New state laws expand workplace protections against sexual harassment

Ava G from The Haight asks: “I heard that there were some new laws on sexual harassment. As a member of a women’s empowerment group I was wondering if you could summarize them so we can discuss them at our next monthly meeting.”

Ava, the #MeToo movement started, and continues to run strong, in California. Over the next several weeks I will report on many of the new, progressive, laws extending important protections to California workers. As you have heard, the California Legislature and Governor Newsom have acted decisively in broadening California’s workplace protections in the areas of sexual harassment. As the owner of a law firm which has represented employees (only) in cases of harassment and discrimination over the last 25 years, I can say confidently that these new laws provide much needed additional protection for workers in California.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown signed two important measures into law on Sept. 30, 2018. Senate Bill 1300, propounded by Senator Jackson and codified as Government Code Section 12923, added a host of new employee protections. The law, with certain exceptions, prohibits an employer from conditioning continued employment, or incentives like raises or bonuses, on the execution of a release of a claim or right under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a nondisparagement agreement (an agreement that prevents the employee from disclosing truthful facts that may be negative), or other document that denies the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment. The law further provides that any such agreement or document containing such a clause is unenforceable. In addition, SB 1300 extends the previous FEHA requirement that employers protect their employees from sexual harassment by non-employees to require protection from all forms of harassment on the basis of membership in a protected class, race, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification, etc.

SB 820, propounded by Senator Leyva and now codified in the California Civil Code Section 1001, renders unlawful any settlement agreement including a confidentiality provision that prevents the disclosure of factual information pertaining to civil or administrative complaints of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or workplace harassment or discrimination based on sex. The law provides that any such provision in a settlement agreement entered into on or after Jan. 1, 2019 is unenforceable. The law does permit a provision, however, that would safeguard, at the claimant’s request, the claimant’s identity and any facts that could lead one to discover the claimant’s identity (except in matters involving a government agency or public official), as well as a provision that prevents the disclosure of the amount paid to settle the claim, at the request of either party.

On Oct. 10, Gov. Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 9, propounded by Assembly Member Reyes, which extends the time for an employee to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, a prerequisite for the employee to file a lawsuit or, at the employee’s request, for the Department to conduct an investigation and prosecution of the claim within the administrative system. Until now, employees have been required to file a charge of discrimination or harassment (retaliation or other unlawful conduct) with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year in order to preserve their right to sue their employer for unlawful harassment or discrimination. AB 9 amends Government Code section 12960 to extend the time that an employee has to file a complaint of discrimination and harassment by two years. Now aggrieved employees have up to three years to file a claim and initiate legal action. Moreover, certain additional extensions of time may be granted if the conduct is discovered after the expiration of the three-year period or the aggrieved party finds out the true identity of the unlawful actor.

Although these periods have been extended, it is always best to act promptly when dealing with these matters as documents disappear, memories “fade,” witnesses change jobs and frequently move, making the accumulation of evidence more difficult. It is also important to note that AB 9 is a prospective law, meaning that it does not revive claims which have already expired. As always, it is advisable to consult an experienced sexual harassment attorney to ensure the best outcomes in prosecuting your claims.

read more

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CLAIM FILED AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSGENDER IMMIGRANT’S DEATH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CLAIM FILED AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSGENDER IMMIGRANT’S DEATH

PRESS CONFERENCE: June 12, 2019, 1:00 p.m., Dolan Law Firm, 1438 Market Street, San Francisco, CA.

On June 11, 2019, the family of Johana Medina Leon filed a claim against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security for denying her civil rights and thereby causing her death while she was being detained after crossing into the United States. In December of 2018, Johana, an El Salvadorian National, was threatened with physical violence based on her transgender status. She fled El Salvador in fear for her life to Mexico where she received a Humanitarian Visa. With her visa she traveled to an asylum center in Juarez, Mexico. While in Juarez, Johana was assigned a number for an appointment with the Customs and Boarder Control, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security where she sought asylum. Her fear of persecution was found to be credible and she was detained pending a hearing. Although she was given a court date, The CPB questioned her transgender status, as she had male genitalia, and housed her with males. Unlike other transwomen, she was not paroled pending a future court date and was, instead, sent to the ICE Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico.

Soon after arriving at Otero, Johana’s health rapidly deteriorated. Having been trained and employed as a nurse in El Salvador, she recognized that she needed IV fluids but her request for treatment was denied. She asked for water, sugar and salt so she could prepare her own IV but that request too was denied. In April and May Johana’s condition got progressively worse and, since she was being denied care, she asked to be deported so she could receive treatment. Her request was ignored, and her condition continued to deteriorate. On May 15, 2019, Johana appeared before a U.S. Magistrate to present her case for asylum where she was told that she would receive a decision in 8 days, and she was returned to ICE custody. On May 20th she spoke with her boyfriend in El Salvador and reported that her requests for treatment had been denied. On May 23 or 24, 2019, Johana was found unconscious and was taken by ICE to the Del Sol Medical Center Hospital in El Paso, TX. ICE apparently granted her release on her own recognizance right before she was dropped at the hospital. Over the next several days, Johana spoke with her boyfriend and family members reporting that her condition was worsening. On June 1, 2019, Johana’s family was notified that she had died as a result of pneumonia.

