Age discrimination is a particularly concerning problem, often evident in job postings that favor younger candidates, disparities in job benefits, and instances of forced retirement. From seemingly harmless jokes or comments to restrictions on promotions and career growth, age discrimination can significantly impact an individual’s employment experience and performance.

The following infographic will help you recognize and address age discrimination in the workplace.

You might also like…

• How Proposed Age Discrimination Law Affects California Residents
• Age Discrimination Often a Barrier for Older Workers
• Age Discrimination is a Common Problem

The post What is Age Discrimination and What Can You Do About It? appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

A first-of-its-kind labor action argues that participants of Netflix’s reality show Love is Blind are employees and should be eligible for basic labor protections under federal laws. 

In its complaint, the National Labor Relations Board found the show’s producers misclassified the contestants as participants. The complaint calls for their reclassification as employees and compensation for lost wages while on the show.

• The labor action filed could lead to big changes to reality shows — on and off screen. If contestants are recognized as employees, it would allow them to form or join a union.

• The complaint comes after several former contestants on the show described poor treatment they faced while filming, including allegations their physical safety was at risk.

• The path to an industry-wide reality TV union is an uphill battle, according to author Brian Moylan. He says turnover levels on most unscripted shows present a barrier for castmates to band together. Contestants can be seen as disposable to casting directors and producers.

• A hearing for the NLRB complaint is scheduled for April 2025. A judge will decide if the production companies violated labor law.

I doubt that reality show participants will end up classified as employees. They’re usually on a show for one season (at most). Plus, President elect Trump will replace the general counsel of the NLRB and his pick will drop this case quickly.  The NLRB will become employer-friendly and quite anti-union.

Regardless, in California you’re still protected.

California has strong equal pay laws that prohibit employers from paying employees less than co-workers of a different sex or race for similar work.

Despite California’s strong equal pay laws, studies estimate that women in California lose a combined $87 billion a year due to the gender wage gap. The gap is widest for Latina, Black, and Native American women.

If you think you’re experiencing discrimination in your employment or you’ve complained and are now experiencing retaliation for complaining, call the Law Offices of Lauren Abrams for a free consultation.

The post Reality TV: Contestants or Employees? appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

Transcript

In California, if you want to sue for discrimination, you need to go to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and fill out an application. It’s very important you either have the Department of Fair Employment and Housing do an investigation or you need to apply for a Right-to-Sue notice. It’s very important that you do this procedural hurdle, or else your lawsuit will actually get kicked out.

It’s a procedural hurdle that is required in the state of California. It is the first step in order to sue for discrimination in California.

The post How Do You Sue for Employment Discrimination in California? appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

Transcript

If you think you’ve been discriminated against at work, one of the first things you have to do is you have to put your complaint in writing. California law is very clear that you have to let your employer know that you’ve been discriminated against. And the best way to do that is in writing. Just send an email very succinctly stating your complaint.

It has to go to a superior, or human resources, or CC it to both. I know nobody ever wants to put this complaint in writing. They are afraid they’ll be retaliated against. If you want to be walked through the process, you can always call us. We’ll walk you through it, make sure you’ve done it correctly.

The post What To Do When Discriminated Against at Work? appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

Transcript

So you’re scared to tell your employer you’re pregnant. You want to know what your rights are. I completely understand that. I have never not had pregnancy cases since I’ve opened my practice in California. It’s completely up to you when you want to tell your employer you’re pregnant.

When you come back from maternity leave, you are entitled to the same or similar position when you come back as long as you have worked for an employer with five or more employees. You’re entitled to breastfeed at your job and to have a private place to do that. You are entitled to the same or similar pay.

It is very clear, federal law is clear, California law is even broader. If you’re pregnant or you’ve just tried to return from maternity leave and you’ve been wrongfully terminated, we’re here to help.

The post Pregnancy Rights in the Workplace appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

In California, labor laws protect women from workplace harassment or discrimination by employers on the basis of pregnancy.

