Blog | Dolan Law Firm

California law addresses safety for bicyclists

Written by: Christopher Dolan and Taylor French

Drivers and bicyclists must coexist in an environment that, at times, can feel too crowded for both.

California has enacted several laws throughout the years in an effort to ensure the safety of those sharing the roads, but none is more important than the Three Feet for Safety Act. In 2013, California’s legislature passed the act, codified as California Vehicle Code section 21760, requiring drivers to give bicyclists a minimum of three feet between the motor vehicle and bicycle when passing in the same direction on a highway. This law became operative on Sept. 16, 2014.

Prior to the act, the California Department of Motor Vehicles had already provided that maintaining three feet between cars and bicycles was the best practice, but the act gave law enforcement the ability to stop a motorist and issue an infraction for failing to keep this distance. An infraction issued for a violation of California Vehicle Code section 21760 results in a minimum fine of $35. If a collision occurs between a car and bicycle causing great bodily injury to the bicyclist, the driver of the car will be issued a $220 fine. In addition to these fines, however, the motorist will also likely incur court fees and/or other administrative fees, which could significantly increase the cost of a violation.

While the act is as straightforward as it sounds — a car may not pass a bicycle traveling in the same direction unless it provides, at a minimum, three feet between the car and the bicycle — there is another important caveat. Subsection D of California Vehicle Code section 21760 states:

(d) “If a driver is unable to pass with three feet of distance due to traffic or roadway conditions, the driver shall slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and may pass only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and surface and width of the highway.”

The language of subsection D appears to give some discretion to officers stopping motorists for passing too closely and to drivers when deciding whether to pass a bicyclist. Ultimately, this language also gives judges discretion in issuing fines, should a driver contest the violation.

In addition to an infraction, a violation of California Vehicle Code section 21760 may carry additional ramifications that drivers may not anticipate. For example, if a driver hits and injures a bicyclist in violation of California Vehicle Code section 21760, the driver can be found to be, “negligent per se,” in a civil lawsuit.

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine establishing a presumption of negligence for a violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation. If a defendant in a civil lawsuit is found to have violated a statute, the violation caused the type of harm the statute was designed to protect, and the plaintiff is of the class of people the statute was designed to protect, then the defendant is considered negligent per se. In other words, as a matter of law and as applicable here, a defendant driver who violated California Vehicle Code section 21760 — thereby causing bodily injuries to a bicyclist — could be considered negligent and liable for those injuries and the resulting damages.

So, what can drivers do to ensure they are maintaining at least three feet from bicyclists and to avoid a violation of California Vehicle Code section 21760? Most importantly, if in doubt, drivers should assume they are too close to a bicyclist. Remember, the act provides the minimum distance from a bicyclist that a driver must maintain, but there are certainly situations where three feet is simply not enough space.

Drivers should consider the amount of time it takes to bring a car to a complete stop to avoid hitting a bicyclist. When passing, drivers should consider changing lanes rather than attempting to sneak past bicyclists. And remember, drivers can only pass a bicyclist when it is safe to do so, and risking a bicyclist’s life to save a few extra minutes during one’s commute is never a risk worth taking.

Finally, what can bicyclists do to ensure a safe distance around them? Bicyclists should always make sure they are visible and should never assume a driver will maintain a three-foot minimum distance.

While the act puts the burden on the driver to maintain the three-foot buffer, bicyclists should always make sure to monitor the distance and avoid careless, distracted or inexperienced drivers. Bicyclists can even wear a “Three Feet” bike jersey to remind drivers of the distance requirement. It just may save a life and get the bicyclist some compliments in the process!

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan and Kimberly E. Levy

Danny T. writes:

Q: “My wife and I both work. We have two young children. We just got word that our kids would be in distance learning for the beginning of the school year, maybe longer. We cannot afford to have either of us out of work while we homeschool our kids. We are worried that our kids won’t get the education they need because we have to work to make ends meet. Is there any help available?”

A: Dear Danny T.,
During these uncertain times, many families find themselves in an incredibly difficult position without a safety net. Parents are forced to balance two critical needs:

providing for their families and
helping their children receive a quality education through active participation in distance learning.

Fortunately, there is some support available to help families negatively impacted by school closures and unavailability of childcare. On April 1, 2020, the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) took effect. The Act consists of two major components:

Expansion of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) until the end of December 2020, to cover leave and loss of income when an employee needs to care for children because of school or childcare closures and other leave related to COVID-19; and,
Establishment of the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act which requires employers to pay an employee up to 80 hours (two weeks) of sick leave at a rate of two-thirds their normal rate of pay if the employee is unable to work due to COVID-19 related childcare needs.

Who is Eligible for Paid FMLA Leave?

Under the expansion, FMLA leave may be used to care for a minor child whose school or care provider is closed or unavailable due to COVID-19. In order to qualify, the employee must be the minor child’s parent (biological or adoptive), foster parent, legal guardian, or standing in loco parentis (a legal status). Additionally, the employee must have been employed for at least 30 calendar days.

While typically paid leave is available to employees of companies with 50 or more employees, expanded FFCRA paid leave applies to all employers, unless subject to an exemption. Benefits under the expanded FMLA are available to teleworking employees as well as those working outside of the home.

What Benefits are Available under the Expanded FMLA?

The first two weeks of leave are unpaid, although the time may be covered by the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act or other paid time off options already available through the employer. After the initial waiting period, the employer must pay the employee two-thirds of the employee’s normal rate of pay, up to a maximum of $200.00 per day for 10 weeks ($10,000).

FMLA leave may be taken intermittently, allowing an employee to work part-time and care for their child(ren) part-time.
For example, if the employee/parent only needs to take 2-4 hours of leave per day, this arrangement is permissible under the act.

The expanded act also requires employers to reinstate employees to their original position upon return from leave, with some exceptions for employers with fewer than 25 employees. For those smaller employers, reinstatement is required unless the position was eliminated due to economic conditions related to COVID-19. Those employers, however, must make efforts to reinstate the employee in an equivalent position.

When electing to use FMLA leave, employees should give their employer as much notice as possible if the need for leave is known about in advance. To learn more about your rights under the FFCRA, click here.

In addition to the federal protections provided by FFCRA, California recently passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act which provides funds to assist workers impacted by COVID-19. Under this act, Statewide Worker Supportive Services provides funding to underserved populations to help workers to pay for childcare, housing, utilities, and transportation.
There are two tiers of eligibility:

Individuals receiving at least 50 percent of their previous wages either from their employer directly or Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefit payments may receive supportive services totaling $400.
Individuals who are not receiving at least 50 percent of their wages from their employer directly or through UI benefit payments may receive supportive services totaling $800.

This program is administered through the local Workforce Development Board. To search for the closest board, click here.

If you believe you were unlawfully denied paid leave or were terminated because you requested it, an employment attorney may be able to assist you.

—

Christopher B. Dolan is the owner of the Dolan Law Firm. Kimberly E. Levy is a senior associate attorney in our San Francisco office. Email questions and topics for future articles to: help@dolanlawfirm.com.

Written By: Vanessa C. Deniston and Christopher B. Dolan

This week’s question comes from Mason H. who writes:

Q: “I am currently employed by a private company doing contracted work repairing roadways. I am considered an essential worker in California. As the sole breadwinner in my family, I am truly grateful to have steady work and I would never want to put my job in jeopardy. Lately, my manager has been encouraging everyone on my crew to get tested for COVID-19. I feel just fine, but I want to get tested as I am exposed to others on a daily basis. I am worried if I test positive for some reason that will give them cause to fire me. Should I be worried?”

A: Dear Mason, In this strange and challenging new economic reality, I completely understand your instinct to protect your job at all costs. Essential workers like you have to weigh economic survival against their own physical health and family’s safety. Given the ever-changing landscape of the virus and its effect on the economy, many employees are unclear about their rights and many employers are uncertain about their obligations. This can lead to irrational decision-making fueled by panic or fear.

Thankfully, the city of San Francisco has stepped up to address the problem and provide clarity. The City has drafted and introduced a new ordinance that offers special job protections for essential workers like you with respect to COVID-19 testing. The proposed ordinance would make it illegal for an employer to fire, threaten to fire, demote, suspend, discipline, reduce employee benefits or in any way discriminate against individuals who receive a positive COVID-19 test, show symptoms of the virus, or make a decision to quarantine after being exposed to the virus. Employers would not be able to question employees who do not appear ill about whether they have medical conditions that would make them more vulnerable to the virus. Though, employers could request medical exams for incoming employees as long as the policy is applied to all applicants.

These protections would also be extended to job seekers in San Francisco. Under the proposed new ordinance, employers could not ask applicants to be tested for the virus before extending job offers and could not rescind a job offer if the applicant test positive. Employers would be required to make reasonable accommodations for individuals who test positive for the virus or quarantine after suspected exposure.

