Oakland Personal Injury Attorney Blog

What You Can Do in California if Your Employer Has Punished You for Being a Caregiver for Family Members

July 27, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

With the challenges that have been created by the current pandemic, more and more people are wearing the dual “hats” of employee and caregiver for children or seniors. Whether you are a man or a woman, it is possible to face employment discrimination because you care for those family members, whether they’re your kids, your grandchildren, parents or other elders. While the Fair Employment and Housing Act does not currently list family responsibilities discrimination as a specific cause for suing and collecting damages, that doesn’t mean that you cannot win a case based on the workplace discrimination you suffered due to your family responsibilities. There potentially may be avenues available under the FEHA, so be sure to reach out to an experienced Oakland employment attorney about your situation.

D.R. was someone who allegedly faced this difficulty. She was an account executive for an insurance brokerage firm in San Diego, and was also a mom to two young children. According to a New York Times report, when the governor issued a statewide stay-at-home order, the executive began working from home. At home, she managed her work duties and also tended to her children (for whom she could not find childcare due to the stay-at-home order.)

Allegedly, the executive’s supervisor was not happy with D.R.’s juggling work and kids, and took several discriminatory actions, such as assigning her several tasks with “rush” deadlines (even though those tasks weren’t actually urgent) and frequently scheduling conference calls during the lunch hour, even though the supervisor knew that D.R. would be either nursing her youngest, feeding her oldest or putting the younger child down for a nap. The supervisor allegedly did this even after the executive stated that afternoon calls would be better as the younger child would be napping during that period, according to the Times report. D.R.’s supervisor reprimanded her after her children were heard on a call with a client, calling it “unprofessional,” and later told D.R. to “take care of your kid situation,” in addition to making many other sexist statements that demonstrated a clear bias against mothers, according to the mother’s lawsuit.

Coronavirus and How Your Employer’s Response May Have Violated Workplace Disability Discrimination Laws in California

July 14, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

The state of California set a bleak milestone recently as it surged past 300,000 total cases of coronavirus, according to Deadline. The Mercury News reported that, on July 12, Alameda County was added to the state’s coronavirus “watch list.” There are many ways that coronavirus can hurt you, but one way you perhaps hadn’t considered is the possibility of contracting the virus and recovering, only to be faced with discrimination when you try to return to work (due to your having had the virus.) If that happens to you, California’s discrimination laws may have options for you to obtain compensation for the harm you suffered, so be sure to contact an experienced Oakland employment attorney right away.

One of the first things that you should understand is, if you have tested positive, there are certain things that California’s law forbidding certain forms of workplace discrimination (the Fair Employment and Housing Act) says your employer can do, and other things it cannot.

The law in California may allow an employer to make certain demands of employees in order to ensure that the employee in question is capable of doing the job and doing it safely. These are called “fitness for duty” exams, and they typically include a medical examination and a certification from a medical professional that any safety concerns related to that worker’s return to the job no longer exist.

Collateral Effects of the Pandemic in California: Fewer Vehicle on the Road Has Meant More Speeding and More Fatalities

June 18, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

The lockdowns that all states, including California, instituted during the coronavirus pandemic affected all aspects of life. As workplaces and other businesses shut down, the volume of traffic on roads and freeways declined dramatically, which was predictable. What was perhaps less expected was the uptick in extreme speeding and in fatal crashes during the lockdown. Those two facts are not unconnected. Driving at very high rates of speed greatly increases the risk that a crash will occur and, when it does, the odds also go up that someone will die. Whether you were injured, or a loved one was killed, because someone was driving dangerously fast, that driver’s speeding may be a key in helping to get the substantial sum of damages that you deserve. An experienced Oakland car accident attorney can help you get that done.

According to ABC 10 in Sacramento, the California Highway Patrol witnessed the effects of the pandemic in the tickets they wrote. In the first month of the lockdown (March 19 – April 19,) they wrote more than 2,493 tickets to drivers traveling at speeds of 100+ mph. That was 87% increase over that same March 19 – April 19 period in 2019, when 1,335 drivers were ticketed for going 100+.

Law enforcement officers urged drivers to slow down, but to no avail. From April 19 – May 19, the problem actually got worse, with officers writing an additional 3,550 tickets for drivers going 100+. Across the two-month span of March 19- May 19, officers wrote 6,043 tickets for speeding at 100 mph or greater, ABC 10 reported. That represented a 124% uptick over those same two months in 2019, when officers wrote roughly 2,700 such tickets.

A Motorcyclist’s Death Along California’s Central Coast Highlights the Dangers Bikers and Their Passengers Face

June 8, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Because of the very nature of physical science and medical science, motorcyclists and motorcycle passengers necessarily are some of the most vulnerable people on the road. While many drivers are vigilant to keep an eye out for all others on the road, too many are prone to overlooking smaller vehicles like motorcycles. When they do, the results can be fatal and tragic. If you or a loved one has been injured in a motorcycle crash in California, you need the right Oakland motorcycle accident attorney on your side to help you as you go through all of the necessary legal steps and processes to get compensation.

