Gender Identity Harassment

Dolan Law Firm
 posted in 
Employment Law
 on 
September 28, 2018

From Lindsay in San Francisco: A coworker with whom I work closely recently began his social transition from presenting as the sex he was incorrectly assigned at birth to his true gender identity. Most of our colleagues have been respectful and encouraging during this process but there is one older woman who refuses to use my transitioning coworker’s correct name and pronouns and occasionally makes other demeaning remarks. The woman’s offensive comments are distracting and make me uncomfortable, but I’m really concerned that my transitioning coworker will feel so ostracized that he will end up quitting the job rather than deal with daily harassment. Should I share my observations with HR?

Lindsay, it is distressing to hear about your coworker’s alienating experiences at work as a result of his gender identity and expression. Fortunately, California’s employment discrimination laws protect employees against this kind of harassment and have been updated in the past two years to clarify and strengthen these protections.

Discrimination and harassment based on sex and gender is prohibited under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Since 2011, FEHA has specifically included “gender identity” and “gender expression” as traits for which employees are protected from unlawful discrimination and harassment. Last year, the California Fair Employment and Housing Council promulgated detailed regulations to clarify how protections based on gender identity and expression should be applied. Finally, effective January 1, 2018, all employers are required to conspicuously post a state-approved “Transgender Rights in the Workplace” poster and employers with 50 or more employees must include units on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation in mandatory sex discrimination trainings.

Under the 2017 regulations, gender identity is defined as a person’s “internal understanding of their gender,” including “male, female, a combination of male and female, neither male nor female, a gender different from the person’s sex assigned at birth and transgender,” whether or not expressed in the employee’s external presentation. The regulations also specifically protect those in transition, perceived to be transitioning, or who have already transitioned, with “transitioning” defined as a process in which an individual begins living as the gender with which they identify, including changes in name usage, facility usage, participation in employer-sponsored activities, as well as any relevant medical procedures. Among its protections against discrimination, the regulations proscribe employers requiring gender documentation or imposing job duties, dress standards, or facility usage inconsistent with an employee’s gender identity or expression, except in very limited circumstances.

As discussed in previous columns, FEHA forbids workplace sexual harassment both in the form of “quid pro quo” offers or threats contingent on sexual favors and the much broader category of “hostile work environment” harassment. A hostile work environment may be created even in the absence of any specific adverse employment action when unwelcome conduct based on sex or gender either unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates a workplace that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes. A given conduct’s lawfulness is evaluated using all relevant circumstances and can be exacerbated by individual attributes such as a history of related abuse. Both the harasser and victim may be of any gender identity and the behavior need not motivated by sexual desire. Indeed, the complaining employee need not even be the intended target of the harassing conduct; a mere witness like yourself may have standing if they personally witness conduct such that their immediate work environment is permeated by sexual harassment.

As you can see, California law does prohibit the kind of harassment your transitioning coworker has been suffering if the colleague’s insults and misuse of former name and pronouns are pervasive enough to impact the workplace atmosphere or affect the complaining employee’s job performance. Generally, the “pervasive” standard requires that the harassment not be occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial and to either (1) have become part of the employee’s daily or weekly work routine, (2) undermine their ability to perform their job, or (3) cause them persistent distress. In your question, you indicate that you worry your coworker might quit his job to avoid the regular distress he experiences, a situation known as constructive discharge. He may indeed have a strong claim against the harasser and possibly your employer, if they have not undertaken all legally required duties to prevent harassment and promptly correct unlawful behavior of which they should reasonably be aware. A successful case will require the assistance of an experienced employment law attorney.

In the meantime, you should certainly encourage your HR department to look into the matter and reaffirm that your employer has duly updated its employee manual, workplace rights posters and, if the company employs 50 or more employees, mandated manager training curriculum in conformance with current California law.

read more

Decoding Injury Liability

Dolan Law Firm
 posted in 
Bicycle Accidents
 on 
September 28, 2018

Today’s question comes from Jane in Portola Valley who asks, “We were bike riding in Marin and we were going to stop in Samuel P. Taylor Park to have a bite to eat and rest before continuing our ride to Point Reyes. I hit a bump in the road and was thrown from my bike. I landed on my head and suffered pretty bad cuts on my face and shoulder and broke my forearm. The bump was pretty big and wasn’t really visible to me as the sun was directly overhead. After I fell, the police came and the park ranger walked over and said that I wasn’t the only one to fall there. Do I have any legal recourse?”

