By Calvin House | Published July 8, 2019 | Posted in Discrimination, Uncategorized | Tagged Tags: discrimination, FEHA, hairstyle, SB 188, Title VII | Comments Off on Hairstyle Protection Added to FEHA
Hairstyle Protection Added to FEHA
A California law that will become effective on January 1, 2020, provides protection for hairstyles and other traits that are associated with race. SB 188 does so by amending the definition of “race” in the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and Read More
Read More
Claim for Damages Required for 1102.5 Claim
The Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that plaintiffs who wish to pursue whistle blower claims against public entities under Labor Code section 1102.5 must first file claims for damages under Government Code section 911.2. Le Mere v. Los Angeles School District, Case No. B281843 (Apr. 30, 2019). Section 1102.5 authorizes a damages lawsuit Read More
Read More
Application of Employment Laws to Religious Institutions
Not all employment laws are enforceable against religious institutions — some laws are made inapplicable by their terms, other have been held unenforceable on freedom of religion grounds. Anti-Discrimination Laws The two anti-discrimination laws that apply to California employers contain express exemptions for religious organizations. The federal law –Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Read More
Read More
Home Rule Does Not Preempt California Minimum Wage Law
Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution grants charter cities “plenary authority . . . to provide . . . the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or Read More
Read More
What is a Fair Work Week?
A new workplace fairness measure is getting increased attention around the country. “Fair Workweek” proposals address employee concerns about lack of control and certainty over their work schedules. Proponents want employers to give advance notice of work schedules, allow employees to turn down shifts without losing their jobs, provide sufficient rest time between the end Read More
Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Decision Issued After Author Died
On April 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a 6-5 en banc decision in an Equal Pay Act case, holding that past salary could not be used to justify a pay disparity between male and female employees. Rizo v. Yovino, 887 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2018). The opinion was written by Stephen Reinhardt, who had died Read More
Read More
Court of Appeal Rules PAGA Claims Are Not Arbitrable
In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court ruled that employees cannot waive their right to assert claims for Labor Code penalties brought under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) (Cal. Lab. Code, §§ 2699 et seq.) in any available forum. The rationale was that such claims Read More
Read More
Effects of the Dynamex Decision
A recent Los Angeles Times article — “Are you an employee or a contractor? Carpenters, strippers and dog walkers now face that question” — explores the ramifications for workers and businesses of the California Supreme Court’s adoption of the ABC test for employee status in the Dynamex decision. That April 2018 decision declared that, for Read More
Read More
Second Meal Period Waivers for Health Care Employees
The California Labor Code generally requires employers to provide employees who work more than five hours with a 30-minute meal period, and to provide employees who work more than 10 hours with an additional 30-minute meal period. An employee who works no more than six hours may waive the meal period, and an employee who works no more than 12 Read More
Read More
ABC Standard for Determining Employment Relationship Does Not Apply to Labor Code Claims
The San Diego division of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the ABC test for employment established by the Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision is limited to claims under California’s wage orders. In Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC, Case No. D072521 (10/22/2018), the Court ruled that a plaintiff’s claims for (1) failure to pay overtime under Labor Read More
Read More