Law Office of Arkady Itkin
Law Office of Arkady Itkin -  San Francisco Injury / Wrongful Termination Lawyer   Contact Us at (415) 295-4730
  • Home
  • Employment Law
    • Wrongful Termination >
      • At-Will Employment
      • Termination After Unfair Warnings and Write-Ups
      • Union Grievance, Workers Comp and Wrongful Termination
      • Labor Code 970 Claims
      • Promissory Estoppel and Employment Contracts
      • Implied Contract Claims
    • Discrimination >
      • Proving Discrimination
      • Age Discrimination
      • Disability Discrimination >
        • Protected Disabilities
        • Medical Leave / Disability Accommodations
        • Job Reassignment As A Disability Accommodation
        • SSI Disability Benefits and Your Court Case
        • Sample Request for Reasonable Accommodation
      • Pregnancy Discrimination
      • Race Discrimination
      • Sample Discrimination Complaint
      • DFEH and EEOC Investigations
    • Retaliation >
      • How to Prove Retaliation
      • Dealing with Retaliation While Still Employed
      • Retaliation for Complaining
      • Whistleblower Retaliation
    • Harassment
    • Defamation at Workplace
    • Prof. License Defense
    • Leaves of Absence >
      • Medical Leave as Reasonable Accommodation
      • FMLA Entitlement and Reinstatement to Work
      • CFRA Leave
      • Employers' FMLA Notice Obligations
      • Paternity Leave (FMLA)
      • Sample FMLA Leave Request
    • Wages / Overtime Claims >
      • Wage Claims
      • Employee or Contractor
      • Exempt / Non-Exempt >
        • Admistrative Exemption
        • IT Support Specialists Compensation
        • Computer Professional Exemption from Overtime
        • Recruiters / Account Executives Exemption
        • Complaining About Being Misclassified
      • Vacation Pay / PTO
      • On-Call Time Compensation
      • Deductions fr. Commissions
    • Unempl. Benefits Appeals >
      • Tips for EDD Phone Interview
      • Unemployment Benefits Appeal Hearing Representation
      • CUIAB Hearing Tips
    • Employment Law Blog
    • For Employers
  • Personal Injury
    • Five Tips For Injury Cases
    • Slip-and-Fall Injuries
    • Assault and Battery
    • Recorded Statements
    • Repairing Your Vehicle
    • Unpaid Medical Bills
    • Injury Law Blog
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Police Excessive Force
  • Practice Areas
  • About
  • Results
  • Submit Case
  • Contact
  • Resources
    • Workplace Rights Checklist
    • Deposition Tips
    • Mediation Tips
    • Suing Current Employer
    • Severance Agreements
    • Workplace Investigation
    • Arbitration
    • Statutes of Limitations
    • Healthy Litigation Mindset
    • Trial Tips

The Importance of Notifying Your Employer Of Your Medical Condition ASAP

3/11/2018

 

Reasonable Accommodations and Associational Disability Rights

4/4/2016

 
associational disability discrimination law California
In a recent, very interesting employment discrimination case holding - Castro Ramirez v Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016), the Second Appellate District clarified the employers' obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to employees in the associational disability context - i.e. where the employee who is not disabled is seeking an accommodation for a physical disability of another person with whom he is "associated" as per California Gov. Code section 12926. The court noted that an association with a psychically disabled person is itself a disability under the California FEHA.

Thus, when Gov Code section 12940(m) says that employers must reasonably accommodate "the known physical... disability of an applicant or employee," the disability that employers must accommodate include the employee's association with a physically disabled person.  The court further pointed out that FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) creates an associational disability discrimination claim by reading "association with a physically disabled person" into the Act where "physical disability" appears in section 12940(a). 

Finally, the court pointed out that this is yet another way in which California FEHA provides a much broader anti-discrimination protection to employees than its federal counterpart  - ADA.  This law and clarification provides significant protection to employees who parents, children, or other closely associated persons/relatives are disabled and require some kind of significant attention from that employee. 

Psychological Workplace Disability and the Right to an Accommodation 

11/18/2015

 

FMLA/ADA Protection and Lay Offs / Termination

8/24/2014

0 Comments

 
Click to set custom HTML
An employee who exercises his FMLA/CFRA or ADA/FEHA rights due to a qualifying disability or serious medical condition is considered to be in a "protected" class. This means that it is illegal for an employer to treat that employee differently because of his exercise the above workplace disability rights.   

Being "protected" does not mean, however, that an employee is protected from any employment action and enjoys some kind of immunity because of his FMLA or ADA status. For instance, when a lay-off takes place, and employee who is on FMLA or ADA leave is subject to lay-off just like any other employee. It would only be illegal to choose an employee for lay-off because of his FMLA /ADA status.   