 

Jane, your question is not an easy one to answer with so little information because so much of its legal success would depend on facts, such as whether your fall took place inside or outside of park boundaries, a fact which would determine both the relevant agency that might be responsible and the rule for evaluating its responsibility. Whether inside the park or on the highway, your injury occurred on public property and is therefore subject to the “dangerous condition of public property” doctrine, codified in the California Government Code. This doctrine addresses injuries that happen on public property including sidewalks, highways, roadways and the like, and limits the situations under which the government may be held liable for any dangerous conditions.

 

If you were already within the park’s boundaries, your case would depend on application of the Government Code Section 831.4. Under this rule, the government is not liable for injuries caused by the condition of an unpaved road that is not a city, county, state or federal street or highway and provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas. Likewise a government entity is immune for injury on any paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk on an easement of way which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access to any unimproved property, so long as the public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of any condition of the paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk which constitutes a hazard to health or safety.

 

In your case, if you were within the park when you were injured, it can be argued that the trail immunity does apply. If that be the case, then a counter argument can be made that the entity had an obligation to provide warning of the condition, since the ranger was aware that others had fallen there before.

 

If you were not within the park, Government Code Section 835 applies. Liability depends on whether an injured party can prove four elements. First, the relevant property must have been in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury. In your case, since you came upon a bump preexisting on your path, this element appears to be satisfied.

 

The second and third elements overlap considerably: they both require that, in addition to proving that the dangerous condition actually caused the injury, the injured party must prove that the risk of that type of injury was reasonably foreseeable to the government before the injury occurred. In your case, the bump in the road in fact caused your fall, and it was also reasonably foreseeable to the government that a bump in the road might cause someone to fall. The very reason that a bump in the road is considered dangerous in the first place is largely due to the increased risk of road users falling!

 

Fourth, an injured party must show that either: (a) the dangerous condition was created by a government employee’s negligent act or omission; or (b) the relevant agency had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. This element would likely be at issue in your case.

 

Government Code section 835.2 defines what constitutes actual and constructive notice. Actual notice is when the entity in fact already knew of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character. Constructive notice, by contrast, requires the injured party to establish that the condition had existed for such a period of time, and was of such an obvious nature, that the public entity, in the reasonable exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character. This takes into consideration whether or not the entity had an inspection system which would have, or should have, identified the condition.

 

In your case, the park ranger admitted that he knew, or had actual notice of, the bump in the road because you were not the first victim of its dangerous character. The determinative questions, therefore, would be: (1) whose jurisdiction the bump was in and, if not the park’s, were they also aware of the prior accidents; (2) how long ago the other accidents had been and when the relevant agency was made aware of their cause; (3) the practical factors involved in making the road safe; and (4) whether the intervening time was sufficient to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.

 

Finally, an injured party must also defend against the government’s possible counterarguments. For instance, they must prove that the condition was not merely a trivial defect, that it presents a substantial risk of harm. Courts may decide as a matter of law that a condition is trivial and, in many cases, have done so. For example, a court held that a ½ inch deviation in sidewalk panels trivial as a matter of law. However, the only guidance given to the jury in deciding whether a condition rises to the dangerous threshold is rather circular and cryptic: a substantial risk of harm is one which is more than trivial. Therefore, without additional information as the size, shape, height, etc., it is impossible for me to opine in your case whether the bump in the road would be considered trivial or not.

 

An injured party must also rebut a government defense that the defect was “open and obvious.“ If a dangerous condition is so significant that it would be open and obvious to a reasonably attentive user, then the government can claim that the user was negligent for not seeing and avoiding the condition. In your case, I would need more information to determine whether the “open and obvious” defense would have merit, such as the time of day when this occurred, weather conditions, shadows from trees, and other factors that would have impaired your ability to appreciate the hazard before you hit it.