This proposed legislation, should be signed into law, is a significant expansion of employee rights in San Francisco; previously, employees eligible for certain benefits through their employer (i.e. medical leave) could avail themselves from legal remedies. That is why this new proposed ordinance is vital for essential workers who have already used up their benefits or who never had them in the first place. It should be noted, however, the law would apply only to employers in San Francisco.

California employees outside of San Francisco must still look into the California Family Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act for leave guidelines. Employees outside of San Francisco should also review their current city ordinances, as many cities across California have established their own additional protections for employees in light of COVID-19.

COVID-19 has handed employers a compelling “good faith business reason” for mass layoffs as they are struggling to stay afloat financially amid statewide closures. Many employers, however, are using the virus as an excuse to discriminate against and fire employees who test positive for the virus or elect to quarantine at home as a result of exposure. Such employers often claim they are “restructuring” or “downsizing” in light of statewide shutdowns. In such cases, the true reason, whether it be the fear of a potentially infected employee spreading the virus to others or a general unwillingness to accommodate employees that wish to err on the side of personal safety, is not always easy to establish from an evidentiary standpoint. The new ordinance, however, heightens the scrutiny on employers terminating essential workers and gives employees broader protections.

Many employees may still be skeptical about how The City actually will enforce this ordinance (if passed) and hold employers accountable. Under the law, the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement would be tasked with investigating reported violations and would have the power to award certain remedies to affected employees, such as lost wages and job reinstatement. Civil penalties would be imposed on employers who violate the ordinance, ranging from $1,000 to $10,000+ depending on the number of violations committed, including a single violation of $1,000. Such penalties would only serve as a deterrent if employees consistently report suspected violations and the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement follows through on imposing penalties and awarding remedies.

If you believe you have been retaliated against or terminated because you tested positive for COVID-19 or because you elected to quarantine at home after suspected exposure, an employment attorney can assist you in reporting the violation to the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement and possibly pursue additional civil remedies on your behalf.

Available COVID-19 Resources in Response to your Legal Questions

Dolan Law Firm has been receiving many questions from Californians regarding their legal rights as they pertain to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

We are making these resources available here in response to your legal questions.

THE LAW IN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY

Since March 2020, we have seen an unprecedented use of local, state and federal emergency powers as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

The issuance of a Proclamation by a mayor or governor “cuts through red tape” and waives many of the procedural and regulatory steps that have to be followed under normal conditions, temporarily granting significant power and decision-making authority within the executive branch, i.e., the Mayor and Governor.
Mayor Breed issued a Proclamation Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency on February 25, 2020 which allowed the Mayor to direct the personnel and resources of any department, command the aid of other persons, and do whatever else the Mayor may deem necessary to meet the emergency.
Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statewide Proclamation of a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020 which gives the Governor complete authority over all agencies of the state government and the right to exercise within the area designated all police power vested in the state by the Constitution and laws of the State of California.
The Mayor’s February 25th Proclamation required all officers and employees to undertake all steps requested by the Director of Public Health, Thomas Aragon MD, D. Ph, such as social distancing, prohibiting gathering in group events, and Shelter-in-place Order.
The Governor’s proclamation paved the way for the closure of schools, shelter-in-place orders, admittance of out of state health care providers to treat patients, funds and personnel to support relief efforts of local authorities, access to any state-owned properties, including state fairgrounds, required by the Office of Emergency Services to respond to the COVID-19 epidemic, the imposition of anti-price-gouging laws, and funding for the purchase of medical supplies and medications.

Read the full article

Discrimination and Retaliation in Reducing Workforce are Unlawful

Employers may not terminate or lay-off employees if decisions are based upon a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.

An employer may not use race or national origin as a basis for the decision of which employees to terminate.
An employer may not use the national origin or race as a basis to deny Asians the right to return to work.
An employer is forbidden from using the fact that an employee took accrued sick-time or other eligible leave as a basis for that decision.

Read the full article

Employees Affected by COVID-19 are Entitled to use Sick Leave

All California employees accrue sick time at their jobs to be used for the diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition, or, importantly, preventative care for you or relative.

Employers in California are required to track sick time on each employee.
San Francisco government implemented Workers and Families First Program guaranteeing an additional five
days of paid leave for those affected by Covid-19.
Employees who contract Covid-19, or whose family members do, may be entitled to leave under the California Family Rights Act.
CFRA provides job protection, it does not provide monetary benefits.
However, up to 6 weeks of payments may be available concurrently through California Paid Family Leave if eligible.

Read the full article

California Expands Health Care Resources for Covered, Uninsured and Undocumented Residents Affected by COVID-19

It is important for every Californian to know their health care options if they start showing signs and symptoms of the coronavirus.

The state eliminated all cost-sharing requirements on COVID-19 screenings and testing including telehealth services.
Employees that lost their health insurance plans can sign up for state programs like Medi-Cal and Covered California if eligible.
California’s undocumented population may use Medi-Cal as long as they meet the basic eligibility requirements.
If you believe that your loved one is in immediate danger, call 911. If there is no immediate risk of harm, report the facility to Adult Protective Services.
California’s Medicare program provides health care coverage for all lab tests and medically necessary hospitalizations related to COVID-19.

If you are experiencing any of the key COVID-19 symptoms, which include fever, cough or shortness of breath, the California Department of Public Health is advising you to call your physician.

Read the full article

Elder Abuse and Neglect During the Coronavirus Crisis

The elderly, infirm and dependent are among the most vulnerable members of our community.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are now significantly restricting visitors, volunteers, and nonessential personnel as well as communal activities inside the nursing homes.
Common signs of elder mistreatment include the following: poor hygiene or skin condition, untreated medical conditions, unexplainable dehydration or malnourishment, unusual confusion, depression, or withdrawal
Elder abuse comes in many forms and an individual can face one type of abuse or multiple types at once
If you believe that your loved one is in immediate danger, call 911. If there is no immediate risk of harm, report the facility to Adult Protective Services.
California law provides for recovery of damages for pain and suffering, economic damages and punitive damages when there has been recklessness, fraud and/or patient abandonment.

Read the full article

Growing Anti-Asian Sentiment, Hate Crimes and Acts of Terrorism During the COVID-19 Crisis

Racially-motivated hate crimes and threats from white supremacists and other domestic groups have also been on the rise.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically outlaws discrimination by all business establishments in California based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, mental or physical disability, age or medical condition (including HIV status).
There are two main types of workplace discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact.
The core causes of action in a hate-crime based civil action, will likely be the Ralph Act or Bane Act. If you are a victim of violence, both are likely to apply.
The perpetrator of the hate crime may also be liable for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Assault and Battery and potentially general negligence.

Read the full article

THE LAW IN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY

By: Christopher Dolan Esq., with contribution from Vanessa Deniston Esq.

Over the past month, we have seen an unprecedented use of local, state and federal emergency powers as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Emergency powers are a deviation from normal governance and are only invoked in the most extreme circumstances which don’t permit the normal deliberative process involving the Board of Supervisors, Senate, Assembly and/or Congress. In short, democracy takes time and disasters such as pandemics can’t wait. A proclamation of a State of Emergency allows the executive branch, be it the Mayor, Governor and/or President, to suspend the normal democratic process involving the legislative branch, and act decisively where conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen. This article outlines the legal basis for our current state of emergency and the various unprecedented orders/laws which have been issued and/or passed. I myself had to take a self-study crash course in emergency authority to write this article as universities don’t offer a class on pandemics in law school. Other articles authored by my attorney colleagues at the Dolan Law Firm – Emile Davis Esq., Mari Bandoma Esq., and Vanessa Denniston Esq. – are published herein, and will continue to be published in my Thursday column to update readers as the emergency continues to unfold.

On February 25, 2020, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, before even one case of COVID-19 was diagnosed within San Francisco, issued a Proclamation Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency threatening the lives, property and welfare of the City and its Citizens. On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statewide Proclamation of a State of Emergency. The decisive, albeit inconvenient, orders put into effect by these two exemplary leaders have saved thousands of lives. This action is why we are not suffering like New York. The Mayor’s Proclamation is issued pursuant to The San Francisco Charter, section 3.100(13), which provides that “the Mayor may direct the personnel and resources of any department, command the aid of other persons, and do whatever else the Mayor may deem necessary to meet the emergency.” Chapter 7, Section 7.1, of the San Francisco Administrative Code defines an emergency as “the actual or threatened existence of a disaster of extreme peril to the safety of persons or property with the City and County” and goes on to elaborate a long list of catastrophes such as fire, flood, storm, riot, earthquake, war, enemy attack, and epidemic. Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 8680, whenever a local emergency is proclaimed by an official designated by ordinance, the local emergency shall not remain in effect for a period in excess of seven days unless it has been ratified by the governing body (here, the board of supervisors, which it was). It must then be ratified every 60 days thereafter, unless that limit is waived by the Governor as part of his own proclamation of emergency.