Pregnancy discrimination occurs when a pregnant employee or job applicant receives less favorable treatment because they are pregnant or may someday become pregnant. Retaliation laws are in place to protect anyone who reports or opposes any pregnancy-related discriminatory workplace practices, even if they are not a direct victim of the unlawful conduct.

EXAMPLES OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION:

Pregnancy discrimination may look like any of the following:

• Refusing to hire a pregnant applicant because of pregnancy
• Denying the pregnant employee a promotion, scheduled pay increase or health related benefits
• Not allowing an employee to take time off of work for medical check-ups
• Terminating an employee because of pregnancy
• Not allowing the pregnant employee to take leave for a pregnancy disability
• Not providing the pregnant employee with reasonable accommodations to perform job duties
• Giving the pregnant employee less hours
• Demoting the employee or trying to get the pregnant employee to quit

Retaliation for pregnancy, for requesting any accommodations in connection with pregnancy, or for speaking out in support of pregnancy-related discrimination (“reporting employee”) may look like any of the following:

• Keeping a pregnant or reporting employee from attending meetings, training sessions or other company events
• Hostile or negative treatment from supervisors and/or fellow employees, who may engage in ostracizing behavior toward the pregnant or reporting employee
• Verbal abuse by supervisors and management after filing a complaint
• Threatened with job termination or demotion after reporting an incident
• Passed over for raises and promotions after filing a complaint
• Bullying, intimidation and verbal abuse from other employees
• Against the employee’s wishes, being transferred to another team or job function

If you feel you may have been a victim of workplace pregnancy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, OR you are not sure if your situation would fall under any of the California pregnancy discrimination or retaliation laws, we want to talk to you.

THE LAWS IN CALIFORNIA AGAINST PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION:

There are various sources of law in California that provide protection to pregnant employees and new mothers.

FEHA:

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) considers pregnancy discrimination a form of sex discrimination and applies to California employers with five or more employees. FEHA defines “sex” discrimination as inclusive of any discrimination and mistreatment on account of pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and any related medical conditions.

FEHA also protects an employee who opposes any practice that would violate the FEHA, even if the practice is not directed at her. It is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who reports or otherwise opposes pregnancy discrimination and there is additional employer liability for failing to prevent retaliation.

Pursuant to FEHA, it is unlawful for an employer to harass or discriminate against a pregnant employee, an employer must provide reasonable accommodations for a pregnant employee upon request, and the employer must not engage in retaliation for any reporting of any pregnancy-related discrimination complaints.

PDLL:

Under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”), an employer must provide an employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition up to four months of pregnancy disability leave, continuation of health coverage, reasonable accommodations and, if so requested by the employee, a temporary transfer to a less strenuous or hazardous available position for the duration of the pregnancy.

A woman is disabled by her pregnancy if, in the opinion of her doctor, she is unable to perform any one or more of the essential functions of her job because of her pregnancy. Such a disability may take the form of severe morning sickness; gestational diabetes; pregnancy-induced hypertension; preeclampsia; bedrest; childbirth; postpartum depression; loss or end of pregnancy; and recovery from childbirth.

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee for any such pregnancy disability, or to retaliate against an employee who reports discrimination or harassment related to a pregnancy disability.

FURTHER RETALIATION PROTECTIONS:

Employees have protections against retaliation under FEHA, the Labor Code and various other whistleblower protection laws. Employees are protected from retaliation when they disclose or report unlawful practices (i.e., any activity that would violate state, federal, or local laws or regulations) and when they refuse to participate in unlawful practices. This protection applies whether the employee complains externally or internally and whether they are the direct victim of the unlawful actions or a fellow employee.

If you feel you may have been a victim of workplace pregnancy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, OR you are not sure if your situation would fall under any of the California pregnancy discrimination or retaliation laws, we want to talk to you. Contact us online or call 310-205-2020 to schedule a consultation with one of the experienced employment attorneys at the Law Offices of Lauren Abrams.