The same applies to employment terminations. A disabled employee who engages in some kind of misconduct or violates an employer's policy can be lawfully terminated just like any other employee who never applied for FMLA leave or ADA/FEHA leave or other accommodations. Being in a "protected" class is not a shield against all harm. It's only a legal remedy against being treated differently because you are a member of that class. 
0 Comments

Under ADA/FEHA Requiring an Employee to be 100% Recovered Before Allowing Him to Return to Work is Generally Illegal

7/9/2014

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

 An Example of a Potentially Illegal AWOL Notice Violating Disability Laws

11/26/2013

2 Comments

 
Below is an example of a potentially illegal and discriminatory AWOL notice that one of our clients has received. This document alone shows how the employer is trying to disregard the rights of an employee to (additional) medical leave as an accommodation. The employer - state agency - unfairly leverages the language of the applicable AWOL provisions to terminate an employee who is potentially entitled to a number of rights and protections under ADA and FEHA.
2 Comments

Fresno Jury Awards $750,000 to a former Framers Insurance Employee in an Age Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Case

11/8/2013

0 Comments

 
A Fresno recently awarded nearly $750,000 in damages to a former Farmers Insurance employee in an wrongful termination case based on age discrimination.

Both sides agree that plaintiff Warehime was hired to work in the Visalia office in January 2002. At the time, the company was going through a transition from paper files to electronic files. During the trial, Farmers' attorney told the jury that Warehime never embraced the new technology and rejected training to become a better employee. When workload backed up on her, he said Warehime "blamed others for her problems."
The employer's attorney further said Farmers had good reason to terminate Warehime:  she was low-balling customers on their claims, which led to costly litigation for the company.

Toole, Warehime's attorney,  showed the jury evidence that Warehime had been a valued Farmers employee: she did the training requested by Farmers and the company honored her with awards and good to outstanding job-performance ratings each year from 2002 to 2005. "She was a committed team player and good with customer service," he told the jury. Toole said the climate began to change in the summer of 2003 when Warehime learned that one of her Fresno supervisors "wanted to hire his own people." Warehime was given higher caseloads than other employees, and when an employee left the company, she was given those files, too, Toole said. She asked her supervisor to balance the workload, "but nothing happened. No files were reassigned and she continued to drown in these files," Toole told the jury.

Things got worse for her, Toole said, because the Fresno office was filled with young, hip employees, Toole said. Warehime started hearing thing like: "I don't want to work when I'm your age" and "The old fuddy-duddy is coming in." In October 2005, Plaintiff complained to her supervisor that an evaluation of her work was inaccurate and unfair. The supervisor responded by telling her to improve her performance.

The stress became so intense, Warehime suffered a mental breakdown in February 2006, forcing her to take a leave of absence while her doctor treated her from depression and anxiety. Warehime's doctor cleared her to return to work on June 12, 2006. But when she showed up to work, a young man was sitting at her desk, and Plaintiff soon found out that she was fired.

This case involves a common combination of age discrimination and disability discrimination / failure to honor medical leave to which an employee is entitled under ADA/FEHA or FMLA.
0 Comments

An Example of an Insufficient Medical Note 

7/16/2013

0 Comments

 
Below is an example of an actual medical note which is likely insufficient in order to put the employer on proper notice of you need for medical leave under FMLA, CFRA, ADA or FEHA. There are two main issues with this medical note:

First, even though it states that the employee has "several medical condition", it doesn't identify any such conditions. It would be helpful to the employer if the doctor who wrote this note was a little more specific about the nature of his patient's condition and the resulting limitations.

The second issue that it doesn't firmly excuse the employee from work for certain dates. "... prevent her from appearing" is not the same as "unable to report to work between (date) and (date).

You should not hesitate to review or have an attorney review the medical note you receive from your doctor, which you plan to transmit to your employer in order to have your medical leave approved, in order to make sure that it is sufficiently specific and complete.
0 Comments

When AWOL Rules and ADA / FEHA Disability Rights Collide

1/31/2013

2 Comments

 
Picture
One common scenario where AWOL (Absent Without Leave) rules and an employee's FEHA/ADA disability rights collide and conflict is state agencies and other employers that have set and rigid AWOL policies that they apply to everyone universally. The two common problems with such policies repeat themselves over and over in many wrongful termination claims, and these bad policies can work to an employee's advantage in proving their case in court:

* Rigid, uniform AWOL policies that are applied the same way to all employees. Even though it sounds fair to apply the same leave policy to all employees, it goes completely against the very essence of ADA and FEHA disability laws, which call for an individualized assessment of a qualifying disabled employee's disabilities, restrictions, and limitations. Indidivually evaluating a disabled employee's needs is a cornerstone of the "interactive process" in which the employer is required to engage in with a disabled employee.

* The language of the AWOL government code statute and other AWOL related statutes makes granting leave discretionary. The AWOL rules typically say that an employee who is out for a certain number of consecutive days without "approved" leave may be deemed AWOL resigned. The problem is that whether that leave is approved is completely up to the management. A manager may decide not to approve a disabled worker's medical leave for whatever reason, even though all the necessary medical documentation to support the requsted medical or disability leave has been provided.  

