employmentlaw -

Can I get Fired for Taking Time off due to Domestic Violence?

Par employmentlaw dans Accueil le 4 Mai 2018 à 22:32

Can I get Fired for Taking Time off due to Domestic Violence?

Are you a victim of domestic violence or currently breaking off from an abusive
relationship with someone you were previously dating? Is your employer giving you grievance
for taking time off to go to Court to obtain a restraining order or to seek injunctive relief against
the perpetrator? Are you currently in counseling or therapy due to abuse or domestic violence
trauma and worried about being terminated by your employer for taking time off work to attend
your sessions? If so, you need to know that you are protected by California law from getting
fired in retaliation from your employer for taking leave to ensure the safety and well being of
yourself or your children. You are also protected by law from retaliation for obtaining services
from domestic violence shelters, rape crisis intervention centers, or therapy during work hours.

Under Labor Code section 230(c ), individuals who are in situations where they are being
stalked, assaulted, or abused are entitled to time off from work to obtain retraining orders or to
seek injunctive reliefs to ensure their safety and the safety of their children. Therefore, if an
the employer is aware of such circumstances, it is illegal to terminate or retaliate against employees
who take leave to attend Court hearings related to abuse, harassment, or any form of domestic
violence under Labor Code section 230.2(c). However, you must provide certification or notice
to your employer in advance of any Court hearings, a copy of a Court order, or a police report
certifying your status as a domestic violence or abuse victim (Labor Code section 230.1(d)(2),
230.1(b)(2)). If you are worried about whether anyone else will find out about your
circumstances, your employer is required by law to keep your circumstances confidential (Labor
Code section 230.2(a)).

In addition, under Labor Code section 230(f), employers are responsible for making
accommodations to protect their employees experiencing such trauma, such as allowing them to
change their work numbers or putting locks on the employee’s work locker. Therefore, if you are
in a situation where you have a direct line at work and are being harassed or stalked, your
the employer has the responsibility to change your workstation phone number and to make
reasonable accommodations to prevent the harassment and stalking from occurring.
Also, if you or your children are currently in therapy or seeking counseling after
experiencing any sort of domestic violence or trauma and/or attending training from rape crisis
centers, you are protected under Labor Code section 230.1 from being terminated by your
employer. Lastly, If you are trying to search for new housing for you and/or your children to
prevent the abuse or harassment from occurring, you are also protected by law while you are
taking time off to do so. However, you must provide documentation, such as a physician or
counselor’s note to your employer verifying your treatment (Labor Code section 230(d)(2),
230.1(b)(2).
If you feel as though you were unfairly treated or have been retaliated against by your
employer while you were undergoing such circumstances, please contact an experienced
labor lawyer such as Stevens & McMillan.

votre commentaire
3 Forms of Discrimination You Didn’t Know About
Par employmentlaw dans Accueil le 3 Mai 2018 à 23:50
3 Forms of Discrimination You Didn't Know About

The State of California is full of employment opportunities and chances to improve your quality of life by obtaining the job that is right for you. The sun-kissed state is marveled for numerous reasons, but for employees and applicants, it truly stands out for the many laws which protect individuals in the workplace. In California, it is unlawful to discriminate against employees or applicants based on belonging to a protected class. A protected class means race, religion, sex, gender, age, national origin, color, marital status, medical condition, gender identity/expression, and or military or veteran status. If you belong to one of these classes or possess certain characteristics of one of these classes, you are protected by California State law from being discriminated against based on belonging to the particular class or having one of the characteristics. This article discusses three forms of discrimination that may not seem obvious to the unfamiliar employee or applicant and with this knowledge and the guidance from an Employment Lawyer, you might be able to identify if you have a case.
An employer who chooses to exclude an employee or applicant from training that may lead to employment, advancement, or an internship opportunity just because the employee or applicant belongs to a protected class, may be engaging in illegal business methods.