 

We have handled hundreds of dangerous condition cases over the years involving bikes, cars, muni trains, sidewalks, escalators, stairs, highways, city streets and the like. Because of the intricacies of the statutes, these cases are quite complex and should only be handled by trial lawyers with significant experience in this area. I suggest that you get photos of the area, including ones showing dimensions with a ruler in place, as well as lighting conditions at the time of your fall, and present those to a trial lawyer who can analyze whether or not you have a case worth pursuing.

read more

How do I get out of jury duty?

Dolan Law Firm
 posted in 
Civil Rights
 on 
September 10, 2018

This week’s question comes from Bryan L. in Oakland, who writes: “How do I get out of jury duty?”

Dear Bryan: Seriously, shame on you. Simple answer, DON’T.

One sure way to get out of being on a jury is to be a criminal defendant. Then you don’t have to sit on a jury and, at the same time, you will hope to God that you will have a group of people who didn’t try and evade their civic responsibility and are willing to sit and fairly hear your case and defense. Another way is become a convicted felon and be deprived of your constitutional rights such as bearing arms, being free from unlawful search and seizure, and the ability to sit on a jury or vote.

The original founders, who fought and died for our independence called the right to a jury: “A sacred right” …. “the most important privilege which freemen can enjoy.” The deprivation of a right to jury trials was one of the main grievances leading to the Revolutionary War. This right is listed in the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (1775) and the Declaration of Independence (1776). So, jury service is not a hassle, it is a sacred duty people died for. It is part of what we are fighting to establish all over the world with our armed forces.

The United States Constitution, in the Sixth Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) proclaims: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

The California Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 16 states: “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict. A jury may be waived in a criminal cause by the consent of both parties expressed in open court by the defendant and the defendant’s counsel. In a civil cause a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute. In civil causes the jury shall consist of 12 persons….” In criminal actions in which a felony is charged, the jury must also consist of 12 persons, in misdemeanor cases the parties can agree to a lesser number.

The California Legislature has proclaimed: “The Legislature recognizes that trial by jury is a cherished constitutional right, and that jury service is an obligation of citizenship. It is the policy of the State of California that all persons selected for jury service shall be selected at random from the population of the area served by the court; that all qualified persons have an equal opportunity, in accordance with this chapter, to be considered for jury service in the state and an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose; and that it is the responsibility of jury commissioners to manage all jury systems in an efficient, equitable, and cost-effective manner.”

As a practical matter, your county court uses DMV and voter registration lists to select potential jurors at random. The purpose of random selection is to ensure that cases are decided by a fair cross-section of the community, also affording members of all communities the opportunity to contribute to our justice system at the ground level. Jurors are not expected to have any specific knowledge prior to serving; they need not even speak perfect English to qualify so long as they can understand and discuss the case. The only requirements for jury service are U.S. citizenship, at least 18 years of age, residence in the county serving the summons, and absence of conservatorship or felony conviction. Persons with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations including wheelchair access, readers, assistive listening devices, sign language interpreters, and real-time captioning.

Most trials require a week or less of your time, although length may vary depending on the complexity of the legal issues involved and how quickly jurors arrive at the required level of consensus. Jurors receive a $15 per day stipend plus one-way transportation costs beginning on the second day of service. Your employer is required by law to excuse you from work without negative repercussions while you serve as a juror; if you experience harassment or other adverse employment action, you can file a claim with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. However, it is always advisable to notify your employer as soon as possible after receiving your juror summons to allow for any necessary preparations to be made in case of your absence. If there is a reason why a specific date is inconvenient for you, you can usually request to postpone your service for up to six months by following the instructions on your summons notice.

No potential juror should be called for service more than once in twelve months and no one may serve on more than one jury concurrently. If you think you have been called improperly, you should call the court to resolve the situation. Additionally, there are limited circumstances under which you may request an excusal from jury service for at least one year, including if you are over 70 and have a serious health condition, if you are a breastfeeding mother or are otherwise indispensable to a dependant’s care, if you require accommodations that the court is unable to provide, or in cases of extreme financial hardship. However, if you are qualified to serve and have not been granted an excusal, failure to respond may cost you up to $1,500 in fines.