The above two issues open a lot of doors for some employees, and especially state and county employees, terminated due to being AWOL, to legally attack their termination in court through a wrongful termination and/or disability discrimination lawsuit.  

2 Comments

California State Employees: Should You Appeal Your Dismissal through State Personnel Board Hearing?

10/20/2012

1 Comment

 
Employees of California State agencies and some other public employees have certain appeal rights with regard to a disciplinary action or employment termination they might facing, which includes a hearing in front of the SPB board. This kind of hearing has four distinct advantages over bringing a lawsuit in court over the same issue/termination. First, the SPB hearing process is much quicker. You don't have to go through discovery, be deposed, wait for trial date and face a number of other phases in litigation that can easily make the process last well over a year. You are likely to have your full evidentially hearing in front of the SPB within just a few months or even sooner. Secondly, the SPB administrative law judge, beyond awarding backpay, can also order your reinstatement, if you were terminated. On the other hand, reinstatement is not a remedy that's generally avilable in court. You may be awarded damages for lost wages and emotional distress in court, but no judge or jury can force your employer to take you back to work. Further, the SPB hearings are free of charge, while litigation can be costly, although it depends on the nature of your case and the arrangement you have with your attorney. Finally, unlike in court, where the burden of proving the case is at all times on the aggrieved employees, at the SPB hearings the burden of proof is generally on the employer (except AWOL cases and a limited number of other exceptions).

The SPB hearings also have major disadvantages: if you have a strong discrimination case and you lose your SPB hearing for whatever reason, that decision will be binding on any subsequent discrimination lawsuit, unless you set aside the adverse SPB decision through Writ of Mandate - a process which will significantly delay going straight to court and filing a discrimination lawsuit.  

So, when should you appeal your termination through SPB first and when is it better to skip the SPB hearing and file a lawsuit in court? While there is no clear cut answer or a definitive rule to always know what's the best way to handle your situation, the following "classic" examples should provide you with a useful guideline:

* If your discipline or termination is not based on unlawful discrimination based on a protected classes, and it involves whether you were terminated for just case, or whether your termination was imposed fairly, then you should definitely appeal your dismissal through SPB, because you probably don't have a basis to sue in court anyway. You will have all the more reasons to to trough the SPB process is you are interested in keeping your job and being reinstated. The more witnesses you have that will support your side of the story, the more chances you have to prevail at the SPB hearing. 

* If, on the other hand, you believe you have a strong discrimination case based on disability, race, etc... and especially if your termination involves a more complicated ADA issue, such as
failure to provide reasonable accommodations, retaliation for asserting disability rights, etc.., you are better off skipping the SPB process and not risking forfeiting your rights to sue for wrongful termination based on discrimination in court becasue of the adverse SPB ruling. 

For more information on public employee rights in California, please visit our
Sacramento Labor and Employment Law Blog.

1 Comment
<<Previous

    RSS Feed

    San Francisco Wrongful Termination Lawyer

    Categories

    All
    Ada
    Administrative Exemption
    Age Discrimination
    At Will Employment
    Awol
    Cfra
    Constructive Discharge
    Contracts
    Defamation
    Disability Discrimination
    Disability Rights At Workplace
    Discrimination
    Employee Relations
    Feha
    Fmla
    For Employers
    Harassment
    Hostile Work Environment
    Independent Contractors
    Interactive Process
    Labor Commissioner Hearings (DLSE)
    Meal And Rest Breaks
    Mediation
    Medical Leave
    Non Compete Agreements
    Overtime Compensation
    Pregnancy Leave
    Racial Harassment
    Reasonable Accommodations
    Retaliation
    Sex/Gender Discrimination
    Sexual Harassment
    Sick Leave / PTO
    State And Public Employees
    Temp Agencies
    Tips For Employers
    Unemployment Benefits
    Vacation Time
    Wage Claims
    Whistleblower Retaliation
    Workplace Disability Laws
    Wrongful Termination

    View my profile on LinkedIn

Personal Injury Law

San Francisco Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Contact San Francisco Personal Injury Lawyer
Useful Legal Links

Employment Law

What Is Wrongful Termination?
Sample Request for Reasonable Accommodation
Sample Complaint about Workplace Discrimination 
FAQ About California Employment Law 

Law Office of Arkady Itkin

Contact Us
About
Our Practice Areas
Current Cases & Results 


Law Office of Arkady Itkin - San Francisco & Sacramento Injury and Employment Lawyer
We represent employees and employers in employment and wrongful termination cases, as well as victims of serious injuries in San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose, Palo Alto, San Mateo and throughout Northern California. 


57 Post Street, Suite 812, San Francisco, CA 94104; Tel. (415) 295-4730; Fax. (415) 508-3474; arkady@arkadylaw.com
Photo used under Creative Commons from Ernst Moeksis