For example, Jim, a 25 year old male, who had a passion for working in retail and fashion, was seeking a job in the particular industry. Jim found a listing online to apply for a sales position at a women's lingerie store in which offered training. He went into the store to hand in his application. When Jim arrived, he asked to hand in his application to the manager. While waiting to meet the manager, Jim noticed that all employees on site were female and on the employee backroom entrance a sign read "Girl's Club". Feeling self-assured in his communication skills and his unique resume, Jim did not let the feminine environment shake his confidence. The manager Susan, who was also female, took one look at Jim and said: "I'm sorry, but we are only considering female applicants, there is no room for a man in this place". After Jim was denied consideration for the training that would lead to employment, a female applicant with the same qualifications as Jim applied and was selected for training. Here, it would seem that Jim may have been discriminated against based on his gender which is a protected class. Overall, it would appear that Jim was refused consideration for an employment opportunity based purely on the fact that he was male. This was demonstrated through Susan the manager's comment that the store was only hiring females and that they did not want any men at the establishment. In addition to Susan's comments, the fact that all current employees were female on-site and the sign on the employee door that read "Girls Club" are strong indicators that the store has a pattern of engaging in unlawful practices of gender discrimination. Lastly, the fact that the store hired a female employee who had the same qualifications as Jim strongly suggests that he was passed over for an employment opportunity based on his gender. Therefore, in gathering all of this information, Jim might have a claim for gender discrimination against the lingerie store.

If an employer decides not to select a particular employee or applicant to pursue training that may lead to additional employment opportunities solely based on the fact or presumption that this employee belongs to a protected class, this may be a form of discrimination. Speaking with an Employment Lawyer would shed further light on a situation that may be similar to Jim's issue.
An employer may be considered as engaging in illegal practices if it hinders an employee's career from flourishing because the employee is a member of one of the protected classes recognized in California. It is against the law for an employer to discriminate against an employee by means of unfair treatment, depriving the employee of advancement, benefits, and or preventing an employee from employment privileges.

In order to bring a claim for discrimination in the workplace via adverse treatment, the employee must provide evidence that the treatment which he or she endured was both substantial and detrimental. But what does this mean? This means the employee has to show that the employer treated him or her in such an unfair manner that would likely significantly debilitate a reasonable employee's work achievement and or functions in the same way. This means that the way in which the employer prevented the particular employee from carrying out his or her duties would also have impacted a reasonable employee in the same way. In other words, it did not affect them in a trivial way, rather it effected the employee substantially. So if an employee is merely annoyed or disappointed with the way in which he or she was treated, he or she would most likely not have claim in discrimination via preventing success, progress, or advancement.

Again, an Employment Lawyer would need to analyze the facts of the particular case in order to decide if they should pursue legal proceedings.
As previously mentioned, an employee might not have a claim if the adverse treatment which they endured merely annoyed them, the treatment must significantly cause damage or disrupt the employee from doing his or her job. However, an employer's unfair treatment of an employee although minor, if it is frequent, may in fact end up being substantial. For example, Linda, an employee at an insurance company, was open about her same-sex marriage to her partner Beth. Linda had been working at the company for three years and felt comfortable having her framed wedding photo of her and Beth on her desk. A new manager, Lisa was hired to oversee Linda's department. Lisa saw the picture on Lisa's desk and reprimanded her for having "obstructions in her workspace", even though other employees were not reprimanded for having family photos on their desk. A few weeks later, Lisa had Beth transferred to another desk, which annoyed Linda but she complied. Days after her transfer, Lisa accused Linda without evidence of falsifying her time sheet and had her suspended from work for two weeks, which damaged Linda's career working in insurance. No other employees were treated the same as Linda by Lisa. Here, these occurrences may add up to Linda having a sexual orientation discrimination case against her employer, especially because no other employees were treated the same as Linda, and Linda was singled out because of her sexual orientation.

An Employment Lawyer would look at all the incidences that accumulated against an employee to decide whether there is a discrimination case at hand.
votre commentaire
4 Reasons Why Age Discrimination Lawyers Are Necessary
Par employmentlaw dans Accueil le 3 Mai 2018 à 23:49
4 Reasons Why Age Discrimination Lawyers Are Necessary
Discrimination in the workplace is the impetus of fear for new applicants when applying for jobs in superficial corporate America. Applicants with names that are laced with the negative stigmas of a racial minority existence are left perplexed and fearful of being rejected by a prospective employer prior to even being extended an invitation for a formal interview solely based on prejudices invoked by their ethnic sounding names. Job-seekers within the LGBTQ community are troubled by the thought of appearing for an interview and being judged harshly by the interviewer as an immediate reaction to their seemingly insufficient level of conformity to societal norms. Race, sex, and religious forms of discrimination have been the focal point for present day social and political protesters. Issues concerning the aforementioned topics of discrimination have historically plagued the job-hunt and sabotaged promotion opportunities for a myriad of American citizens. With these issues of discrimination in the forefront, we may find it somewhat easy for one to overlook forms of discrimination that may occur against the nation's elderly population.
With the average American Life-span expanding into later years, more employees are remaining in the workforce. With this in mind, many of these employees have children later in life and therefore their families depend on them financially. For example,

