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
    • Effective Mediator
    • Suing Current Employer
    • Severance Agreements
    • Workplace Investigation
    • Arbitration
    • Statutes of Limitations
    • Healthy Litigation Mindset
    • Trial Tips
    • Working Remotely

9th Circuit Reminds that Crude and Offensive Remarks Alone Do Not Create a Claim for Hostile Work Environment

8/17/2013

0 Comments

 
In Westendorf v West Coast Contractors (2013) the Plaintiff, a project manager assistant, claimed hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, based on several sexual comments she heard from her manager, some of which were directed to her and others were directed to another woman. The Court affirmed that dismissal of the case. The Court noted yet again that isolated inappropriate comments, without other evidence of sexual discrimination or unlawful harassment, do not create a viable hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff was, however, allowed to proceed forward with her retaliation claim. This is because even though there was no sufficient evidence to prove the harassment claim, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to allow the Plaintiff to prove that her complaints were the motivating reason for her being fired. 

This decision makes a lot of sense. It would be impractical and borderline nonsensical to allow every inappropriate comment or sexual innuendo/joke turn into a lawsuit for obvious reasons. The Court requires evidence of unlawful hostility against an employee based on a protected class that goes beyond a few isolated comments, especially of those comments are taken out of context. 
0 Comments

Gender and Sex Discrimination at Worklace: Setting Different Grooming Standards for Men and Women

2/19/2013

 
sex and gender discrimination is illegal in California
Title VII makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's  sex․" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).  The Courts have recognized two bases on which an aggrieved employee may proceed in a sex discrimination claim:  disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment arises when an employer “treats some people less favorably than others because of their ․ sex.” Disparate treatment is permissible under Title VII only if justified as a bona fide occupational qualification (“BFOQ”).   A BFOQ is a qualification that is reasonably necessary to the normal operation or essence of an employer's business.  See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

An employer's policy amounts to disparate treatment if it treats men and women differently on its face.   For
example, in UAW v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 1991), defendant Johnson Controls barred fertile women, but not fertile men, from jobs entailing high levels of lead exposure.  The Court concluded this was disparate treatment:  “Johnson Controls' policy is not neutral because it does not apply to the reproductive capacity of the company's male employees in the same way as it applies to that of the females.”  The Court has made it clear that such an “explicit gender-based policy is sex discrimination under § 703(a) [of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) ] and thus may be defended only as a BFOQ.” 
 
However, an appearance standard that imposes different but essentially equal burdens on men and women is not disparate treatment and does not give rise to a gender discrimination claim.   For example, in Fountain v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 555 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.1977), the court held that a store may impose different hair length requirements on men and women, and may require men but not women to wear neckties. In that case, the court noted that regulations promulgated by employers which require male employees to conform to different grooming and dress standards than female employees is not sex discrimination within the meaning of Title VII.

On the other hand, a sex-differentiated appearance standard that imposes unequal burdens on men and
women is disparate treatment that must be justified as a BFOQ or it will be found an unlawful discrimination. Thus, an employer can require all employees to wear sex-differentiated uniforms, but it cannot require only female employees to wear uniforms.   See Carroll v. Talman Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Chicago, 604 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir.1979).   An airline can require all flight attendants to wear contacts instead of glasses, but it cannot
require only its female flight attendants to do so. (See Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp. 763 (D.D.C.1973). 

In one recent case United Airlines was found to have engaged in gender discriminatoin when it had a weight policy with respect to its flight attendants, that imposed stricter standards on women than on men. 

For more information about different kinds of discrimination, please visit our San Francisco Employment Lawyer Blog. 

    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
    Vaccine Mandates
    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