The Governor’s Proclamation was issued pursuant to California Government Code, Section 8652, empowering the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency when he declares the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state. The list of perils under which the Governor can declare such a state of emergency also includes epidemics and goes farther to include drought, cyberterrorism, energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease, and volcanic prediction. The Governor’s authority vests when he determines that such a peril exists and is either a) requested to declare an emergency by a mayor, city manager, county administrative officer, or chair of a Board of Supervisors, or b) he/she determines that the magnitude of the peril is, or is likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any single county, city and county, or city. In this crisis, both of those occurred.

The issuance of a Proclamation by a mayor or governor “cuts through red tape” and waives many of the procedural and regulatory steps that have to be followed under normal conditions, temporarily granting significant power and decision-making authority within the executive branch, i.e., the Mayor and Governor.

Pursuant to Section 7.6 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, the Mayor has broad powers “to make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by an emergency.” These powers allow her to enter into agreements with public and private agencies to obtain vital supplies, equipment and properties found lacking and needed for the protection of life and, if required immediately, to commandeer the same for public use. She is also empowered to requisition necessary personnel, property or material of any City department or agency to address the emergency.

Pursuant to Government Code, Section 8627, “During a state of emergency the Governor shall, to the extent he deems necessary, have complete authority over all agencies of the state government and the right to exercise within the area designated all police power vested in the state by the Constitution and laws of the State of California.” The orders and regulations he makes have the force and effect of law. The Governor may direct all agencies of the state government to utilize and employ state funds, personnel, equipment, and facilities for the performance of any and all activities designed to prevent or alleviate actual and threatened damage due to the emergency; and he may direct such agencies to provide supplemental services and equipment to restore any services needed to provide for the health and safety of the citizens of the affected area. Any agency so directed by the Governor may expend any of the moneys which have been previously appropriated to it in performing such activities, irrespective of the particular purpose for which the money was originally appropriated.

The temporary suspension of any statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule shall remain in effect until the order or regulation is rescinded by the Governor, the Governor proclaims the termination of the state of emergency, or for a period of 60 days, whichever occurs first. The Governor can continue the state of emergency through another proclamation if necessary.

Most recently, Governor Newsom requested that the President declare a national state of emergency to provide federal emergency relief to California, and, as a result, California will obtain federal emergency relief immediately, along with additional funding through the recently passed Federal Stimulus Package. Since the State of Emergency has been imposed, the Governor and the Mayor have taken significant action.

The Governor’s proclamation paved the way for the closure of schools, shelter-in-place orders, admittance of out of state health care providers to treat patients, funds and personnel to support relief efforts of local authorities, access to any state owned properties, including state fairgrounds, required by the Office of Emergency Services to respond to the COVID-19 epidemic, imposition of anti-price-gouging laws, and funding for purchase of medical supplies and medications. Additionally, all residents have been ordered to heed the advice of emergency officials to protect their safety and the safety of others.

The Mayor’s February 25th Proclamation required all officers and employees to undertake all steps requested by the Director of Public Health. On March 6th, the San Francisco Public Health Officer (PHO) Thomas Aragon MD, D.Ph., issued a Declaration of a Local Health Emergency pursuant to California Health and Safety Code, Section 101080. Section 101080 allows a local health PHO to immediately quarantine individuals that may have been exposed to biological agents that may spread to others. On that same date he encouraged citizens to employ social distancing.

On March 11th, the PHO began exercising his power by ordering certain City facilities to prohibit non-essential group events of more than 50 people. On March 13th, he prohibited gatherings of 100 people or more in public venues. That same day, the Mayor issued a Second Supplement to the Emergency Proclamation enacting a moratorium on evictions for non-payment of rent. Additionally, she prohibited the discontinuation of water, sewer and power services for non-payment of utility bills.

On March 16th, the PHO issued a “Shelter-in-Place Order” requiring most people to remain home subject to certain exceptions to obtain essential services and supplies, requiring closure of non-essential businesses through April 7, 2020, and the closing of all restaurants to in-person dining. A violation of an order issued by the PHO is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to 90 days, or both.

Also on March 16th, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-28-20, finding it was necessary to promote stability among commercial and residential tenants to promote public health and mitigate the economic impact of the crisis, and waiving certain provisions of state law so local jurisdictions could take action to help these tenants.

On March 17th, the Mayor issued a Third Supplemental Declaration authorizing a program whereby the City will provide financial assistance to employers that agree to supplement their existing paid sick leave to employees who work in the City. She also suspended local laws that required restaurants providing take-out to also have dine-in facilities, clearing the way for all restaurants to provide take-out services.

That same day, the Governor signed emergency legislation, passed by the legislature, authorizing up to $1,000,000.00 in funding to increase hospital capacity, provide lifesaving services to Californians isolating at home, purchase Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and permit the cleaning of schools and funding to child care facilities that remain open.

On March 18th, the Mayor issued a Fourth Supplement to the Proclamation providing a temporary moratorium on eviction for non-payment of rent by commercial tenants directly impacted by the COVID-19 crisis with gross revenue at or below $25,000,000.00. This Order precludes eviction of a commercial tenant for failure to make a rent payment after March 17th, without providing written notice and at least one month to “cure” the breach/non-payment by paying the back rent or by providing documentation that the failure to pay was due to a financial impact from COVID-19 because of a substantial decrease in business income due to illness, reduced hours or consumer demand, or temporary closure because of orders of the PHO. If the tenant provides that documentation, they are given an additional month and the landlord has to engage in good faith discussions to attempt to develop a payment plan. If a payment plan can’t be agreed to, the tenant needs to either pay the rent or provide further evidence of a continuing inability to pay due to COVID-19, which then allows for an additional month to pay. Thereafter the tenant may obtain additional one month extensions by providing updated documentation each month for a maximum of six months. If the tenant hasn’t paid at the end of the six month period, the landlord may proceed with eviction for non-payment of rent due. This provision will last for a period of 30 days, minimum, and can be extended by the Mayor as long as the State of Emergency exists.

On March 18th, The San Francisco Superior Court stayed (suspended) all unlawful detainer (eviction) actions for 90 days, except those resulting from violence, threats of violence, or health and safety issues.

On March 19th, the Governor issued Executive Order N-33-20, and the California PHO issued an order requiring people to stay at home unless they fall within one of 16 sectors needed to maintain continuity of “operations of the federal critical infrastructure.” Violation of the Governor’s order – like the SF PHO’s shelter-in-place order – is punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine up to $1,000.00 or imprisonment, not to exceed six months.

On March 20th, Governor Newsom announced deployment of the California National Guard to protect short-term food security to isolated and vulnerable citizens. The National Guard has been deployed to set up logistics in support of the food bank distribution network as the demand for its services has grown.

On March 23rd, the Mayor issued a Fifth Supplement to the Proclamation, clarifying the relief provided for residential tenants to include housing providers who are exempt from the Rent Ordinance because their rent is controlled or regulated by the City; to allow tenants to obtain extensions due to expenses that are non-medical in nature; and to modify the notification and timing procedures that apply when a tenant requires an extension. The moratorium prohibits eviction if, within thirty days after the date the rent is due, the tenant provides notice to the landlord that the tenant is unable to pay the rent due to “financial impacts related to COVID-19.” The definition of “financial impacts” has been broadened to include a substantial loss of household income due to a business closure, loss of paid hours of work or wages, layoffs, or extraordinary out of pocket expenses. Within one week of a tenant’s providing an inability to pay they must provide the landlord documentation verifying that the inability to pay is related to COVID-19. If the tenant fails to provide this documentation, assuming the courts are hearing eviction cases, a landlord may proceed with an eviction. If the tenant does provide the documentation, they are granted an additional month to pay the rent. If the tenant fails to pay the rent, the landlord must inform the tenant in writing that they are in breach of the rental agreement and the landlord and the tenant must then attempt to discuss the matter in good faith to develop a payment plan for the tenant to pay the missed rent. The Order expires 30 days after it was issued, upon the termination of the Proclamation of Local Emergency, or upon further Order from the Mayor. It may be extended by a period of another 30 days if the Mayor determines it is warranted. Upon termination of the Order, a tenant who followed the law and provided the required notice shall have up to six months to pay the rent owed to the landlord before the landlord can move to evict because of the missed rental payments.

On March 25th, Governor Newsom announced that he secured agreements with Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, as well as nearly 200 state-chartered banks, credit unions and servicers for a 90-day grace period for mortgage payments to borrowers by those property owners economically impacted by COVID-19. The participating financial institutions will waive late fees and refrain from reporting late payments to credit reporting agencies for qualifying borrowers. The agreement also provides a moratorium on foreclosure sales and evictions for 60 days.