You might also like…

• Pregnancy Discrimination California
• Pregnancy Discrimination at Work: An Open Secret
• Pregnancy Discrimination Rising in Workplaces

The post Workplace Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

In our first article, we discussed the steps California has taken to ensure equal pay for equal work and what managers and executives need to do to stay compliant with these laws in California.

However, in the entertainment industry as well as other venues (even sometimes law firms), equal work can be difficult to define or prove, as highly skilled and creative individuals carve out specialized roles within the industry.

Thankfully, California is one of several states that has passed additional measures to protect the earning potential of all individuals, especially that of women and minorities. In 2017, California passed A.B. 168 which, in short, makes it illegal for potential employers to ask applicants for their salary history.

Can Potential Employers Ask Me About My Current Or Past Salary?

A.B. 168 applies to all public and private employers operating in California. It also applies to agents, recruiters, and headhunters.

If you are recruiting, hiring, or acting as an agent for a company operating in California, you cannot ask an applicant for their salary history. You also cannot ask a third party to acquire the salary history information of an applicant on your behalf.

If you somehow become aware of an applicant’s salary history (and that information was not voluntarily supplied to you by the applicant), you may not use that information to determine whether or not to hire the applicant or what salary you should offer the applicant.

Under A.B. 168, an applicant may choose to share their salary history with you, but the statute specifies that this information must be shared, “voluntarily and without prompting” (Cal. Lab. Code 432.3 (g), (h)).

While you cannot legally ask an applicant for their salary history, A.B. 168 does allow you to ask them about their “salary expectations for the position being applied for” (Cal. Lab. Code 432.3 (i)). This information can be used by the employer to make hiring decisions and set beginning salary ranges.

What Happens If My Employer Violates A.B. 168?

Currently, there is no specific penalty attached to the violation of A.B. 168. It is likely that the issue of penalties will be addressed in the courts, rather than through further legislation.

No employer wants to be the bellwether defendant in a salary history case, so most employers will follow the guidelines above and (hopefully) keep in compliance under California’s laws.

What is most important is knowing that all employees are entitled to equal pay for equal work in California.

You might also like…

• California Agency Requires Equal Pay for Female Surfers
• How Previous Salary Questions Affects Women’s Pay
• Is Equal Pay Protected Under California Law?

The post Pay Equity For California Creatives (Part 2) appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

For years we have fought for gender equality on all levels of employment.  From equal pay to equal opportunity in hiring, there are many fronts on which we seek gender equality. However, one experience is unlikely to be available to all genders, at least in this lifetime: pregnancy.

This article provides a comprehensive look at both the history and current state of the law in California, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act.

Table of Contents

• Employment Law Turns Up the Heat on Pregnancy Discrimination with Huge Settlements
• Civil Rights Act
• GE Company vs. Gilbert
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• The Family Medical Leave Act
• The California Family Rights Act and Paid Family Leave Program
• Pregnancy Discrimination Today
• Contact a Pregnancy Discrimination Attorney Today

Employment Law Turns Up the Heat on Pregnancy Discrimination with Huge Settlements

Recently, Wal-Mart agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by a group of employees who accused the retail giant of excluding them from its disability accommodation procedures.

Accommodation is required by law for employees with special needs; for example, a variable height desk for an employee in a wheelchair, or permission to work from home for an employee struggling with anxiety attacks.

In this case, the group of employees were pregnant women, and the settlement amount was reportedly in excess of $14 million.

Beginning with the decision in Young v. United Parcel Service in 2015, in which the Supreme Court ruled that pregnant women must be offered the same accommodations as other workers doing similar jobs, the legal landscape has shifted significantly to protect pregnant women and their families from discriminatory employment practices.

Evidence of this broadened interpretation of laws like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) can be seen in the eyewatering $185 million verdict for the plaintiff in  Juarez vs. AutoZone, where the auto parts retailer was found to have actively demoted Rosario Juarez, then found a pretext to dismiss her because of her pregnancy.

