Recently, one employee of Caltrans contacted me in what seemed to be an urgent need for help and legal representation, as she was subjected to egregious harassment by her supervisor, and could not get any help from the higher management or human resources department. Her supervisor openly and repeatedly disregarded her disability limitations in t he most humiliating manner.    

The same Caltrans employee kindly shared with me a rather disturbing article about the discrimination and harassment that's taking place in the Caltrans Oakland office. Unfortunately, this kind of treatment of employees in large public offices is not as uncommon as one might think. One reasons for this seems to be the impunity which some of the managers enjoy for such violations. The perpetrators of discrimination and their superiors are rarely terminated and usually get a slap on the wrist in the form of a confident reprimand letter or a warning, while costing the city, county or state department many thousands of dollars in legal fees and in settlement. 
1 Comment
 
 
On Friday, June 11, 2010, the Eastern District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss my client's case. I had a feeling that it was going to happen but was willing to give it a shot, hoping that perhaps the judge will have a more liberal view of the claims asserted than he actually did. 

My client was a loss prevention agent, working for one of the large security companies at a department store in Sacramento. He was terminated shortly after complaining to the corporate management about his co-workers and his immediate supervisor's time clock fraud and reporting false apprehensions of shoplifters that didn't actually happen. The formal reason for terminating my client was his "failure to meet apprehension goals" which is inherently nonsensical, as a loss prevention agent has no control over how many people actually try to steal merchandise from the store. The court found that preventing internal fraud that only affects the private employer and not public interest at large is not sufficient to give rise to a public policy retaliation and wrongful termination claim. 

I was disappointed at the impunity that the employer will enjoy in this case, even though a number of witnesses informed me that my client's termination was orchestrated and there was a significant concern about him knowing about the misrepresentation.

Below is the court's order which includes the brief factual background of the case and the court's decision and analysis.

 
1 Comment
 
 
Workplace Retaliation is one of the most common claims in the employment lawsuit filings in California. The other day I had a conversation with a friend who is in charge of the human resources department at one of the government offices in Sacramento. As an employment lawyer, I was really curious to learn about her perspective on the employer-employee relationships, disputes, as well as the wrongful termination claims.  

My friend openly told me that many of the employee are overly "dramatic" believing that their co-workers treat then unfairly or harass them, and that their management has conspired to get rid of them. 

The managers, in his opinion, cause many issues at workplace, including the ones that lead to lawsuits for harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination, because of their sense of entitlement. My friend told me that managers regularly respond to employee's complaint by saying that the manager is above the employee, that the manager can do whatever he or she wants, and that it's an employee's job to comply. It is only natural then for the managers to retaliate against their employees, when the same employee complain about them due to the mixed feelings of superiority and fear of losing their management position.
Add Comment
 
 

Often, an employee is subjected to unlawful discrimination and retaliation while still employed and weeks or even months before being terminated. Although very "tempting," suing an employer while still employed is problematic. First, you are very likely to lose a job (just because it's unlawful to terminate an employee who exercises his legal rights to bring legal actions, doesn't mean that the employer simply can't violate the law and do it). Secondly, your recovery in any case is likely to be insignificant because you have not sustained any loss of wages, which is at the core of any settlement or judgment.

Despite the above, there are a few important things you can do to line up your "weapons" if and when you get unlawfully terminated as a result of discrimination or retaliation: 

1. Make sure that your boss cannot blame terminating or demoting you on your performance. This is a critical time to do the best you can, as the employer's love to use poor performance as excuse for termination, because it's so subjective and relatively hard, although possible to argue against.   
 
2. If there are any witnesses to unfair treatment, get their statements in writing if possible, and keep their contact information. In many cases with opposing sides having opposing story, witness statements are crucial.   
 
3. Keep all relevant documents, emails and other documentation proving discrimination, retaliation, or your complaints to HR or your superiors about the same, as they will be of critical important when proving your case in court.   
 
4. If you witness discrimination or harassment against yourself or others, complain to HR in a courteous but firm manner and ask for investigation in writing.   
 
5. If you are terminated, do not sign any releases in exchange for severance before you consult an attorney, as signing a release usually extinguishes all legal claims, committing the signing employee to never sue the employer for any violation.
 
Then, when the time comes and you are well equipped to fight, the results will be better and the process will be likely shorter, as the employer, facing substantial evidence against them will likely want to settle faster. 

1 Comment
 
 

California Labor Code section 98.6 prohibits employer from terminating, threatening to terminate, demoting, suspending, or otherwise discriminating against an employee who participates as a claimant or as a witness in proceedings before the state Labor Commissioner or otherwise exercises his or her rights under the Labor Code.

Labor Commission proceedings include claims for unpaid wages, claims for retaliation against employees for complaining about violation of wage and hour laws (such as meal/rest breaks periods, overtime, etc.), claims against en employer for preventing an employee from engaging in political activity or running for office or for requiring an employee to participate in political activity. 

The employee has six months after the act of discrimination occurs to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) as per Labor Code 98.7(a). Only employee who make actual complaint or claim are protected. Labor Code 98.6(b).  Such an employee is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the unlawful acts of the employer. 

Arkady Itkin
San Francisco Employment and Wrongful Termination Law

Add Comment
 
 

California Labor Code 1102.5 prohibits discharging an employee for disclosing an alleged violation of a statute of public importance to a government or a law enforcement agency. Such a discharge may be grounds for a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
The following are examples of "whistleblowing" cases in which such a claim was upheld:
* Reporting to management that the company was not paying overtime wages due to certain of its employees. 
* Reporting to governmental agency the employer's improper billing practices with respect to governmental contract. 
* Reporting to management that certain executives shipping promotional records were violatating laws prohibiting bribery, kickbacks, embezzlement and tax evasion. 
* Reporting discrimination against women and minorities.  
* Reporting health and safety violations by an employer. 
* Reporting violations of consumer protection laws and immigration laws. 

It's important to note that an actual violation is not required for a legitimate whistleblower action. Under the code, an employee's reasonable suspicion of violation is sufficient. In other words, an employee does not need to prove that his employer actually violated the law; it is sufficient if the employer fired the employee for reporting hi "reasonably based suspicion" of illegal activity. 

A plaintiff in a whistleblower retaliation/termination may recover a full measure of tort damages in an action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, including, in appropriate cases, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages.

Add Comment