This unprecedented pandemic, not experienced in over 100 years, will, through continued and expanding proclamations of emergency, and inevitable legislative action, continue to unfold to protect the citizens of the City of San Francisco, California, and if the President acts appropriately, the Nation. We hope this information, provided by the Dolan Law Firm, will help Examiner readers to understand and adapt to the shifting legal landscape. I pray for the health and safety of our great city, state and nation, and each of you. We, as a law firm, continue to operate at full capacity, remotely, to serve the public in personal injury, employment, and civil rights matters throughout the crisis and we will continue to provide legal information as the situation unfolds.

Discrimination and Retaliation in Reducing Workforce is Unlawful

By: Emile A. Davis

he harsh reality of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the government shutdowns, is that businesses are not bringing in income that was once regular and expected. As a result, many employers will be forced to lay-off or terminate hard working employees. Businesses do have the right to terminate or lay-off employees when the needs of the business call for a reduction in force and, generally, a non-union employer may make the decision about which employees to let go on whatever basis they chose. However, an employer may not make such decisions based upon a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.

For example, an employer may not use race or national origin as a basis for the decision of which employees to terminate. As is discussed elsewhere in this series of articles, there is an increase in discrimination and hate-crimes toward Asians since the onset of Covid-19. An employer may not use the national origin or race as a basis to deny Asians the right to return to work.
Similarly, most of the protected leave laws discussed throughout this series of articles contain anti-retaliation provisions. That means that when an employer is making the decision of which workers to let go, they are forbidden from using the fact that an employee took accrued sick-time or other eligible leave as a basis for that decision. A worker who took CFRA leave to care for a family member who contracted Covid-19, may not be treated differently from one who did not take that leave. Having taken qualified leave cannot be held against an employee.

Employers are generally aware of these laws and will not often state specifically that the employee is being terminated for having taken leave. Often though, hints as to the underlying motive will slip. Employers may make statements indicating “they need someone who is reliable” or who “will put the business first.” These may be clues that the underlying reason may be that the worker took protected leave.

Employees Affected by COVID-19 are Entitled to use Sick Leave

By: Emile A. Davis

All California employees accrue sick time at their jobs. At a minimum, an employee must accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. For a regular full-time employee, that works out to approximately 1.3 hours of sick time earned each week or 5.3 hours each month. This leave may be used for the diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition, or, importantly, preventative care for you or a family member.
Employers in California are required to track sick time on each employee paystub. Those workers that are unsure how much sick time they have remaining should be able to review their most recent paystub to see both:

a) whether the sick time is accruing correctly; and,
b) exactly how much sick time is available currently.

In San Francisco, local government has, in response to the pandemic, implemented an ordinance guaranteeing an additional 5 days of paid leave for each San Francisco worker affected by Covid-19. (Workers and Families First Program.) Importantly, this program will also provide support for local businesses by using funds specifically reserved for small businesses (50 or fewer employees) to contribute up to 40 hours at the $15.59 minimum wage per employee to help cover the impact of the additional sick leave will have on employers.

Employees who Contract Covid-19, or whose family members do, may be entitled to leave under the California Family Rights Act

The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) allows leave from work for serious medical issues. This type of leave may be available for workers affected by Covid-19. Not all employers must allow this leave, and not all employees are eligible.

An employer is a covered entity under the CFRA and must allow leave to eligible employees if they employ more than 50 employees in a 75-mile radius of your worksite. Roughly, if there are 50 or more employees in the Bay Area, with a few specific exceptions, they are likely a covered employer. In order for an employee of a covered entity to have leave rights under the CFRA, the employee must have worked for that employer for at least 1 year and must have worked 1250 hours within the last 12 months. That works out to an average of just over 24 hours a week.

If the eligibility requirements are met, the CFRA allows an employee to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for a number of issues including the employee’s own serious health condition or the serious health condition of a spouse, child, or parent. If an eligible worker contracts COVID-19, is quarantined because it is suspected, or if they must stay home to care for a close family member who has contracted the virus, they should be entitled to 12 weeks of leave.

An employer may require that a worker provide medical certification of the underlying serious medical condition. That may be impractical during this pandemic given that doctors and other health care providers are working to diagnose and treat urgent medical needs. It would be advisable for a worker seeking leave under the CFRA to request a stay-at-home instruction from a physician and provide that to the employer when requesting the leave. In a pandemic, employers will be expected to use their judgment as well as public health recommendations to determine whether to require, or waive, the usual certification requirements.

A worker seeking leave should give the employer notice of the need for leave as soon as practical, however, the law anticipates that some medical conditions are emergent and do not allow for a lengthy notice period.

While CFRA provides job protection, it does not provide monetary benefits. However, up to 6 weeks of payments may be available concurrently through California Paid Family Leave.

California Paid Family Leave

California Paid Family Leave (PFL) is a program administered through the Employment Development Department. PFL provides partial wage replacement benefits to employees who need to take time off from work to care for a seriously ill family member (child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or registered domestic partner) or to bond with a new child. There is no requirement that an employee have worked at a given employer for any specific amount of time. This is a broader scope than the CFRA, so it is possible that some persons may be eligible for these monetary benefits, but who are not given job protected leave under the CFRA.

Eligible applicants for these benefits may receive approximately 60-70% of their wages, depending upon income. The length of time at a job does not determine eligibility. However, the amount of benefits will be calculated based upon the wages that the applicant earned in the period 5-18 months prior to the claim period.

Starting on July 1 of this year, the 6 weeks of paid leave will be increased to 8 weeks available per 12 Month period. An applicant may file a claim online by going to https://edd.ca.gov and searching for “SDI Online”, or an application may be filed by mail.

California Expands Health Care Resources for
Covered, Uninsured and Undocumented Residents Affected by COVID-19

By: Vanessa Deniston

As COVID-19 continues to spread across the state, it is imperative that every Californian be fully informed of their health care options should they begin to show signs and symptoms of the coronavirus. For individuals with health care coverage through an employer, Medi-Cal, Medicare, or Covered California, the state has eliminated all cost-sharing requirements on medically necessary screenings and COVID-19 testing, as well as urgent care, hospital and provider visits for the purpose of screening and/or testing for COVID-19, meaning co-pays, deductibles and coinsurance payments that would normally be billed to patients in such instances will be waived. The state has also mandated that medically necessary screenings and testing for COVID-19 will be free of charge. This will also apply to telehealth services as well as in-person doctor and urgent care visits. Such telehealth services are being expanded statewide for individuals unable to visit their doctor in person.

In light of the statewide “shelter in place” order, a great majority of individuals in the hospitality, restaurant, retail, and event industries are now without health insurance. Covered California and the California Department of Health Care Services have joined forces to assist unemployed residents with a path to insurance through state programs like Medi-Cal and Covered California. Covered California has announced it is extending its typical enrollment period to June 30. Individuals who sign up through Covered California, will have access to private health insurance plans with monthly premiums that may be lowered in response to the crisis, depending on annual income. Once a plan is selected, coverage would begin on the first of the following month, to help avoid gaps in coverage. Residents can visit CoveredCA.com to learn more.

California’s undocumented population can avail themselves of certain public programs like Medi-Cal, which does not exclude any group from accessing emergency care so long as they meet the basic eligibility requirements. Emergency care coverage will apply to those who require medically necessary testing and health care related to COVID-19, even if such individuals are undocumented. Unlike with the Covered California program, residents may apply for Medi-Cal at any time. If an individual is determined to be eligible for Medi-Cal, coverage begins immediately and is effective back to the first day of the month in which the application was submitted. Those already enrolled in the Medi-Cal program that are up for renewal will have their coverage extended, as a 90-day hold has been placed on Medi-Cal renewal reviews. For further resources on the Medi-Cal eligibility requirements and application process visit dhcs.ca.gov.

California’s Medicare program, a service offered to any California resident over 65 or with a qualifying disability, provides health care coverage for all lab tests and medically necessary hospitalizations related to COVID-19. Medicare also covers telehealth services such as “virtual check-ins” with an individual’s established physician and written communication between patient and care provider through online portals. These telehealth resources are especially useful for Medicare recipients who live in rural areas or who may have symptoms and simply wish to check in with their physician for reassurance or guidance. For further resources on how the state run Medicare program is responding to COVID-19, visit medicare.gov.

Currently, there are 22 public health labs across California testing for COVID-19, a number of which are in the Bay Area. Bay Area testing labs are currently located in San Francisco, Alameda, Richmond, Contra Costa County, San Mateo, and Solano County. Broad scale testing, however, is not yet available. If you are experiencing any of the key COVID-19 symptoms, which include fever, cough or shortness of breath, the California Department of Public Health is advising you to call your physician. Based on the severity of your symptoms, your physician may advise you to come in so a specimen can be collected for testing, or your physician may advise you to stay at home and self-isolate in the case of more mild symptoms. If you are unable to contact a physician and are experiencing severe symptoms, CDPH advises you to go to your local urgent care or call 9-1-1. Further state resources and guidelines can be found at cdph.ca.gov.