The case was settled before appeal, and the amount of the verdict may well have been decreased by the judge, but the trend is obvious: employers are on notice that pregnancy discrimination will cost them big time.

Business attitudes like Walmart’s are not a new development. During the 20^th century, pregnancy was considered a serious reason to avoid hiring women. In fact, there was a societal idea that women were less able employees because they were more likely to become pregnant and therefore disrupt the workplace.

It’s been a long road between the 20^th century’s concept of the woman or female worker and the same concept today. Over fifty years, the US transitioned from having no protections for pregnancy or families to instituting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Family Medical Leave Act.

To trace this path, it’s necessary to start at the beginning, with the Civil Rights Act.

Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was primarily intended to mandate equal rights for non-white Americans. During its writing, there was significant pushback from conservative members of Congress. These congressional officials did not think the Act was necessary, and in many cases were actively biased against non-white Americans. During the writing of and deliberation over the Civil Rights Act, there were many attempts to sabotage it.

It is commonly argued by historians and legal scholars that Title VII was one of those attempts. This is the section that includes gender as a protected class. At the time, women’s rights activists were not actively campaigning for the inclusion of gender in the Act. The consensus among women activists was that it would be better to allow some discrimination in order to permit laws that protected women.

The Civil Rights Act did not allow that. The language involved explicitly called for complete equality. The conservative lawmakers who inserted Title VII thought that it would make the Act less likely to pass. Instead, support for racial equality was so strong that gender equality was given legal protection as a side-effect.

GE Company vs. Gilbert

The wide-reaching effects of the Civil Rights Acts took years to be fully felt. Over the course of the decade after the Civil Rights Act, many lawsuits were filed over the precise implications of the law. One of the most important of these was the case GE Company vs. Gilbert.

This lawsuit was pressed by employees of General Electric. At the time, multiple employees of GE had been pregnant during their time at the company. These employees applied for leave due under the sickness and accident benefits provision GE offered. However, GE denied them leave because pregnancy was not one of their covered conditions. The class action lawsuit specifically challenged this as gender discrimination and argued that the plan GE offered should consider pregnancy a short-term disability.

The ruling of GE Company vs. Gilbert was heavily influenced by a prior case from California, Geduldig vs. Aiello (1974). In that case, the US Supreme Court had found that providing pregnancy protections would in fact constitute unequal treatment. That ruling was used as a precedent in the General Electric class action suit.

GE Company vs. Gilbert made its way to the Supreme Court in 1976. Here, the justices decided that Title VII did not specifically protect pregnancy, as the Act only requested equal treatment. The specific wording considered in the opinion was that “it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation because of that individual’s sex.” Pregnancy was not covered by the plan, regardless of gender; therefore the plan did not discriminate based on sex.

This ruling was controversial. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, women’s activists had come to agree with Title VII. GE Company vs. Gilbert was seen as actively ignoring a significant part of women’s lives. The argument was that pregnancy should be treated similarly to any other illness or short-term disability. Treating pregnancy differently from other medical issues was seen as inherently discriminating against women.

Those that agreed with the ruling largely argued that including pregnancy as a protected start might impose prohibitive costs on employers. However, compared to the arguments in favor of protecting pregnant women, this was not seen as persuasive. This was the atmosphere that led to the passing of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is remarkably simple. It is a short amendment to the Civil Rights Act. Section 701-k of the  Civil Rights Act, which constitutes part of the PDA, states that pregnancy and childbirth are explicitly to be treated as other short-term disabilities. This includes mandating coverage under any fringe benefits packages offered by the company. Discriminating against a person for a pregnancy is therefore illegal and punishable by law.

However, the PDA was quickly critiqued. One major problem with the PDA is that it only covers medical issues faced by women directly related to pregnancy or childbirth. However, it does not cover any type of protection after the child is born. Women who needed or wanted to take additional, non-medical time off to care for a newborn, for example, were not protected. The consensus was that any ensuing life complications, such as taking care of a sick child, were not gendered problems and therefore not connected to the Civil Rights Act.