Johana’s family claims that the Government, in violation of Johana’s civil rights, negligently managed her care because of her nationality, her seeking asylum, and her transgender status; thereby causing her death.

Christopher Dolan, the family’s attorney, based in California, stated :“On the Statue of Liberty there is a famous poem by Emma Lazarus, known by all Americans, which states in part, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me . . .” The Trump Administration seems to have re- written the poem, to say “. . .and I will send them back abused, terrorized and dead.” Johana deserved to be protected by this Country as a human being seeking asylum. Instead, she was detained, humiliated, mistreated, and dumped at a hospital where she was not on the threshold of liberty; but, instead, on death’s door. We will get to the truth and hold this Government accountable for its callous disregard of Johana.

A representative of Johana’s family will be present via Skype, from El Salvador, to answer questions.

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT CHRIS DOLAN at 415-279-2604 or presscontact@dolanlawfirm.com

For access to the press conference via video conference go to: https://zoom.us/j/878557725

read more

Jury duty and disabilities

Following an article I wrote recently on jury selection, I was contacted by a Stephen W., a psychiatrist, who asked that I inform people who suffer from disabling conditions about their rights if called for jury selection. I was reluctant to write this article, as I do not want to provide people with excuses to try and get out of jury service. However, I have personally observed over the past 25 years that there are people with disabilities, both physical and mental/emotional, for whom jury service may be ill-advised or damaging.

 

Jury service is a civic duty. The right to a jury trial is one of the fundamental rights all Americans possess, ensconced within the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and the Seventh Amendment. Interestingly enough, there is no right to vote contained in the Bill of Rights. Not until 1870, following the civil war, was the Fifteenth Amendment passed which stated that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude [slavery].”

 

Jury service is a fantastic experience in participatory democracy. You and twelve ordinary citizens, after listening to the facts of a case, and the instructions on the law given by the judge, get together in a room and deliberate. Webster’s Dictionary defines “deliberate” as “to think about or discuss issues and decisions carefully.”

 

Jurors are identified by voter roles and DMV records and are chosen at random. The local jury commissioner issues subpoenas through the mail. California law provides that a juror may be summoned only once a year. Some trials are longer than others. For example, a criminal misdemeanors trial for shoplifting may take a day, whereas a murder trial may take several months. Likewise, a civil trial for a simple rear-end collision may be a day long, whereas a complicated wrongful death case or employment discrimination case may take weeks or months. The longest trial I have ever participated in was an employment case that lasted three and a half months.

 

There are penalties for any prospective trial juror who has been summoned for service and fails to attend as directed. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 209, a judge may issue a warrant of attachment compelling a person who fails to respond to a juror summons to come before the judge. Following a hearing, the court may find a prospective juror in contempt of court, a crime punishable by fine, incarceration, or both.

 

Nevertheless, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 228, a prospective juror may be disqualified at the judge’s discretion if they have an incapacity which makes them unable to perform the duties of a juror. The California Rules of Court Rule 2.1008(d) states reasons for which a judge may grant an excuse from jury duty, including when a prospective juror:

  • Lacks “reasonably available means of public or private transportation to the court”
  • Must travel in excess of 1.5 hours from home to the court
  • Would bear extreme financial burden taking into consideration their income, expected length of jury service, availability of reimbursement for lost income, risk of compromising their ability to support themself and any dependants, and other unjust outcomes
  • Would unduly and unavoidably risk material injury to their property
  • Is “immediately needed for the protection of the public health and safety” to prevent “substantially reducing essential public services”
  • Is required for the personal care and attention of a dependant with no comparable economical substitute

Finally, and relevant to your question, a judge may grant a prospective juror excusal from service if they have “a physical or mental disability or impairment, not affecting that person’s competence to act as a juror, that would expose the potential juror to undue risk of mental or physical harm.”

 

Prospective jurors who believe that they medically or psychologically cannot sit as jurors should come to court on the date of their summons with a letter from their physician, psychologist or psychiatrist. Before jury selection, the judge will ask the assembled prospective jurors if they have a hardship which would preclude them from jury service. Those who believe they do will be allowed to fill out a hardship questionnaire. That is the time to inform the judge of your disability, supported by documentation verifying appropriate impairments and detailing their probable duration and impacts on ability to serve as a juror. If such an individual is aged 70 years or older, no documentation is required. They will then review your request, may ask for a letter or further explanation, and will grant or deny your request as appropriate.

