Employment Law Blog

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) requires that an employer provide reasonable accommodations that allow an employee to perform the essential functions of their job. Gov. Code §12940(m). Where a failure to accommodate was a “substantial factor” in causing the exacerbation of a workplace injury, the employer may recover damages for that exacerbation. See Huffman v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 679, 698-699; Fussell v. Timec Company, Inc. (2014) 2014 WL 810917 at *9-13; Bagatti v. Department of Rehabilitation(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 344, 356-358.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) requires employers to reasonably accommodate their employees’ known disabilities and to engage in a “timely, good faith, interactive process” in order to determine effective reasonable accommodations. Government Code section 12940, subd. (m), (n).

California state laws require that all non-exempt employees be compensated at time-and-a-half for all hours worked over 8 hours per day and 40 hours in a week. See California Labor Code section 510(a) and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, Order No. 7-2001 section 3(A). The law further requires employers to maintain accurate time records for all of the hours worked by its employees, provide accurate itemized wage statements, authorize, permit and provide meal and rest periods, and pay all wages earned to an employee immediately upon their termination.

It is the public policy of California that workers not be fired based on their disability, because they have reported illegal activity, or because they have refused to participate in illegal activity.
California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for reporting to a government agency any activities that he reasonably believes to violate a state or federal statute.  Labor Code §1102.5 further prohibits retaliation for refusing to participate in any action that would lead to the violation of any state or federal statute. It is illegal to perform contracting work in California without a license (See, e.g. Bus. & Prof. Code§7028). Insurance Fraud is a crime under both Federal and State law (18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1343; Cal. Ins. Code §§1871, et seq.).

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 subdivision (b) provides that “the court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party…from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(b)(12) expressly authorizes the court to exclude from a deposition “designated persons, other than the parties to the action and their officers and counsel.”

Wrongful termination from employment is tortious when the termination occurs in violation of a fundamental public policy. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1082, 1090. A policy is “fundamental” when it is “carefully tethered” to a policy “delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions” (id. at p. 1095), involves a duty affecting the public at large, rather than one owed to or imposed solely upon the parties to a dispute (id. at 1090), and is “well established” and “sufficiently clear” to the employer at the time of the discharge. Id. Wrongful termination cases typically arise when an employer retaliates against an employee for refusing to violate a statute, performing a statutory obligation, exercising a statutory right, or reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1256 (1994). However, as noted in Soules v. Cadam, Inc. 2 Cal.App.4th 360, 201 (1991), an action for tortious discharge is not strictly limited to these situations but will lie “wherever the basis of the discharge contravenes a fundamental public policy.”

California has adopted the three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 for trying claims of discrimination. Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354. The so-called “McDonnell Douglas” test “reflects the principle that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is rare, and that such claims must usually be proved circumstantially.” Id. The first step in the test is for Gonzales to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The particular elements of a prima facie case “may vary depending on the particular facts.” Id.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (United States Code, title 42, section 2000e et seq.) makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race . . . .” The standard for summary judgment in discrimination cases under Title VII is the burden shifting test outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

Government Code section 12941(a) of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) provides in pertinent part that it is unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, dismiss, or otherwise discriminate against any individual over the age of 40 on the basis of age.