This pandemic is hitting certain communities harder than others, particularly the elderly, individuals with chronic health conditions, those without proper housing, undocumented residents, and individuals in industries that have been virtually shut down due to the “shelter in place” order. In the face of this urgent public health crisis, everyone must act with vigilance to protect those in our community in these especially high risk categories, by staying at home, practicing social distancing, disinfecting surfaces daily, and frequently washing your hands with soap and water.

Elder Abuse and Neglect During the Coronavirus Crisis

By: Mari Bandoma Callado

The elderly, infirm and dependent are among the most vulnerable members of our community. In California, over 100,000 people live in skilled-nursing facilities. With America’s seniors being at higher risk for severe illness and complications from COVID-19, certain measures have been enacted to ensure the safety of nursing home residents from COVID-19.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are now significantly restricting visitors, volunteers and nonessential personnel as well as communal activities inside the nursing homes. These restrictions make sense with reports of large numbers of cases of COVID-19 spreading quickly through nursing homes. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has indicated that sick visitors and health care personnel are the most likely source of introduction of the coronavirus into nursing homes.

Recognizing Elder Abuse During the Coronavirus Crisis

These significant restrictions, however, could lead to increased abuse and neglect of the elderly as the normal safeguards of regular day-to-day contact with the outside world have been removed. Generally speaking, the easiest way to recognize elder abuse is by spending time with your loved one regularly. Visiting him or her at the facility at various times of day and days of the week will give you a better sense of your loved one’s daily routine. With the statewide “stay at home” order in place for the foreseeable future, this will be much more difficult to do. Thus, maintaining regular communication by phone or other means while practicing social distancing with your loved one is going to be extremely important during this time.

According to the California Department of Justice, some common signs of elder mistreatment include the following: poor hygiene or skin condition, untreated medical conditions, unexplainable dehydration or malnourishment, unusual confusion, depression, or withdrawal. By knowing what to watch out for, you may be more likely to identify abuse if it occurs. Since mistreatment commonly escalates, this can be important in order to ensure any abuse that occurs is immediately caught and stopped.

Types of Elder Abuse

Elder abuse comes in many forms and an individual can face one type of abuse or multiple types at once. These include but is not limited to:

Neglect: the failure to provide adequate care on the caregiver’s part which can involve failing to provide social stimulation, medical care, nutritious food or clean water, or attending to the individual’s hygiene needs;
Physical abuse: any instance of hitting, kicking, or other physical harm inflicted on an individual as well as denying an individual food or medical care;
Emotional abuse: abuse that damages the victim’s self-esteem and makes him or her feel unwanted and unloved;
Psychological abuse: abuse that involves manipulating the victim’s sense of reality and his or her perception of events;
Sexual abuse: anytime the victim is subjected to unwanted sexual contact or sexual relations to which he or she cannot consent, he or she faces sexual abuse; and
Financial abuse: the mistreatment that involves taking money and valuables from elderly victims, either through direct or deceptive means.

Reporting Elder Abuse and Nursing Home Neglect

If you suspect that your loved one has been subjected to any or multiple types of elder abuse, or if you care concerned that the nursing home he or she is in has not taken the precautions it should to protect your loved one from COVID-19 such as taking the steps to restrict visitors and nonessential personnel from being in the facility or failing to provide personal protective equipment to health care personnel, don’t hesitate to take action. If you believe that your loved one is in immediate danger, call 911. If there is no immediate risk of harm, report the facility to Adult Protective Services, a department with the California Department of Social Services.

California Law Protections from Elder Abuse and Neglect

California law provides for recovery of damages for pain and suffering, economic damages and punitive damages when there has been recklessness, fraud and/or patient abandonment. The Dolan Law Firm can help you identify all of your loved one’s damages and pursue compensation for them from the party responsible for the abuse.

Growing Anti-Asian Sentiment, Hate Crimes and Acts of Terrorism During the COVID-19 Crisis

By: Mari Bandoma Callado and Emile A. Davis

The sudden emergence of racist and violent attacks towards people of Asian descent is reminiscent of the discrimination and harassment faced by American Muslims, Arabs and South Asians in the United States after 9/11. Reports of microaggressions in public, discrimination by business establishments, workplace discrimination and harassment, and threats of and actual acts of violence towards Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have been on the rise.

Racially-motivated hate crimes and threats from white supremacists and other domestic groups have also been on the rise. There are ongoing federal investigations related to extremists exploiting the Covid-19 pandemic. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s New York office issued an alert reporting that extremists groups are encouraging intentional spread of the coronavirus to police officers and members of the Jewish Community. The Department of Homeland Security also warned about white supremacists calling to spread the virus and target diverse neighborhoods and places of worship.

Discrimination and hate-based attacks like these have far-reaching implications for our society It is a problem that should not be ignored, lest it grow worse. This article discusses the various available causes of action, theories of liability and potential defendants to address the heinous attacks on individuals or groups based on race, national origin and ethnic background in civil court.

Discrimination by Business Establishments

The Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically outlaws discrimination by all business establishments in California based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, mental or physical disability, age or medical condition (including HIV status). “Business establishments” includes but is not limited to hotels, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, and retail stores.

Workplace Discrimination and Harassment

An employer who treats an employee differently because of race, national origin, or ethnic background or fails to protect an employee from race, national origin or ethnicity-based harassment is violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). There are two main types of workplace discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment occurs when an employment action is taken by an employer against an employee because of their race, national origin, ethnicity or other protected characteristic. Disparate impact happens when an employer’s actions create a policy that discriminates against an entire protected group of employees.

Hate Crimes

Ralph and Bane Acts

The core causes of action in a hate-crime based civil action, will likely be the Ralph Act or Bane Act. If you are a victim of violence, both are likely to apply.

The Ralph Act guaranties that each person in California be free of violence, intimidation and the threat of violence, against their person or property based upon actual or perceived protected classifications, including, but not necessarily limited to: citizenship, immigration status, political affiliation, race, and national origin.
The Bane Act is slightly different, it guarantees that persons in California be free from interference by the actual or attempted “threat, intimidation, or coercion”…”with the exercise or enjoyment”…”of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.

Related Causes of Action

The perpetrator of the hate crime may also be liable for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Assault and Battery and potentially general negligence. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress occurs when an individual purposely causes severe emotional distress to you as a result of extreme and outrageous conduct. Examples of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims can include racial insults and conduct that threatens your physical security (although a physical injury is not necessary). The “legal” definition of assault differs from how the word is normally used in everyday language. According to the legal definition, assault occurs when a person demonstrates the intent to hurt you and you believe that you will be hurt, but there is no actual contact or physical injury. Battery requires the actual use of force. It occurs when a person intentionally and harmfully touches you without your consent. A person acts intentionally if their action was on purpose, regardless of whether they actually intended to harm you with their action.

Other Theories of Liability and Potential Defendants

Most often, hate crimes are criminally prosecuted against the individuals responsible. In a civil suit, it is imperative to look for other potential theories of liability and other defendants. Individual defendants rarely have the resources to compensate the victim for the damages they caused.

An employer may be liable for hate-crime based actions when the employer either authorized the tortious act or subsequently ratified an originally unauthorized tort. Theories of negligent hiring and supervision may also reach to the employer of the perpetrator of the hate crime.

The surrounding area and circumstances should be explored for a potential premises liability cause of action. Did the incident occur at a bar or restaurant? If so, a several dram-shop based duties may come into play and are impacted by levels of knowledge, security, and past events. It may not even be enough for a licensed dram shop to merely warn of dangerous persons outside the premises, they may have an active duty to assist to avoid danger to a patron.

If a vehicle was involved in the attack, other avenues of recovery may be open for the victim of the hate crime.
Groups or organizations of which the perpetrators of the hate crime are members may be responsible under agency theories depending upon the circumstances. Or, if the perpetrator of the hate crime is a member of a hate-group, that group may be independently liable for their own wrongful acts in organizing, planning or otherwise encouraging the crime.

If you think you are discriminated against or harassed by a business establishment or in the workplace, or if you have been the target of a hate crime, contact the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or consult with a trial attorney to protect your rights.

The Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council (A3PCON) and Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) have launched a reporting center to allow Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to report incidents of hate they have experienced. To file an incident report, please go to
http://www.asianpacificpolicyandplanningcouncil.org/stop-aapi-hate/

FAQs

Q: I’ve been hearing about different laws being passed almost every day. How is this possible?

A: A proclamation of a State of Emergency allows the executive branch, be it the Mayor, Governor and/or President, to suspend the normal democratic process involving the legislative branch, and act decisively where conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen. In short, democracy takes time and disasters such as pandemics can’t wait.

Q: How long can they enforce “Shelter-in-place?”

A: The temporary suspension of any statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule shall remain in effect until the order or regulation is rescinded by the Governor, the Governor proclaims the termination of the state of emergency, or for a period of 60 days, whichever occurs first. The Governor can continue the state of emergency through another proclamation if necessary.

Q: I was laid off and can’t pay my rent. Am I getting evicted?