Growing up in a single parent household, Tammy and her sisters and depended on their mother to provide consistent financial stability. It never crossed their minds that sexism, racism, and/or ageism could creep into the hiring process, and hinder their mother's ability to provide that financial security that they sought from her. During the junior year of Tammy's undergraduate studies, her mother was terminated from her job of ten years. It was during the period of her job search that Tammy discovered the extent of her mother's concern for discrimination during the hiring process. As Tammy attempted to comfort her worries, Tammy's mother exclaimed "…it's easy for you to be calm, because you're young. People will hire you in a heartbeat". Immediately Tammy realized that it was not the possibility of being under qualified for the job postings that worried her, but it was the constant fear of being discriminated against because of her old-age and lack of youthfulness that triggered her apprehension. The complexity of her present situation forced her to consider the potential for unwanted strain and hardship caused by an inability to manage and fulfill all of her responsibilities. Worry endlessly circulated through her mind as the gravity of having to singlehandedly maintain the household bills and welfare of her children weighed down on her tense and stressed shoulders. Tammy understood her reluctance towards returning to the applicant pool in her mid-forties, as well as, the perplexities surrounding the undesirability she imagined would plague her image during her attempts to gain employment. As her daughter, it was extremely disheartening for Tammy to see the usually confident, smart, and courageous woman whom she so vastly admired become so dispirited by this circumstance.
When the feelings of pessimism and rejection consume a job applicant during their job search

anti-discrimination Acts like The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) need to be enforced by Employment Lawyers. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) "…is a federal law that protects workers and job applicants age 40 and over from age-based discrimination in all aspects of employment." Encouragement can be felt by a number of aging Americans in the market for a job or currently employed knowing that the federal law is on their side in the workplace. Notably, Section 4 Clause 1 of the ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against someone solely based on age. With further analysis of this clause by an Employment Lawyer it is equally important to note that the term "all aspects of employment" is not narrowly tailored to only protect from discrimination during the hiring process, but the ADEA ensures that "an employer may not fire, refuse to hire or treat an employee differently than other employees because of age". The protection of this law does not conclude with the applicant's ability to obtain a job, but it continues to protect the employee throughout the life of their employment. This aspect of protection is further dissected and thoroughly defined in the opinion of the case by District Judge Robert Taylor in his ruling of James G. Gill v. Union Carbide Corporation. Taylor states that "The purpose of the Act under which this action was instituted is to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than their age; to prohibit discrimination on account of age; and, finally, to aid workers in meeting the impacts that come with age. 1 Section 623(a)…". His analysis of section 623(a) of the ADEA forces the reader to consider the significant impact that age can have on one's ability to perform job-related duties that were much easier to execute in their youth. Furthermore, this clause of the Act makes it a necessity for the employer to provide adequate accommodations for an employee to aid them in successfully fulfilling their work-related obligations. Again, in order to have these rights enforced if they are violated, an employee would need to have an Employment Lawyer represent them in their case against their employer.
The laws that regulate age discrimination vary in their application because they are mainly based on behavior, therefore an Employment Lawyer is needed for analyzing the unique facts of a case.

The anti-discrimination laws for age are established to regulate adverse patterns or behavioral trends that previously occurred on a more consistent basis. These adverse patterns and/or behaviors have or can in some way, shape, or form inflict harm on another human being. To focus on numbers and productivity instead of appreciating the human being that is working diligently to produce the product, then to subsequently devalue elderly employees and prospective applicants are unethical and appalling. Cases in which an employer chooses to fire an employee based solely on their aging status, and not on their lack of work ethic are morally wrong and corrupt. Furthermore, refusing to promote, hire, or professionally consider someone as a consequence of their age is equally immoral.

Aging is a part of life, therefore, a culture in which an aging person is afraid of not being able to provide for themselves due to their undesirability in the workforce in unaccepted. Idealistically longevity in a position should demonstrate to an employer that an employee is reliable, dedicated to the company, and (more than likely) encompasses a wellspring of knowledge about the company. An individual with this set of characteristics is clearly an asset to a business and not a burden. The fear that can overcome any employee over 40 that the thought of re-entering the applicant pool while over the age of 40 is a feeling which no American should have to endure. Knowing that the lawmakers of this nation see the value in workers aged 40 years and above should provide a sense of comfort for individuals that find themselves in predicaments. The ability to provide for yourself and/or your family is a luxury that should never be compromised by judgmental ideologies of what it means to be "useful".