A crash from the central coast is yet another example of how deadly these motorcycle accidents can be. 76-year-old K.K. was driving a yellow motorcycle along Highway 1 in Cambria, according to a calcoastnews.com report. At the same time, the driver of a Jeep Cherokee was also traveling along Highway 1. The Jeep’s driver pulled onto the shoulder of the highway in order to execute a U-turn. In making the U-turn, the driver of Jeep pulled into the motorcycle’s path. The vehicles collided and K.K. died as a result of his injuries, according to the report.

Fatal motorcycle crashes are sadly common in California. According to statistics published by the state’s Office of Traffic Safety, more than 1,060 motorcyclists died on California roads and highways in 2017-2018. Many of those tragedies were regrettably avoidable, as they result from a car, truck or SUV driver’s failure to maintain a proper lookout, failure to see a motorcycle and their resulting failure to yield the right of way to the motorcyclist. That error can occur when making a turn, making a lane change or, as was the case in Cambria, making a U-turn.

What You Can Do If Your California Employer Fired You for Resisting or Complaining About Sexual Harassment by Your Supervisor

May 27, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

In California, you have the right to go to work and do your job while free from sexual harassment. You also have the right, if you are the target of sexual harassment, to seek to stop that harassment without suffering reprisals from your employer. That means that you are entitled to say “no,” to complain to your employer’s HR department or to file a harassment lawsuit or claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and your employer cannot punish you for it. That means no firing you, no demoting you, no reassigning you to less desirable work and no cutting your hours. If your employer does engage in these types of actions, you should reach out to an experienced Oakland employment attorney promptly, because those punishments may mean that your employer is liable to you for impermissible retaliation.

S.E. was a teenager working at a drive-in restaurant whose lawsuit presented a case of exactly that sort of retaliation. According to the employee, who was still a minor, her manager made sexual advances toward her and, when she did not accept those advances, he altered the teen’s work schedule to reduce her hours (and, by extension, reduce her income.) The teen informed the employer of the manager’s advances and his retaliation against her after she said no. The employer fired the teen.

That, of course, is one of every workplace sexual harassment target’s nightmares, isn’t it? Too many victims look at their harasser and think that he has far more “pull”/”juice”/power/etc. within the organization than they do, and so they suffer in silence, fearing what would happen to them if they did dare to speak up.

What ‘Equitable Tolling’ and ‘Continuing Violations’ Are and How They Can Help You in Your California Workplace Discrimination Case

May 13, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

The law in California requires a worker to file an administrative complaint for discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year of the discriminatory actions. The good news for workers, though, is that there are circumstances where the law may give you extra time to file a complaint with DFEH or file a lawsuit with the court. One way this can happen is through something that the law calls “equitable tolling.” Another legal concept that may help your case is something called a “continuing violation” of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. These tools can help you present to the court a fuller and more persuasive case and potentially entitle you to a larger sum of compensation. The key thing is to make absolutely sure that you don’t wait too long, as that could cost you your case entirely. Contact a knowledgeable Oakland employment attorney to learn more about your options and deadlines.

J.B. was a Northern California worker whose discrimination case focused heavily on those deadlines. J.B. was an openly gay man who worked for the California Highway Patrol from 1996 to 2016. During those two decades, J.B. allegedly suffered through many injustices, including “derogatory, homophobic comments,” being “singled him out for pranks” and having his mailbox “repeatedly defaced.” On top of those things, other officers also allegedly “refused to provide him with backup assistance during enforcement stops in the field.”

Eventually, the discrimination and harassment took their toll, according to J.B. He filed a workers’ compensation claim in January 2015. In that action, he stated that he had begun having “headaches, muscle pain, stomach issues, anxiety and stress.” He was also allegedly suicidal due to problems at work. J.B. won his workers’ comp case. That ruling came down in October 2015 and, four months later, he left his job. Several months after leaving, J.B. filed a claim with the DFEH and filed a discrimination lawsuit the next day.

A Delay in the Onset of Your Symptoms Doesn’t Have to Doom Your California Injury Lawsuit

April 28, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

If you’ve been involved in an auto accident, you know that the pain resulting from the injuries you suffered in that crash may “hit” you right away, or its onset may be delayed. You may first feel the pain the next day, a week later, or maybe not for months. Just because the symptoms of your injuries were delayed in emerging, that doesn’t mean that they weren’t caused by the accident and it doesn’t mean that you can’t still get compensation from those who were to blame for the accident. If that happens to you, don’t be discouraged, but do reach out to an experienced Oakland injury attorney right away to learn more about your options.

A recent case (Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 56-2016-00483594-CU-PA-VTA) from Southern California is an example of that kind of scenario, and is an example of how it doesn’t have to be devastating to your injury lawsuit. K.F. was making a left turn inside a Thousand Oaks mall parking lot when B.R. hit her. K.F. experienced some symptoms shortly after the crash and underwent treatment from a chiropractor for two months, but received no more treatment after that until she underwent steroid injections and spinal fusion surgery… four years later.