A: On March 13th, the Mayor issued a Second Supplement to the Emergency Proclamation enacting a moratorium on evictions for non-payment of rent. Additionally, she prohibited the discontinuation of water, sewer and power services for non-payment of utility bills.

Q: My business is considered “non-essential” and if this goes on longer than a month, I won’t be able to make rental payments. What can I do?

A: On March 18th, the Mayor issued a Fourth Supplement to the Proclamation providing a temporary moratorium on eviction for non-payment of rent by commercial tenants directly impacted by the COVID-19 crisis with gross revenue at or below $25,000,000.00. This Order precludes eviction of a commercial tenant for failure to make a rent payment after March 17th, without providing written notice and at least one month to “cure” the breach/non-payment by paying the back rent or by providing documentation that the failure to pay was due to a financial impact from COVID-19 because of a substantial decrease in business income due to illness, reduced hours or consumer demand, or temporary closure because of orders of the PHO. If the tenant provides that documentation, they are given an additional month and the landlord has to engage in good faith discussions to attempt to develop a payment plan. If a payment plan can’t be agreed to, the tenant needs to either pay the rent or provide further evidence of a continuing inability to pay due to COVID-19, which then allows for an additional month to pay. Thereafter the tenant may obtain additional one month extensions by providing updated documentation each month for a maximum of six months.

Q: What are the results of the Governor’s Proclamations during this State of Emergency?

A: The Governor’s proclamation paved the way for the closure of schools, shelter-in-place orders, admittance of out of state health care providers to treat patients, funds and personnel to support relief efforts of local authorities, access to any state owned properties, including state fairgrounds, required by the Office of Emergency Services to respond to the COVID-19 epidemic, imposition of anti-price-gouging laws, and funding for purchase of medical supplies and medications. Additionally, all residents have been ordered to heed the advice of emergency officials to protect their safety and the safety of others.

Q: I work part-time do I get sick time too?

A: All California employees accrue sick time at their jobs. At a minimum, an employee must accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. For a regular full-time employee, that works out to approximately 1.3 hours of sick time earned each week or 5.3 hours each month. This leave may be used for the diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition, or, importantly, preventative care for you or a family member.

Q: I don’t have enough sick time left and I can’t afford to have unpaid leave. What can I do?

A: In San Francisco, local government has, in response to the pandemic, implemented an ordinance guaranteeing an additional five days of paid leave for each San Francisco worker affected by COVID-19. (Workers and Families First Program.) Importantly, this program will also provide support for local businesses by using funds specifically reserved for small businesses (50 or fewer employees) to contribute up to 40 hours at the $15.59 minimum wage per employee to help cover the impact of the additional sick leave will have on employers.

Q: I tested positive for coronavirus and I don’t have enough sick-leave days. What are my options?

A: The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) allows leave from work for up to 12 weeks for serious medical issues. This type of leave may be available for workers affected by COVID-19. Not all employers must allow this leave, and not all employees are eligible.

Q: I have health care coverage through Medicare. Will I still have to pay for COVID-19 screening?

A: For individuals with health care coverage through an employer, Medi-Cal, Medicare, or Covered California, the state has eliminated all cost-sharing requirements on medically necessary screenings and COVID-19 testing, as well as urgent care, hospital and provider visits for the purpose of screening and/or testing for COVID-19, meaning co-pays, deductibles and coinsurance payments that would normally be billed to patients in such instances will be
Waived. The state has also mandated that medically necessary screenings and testing for COVID-19 will be free of charge. This will also apply to telehealth services as well as in-person doctor and urgent care visits. Such telehealth services are being expanded statewide for individuals unable to visit their doctor in person.

Q: Due to the shelter in place order, I became unemployed and now I don’t have health insurance. Where can I get health insurance?

A: In light of the statewide “shelter in place” order, a great majority of individuals in the hospitality, restaurant, retail, and event industries are now without health insurance. Covered California and the California Department of Health Care Services have joined forces to assist unemployed residents with a path to insurance through state programs like Medi-Cal and Covered California. Covered California has announced it is extending its typical
enrollment period to June 30. Individuals who sign up through Covered California, will have access to private health insurance plans with monthly premiums that may be lowered in response to the crisis, depending on annual income. Once a plan is selected, coverage would begin on the first of the following month, to help avoid gaps in coverage. Residents can visit CoveredCA.com to learn more.

Q: I am currently not a legal resident in California. Where can I get health insurance?

A: California’s undocumented population can avail themselves of certain public programs like Medi-Cal, which does not exclude any group from accessing emergency care so long as they meet the basic eligibility requirements. Emergency care coverage will apply to those who require medically necessary testing and health care related to COVID-19, even if such individuals are undocumented. Unlike with the Covered California program, residents may apply for Medi-Cal at any time. If an individual is determined to be eligible for Medi-Cal,
coverage begins immediately and is effective back to the first day of the month in which the application was submitted. Those already enrolled in the Medi-Cal program that are up for renewal will have their coverage extended, as a 90-day hold has been placed on Medi-Cal renewal reviews. For further resources on the Medi-Cal eligibility requirements and application process visit dhcs.ca.gov.

Q: I am currently a senior over the age of 65. I live in a rural area and it is hard for me to move around. Which health care coverage would be best for me?

A: California’s Medicare program, a service offered to any California resident over 65 or with a qualifying disability, provides health care coverage for all lab tests and medically necessary hospitalizations related to COVID-19. Medicare also covers telehealth services such as “virtual check-ins” with an individual’s established physician and written communication between patient and care provider through online portals. These telehealth resources are especially useful for Medicare recipients who live in rural areas or who may have symptoms and simply wish
to check in with their physician for reassurance or guidance. For further resources on how the state run Medicare program is responding to COVID-19, visit medicare.gov.

Q: Where are the Bay Area testing labs located?

A: Bay Area testing labs are currently located in San Francisco, Alameda, Richmond, Contra Costa County, San Mateo, and Solano County.

Q: Why have they restricted visitors and volunteers at nursing facilities?

A: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are now significantly restricting visitors, volunteers and nonessential personnel as well as communal activities inside the nursing homes. These restrictions make sense with reports of large numbers of cases of COVID-19 spreading quickly through nursing homes. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has indicated that sick visitors and health care personnel are the most likely source of introduction of the coronavirus into nursing homes.

Q: What is the easiest way to recognize elder abuse?

A: Generally speaking, the easiest way to recognize elder abuse is by spending time with your loved one regularly. Visiting him or her at the facility at various times of day and days of the week will give you a better sense of your loved one’s daily routine. With the statewide “stay at home” order in place for the foreseeable future, this will be much more difficult to do. Thus, maintaining regular communication by phone or other means while practicing social distancing with your loved one is going to be extremely important during this time.

Q: What are the common signs of elder mistreatment?

A: According to the California Department of Justice, some common signs of elder mistreatment include the following: poor hygiene or skin condition, untreated medical conditions, unexplainable dehydration or malnourishment, unusual confusion, depression, or withdrawal. By knowing what to watch out for, you may be more likely to identify abuse if it occurs. Since mistreatment commonly escalates, this can be important in order to ensure any abuse that occurs is immediately caught and stopped.

Q: What are the types of elder abuse?

A: Elder abuse comes in many forms and an individual can face one type of abuse or multiple types at once.

These include but is not limited to:

Neglect: the failure to provide adequate care on the caregiver’s part which can involve failing to provide social stimulation, medical care, nutritious food or clean water, or attending to the individual’s hygiene needs;
Physical abuse: any instance of hitting, kicking, or other physical harm inflicted on an individual as well as denying an individual food or medical care;
Emotional abuse: abuse that damages the victim’s self-esteem and makes him or her feel unwanted and unloved;
Psychological abuse: abuse that involves manipulating the victim’s sense of reality and his or her perception of events;
Sexual abuse: anytime the victim is subjected to unwanted sexual contact or sexual relations to which he or she cannot consent, he or she faces sexual abuse; and
Financial abuse: the mistreatment that involves taking money and valuables from elderly victims, either through direct or deceptive means.

Q: I have a loved one currently living in a nursing home. I believe that the nursing home has not taken the correct precautions to protect them from COVID-19. What should I do?

A: If you suspect that your loved one has been subjected to any or multiple types of elder abuse, or if you care concerned that the nursing home he or she is in has not taken the precautions it should to protect your loved one from COVID-19 such as taking the steps to restrict visitors and nonessential personnel from being in the facility or failing to provide personal protective equipment to health care personnel, don’t hesitate to take action. If you believe that your loved one is in immediate danger, call 911. If there is no immediate risk of harm, report the facility to Adult Protective Services, a department with the California Department of Social
Services.

Q: I believed my loved one was subjected to elder abuse and neglect. Who can I contact to pursue compensation from the party responsible for the abuse?

A: California law provides for recovery of damages for pain and suffering, economic damages and punitive damages when there has been recklessness, fraud and/or patient abandonment. The Dolan Law Firm can help you identify all of your loved one’s damages and pursue compensation for them from the party responsible for the abuse.

