Employment Law

This week’s question comes from Angela in Berkeley, who asks:

Q: “I work part-time at a restaurant to help pay for school. My mother is not in great health and lives alone, so sometimes I’m the only person who can help her when she’s too sick to perform daily functions. I’ve heard that even shift workers in California earn paid sick leave, but I don’t understand how that works or if I can use it to take care of my mother. I’m afraid to ask my employer in case they think they should stop scheduling me for as many shifts.”

A: Thank you for your question, Angela. I am sorry to hear about your mother and the tough situation you find yourself in. Luckily, both the state of California and the city of Berkeley have paid sick leave (“PSL”) laws that should offer you some comfort. By law, your employer is required to post a notice of your rights to paid sick leave in a conspicuous place at the worksite.

California’s Healthy Workplace Healthy Family Act of 2014 provides the equivalent of one PSL hour per 30 hours worked by any employee who works for at least 30 days within the state for a given employer, with very limited exceptions. Unless you work on an airplane crew or are a member of a union that has explicitly waived PSL rights by contract, you are covered by PSL protections. Employees begin accruing PSL hours on the first day of employment and may begin to use them starting on the 90th calendar day of employment. Employers must record the number of PSL hours accrued by all non-exempt employees on end of pay-period wage statements and retain all records of PSL hour accrual and use for three years. If an employee is rehired by an employer within one year of the date of separation, all previously accrued PSL hours must be immediately reinstated. PSL hours must be paid on the payday for the next payroll period as usual, at the average hourly wage over the previous 90 days of employment.

Where city and state laws conflict, employees enjoy the rights provided by the more protective policy. Effective October 2017, the City of Berkeley’s minimum wage ordinance further protects PSL rights for any employee who works at least 2 hours in a calendar work week within the city. Another difference between the protections provided by the state and city involves the maximum number of PSL hours an employee may use and accrue over each year of employment. California law allows all employers to cap use of PSL hours to 24 per year and cap accrual at 48 per year. The City of Berkeley’s ordinance provides different limits for smaller employers (with 24 or fewer employees) versus larger employers (with 25 or more employees). Smaller employers in Berkeley may cap both use and accrual of PSL hours at 48 per year. The city ordinance allows larger employers less leeway, allowing them to cap accrual of PSL hours only at 72 per year and does not allow such employers to limit employees’ use of PSL at all.

As to your question about taking PSL to care for your mother, PSL hours may be used for any medical need of an employee or the employee’s children, parents, spouse or registered domestic partner, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings. Children and parents under this law include step, adopted and foster children and parents. Additionally, Berkeley’s ordinance provides the employee the ability to designate one additional person for whose care PSL may be used if that employee does not have a spouse or registered domestic partner.

An employee must provide their employer with “reasonable” advance notice of taking PSL if the need is foreseeable. For example, an employee cannot ask to take paid sick leave on the same day for a medical appointment scheduled weeks ahead of time. However, if the need is not foreseeable, such as when your mother needs you to care for her unexpectedly, the employee must merely provide notice as soon as possible. Under state law, an employer may not require an employee to provide documentation of the medical need causing the PSL use.

The law specifically provides that if you accumulate paid sick leave and take it for a valid reason, your employer cannot retaliate against you for doing so. There is a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if the employer takes any negative employment action, including reducing your scheduled shifts, within 90 days of taking PSL; that is, the law will presume the employer is retaliating unless they provide an unrelated lawful business reason for the action. If your employer retaliates against you for requesting or using a paid sick day, you can file a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner’s office or consult with a trial attorney to protect your rights.

This week’s question comes from Brian T., who asks:

Q: I work in an office with a fairly liberal policy on pets in the workplace. While I love animals, I am unfortunately allergic to certain types of longhaired dogs and cats. A co-worker of mine, who has a physical disability, brings his service dog to work every day to help him navigate around the office. The dog is very sweet, but I often find myself having an allergic reaction when I have to interact with this co-worker or walk by his office. Although I want to be sensitive and respectful of my co-worker’s needs, I also need to be able to work without having a serious allergic reaction. What are my options?