Another problem that has been considered more recently is that of specific language. The PDA specifies women who become pregnant. That ignores transgender or intersex people. There is discussion of revising the language of the PDA in order to be more inclusive.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the PDA only protects against discrimination based on actual pregnancy. It does not clarify whether a person with the potential for pregnancy is a protected class. This leaves people with uteri who are of childbearing age vulnerable to discrimination that’s harder to track.

These problems and more led to campaigns for further protections. By 1984, the Family Medical Leave Act was first put before Congress. However, it would be years before the bill would be signed into law.

The Family Medical Leave Act

The first iteration of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was called the Family Employment Security Act (FESA). It called for 26 weeks of unpaid leave for both parents in the event of a new child, a disability, or a sick child. At the time, activists hoped for paid leave to be included in the future. However, it was left out of FESA to make the bill more likely to pass.

FESA did not make it to the formal introduction stage in Congress. Neither did its first revisions, the Parental and Disability Leave Act or the Parental and Medical Leave Act. Over the course of debates regarding the bill, those family members one could take leave to care for were expanded to include parents and siblings. However, the requirements for eligibility for taking leave were tightened, and the amount of leave was shortened.

The bill finally became the FMLA in 1986, and passed through the House and Senate in 1990. George Bush Senior vetoed it twice, in 1990 and 1992. Bush Senior’s opinion was that family leave was a good idea, but it should be voluntary on the part of the business or incentivized by tax breaks. However, he knew this was not a popular choice with voters, and so did not publicize his decision.  It wasn’t until 1993 that the FMLA was officially signed into law; Bill Clinton made it the first act of his presidency.

The FMLA as we know it today requires 12 unpaid weeks of leave for child and family care in the course of a year. It applies to businesses with 50 or more employees, and only to employees who have worked more than 1250 hours in the past year. This is the minimum required throughout the US. However, states and municipalities have the ability to increase the amount of available leave.

The California Family Rights Act and Paid Family Leave Program

Prior to the passage of the FMLA, California created its own bill, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) of 1991. It is very similar to the FMLA. For example, both programs provide the potential for leave fathers, to same-sex couples, and to families may not be able to have biological children. One of the primary differences between the CFRA and the FMLA is how they cover pregnancy.

The CFRA does not cover pregnancy – instead workers can take an unpaid  Pregnancy Disability Leave of up to 16 weeks, and then stack the 12 unpaid weeks CFRA offers on top. This applies to any company with five or more employees, which significantly increases the number of workers potentially covered. This CFRA also covers leave taken to care for registered domestic partners, which the FMLA does not cover.

California is also one of four states that has implemented paid leave programs for most workers. This plan is called the Paid Family Leave program, or PFL. It is funded through a state disability insurance income tax. Workers are guaranteed 60-70% of wages, depending on their initial rate of pay, for up to six weeks of leave.

The PFL program was put into place in 2002, after a long history of California’s State Disability Tax succeeding in its goals of helping workers. PFL is available to anyone, regardless of gender. Leaves taken on behalf of a child, whether biological or adopted, are considered as part of PFL. Overall, California has some of the broadest protections for families welcoming children in the entire country.

Pregnancy Discrimination Today

Young v. United Parcel Service, decided by the Supreme Court in 2015, was a landmark case involving the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Peggy Young sued UPS for violating the PDA by refusing to give her light duty when she became pregnant. UPS gave light duty to others on short-term disability, so Young argued that this was discrimination under the PDA since she was not provided the same light duty as other workers in a similar situation.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with Young. Their decision was that Congress clearly intended the PDA to prevent discriminatory behavior related to pregnancy, and that accommodations offered to similarly situated workers must be made to pregnant women as well.