This woman’s case is not completely out of the ordinary. A few years ago, KTAR in Arizona reported on seven accident symptoms that may not onset until a substantial period of time has passed following your accident. These include headaches (which can be symptoms of blood clots on the brain or a brain bleed,) neck or shoulder pain, back pain (which, as was the case in K.F.’s lawsuit, can be the result of vertebrae damages,) changes in personality (which may be caused by an undiagnosed brain injury) or abdominal pain.

How You Can Hold a Vehicle Owner Liable for Your Auto Accident Injuries in California, Even if the Owner Wasn’t Driving

April 14, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Generally, any time you are suing to recover compensation for your injuries, you are asserting that the defendants either engaged in some sort of intentional misconduct or, more commonly, were negligent. Typically, in an auto accident, your lawsuit pursues the other driver for operating his vehicle in a negligent way and causing the crash. In California, though, there may be other people and/or entities who were negligent in causing your accident, meaning that those additional individuals and/or entities may be liable and owe you payment for your damages. To find out how best to go about pursuing them to get the full recovery you deserve, be sure to retain an experienced Oakland car accident attorney to handle your case.

A tragic East Bay crash spawned a case that is an example of this kind of lawsuit. J.H. suffered a seizure while driving a Toyota pickup truck in Danville. Under the effects of the seizure, J.H. ran a red light while going 62 mph in a 45-mph zone. The pickup slammed into a Dodge SUV. The crash killed both the 51-year-old driver of the SUV, E.P. and her 72-year-old mother, M.D.

In a lot of incidents like that, the family of the deceased would be able to pursue J.H. and his insurer… and only J.H. and his insurer. This case, however, was not like most cases. The Toyota pickup truck that J.H. was driving at the time of the fatal crash was not 100% his own; it belonged jointly to him and his father, D.H.

California DFEH Reminds Employers: COVID-19 Pandemic Doesn’t Reduce Employers’ Obligations to Avoid Discrimination and Harassment

March 27, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

The COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting lives and, more importantly, has cost the lives of more than 1,000 Americans. While the pandemic has led to the institution of many extraordinary measures, there are some things that remained unchanged. For example, California employers’ obligations to avoid illegal discrimination and harassment remain in place and are as strong as ever. In fact, given the racial/ethnic component of the virus’s presumed origin, employers should be even more vigilant than ever to avoid improper practices. If, in this era of COVID-19 pandemic, you’ve been harmed at work because of your race, ethnicity or national origin, you may have legal options under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Reach out to a knowledgeable Oakland employment attorney to find out more.

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing recently released an “Information” document about COVID-19 and employers’ FEHA obligations. The very first topic that the document addressed was the harmful practice of discrimination or harassment “because of race or national origin.” This kind of discrimination or harassment can take many forms. In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the victims of illegal discrimination or harassment may be targeted because of actual or perceived Chinese ancestry.

Note that you don’t actually have to be of Chinese origin or ancestry. Illegal discrimination or harassment can stem from one’s actual national origin or the perpetrator’s perception of your national origin. So if, for example, your facial appearance, your manner of speaking or your name makes your supervisor think you’re of Chinese origin – and your supervisor harasses or discriminates against you because of it – it doesn’t matter if your heritage is Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese or something else entirely. The fact that your supervisor believed you were of Chinese origin and took adverse action against you because of that belief is enough.

Overcoming Hearsay Objections to the Evidence in Your California Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

March 14, 2020 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Sometimes, your wrongful termination case may have overwhelming evidence on your side… a case where you are obviously entitled to a judgment in your favor. A lot of times, though, that’s not what happens. In many lawsuits, the cases are of the type often referred to as “he-said-she-said,” or as lawyers call them, “swearing contests,” which refers to the fact that the sworn testimony of witnesses make up the vast majority of the evidence, and the outcome rests on which side the jury finds more believable. If you’re involved in a case like that, the more evidence you can give the court beyond just your own testimony, the more credible your testimony may become and the stronger your case may become. To be sure you are identifying, obtaining and utilizing all the evidence you need for your strongest case possible, make sure you have an experienced Oakland wrongful termination attorney working for you.

D.W.’s was a case like that. He had risen through the ranks at the call center of a major telecommunications company. By 2012, he was named the interim acting director of the call center. He routinely received high-performance review scores and praise for his leadership skills. He applied to be named the director of the call center but was not chosen. The company selected a white woman to be the new director. Unlike D.W., the woman did not have a bachelor’s degree, which the employer listed as a “preferred qualification” for the position of director.

D.W.’s former supervisor, after having been reassigned, told him that she attempted to get the company to choose D.W., but that he had three key things working against him: he was a former employee of a competitor company, he was not white, and he was not female. Just four months later, the company fired D.W.