A: Thank you for your question, Brian. You raise a number of valid concerns and, under both California and Federal law, your employer will have to negotiate them with care. First, it is important to note that it sounds like your co-worker is utilizing a service animal, rather than an emotional support animal. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability. On the other hand, federal law defines an “emotional support animal” by exclusion: as any animal used to assist, support, or provide service to a person with disabilities, but which does not meet the stricter definition of a service animal.

Both the ADA and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in employment and housing matters. As part of their anti-discrimination requirements, both the FEHA and the ADA mandate that employers must extend reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities in order to allow them to perform the essential functions of their job, so long as doing so does not pose an undue hardship on the employer. Both laws regard bringing a service animal to work as a possible reasonable accommodation under appropriate circumstances.

In the case of your co-worker, it sounds like he uses a service animal because his job requires him to get up and move around the office and his own physical limitations make doing so difficult. Therefore, unless having the animal at work presents undue hardship, your employer is likely required by law to allow him to utilize a service animal at the office as a reasonable accommodation to aid in his mobility.

Adding the concern of your allergies into the mix, however, makes things more complicated.  Having a serious allergy that prevents or hinders you from performing the essential functions of your job is also a valid concern, and could potentially qualify as a disability deserving of reasonable accommodations. As such, your employer will likely have to perform a balancing act in order to make sure that all employees with disabilities are treated fairly under the law.

The law requires your employer to engage in a good faith, interactive process with you, as well as your co-worker, to arrive at a lawful solution that works for both parties. This will likely require some creativity and flexibility. The particular accommodations discussed during the interactive process will depend on the severity of your allergies, the extent of your co-worker’s need for the specific accommodation of a service animal, and the unique environment in which you both work.

One solution might involve eliminating in-person contact between you and the service animal by simply relocating your workspace to the opposite side of the office and arranging to use separate bathrooms and common spaces. If physically separating you from your co-worker would create an undue hardship, as may be the case in a small office environment, your employer should still make reasonable efforts to minimize your exposure. This could mean adjusting each of your work schedules, temporarily removing the service animal at any time when you and your coworker have to attend meetings together, providing options for one or both of you to work remotely, and/or allowing you to wear protective equipment such as an allergen mask.

If your allergies are so severe that even working in the same environment as the service animal present serious health risks for you, speak to your employer about these concerns immediately. To ensure that your legal rights are fully protected, you should contact an employment attorney, such as those at the Dolan Law Firm PC, to help you navigate the situation.

This week’s question comes from Maya in San Francisco, who writes:

Q: Dear Chris, I interviewed for a receptionist position at a San Francisco company. The person interviewing me offered me the job, but said that I would need to conform to the company’s “grooming policy,” which states “hairstyle should reflect a business and/or professional image.” When I said that I would prefer not to cut my dreadlocks, she rescinded the job offer. I told her that I do not understand what how I wear my hair has to do with my ability to do the job and she told me that “dreadlocks are simply not professional.” Isn’t this discrimination?

A: Thank you for your question, Maya, and I’m sorry for the frustration you’ve experienced in the job market. It certainly does sound like your situation could qualify as unlawful discrimination, under not only the general anti-discrimination provisions of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) but also under the newly-enacted Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair Act (the “C.R.O.W.N. Act”). When the C.R.O.W.N. Act was signed into law in July, California became the first state in the nation to legally protect people in workplaces, as well as K-12 public schools and charter schools, from discrimination specifically based on their natural hair.

Under FEHA, employers have long been prohibited from implementing dress or grooming policies that adversely impact one race more than another. By stating that “dreadlocks are simply not professional,” without any rational justification related to your ability to perform the job, the interviewer appeared to indicate that the company’s “grooming policy” establishes different employment standards based on race by prohibiting one of various natural and protective hair styles available to black employees. An arbitrary employment policy like this would likely be deemed contrary to FEHA, even before the C.R.O.W.N Act takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020.