Contact the Dolan Law Firm

The cases above are just a small sampling of the successes that the Dolan Law Firm has had since we started in 1995. As the settlement and verdict amounts prove, we have the skills necessary to prevail in even the most complex cases. Contact The Dolan Law Firm for a free case evaluation by calling 888-452-4752 or emailing us.
Se habla español.

By Christopher B. Dolan and Jeremy M. Jessup

Mr. Davis from San Francisco wrote in to say:

Q: “I have read a lot about, and unfortunately seen, way too many ‘Karens.’ Now I see that San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton has introduced an ordinance that is being called the ‘CAREN’ Act. What is this?”

A: “Karen,” of course, is a generic name given to people, usually middle-aged, middle class white women, who act like they can get whatever they want. A “Karen” is one who throws a tantrum at a Starbucks or who asks to speak to the manager over the slightest inconvenience. It is also someone who feels it is necessary to call the police to make false or inaccurate claims about minorities with racially or discriminatory motives.

The 2020 George Floyd protests have brought forth a wave of “Karens” who have been filmed engaging in racist and sometimes violent behavior against minorities. Recently, a “Karen” in San Francisco went viral for dialing police on a local Filipino resident who was stenciling Black Lives Matter in chalk on his own property. Another “Karen” was videoed telling a family that they could not be in the country because they were hiking on Mount Tamalpais with their dog.

Currently, there is immunity from civil defamation lawsuits for reporting a crime. It has been held that someone who makes a statement to the police about a suspected crime is protected by qualified privilege; he or she is discharging their social duty to help in the detection of criminal activity. A police officer receiving the report has an interest in receiving the information because they can investigate. Although reporting a false police report is criminal under California law, there is no punishment for people who call the police due to a perceived threat, based solely on one’s race, ethnicity or religious affiliation. This is where the anti-“Karen,” also known as the CAREN Act, comes into play.

The Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies, or CAREN Act, would amend the San Francisco Police Code, making it unlawful to fabricate or make false emergency reports that are racially biased. For example, claiming a black man is threatening you simply because he asked that you put your dog on a leash, or calling the police because a black man was dancing and exercising on his street, so as not to block the sidewalk, could be prosecuted, both civilly and criminally.

This proposed new law aims to protect the rights of minorities who are often targeted by and victims of fraudulent emergency calls. The CAREN Act would make it unlawful for an individual to contact the police solely to discriminate on the basis of a person’s race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. This proposed ordinance follows similar proposed state legislation that would seek to end discriminatory police calls by classifying them as hate crimes.

Those found in violation of the state and/or local laws could be held accountable through monetary fines. In addition, under the proposed state bill, a victim of a discriminatory call could sue the caller for up to $10,000 in damages.

According to the author of the bill, California State Assemblymember Rob Bonta of Oakland, his proposal does not seek to discourage people from calling 911 to report real emergencies.

However, “racist and discriminatory 911 calls are dangerous, demeaning and demoralizing to the person falsely accused. They further deteriorate community-police relations and contribute to the inaccurate and harmful over-criminalization of black and brown communities,” Bonta said in a statement. “If you are afraid of a Black family barbecuing in the community park, a man dancing and doing his normal exercise routine in the bike lane, or someone who asks you to comply with dog leash laws in a park, and your immediate response is to call the police, the real problem is with your own personal prejudice,” said Bonita.

By: Dianna Albini & Christopher Dolan

Jordan V. asks

Q: “My medical condition falls within a class of persons at greater risk for contracting COVID-19 and I have a doctor’s letter documenting this risk. I went to a nationwide grocery store chain during hours designed for high risk shoppers. The store manager refused to give me access, despite my showing the manager the letter my doctor provided. Were my rights violated?

A: Jordan, thank you for asking an important question.

The Americans with Disabilities Act became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age and religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services and telecommunications.

The specific facts you have described — that despite showing the store manager your medical documentation, you were arbitrarily refused entrance during special hours set aside to shop for a limited number of individuals at high risk for contracting COVID-19 — would be a violation of your rights pursuant to the ADA.

If you feel you experienced discrimination based on a medical condition in violation of Title III, Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities you should contact an attorney experienced in disability rights to explore your rights and discrimination with the following federal, state and local agencies:

This week’s question comes from Domenic A. who writes:

Q: “I have a medical respiratory condition that makes breathing difficult when wearing personal protective equipment. I was out of town on business staying at a well-known hotel chain. The hotel requires all guests to wear personal protective equipment at all times, unless actively eating or drinking and enforces social distancing requirements. I informed the hotel manager of my medical condition that made wearing personal protective equipment harmful to my health and asked for an accommodation for my medical condition. The manager of the hotel chain refused to accommodate my medical condition and required me to wear my personal protective equipment. Do I have any legal recourse based on the hotel manager’s failure to accommodate my medical disability and requiring me to wear a face covering?”

A: Domenic, thank you for asking a great question.

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities Title III Regulations – 61. 28 CFR Part 36, protects individuals who are targets of discrimination including, but not limited to mental and medical disabilities. Determining the existence of discrimination is complicated as we are currently navigating unprecedented waters due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On June 30, 2020, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Eric Dreiband issued press release 20-603 warning the public that placards, signs, social media posts and other documents bearing the Department of Justice seal claiming that the Americans with Disabilities Act exempts individuals from face mask requirements are fraudulent. There is no blanket exemption.

On June 18, 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered all Californians to wear face coverings. As updated on June 29, the California Department of Public Health website, the following individuals are exempt from wearing a face covering:

People younger than 2 years old. These very young children must not wear a face covering because of the risk of suffocation.
People with a medical condition, mental health condition or disability that prevents wearing a face covering. This includes people with a medical condition whose wearing a face covering could obstruct breathing; or who are unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove a face covering without assistance.

Note: People exempted from wearing a face covering due to a medical condition who are employed in a job involving regular contact with others should wear a non-restrictive alternative, such as a face shield with a drape on the bottom edge, as long as their condition permits it.

While there are exemptions to the governor’s mandatory face covering order for those with medical disabilities, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, if the hotel manager is unable to accommodate any documented medical condition related to personal protective equipment, there is no basis for legal action under these circumstances.

If you feel your rights have been violated, you may file a federal, state and local complaint form with the appropriate governmental entity listed below.

U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.ada.gov/t2cmpfrm.htm
State of California, Department of General Services: https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/ADA-form.pdf
City and County of San Francisco: https: //sfgov.org/mod/ada-complaint-request-assistance

Detained? No. Arrested and booked? Yes.

If a person is “detained,” the police officer is holding a person for a short amount of time. If a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, or police prevent a person they are questioning from leaving, that detention turns into an arrest. Police take arrestees to a local jail precinct, where they are then booked. In either scenario, the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent applies and should be invoked.

After a person is arrested and booked, they are entitled to phone calls. California Penal Code Section 851.5 provides that arrestees are entitled to three phone calls immediately upon booking except where physically impossible, and no later than three hours after arrest. Arrestees are entitled to make at least three phone calls at no expense if they are within the local calling area and at the arrested person’s own expense (if outside the local calling area). Local calling areas do not necessarily refer to anything within the same area code as the jail. A sign posted near the telephone booth will provide information about what phone numbers are considered local. Collect calling is also an option for making phone calls to a number outside of the local area. Arrestees may call an attorney, a bail bondsman, or any friend or relative.

If the arrestee is a parent with custodial responsibility for a child, then the arrestee has the right to two additional phone calls for the purpose of arranging for the care of a minor child or children during the arrested person’s absence. These phone calls must also be given immediately upon request, or as soon as practicable.

The right to post-booking phone calls is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because California Penal Code Section 851.5 creates a liberty interest. Denying arrestees the opportunity to make a telephone call is a civil rights violation. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to due process, and is particularly protective of the minimal liberty interests granted to prisoners, such as the ability to make a phone call when arrested and booked.

However, this right to phone calls is not without complications.

First, assume that the police will record any phone call made from jail. These phone calls are not private and may be used against you. Police routinely record the outgoing portion of the phone call, so long as that phone call is not with an attorney.

Additionally, know that in practice, police officers have ways to deny phone calls. Here is one trick: A police officer denies an arrestee their constitutional right to a phone call, then entice with the opportunity to sit the arrested person in a waiting room with a television, instead of a holding cell with concrete and metal benches. The catch to get in the waiting room, which has cushioned chairs and a television, instead of the holding cell?: Sign a statement that says the police provided the opportunity to make three phone calls within three hours of booking. If an arrested person asks for clarification since the police did not, in fact, provide the opportunity to make three phone calls, the arrestees returns to the holding cell instead of the waiting room. After several hours, a cushioned chair and a television look better than a metal bench, concrete floor and a toilet within public view of anyone walking through the area.