If you have an employment situation that involves issues with your age, you should reach out to an age discrimination Lawyer.
votre commentaire
7 Things You Didn’t Know About Medical Leave of Absence From Work
Par employmentlaw dans Accueil le 3 Mai 2018 à 23:48
7 Things You Didn't Know About Medical Leave of Absence From Work

Currently, a majority of employees in California struggle with work-life balance. An individual may be striving for that promotion at work, finding time to go to their kid's soccer game, praying they will finally pay off their student loans, and still finding a moment to hit the gym so they can stay in good health. The average Californian tries to do it all. But what happens when a serious illness gets thrown into the mix for the employee himself or an immediate family member? Or, what if an employee is injured and needs surgery which will require time off from work to recover? More importantly, what if you take a leave of absence and as a result, you are fired? A leave of absence resulting in a termination might mean you were fired for an illegal reason. An Employment Lawyer is the type of lawyer who handles these types of situations. If you are thinking you may need an Employment Lawyer, here are some points to consider that you may not have known.
It seems odd, but the number of people employed by the organization or company you work for may be a significant factor in whether you have a leave of absence claim. There is a 50/75 rule which means there need to be 50 employees at your job-site, or 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of your job site. For example, you may work for a company that only has 20 employees in your building, that means you don't meet the 50 employee standard. However, if the company has another branch 25 miles away from your job-site and has 30 employees on-site, that may suffice to meet the requirement. Here, the 50/75 rule is likely met because the branch is within the 75- mile radius requirement and adding the branch's employees equals 50 employees total.

It is important to note that the 50/75 rule does not apply to an employee who takes pregnancy disability leave.
Aside from taking time off for their own illness or injury, an employee may take leave to care for a member of the family who is seriously ill. Also, an employee may take a leave of absence because they are pregnant or for the initial receiving of an adopted or foster child.
As an employee, you may have the right to take up to 12 workweeks for your leave of absence. The 12 workweek leave is permitted in a 12 -month time frame. Keep in mind though, your employer has some discretionary power on how the 12-month period is measured. For example, an employer can decide to measure it as a calendar year instead of measuring the 12- months starting on the day the employee took their leave.
There are multiple statutes that overlap and provide protection for an employee's right to a leave of absence. Although multiple statutes covering leave complicates the process, the good news is that an employee who has taken or needs to take leave is entitled to utilize the statute that provides the best protection and most rights for their particular circumstances.
Your employer has to meet certain standards the law sets out for providing leave to employees. But, if your boss is generous, he or she is entitled to exceed those standards and you may be able to enforce what they promised. For example, Brad is an employee at a marketing agency and takes a medical leave to have corrective surgery on his shoulder. Even though he was entitled to 12 weeks of medical leave by law, his employee handbook states that he has 14 weeks. After he took 14 weeks leave for his surgery his boss replaced him and told Brad they no longer had a position for him at the agency. Here, even though by law was only entitled to a 12-week leave, because he was promised 14 weeks in the employee handbook, he may have a claim against his boss for violating the company's own standard.
If you take a medical leave of absence that is covered by the law, you are entitled to have your original position restored back to you or another position that is equal. For example, Tammy was a full-time employee at a multinational package and delivery company working in the financial accounting sector. She took a leave of absence to care for her child because he was suffering from a serious illness. Upon Tammy's return, the head supervisor of the department told Tammy he had to replace her and now she must work in customer service as a customer service representative. Tammy was devastated by this news because this meant a huge pay-cut for her in comparison to her position in finance. In addition, she was over qualified for the new position. Here, not only was Tammy replaced, she was moved to a position that was considered a demotion from her original position and it was not equal in pay or department. Tammy might have a claim against her employer for violating her right to take a leave of absence to care for her son.

There is an exception if the employee taking leave or did take leave was in a significant position such as a CEO or was high-up in management. In a situation such as this, an employer may not be required to hold the employee's original position.

7. You can't be fired or demoted because you took a leave of absence

After requesting or insisting for leave of absence or taking a leave of absence, your boss can not demote you or fire because you took the leave. By mistreating you, singling you out, demoting you, or transferring you after you put a request in for taking a leave of absence may indicate retaliatory behavior. This basically means your boss is not allowed to punish you or make your job more difficult specifically because you took a leave of absence. This may be considered retaliation which is prohibited by law in California.