However, any legal debate that might have been made previously on this issue will soon be rendered moot when the C.R.O.W.N. Act supercedes the more general existing anti-discrimination policies to expressly provide that hairstyles fall within the definition of race. The C.R.O.W.N. Act expands statutory protections by amending the FEHA and the California Education Code to define “race or ethnicity” as “inclusive of traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles.”

When it takes effect next year, the C.R.O.W.N. Act will prohibit employers from enforcing purportedly “race neutral” grooming policies that restrict natural hair styles, such as Afros, braids, twists, cornrows and dreadlocks, that that disproportionately impact employees of color. The C.R.O.W.N Act expressly defines “protective hairstyles” as including, but not limited to, “braids, locks, and twists” and makes clear that traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and hairstyle, should be protected from discrimination in the workplace and in schools. The C.R.O.W.N. Act recognizes that “[p]rofessionalism was, and still is, closely linked to European features and mannerisms, which entails that those who do not naturally fall into Eurocentric norms must alter their appearances, sometimes drastically and permanently, in order to be deemed professional.”

You should note that an employment discrimination claim must be filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) within one year of the unlawful event or your rights to seek recovery may be barred. The DFEH’s phone number is 1-800-884-1684 and their web site is: http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/. In addition, it is always a good idea to contact a trial lawyer with knowledge of employment laws to discuss your case.

Around this time every year, I write a series of articles on California’s new laws: laws which were passed through the legislature and signed by the Governor Jerry Brown last year, but did not come in to effect until Jan. 1, 2019. This week, I will focus on a bevy of new sexual harassment laws which owe their origins, in part, to the #MeToo movement. In response to the recent exposure of rampant sexual harassment in politics, the entertainment industry, and business, California has continued to demonstrate an aggressive and progressive agenda with the passage of major legislation supported by several key individual rights organizations, including the Consumer Attorneys of California and the California Employment Lawyers Association.

The first of these bills, Senate Bill 1300, sponsored by state Sen. Hanne Beth Jackson from the 19th Senate District, amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the state statute already providing anti-discrimination and harassment protections for employees in the workplace. FEHA continues to hold employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, apprenticeship training programs, and other training programs leading to employment responsible for harassment of an employee or contractor by a supervisor or agent of the employer based on any protected classification, including race, sex, age, religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. FEHA also continues holds employers responsible for harassment of employees based on protected classifications by any non-supervisory employee if the employer, its agents, or supervisors knew or should have known of the misconduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

However, up until now, FEHA has held an employer responsible for only sexual harassment, but not other forms of unlawful harassment based on other protected classifications, of employees by non-employees, again in circumstances where the employer, its agents, or supervisors knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. SB 1300 now extends the scope of protection from non-employee misconduct to include not only sexual harassment, but any form of unlawful harassment, i.e. based on age, race, national origin, religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. The amended law further expands the pool of workers protected against non-employee harassment to interns, volunteers and contractors. An employer who fails to put a stop to such harassment that it knew of or should have known about can be sued and held liable for both financial losses and other personal harms caused to the harassed, such as anxiety, fear, and humiliation.

SB 1300 has also cracked the code of secrecy: in every case I’ve settled, whether before or after trial, in my 25 years of employment law practice, the defendant employer has demanded a “confidentiality clause” to make it a “secret settlement,” often imposing significant financial penalties for any disclosure of terms. With SB 1300 in effect, it is now illegal to condition new employment, continued employment, raises or bonuses on an employee releasing of any claim or right under FEHA, including by signing a non-disparagement agreement or other document that would deny the employee their right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace.

Next, SB 224, also sponsored by state Sen. Jackson, amends the California Civil Code to expand the reach of sexual harassment claims to cover non-employment relationships. These amendments allow a plaintiff to prove a cause of action for sexual harassment against a defendant who held themself out as being able to help the plaintiff establish a business, service, or professional relationship. The class of potential defendants under SB 224 include investors, elected officials, lobbyists, directors, and producers …. can you say Harvey Weinstein?