In a similar case with record penalties, Juarez vs. AutoZone, the verdict penalized AutoZone for actively demoting a pregnant Los Angeles manager. Shortly after she filed a pregnancy discrimination claim for her demotion, Rosario Juarez was then fired on an allegedly spurious pretext. The jury awarded Juarez more than $185 million. This was not the first case where AutoZone has been hit with damages for gender-related discrimination.

There are more protections in place today for pregnant women and their families than ever before. However, there is still room for improvement. The US is the only developed nation that doesn’t mandate paid family leave on a federal level. That leaves the country as a whole with a patchwork of coverage, and plenty of ways to slip through the cracks.

Protect Your Rights by Knowing Your Rights as an Employee

All in all, it’s important to understand your rights. Every state is different. Having a firm grasp on what you’re entitled to as an employed person is key to accessing your rights in a tough situation. Employers may not be aware of what the law requires them to provide. Many workers around the country, and almost every employee in California, are covered by the FMLA or the CFRA. Knowing what protections these laws provide is the simplest way to make use of family leave or fight back if your employer bars your access.

You might also like…

• Pregnancy Discrimination at Work: An Open Secret
• Pregnancy Discrimination Rising in Workplaces
• Examples of Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

The post Pregnancy Discrimination California appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

The gender wage gap is real. In short, women earn less than men for doing the same work. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the gender wage gap in California has ranged between 10% and 17% over the last 20 years.

Though California’s gap is currently better than the national margin by about 7.2%, that is small consolation to women everywhere who continue to endure unequal and illegal treatment at the hands of their employers.

It is difficult to understand why we continue to be plagued by the gender wage gap in the age of #MeToo and #BLM. Several theories have been put forward.

Women Don’t Know They’re Being Paid Less Than Men

Most workers in California are kept in the dark about wage data as company policy. It follows that employees lack vital knowledge about what their coworkers are paid – often for performing the same duties and responsibilities. These employees, in turn, undervalue themselves when they negotiate their salary with their employer.

Women Lack A Viable Legal Remedy

Although California has tried to address the gender wage gap issue with legislation, such as the Fair Pay Act and Wage Equality Act, women face great difficulty pursuing a remedy after they have been subjected to unlawful treatment for two key reasons:

1. There is little financial incentive for attorneys to accept these cases because awards are severely limited.
2. Although retaliation against women who file lawsuits against their employers alleging gender-based pay violations is illegal, the reality is that most individuals who sue their employers are retaliated against. Many employees find it is just not worth the pain and potential loss of income.

Discrimination And Stereotypes Are All Too Real

Old attitudes about working women persist to this day. In male-dominated industries, it can still be difficult for women to break into roles they deserve, let alone earn as much as their male counterparts. Married women, pregnant women and mothers are particularly vulnerable to discrimination based on outdated attitudes about “a woman’s place” or her perceived financial security through her husband.

Employers Are To Blame

At the root of issues of unequal pay are, of course, those who write the checks. Companies and their officers and managers who fail to address inequality in their pay structures are culpable in perpetuating the gender wage gap.

This is not to say that all wage inequality is intentional. It is entirely possible that companies have wage structures and compensation reviews that are non-standard and lacking in transparency to the rest of the organization. Intent is not, however, the issue. The law is clear: “equal pay for substantially similar work.” Anything less is illegal under California law.

California Law Is Too Weak…

Beginning with the California Equal Pay Act in 1949, our State has long led the way in the fight for equal compensation for equal work. In October 2015, the Equal Pay Act was strengthened by the passage of the Fair Pay Act, which codified the previously mentioned “equal pay for substantially similar work” rule. Unfortunately, these laws at both the state and federal level haven’t had the strength necessary to close the wage gap.

…Until Now?

Signed by Governor Newsom in 2020, S.B. 973 requires California businesses with 100 or more employees to provide the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing with reporting on employee wages by race and gender. The required “pay data report” will hopefully provide real transparency into wage structures at medium and large businesses here in California. Time will tell.

Questions About California Wage Law?