In taking all of these points into account, if you have an employment situation that involves issues with you taking a leave of absence, you should reach out to an Employment Lawyer.
votre commentaire
3 Excuses an Employer Might Make When They are Accused of Battery and/or Sexual Harassment
Par employmentlaw dans Accueil le 3 Mai 2018 à 23:47
Category: Blog
3 Excuses an Employer Might Make When They are Accused of Battery and/or Sexual Harassment

The word "battery" is a word you would normally hear while watching your favorite crime drama, but it actually can occur in your very own workplace. Under civil law, particularly in employment law, employees are entitled to bring a claim against their employer if they have been a victim of battery in the workplace. The tort claim requires the employee suing their employer to prove that they were touched or the employer caused the employee to be touched and that the touching was intended to cause the employee harm or cause he or she to find the touching offensive.

An Employment Lawyer is the type of attorney who specializes in this type of situation, especially when a single claim may overlap with another claim. Battery claims do not always come alone though, they are often accompanied by sexual harassment. There are three features of battery, all of which have the potential to have a sexual harassment element to each of them. Sexual harassment in the workplace is prohibited by law and employees have the right to sue if they become a victim of unwelcome touching or inappropriate comments.

Below are some of the excuses employers have in response to battery and sexual harassment claims.

"I didn't mean to hurt or offend you"

If an employee follows through on pursuing a claim against their employer for battery, they need to prove the employer had intent. On the surface, intent would seem to mean that the employer made it his or her goal to hurt the employee, however this is not the case. When making out the elements of battery, intent is proven by showing the employer intended to do the act that caused the harm. For example, person A smacked person B's buttocks in what person A claimed was just a "love tap" while person B suffered extreme pain in their tailbone, extreme humiliation, and or suffered extreme anxiety from this so called "love tap". In this example, although person A did not intend to hurt person B, person A did intend to commit the act, smacking B's buttocks, which caused person B harm. Therefore, in that example person B would be able to prove intent in their battery claim against person A.

"I was just joking, you're not even hurt!"

Satisfying the second element of battery can be tricky in that it is based on contact that is harmful or offensive. Of course physical harm is more concrete and may be easier for an employee to show if they had a bruise or mark, but how do you prove "offensive"? The law in California says that touching is offensive where a reasonable person would find that it offended or wounded their personal dignity. For example, Sally was an administrative assistant at a marketing agency. Her job required her to spend a lot of time filing paperwork and restoring it in the filing room. One day while she was trying to place a file box on a high shelf, her boss Greg saw she couldn't reach and said "here let me help you" and picked Sally up by placing his hands on her buttocks and waist. Here, although this touching did not harm Sally, she found the touching to be offensive and a reasonable person in Sally's position would likely find the touching of one's buttocks and waist by their boss to be offensive.

Note that harmful or offensive conduct in a battery claim is negated where the touching was unavoidable, it was for a legitimate reason, or it was a touching that is acceptable in the course of everyday life. This means that if the harmful or offensive touching took place during an event that falls under one of those categories, then a claim for battery may be voidable. For example, let's look at Sally and Greg's situation again. This time, Sally was standing on a ladder to reach the shelf and lost her balance but Greg caught her before she hit the ground. Here, even though Greg may have touched her in a way that might be harmful or offensive, the touching may be considered as unavoidable because she fell on to Greg.

The way in which harmful or offensive is identified can be complex depending on the circumstances. It is best to have an Employment Lawyer analyze the facts of the case to ensure you get a professional and thorough opinion.

"You didn't say no"

Consent is one of the elements that needs to be made out in a battery claim. Did the employee tell the employer that he or she wanted to be touched? Did the employee welcome the touching? Often when a battery claim is brought against an employer, they will claim that they thought consent was not necessary. Consent is an important factor in making a claim against an employer in battery. Where there is no consent for the touching, the employee's case is strengthened.

As seen in the examples above, battery and sexual harassment often go hand-in-hand. All three elements of battery need to be met in order to have a battery claim and in addition to the battery claim, an employee may have a sexual harassment claim. If an employee has been sexually harassed by unwanted touching, he or she may have a claim against their employer for sexual harassment in addition to the battery claim. Again, sexual harassment can be characterized as unwanted touching which is where the battery usually ties into the sexual harassment claim.

Taking all of the information and examples into account, an employee may be able to identify similarities in their own situation at work. Of course, every case is different and it is only with the guidance of legal a professional such as an Employment Lawyer that an employee will know if they have a claim worth pursuing. The Employment Lawyer will want details of the circumstances to ensure that all elements of battery have been met and the lawyer may also ask through questions about the sexual harassment the employee has experienced.
votre commentaire
... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...