 

A juror with a disability may alternatively be entitled to an accommodation so that the prospective juror can participate in the trial. California Civil Code Section 224 states, “The court shall appoint a service provider whose services are needed by a juror with a disability to facilitate communication or participation.” Available services include court-appointed sign language interpreters, oral interpreters, or deaf-blind interpreters. Likewise, a juror may ask for breaks, the ability to stand or even lie down. (Yes, one time I had a juror with a bad back who was allowed to lie down during the trial with her head propped up so she could see the evidence)

 

Some prospective jurors may seek disqualification due to a special vulnerability to emotional distress given the facts of the case at hand. In a case I tried several years ago, a prospective juror indicated they suffered from depression and felt that the case we were about to try, involving a woman claiming severe emotional distress, would be emotionally damaging to her. The judge, after hearing from the prospective juror, and observing her demeanor, dismissed her from further jury service. In another case, involving gynecological malpractice leading to the death of a baby, the judge excused a prospective juror who was pregnant and felt that it would be psychologically traumatizing for her to hear the facts in the case. Moreover, criminal trials for rape, assault, sexual abuse or death of a loved one may involve facts which are too intense for some people who may have suffered from similar crimes. If the facts of a particular case are the basis for a hardship, the judge may dismiss such a juror or send them back to the Jury Commissioner for assignment to a different type of case.

 

As a trial lawyer I encourage everyone to serve as a juror. Jurors are essential to our system of justice and, if you were a defendant or plaintiff, you would want a fair jury of your peers to hear your case.

 

read more

How do I get out of jury duty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read more

Jahi McMath Has Died In New Jersey

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JAHI MCMATH HAS DIED IN NEW JERSEY

On June 22nd, 2018, Jahi Kelis McMath died peacefully in the presence of her mother Nailah and step father Marvin in a hospital in New Jersey.  Jahi died as the result of complications associated with liver failure. Jahi had been living at home, with her mother Nailah Winkfield, her stepfather Marvin Winkfield, and younger sister in New Jersey for the last 4 years.  She will be returned to California to be buried near her family and friends.

read more

California Gun Laws Prohibit Access To Convicted Felons

This week’s question comes from Anonymous in the East Bay who asks: “I read your article last week on guns and crazy neighbors while riding home on BART. It got me to thinking: I know some shifty dudes who have a lot of guns.  Some of them are felons and some have restraining orders out on them for domestic violence. They have some heavy pieces including AK 47’s and other assault weapons, machine pistols and silencers. I’ve also seen some bullet proof vests. They deal a lot of drugs and use the guns to “protect their interests.” Isn’t there some restriction on criminals owning guns? Can people still buy AK’s in California? What about body armor?”

read more

California’s Gun Regulations Explained

Today’s question comes from Priscilla in Hayes Valley who asks “As I would hope everybody else would be, I am outraged, sickened and angry with the senseless gun violence that we saw, AGAIN, in Florida when 17 people were senselessly gunned down by a man who was, apparently, suffering from mental illness. How can such a person get access to a gun? Is there law which limits access of crazy people to weapons? A member of my family is a gun nut and has a bi-polar disorder. He has a lot of guns and has made statements about “going postal” and “shooting up the town.” I am afraid of him going off and hurting someone. Please let me know what someone can do when they think that there is a time-bomb ticking away like this.”

read more

What The Law States Regarding Human Trafficking

Joe from San Francisco writes: My wife and I learned of a great opportunity to work in a restaurant in San Francisco. We were promised “good wages” and we were excited to move to from the Philippines and start a new life in America. When we arrived in San Francisco two years ago, we were required to and continue to work over twelve hours a day and not allowed to take breaks. We also work 6 days a week. Our employer told us that we owed a debt and he began deducting various items from our wages such as transportation, interest or fines, and charges for bad behavior. We ended up with almost no salary for the hours we worked. We were also threatened with our visas having expired and being in the United States “illegally.” My employer even took our passports away. We were threatened that if we tried to leave our employer and go back to the Philippines, something bad would happen to our family there. We confided in a friend who told us that she believed that we are victims of human trafficking. What can we do? We feel trapped and do not know if we have rights.

read more

President Trump Subject To Constitutional Limitations Even On Issues Of Immigration And National Security

American flag, US constitution and a judge's gavel symbolizing the American justice system or the Judicial Branch of government ( Judiciary )

This week’s question comes from Harry B. in Walnut Creek who asks: “How is it that the President can issue an Executive Order regarding immigration and some court can just swoop in and say he can’t.  He is the President now and people have just got to get used to it. Why does the Judge, one person, get to stop what we voted for when we elected Trump: immigration reform and protection from terrorists?”

read more