If the police denies arrestees their constitutionally protected right to phone calls from jail, then there may be a civil cause of action against the police officers. Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for this civil rights violation. Qualified immunity purportedly balances the interests in the vindication of citizens’ constitutional rights and in public officials’ effective performance of their duties. The goal is to make it possible for officials to reasonably anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability for damages.

But qualified immunity does not immunize police officers where the civil right is so clearly established under law that no reasonable officer could have believed that they were not violating a constitutional right.

The right to phone calls after booking is such a right because the statute establishes that police officers do not have discretion to decline phone calls to arrestees, and the consequences for not allowing someone the ability to call family members or an attorney and let them know where they are can be dire.

Written by: Matt Gramly

On Monday June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision stating with firmness and clarity that any employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgendered is in violation of the law. The law being violated in that instance would be the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The basic argument is that if an employer has two employees, one male and one female, but only fires the male employee because he dates men, but doesn’t fire the female employee because she dates men, the employer has discriminated against the male employee on the basis of his gender. The employer accepts behavior from the female employee that he does not accept from the male employee and the only difference between the two employees is their gender.

This ruling is monumental for LGBTQ rights. The full complement of anti-discrimination employment protections found within the Civil Rights Act have now been extended to the LGBTQ community across the country. It is now illegal in the United States for any employer to fire an employee on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Prior to Monday’s decision it was still legal for an employer to do so in 26 states. With Pride celebrations and parades being canceled across the country because of the coronavirus pandemic, it is also fitting that this decision was handed down by the Court during Pride month.

Also of great importance is which Court Justice wrote this opinion. The decision itself was a 6-3 majority with conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the Court’s four more liberal members. The forceful, no-nonsense opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch in very clear language leaving no ambiguity to the Court’s decision.

An immediate backlash formed on the right in this country. Many religious conservatives decried the ruling as an attack on religious freedom. Evangelical leader Franklin Graham issued a fiery response to the ruling on Facebook, stating, “I believe this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country. People of sincere faith who stand on God’s Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise their religious beliefs. These are the freedoms our nation was founded on.” He is arguing that his religious freedom is negatively impacted and should be prevented from firing someone from his church for being gay or transgender. The law now disagrees with him.

His argument strikes at a fundamental misunderstanding of the term “religious freedom” specifically as used by someone like Mr. Graham. Religious freedom means the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose. It also means, as stated in the First Amendment, that the government cannot force you to practice any particular religion against your will. For example, “I cannot do something because it goes against my religious beliefs,” is a perfectly distilled illustration of this. However, “YOU cannot do something because it goes against MY religious beliefs,” the position taken by Mr. Graham, is twisting the concept of religious freedom to a degree that is both unacceptable in this country and is in violation of the ideals of individual freedom embodied by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as affirmed Monday by the Supreme Court. Very often, those who use the term “religious freedom” the loudest and most frequently leave off the two words that actually define this idea for them, “religious freedom to discriminate.”

Many take the position that their religious freedom, their freedom to BE a religious person and to practice their religion in the United States, is being destroyed because they will no longer be permitted to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community in their hiring practices. Understand that no rights have been taken from Mr. Graham’s evangelicals or any other religious group in this Court ruling. Justice Gorsuch, as he wrote in his opinion, simply read the plain text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and said, “it is a violation of the law for any employer to discriminate against an employee because of their gender,” which is exactly what the Act says. One astute observer put it this way; Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you – it’s not pie. Another observer, Jesus Christ, put it this way, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

The Dolan Law Firm has fought tooth and nail for the rights of the LGBTQ community for decades and will continue to do so. We celebrate the Supreme Court’s ruling as we celebrate Pride month with our families, friends, co-workers, and community. Happy Pride everyone!

This week’s question comes from Kimmy who writes:

Q: “I have attended recent Black Lives Matter protests to bring awareness to excessive force by Police against African Americans. At the last protest I attended, a police officer blocking an intersection told me to put my phone down and said I couldn’t film him. I have seen many videos from these protests and I wanted to document the protest myself. Am I allowed to film police officers?”

A: Kimmy, you raise a very important question. Many have seen the sickening cell phone footage of George Floyd with a police officer’s knee on his neck. We have seen even more cell phone video images of police abuse during some recent protests. These recordings have made a significant impact in the public perception of systemic racism within police forces and are acting as an import catalyst for change. This makes the conditions under which citizens may rightfully document the activities of law enforcement officers increasingly important to understand. Especially when, as happened to you, the police ask you to stop filming. The right to film police officers raises a number of legal questions including Constitutional First Amendment issues as well as California state laws.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the Government from passing laws that would infringe upon, among other things, free speech, and the freedom of the press.

Most courts have held that the First Amendment gives individuals the right to document police officers in public while they are performing their duties.

Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to freely discuss our government, as well as the freedom of the press and right to public access to information. Now that cell phones and other compact filming devices are ubiquitous and social media has become a primary source for people to receive their information, “news” is increasingly gathered and disseminated by members of the public. Fittingly, courts have recognized this change and held that the freedom of the press also applies to citizen journalists and documentarians just as it does to formal members of the press. (Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).)

There are limits, however. In California, an individual may record an on-duty police officer, but may not do so surreptitiously (the camera must not be concealed or hidden). Under California Penal Code Section 647, audio recording, and potentially videotaping, a police officer with a concealed camera may constitute a misdemeanor. While openly recording an officer is legal, the conduct of others included in the audio and video may be protected. California Penal Code 632 makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the participants’ consent.

When filming the police, one must not interfere with the duties the officer is performing. It is not legal to interfere with those duties simply because one is recording. For example, an officer may need a reasonable amount of space to effectively detain a person. Even if one disagrees with the right of an officer to detain a person, it is not lawful to interfere with an arrest. If the officer is not impeded, it is entirely legal to record the officer.

Another important limitation to the right to film police is that it is lawful only on public areas such as streets, sidewalks, or other public lands. California has anti-stalking and “anti-paparazzi” laws which make it unlawful to record anyone on private property without consent. These laws also apply to off duty officers. To lawfully document a police officer, the officer must be in the performance of their duties and on public land.

While it is entirely legal for a person to film a police officer in California within these restrictions, it is important to use common sense. As you discovered, the right to film does not mean that the police will not confront a person who is filming them and ask them to stop. If this happens, it is best to remain calm and polite, and simply explain that you are exercising your First Amendment rights. It is always important to make sure the officer does not perceive a physical threat. If using a phone or small recording device such as a GoPro, have a colorful case or cover and never hold it in a manner that may allow it to be confused by an officer as a weapon. It is not advisable or legal to threaten an officer’s safety.

Finally, even though filming is lawful, a citizen journalist may still lawfully be questioned by a law enforcement officer, though there is no requirement to respond or answer any questions. And, unless a person is driving, there is no California law that requires a person to provide an officer with identification. If questioned or asked for ID, simply ask “am I being detained, or am I free to go.”

California law addresses safety for bicyclists

What is the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), Exactly?

Who is Eligible for Paid FMLA Leave?

What Benefits are Available under the Expanded FMLA?

New protections for S.F employees tested for COVID-19 on the job

Written By: Vanessa C. Deniston and Christopher B. Dolan

Available COVID-19 Resources in Response to your Legal Questions

THE LAW IN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY

Discrimination and Retaliation in Reducing Workforce are Unlawful

Employees Affected by COVID-19 are Entitled to use Sick Leave

California Expands Health Care Resources for Covered, Uninsured and Undocumented Residents Affected by COVID-19

Elder Abuse and Neglect During the Coronavirus Crisis

Growing Anti-Asian Sentiment, Hate Crimes and Acts of Terrorism During the COVID-19 Crisis

THE LAW IN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY

Discrimination and Retaliation in Reducing Workforce is Unlawful

Employees Affected by COVID-19 are Entitled to use Sick Leave

Employees who Contract Covid-19, or whose family members do, may be entitled to leave under the California Family Rights Act

California Paid Family Leave

California Expands Health Care Resources for
Covered, Uninsured and Undocumented Residents Affected by COVID-19

Elder Abuse and Neglect During the Coronavirus Crisis

Recognizing Elder Abuse During the Coronavirus Crisis

Types of Elder Abuse

Reporting Elder Abuse and Nursing Home Neglect

California Law Protections from Elder Abuse and Neglect

Growing Anti-Asian Sentiment, Hate Crimes and Acts of Terrorism During the COVID-19 Crisis

Discrimination by Business Establishments

Workplace Discrimination and Harassment

Hate Crimes

Ralph and Bane Acts

Related Causes of Action

FAQs

Contact the Dolan Law Firm

Pertinent details about the timely CAREN Act

Medical disability rights in the era of COVID-19 (Part 2)

Medical disability rights in the era of COVID-19 (Part 1)

Your Rights When You Are Detained: Do You Really Get A Phone Call?

What the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision will mean for LGBTQ employees

Is it legal to shoot video of police?