Law Office of Arkady Itkin 

An issue often arises in connection with the off-duty conduct of employees of whether an employee can be disciplined or even discharged  by his employer based on such off-duty conduct. This answer to this question will often depend on the facts surrounding the employee's conduct. Where the conduct is offensive and egregious, however, the courts will often rule in the employer's favor. 

In a recent New York case, for example, a male nurse employed in a hospital visited the hospital while on vacation. The employee, who was intoxicated, got into a violent scuffle with security guards at the hospital and was terminated. The employee brought action for wrongful termination arguing that his off-duty conduct should not have been considered by the jury. The court disagree, however, holding that his off-duty conduct was relevant to the issue of whether he posed a threat to the safety of others. 

Employers should avoid taking adverse action against the lawful off-duty conduct of employees unless:

* The conduct represents a conflict or potential conflict of interest (e.g., working for a competitor or engaging in self-employment in competition with one's employer).

* The conduct impairs an individual's job performance (e.g., drop in an employee's productivity because a second job makes the employee too tired to work at expected performance levels). 

* The conduct puts the employee in a position where his judgment or authority can be compromised (e.g., a manager dating a subordinate and having authority for employment decision affecting that individual.) It is important to note, however, that the adverse employment action against the manager should be based on job-related factors and not his off-duty conduct. Such job-related factors may include a loss in confidence in the manager's ability to manage the subordinate; on-the-job conduct, such as  spending  excessive  time with the subordinate with no business justification; or making decisions that negatively affect other employees and could be in violation of the company's sexual harassment policy (e.g., showing favoritism with respect to a promotion). http://www.sanfranciscoemploymentlawfirm.com

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act specifically prohibits harassment based on “race, religious creed, color, and national origin.” Hostile work environment claims based on racial harassment are reviewed under the same standard as those based on sexual harassment. Thus, allegations of a racially hostile workplace must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person belonging to the same racial or ethnic group as plaintiff.

The California Standard of Conduct for Racial Harassment
To constitute racial harassment, the conduct must be sufficiently “severe” or “pervasive” to later the conditions of the victim’s employment. The victim of the racial harassment must show a concerted partner of harassment of a repeated, routine or a generalized nature” and that the conduct constituted an “unreasonably abusive or offensive work-related environment or adversely affected the reasonable employee’s ability to do his or her job.”

Although occasional, isolated incidents are usually not enough to create hostile work environment, even a single act by a supervisor may be severe enough to alter the conditions of employment. Thus, while the co-workers single racist remark may not be sufficient to constitute harassment, the same statement by the victim’s direct supervisor might be actionable, due to the authority that the supervisor has over a victim and the increase stress/injury resulting as a result of being subject to harassment by the person in a position of authority.

Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment
As with sexual harassment claims, an employer has a duty to prevent and remedy instances of racial and national origin harassment. An employer who fails to remedy problems of which it has actual or constructive knowledge may be held liable for harassment despite the existence of a formal policy against harassment.

Harassment by Member of Same Race At least one federal court held that racial slurs may constitute harassment even if made by one member to another member of the same race, as the court held in Ross v. Douglas County (8th Cir. 2000).

When Racial Harassment is Aimed at OthersBecause the injury from harassment focuses on the workplace environment as a whole, a hostile environment may exist even if some of the hostility is directed at other workers. Thus, where racial slurs have been directed at a minority race of which plaintiff is a member, similar slurs directed at other minorities may contribute to the overall hostility of the working environment.

Negative job performance evaluations are usually held to be statement of opinion rather than fact, and hence not properly the subject of a defamation action, unless an employer's performance evaluation falsely accuses an employee of criminal conduct, lack of integrity, dishonesty, incompetence or reprehensible personal characteristics of behavior. Thus,  in one case the court held that no defamation action lies even when the employer's opinions about the employee's performance are objectively wrong and cannot be supported by reference to concrete, provable facts. (Jensen v. Hewlett Packard, Co.) Even calling a teacher at a particular school a "babbler" and the "worst teacher" was found to be a subjective judgment and again - not grounds for defamation. (Moyer v. Amador Valley J. Union High School Dist.)

As stated above, while a statement of opinion is not grounds for defamation, a publication of false fact may be actionable. Thus, while a statement accusing plaintiff of poor performance is clearly a statement of opinion, a statement that an employee made a $100,000 mistake in estimating a business bid is a statement of fact and therefore, if false and published to third parties, is actionable as unlawful defamation. (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc.)

Under California law an employer can authorize alternative workweeks of workdays exceeding eight hours without overtime pay if specified criteria are met. Such flexible scheduling requires full disclosure to affected employees and the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the employees in the affected workplace voting in a secret ballot election before performance of the week. 

However, the employer must pay overtime at one-and-a-half times the regular rate after 10 hours per day in a 40 hour workweek, and a double the regular rate after 12 hour per days and for any work in excess of eight hours on those days worked beyond the regularly scheduled alternative workweek days. 

Thus, if, for example, the alternative workweek is 3  12-hour workdays per week, the employees on that schedule must be paid overtime at 150% of their regular rate for the two hours per day, exceeding the ten-hour limit on each workday.