As sacred of an institution as jury service should be held, it has not been spared by criminals seeking to fraudulently exploit others’ civic commitment. In recent years, there has been a trend in “spam” phone calls from people purporting to be court officials requesting personal identifying and financial information. Jury staff will never ask for personal information over the phone. If you receive such a phone call, do not give any personal information and immediately contact your local police department and jury service office.

As a trial lawyer who brings cases on behalf of his injured clients in front of juries, I can tell you that jury service is the purest form of democracy that exists on this planet. It is part of a process where 12 people decide what the community standards will be, whether rights will be bestowed or taken away. All juries that I have appeared in front of felt proud and patriotic after serving on a jury. So you should try it before the day that maybe your rights may be taken from you without a trial by your peers.

So lets all of us, be patriotic Americans and serve our country by responding to our summons for jury duty when called upon. Help bring fairness and justice to our troubled world.

By attorney Christopher B. Dolan, owner of the Dolan Law Firm. Email Chris questions and topics for future articles to help@dolanlawfirm.com

We serve clients across the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our offices in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. Our work is no recovery, no free or also referred to as contingency-based. That means we collect no fee unless we obtain money for your damages and injuries.

read more

The Grey Area Of Workplace Discrimination

Dolan Law Firm
 posted in 
Employment Law
 on 
August 17, 2018

Kate from San Mateo writes: Working in the male-dominated tech field can feel like navigating a proverbial “boys club.” I often feel pressured to participate in rowdy after-work social hours in order to build and maintain relationships with prospective mentors, and sometimes overhear talk of male coworkers’ latest rounds of golf with a mutual supervisor. I don’t know whether my career has been directly impacted by the social alienation I experience, but I can’t help but suspect that it might be. Do employment discrimination laws cover this kind of professional fraternizing? What can I do to change this discriminatory culture within my organization?

read more

Out Of Tragedy Comes Change

Dolan Law Firm
 posted in 
Firm News
 on 
August 9, 2018

This week’s article will focus on the trial and conviction of former Uber driver, Syed Abid Muzaffar, for the charge of vehicular manslaughter arising out of the December 31, 2013, death of 7-year-old Sophia Liu as she was walking home from her grandmother’s house with her mother Huan, and brother, Anthony. As they were lawfully crossing Polk while traveling east on Ellis, Muzaffar turned right crushing Sophia and catastrophically injuring Huan and Anthony. Huan testified that just before being run-down she saw Muzzafar looking down at his cell phone, presumably checking his Uber app. At the time of Sophia’s death Uber first claimed that Muzzafar was not acting as an Uber driver then, later, admitted that he had the app open but sought to continue to distance themselves from the tragedy by saying that he had no passenger onboard.

read more

MOTHER OF YOUNG GIRL KILLED BY UBER DRIVER GRATEFUL FOR JUSTICE

Dolan Law Firm
 posted in 
Uber/Lyft Accidents
 on 
August 2, 2018

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MOTHER OF YOUNG GIRL KILLED BY UBER DRIVER GRATEFUL FOR JUSTICE

On August 2, 2018, former Uber driver Syed Abid Muzaffar was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter by a jury of 12 San Francisco citizens in the death of Sofia Liu. Muzaffar, while driving his vehicle on the evening of December 31, 2015 at the intersection of Polk and Ellis streets in San Francisco, turned right hitting Sofia, her mother and her brother who were crossing legally in a pedestrian crosswalk, crushing Sofia to death with his vehicle. Muzaffar was working as an Uber driver at the time of the incident.

read more

What Are The Rules Of The Road For Emergency Vehicles

Dolan Law Firm
 posted in 
Car Accidents
 on 
August 2, 2018

Nate from Oakland writes: I know, of course, that police and fire trucks are entitled to speed down city streets with sirens and flashing lights when responding to emergencies. But I’m sure I’m not the only one to have also seen police cars slide through red traffic lights for no apparent reason. Is this legal? What are the rules of the road for emergency vehicles and what happens if someone is hurt by one, for example, running a red light?

read more