. The California legislature is once again considering taking an important step that would expand the protections California workers receive.

The bill, already passed by the Senate, would extend the reach of the Fair Employment and Housing Act by banning workplace policies that, on their surface, discriminate against certain hairstyles but that, in actuality, amount to a form of race discrimination. Whether yours is related to your hair or some other issue, if you think you’ve suffered discrimination on the job, be sure that you reach out promptly to an experienced Oakland employment attorney to learn more about the legal options you may have, including filing suit and collecting compensation.

Employer hairstyle policies, on their surface, might seem like simple and necessary things to ensure that all workers maintain certain standards of hygiene, cleanliness and professional appearance. However, just like many things, the reality goes deeper, and is more complicated, than what’s on the surface. An employer’s hair rules, for example, could be used to punish an employee or job candidate for having a hairdo that the employer deems improper for that person’s gender. (In other words, a woman wearing a hairstyle the employer considers too masculine or a man wearing hair the employer thinks is too feminine.)

Continue reading