Finally, SB 1343, introduced by state Sen. Holly Mitchell, expands anti-harassment training requirements to cover both smaller businesses and non-supervisory employees. Previously, FEHA has required employers with 50 or more employees to provide at least two hours of prescribed training and education regarding sexual harassment, abusive conduct, and harassment based upon gender to all supervisory employees within six months of their assumption of a supervisory position and then once every two years. Upon implementation of SB 134, all employers of five or more employees must now provide at least two hours of sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees, as well as at least one hour of sexual harassment training to all nonsupervisory employees, by Jan. 1, 2020 and then once every two years thereafter.

This week’s question comes from Chris F. in Bernal Heights, who writes:

Q:“I worked for a design and development firm until November 2018. I was working on a project in the Martinez/Vallejo area and we had a really tight schedule requiring lots of overtime. I wanted to vote in the election and, a week before Election Day, I told my supervisor that I wanted to come in a few hours late so I could vote. My boss, who is really conservative, told me that I couldn’t take time off, which would be a good thing since there would be one less “lefty liberal” voting in San Francisco. I went to my polling station first thing on Election Day and learned I wasn’t the only one who thought it would be a good idea to vote before work. I waited for about 20 minutes, voted, and then fought traffic to get to work. Given our overtime, had I not voted in the morning I probably wouldn’t have had a chance to vote. I got to work an hour and a half late. My boss was really pissed and yelled at me. When I said I was voting to “make America great again” he told me I was fired for being a no-show. Can he do this? I thought that I had a right to vote.”

A: Chris, it’s amazing how some people want to “make America great” by taking away voters’ rights. Your gut instinct is correct: you should not be disciplined or fired for exercising the right to vote, one of your most fundamental rights. California Elections Code § 14000 provides employees with the right to take reasonable time off to vote, without loss of pay, if a voter does not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote in a statewide election. The law requires that the voter be allowed to take off enough working time that, when added to the voting time available outside of working hours, will enable the voter to vote, limited to two hours. The allowed time off for voting must be at the beginning or end of the regular working shift, whichever maximizes time for voting and minimizes time off from the regular working shift, unless otherwise mutually agreed. Section 14000(c) states that if a worker knows, or believes, on the third working day prior to the election, that time off will be necessary to be able to vote on election day, the employee must give the employer at least two working days notice. Collective bargaining agreement provisions, such as those contained within union labor contracts, intended to waive an employee’s right to pay for time taken off to vote have been held by the courts to be against public policy, contrary to express provision of law and invalid.

Your employer should not only have known and followed this law, he was also required to provide notice to all employees of their right to take paid time off to vote. California Elections Code § 14001 requires employers to, no later than 10 days before a statewide election, “keep posted conspicuously at the place of work, if practicable, or elsewhere where it can be seen as employees come or go to their place of work, a notice setting forth the provisions of Section 14000.”

It appears that you met the law’s requirements and, therefore, the conduct directed towards you was unlawfully retaliatory. An employer who terminates an employee for exercising their right to vote has engaged in “wrongful termination in violation of public policy.” A wrongfully terminated employee is entitled to recovery of economic damages such as lost wages and benefits, non-economic losses such as stress and emotional distress and, if the denial was the decision of an officer, director or “managing agent” of the employer, punitive damages.

Regarding your boss calling you a “lefty liberal,” indicating that he didn’t want you to vote because of your political leanings, that too is illegal. California Labor Code § 1101 states that no employer shall adopt or enforce any rule or policy forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. Likewise, it prohibits employers from controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of its employees. This prohibition not only covers which political party you vote for, but also other causes related to matters of public concern. Much of the recent case law on § 1101 arises out of the history of Proposition 8 and the fight for marriage equality for the LGBTQ community. His reference to you being a “lefty” demonstrates that he took prohibited action against you based on your political leanings.

Chris, I suggest that you contact a trial lawyer with knowledge of employment laws to discuss your case.