The complexity of the laws governing issues like the gender wage gap cannot be overstated. If you are a woman and have reason to believe you aren’t earning as much as the men in your company, contact us online to discuss your issue.

You might also like…

• The Global Pandemic – Widening the Gender Pay Gap
• The Pay Gap Continues
• New Law Makes Gender Wage Information Public

The post California’s Gender Wage Gap appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.

In a previous post, we briefly touched on the passage of Assembly Bill 1947 (AB 1947), which California Governor Gavin Newsom signed on September 30, 2020. This new anti-retaliation legislation amends California’s Labor Code regarding employer retaliation against whistleblowers.

The law provides a longer period of time for whistleblowers to file a retaliation claim and allows courts to award attorney fees to whistleblowers. This new and improved anti-retaliation law goes into effect on January 1, 2021.

In this post, we’ll take a look at the basics of whistleblower law and discuss why it’s important to protect those who shed light into the dark corners of unethical and illegal practices in the workplace.

What Is A Whistleblower?

A “whistleblower” is an employee who discloses information about violations or noncompliance with the law to someone with authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation. These authorities can include a government or law enforcement agency, a supervisor or manager of the employee, or another employee at the same level. It could also be someone who provides information to, or testifies before, a public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry.

To qualify as a whistleblower under the statutes, the employee must have reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses:

1. A violation of a state or federal statute;
2. A violation or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation; or
3. Unsafe working conditions or work practices at the employee’s job.

A whistleblower can also be an employee who refuses to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation.

How Does The Law Protect Whistleblowers?

There are many reasons to protect whistleblowers, including the fact that they expose illegal activity and threats to worker safety. One of the major risks that these brave workers face in coming forward is retaliation by their employer. Retaliation can take many forms, including harassment, reassignment, demotion, wage or salary deduction and even termination.

In the state of California, an employer may not

1. Make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from being a whistleblower;
2. Retaliate against an employee who is a whistleblower;
3. Retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation; or
4. Retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or her rights as a whistleblower in any former employment.

Under California Labor Code § 1102.5, if an employer retaliates against a whistleblower, the employer “may be required to reinstate the employee’s employment and work benefits, pay lost wages, and take other steps necessary to comply with the law.”

Under the existing legislation, whistleblowers have six months after a retaliatory action to file a claim. The newly-approved amendment extends this deadline to one year after the offense occurs, providing the employee with valuable time to find an attorney. The amendment makes this undertaking significantly easier by allowing the recovery of attorney’s fees in any successful suit, which is the other key addition under AB 1947.

Retaliation In Practice: The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office

A recent example of retaliation comes from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, where a Black employee, Senior Investigator Regina Crenshaw, came forward with allegations of sexual harassment against her Caucasian supervisor dating back to 2015. While the supervisor was reassigned, for the next five years Crenshaw had to endure further harassment from the officer who investigated her supervisor. She was nearly terminated, but was ultimately demoted to menial, entry-level work.

According Scott Schwebke for the Orange County Register and Southern California News Group, after several years in court, the DA’s Office was forced to settle the case for more than $950,000. In fact, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office has had to pay out more than $2 million in settlements in four cases since 2017. Without the ability to sue their employer for retaliation, these women would likely have ended up jobless with no recourse other than a difficult-to-prove harassment claim.

Another Step In The Right Direction

The extension of the deadline to file a retaliation claim along with the statutory provision for attorney’s fees is a massive boost for whistleblower protection. As we strive to make the California workplaces more open, transparent, and above all equal, we need to continue to fight for the rights of employees. To learn more about whistleblower law, anti-retaliation, or other employment law issues, please contact us today.

You might also like…

• California Employment Law Update Fall 2020
• Great News For Employees in California!
• Law Protecting Workers From Mandatory Arbitration Blocked by Big Business

The post California Makes Progress On Anti-Retaliation Laws appeared first on Law Office of Lauren Abrams.