Total Articles: 22
New California Bill Lifts Hospital's Obligations Beyond ADA
California’s Governor has just signed a bill (AB 1136) requiring hospitals in his state to implement a patient handling policy that includes "lift teams" trained in moving patients with appropriate equipment. Among other things, the law provides that “employer[s] shall maintain a safe patient handling policy at all times for all patient care units, and shall provide trained lift teams or other support staff trained in safe lifting techniques in each general acute care hospital.” Significantly, under this law, a hospital “employee who refuses to lift, reposition, or transfer a patient due to concerns about patient or worker safety or the lack of trained lift team personnel or equipment shall not, based upon the refusal, be the subject of disciplinary action.”
Ninth Circuit Rejects Employee’s Disability Accommodation Claim.
California disability law imposes stringent requirements on employers when it comes to accommodation. Employees and their lawyers will criticize an employer’s participation in the “interactive process” and second-guess decisions regarding what is or is not a “reasonable accommodation.” But a diligent employer can safely navigate the rigors of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case titled DFEH v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., the court reviewed one employer’s actions and found no fault.
Employee With Mental Disability Properly Terminated For Threats
What happens when an employee with a mental disability misbehaves in the workplace? If the mental disability causes the employee to misbehave and violate workplace conduct rules, can the employer discipline the employee? A recent California case titled Wills v. Superior Court examined the question but issued a narrow ruling.
Employer Repels Rehabilitated Drug Addict's ADA / FEHA Discrimination Case.
The ADA and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act protect rehabilitated drug addicts from employment discrimination. Does that mean that employers must hire or rehire qualified rehabilitated addicts, all other things equal? Generally, yes, but there are narrow exceptions, according to a Ninth Circuit court of appeal in a case titled Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association.
Everyone Please Take Your Seat
You will want to sit down when you read this. A California appellate court handed down a decision last week involving 99 Only Stores that impacts virtually every California business. The appellate panel ruled that California employers who don't provide employees with suitable seating may be sued in a class action type of suit for sizeable penalties. Here is what happened.
Court of Appeal: No Attorney Present at Plaintiff's Mental Examination
The court of appeal's opinion in Toyota v. Superior Court should be interesting to employment lawyers and maybe to their clients involved in employment litigation.
Disability Accommodation / Workers Compensation Update: Court Flushes Sewage Facility Employees Accommodation Claim.
The ADA and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require employers to engage in an interactive process with disabled employees in order to determine whether a reasonable accommodation may be offered. What happens if the employee does not initiate the process? Does the employer still have an obligation to offer an accommodation? A recent California appellate court addressed this question in a case titled Milan v. City of Holtville.
Accommodation Discussions Need Clear Guidelines
Recent case tests limits of
the obligation of employers to
meet mandate of disability laws.
DONT ASK, DONT TELL.
Workplace anti-discrimination laws generally mandate treating similarly situated individuals in a like manner. However, if an employee (or job applicant) discloses a physical or mental disability, the law requires much more. At a minimum, employers must meet with the employee to ferret out whether adjustments to the working conditions would enable the employee to do the job. This so-called "interactive dialogue" is an essential element of the "reasonable accommodation" process mandated by the federal and state disability bias laws. And, if the employer fails to fulfill this obligation, the employee can sue for damages even if the discussion(s) would have been fruitless.
Court Flushes Sewage Facility Employees Accommodation Claim
The ADA and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require employers to engage in an interactive process with disabled employees in order to determine whether a reasonable accommodation may be offered. What happens if the employee does not initiate the process? Does the employer still have an obligation to offer an accommodation? A recent California appellate court addressed this question in a case titled Milan v. City of Holtville.
Grocer Liable After Uninformed Supervisor Fails To Provide Accommodation To Disabled Employee.
When an employer grants a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee, what happens if an uninformed supervisor later fails to provide that accommodation? In a recent California case titled A.M. v. Albertsons LLC, that very thing happened, and the employer was held liable for failing to provide an accommodation. The case offers important lessons for employers who offer accommodations to disabled employees.
Cal Supreme Court Lets Stand A Key Disability Ruling.
The California Supreme Court denied a petition for review in a case titled Arteaga v. Brinks Incorporated, letting stand an appellate court ruling that circumscribed the definition of disability under California law.
Armored Truck Company Has Ironclad Defense to Disability Claim.
Employers frequently experience the following scenario: Employee is suspected of wrongdoing. Employer investigates and decides to terminate Employee. At the eleventh hour, before he is fired, he claims that he is injured and disabled. He files a workers compensation claim. Employer wants to fire Employee, but is concerned about the appearance of discrimination and retaliation. Has the employee trapped the employer?
California Employers Not Required To Accommodate Medical Marijuana Users.
The California Supreme Court recently rejected a lawsuit brought by an employee who was terminated shortly after his employer learned that he had tested positive for marijuana. According to the court, employers have the right to conduct preemployment drug tests and to fire, or refuse to hire, individuals who test positive for illegal drugs even if they are used for medicinal purposes. Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., No. S138130, California Supreme Court (January 24, 2008).
California Supreme Court Rules that Employer Is Not Obligated to Accommodate Employee Engaged in Compassionate Use of Marijuana.
As reported in an earlier Legal Alert, on November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the highly controversial case of Ross v. RagingWire. At issue in Ross is whether an employer must retain as an employee an individual who fails a properly administered drug test due to the compassionate use of medical marijuana.
Employers Must Engage In The Interactive Process For Disabled Employees, Regardless Of Whether Reasonable Accommodations Are Later Found To Exist.
In Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) delivered a blow to management in its defense against Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims brought by disabled employees. The court found that the interactive process and providing reasonable accommodations are separate requirements in disability discrimination claims, and thus constitute separate causes of action with separate burdens of proof.
California Supreme Court Considers Employers Obligation to Accommodate Employees Medical Marijuana Use.
On November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the highly controversial case of Ross v. RagingWire. At issue in Ross is whether an employer must retain an employee who uses marijuana for medical reasons and, because of that use, fails a properly administered drug test.
Plaintiffs Alleging Disability Discrimination under California Law Have Burden of Proving They Can Perform Essential Duties of the Job.
In Green v. State of California, a 4-3 split decision, the state Supreme Court brought the burdens of proof under the disability provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) more in line with the evidentiary burdens under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), holding that FEHA requires plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination to prove that they are qualified individuals under the statute, just as the federal ADA requires.
Disabled Employees Claims Cannot Survive Summary Judgment Absent Specific Evidence of Pretext or Denial of Requests for Accommodation (scroll down).
In King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against a plaintiff who alleged that he was terminated because of his blood disorder, and that he was denied accommodations, but had no specific evidence of pretext, and failed to identify any specific requests for accommodation he had made.
California Court of Appeal Affirms Decision in Favor of Employer on Long-Term Employees Disability Discrimination Claims.
The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer, thus dismissing the employees disability discrimination and breach of contract claims.
Preemployment Testing Challenged under Antidiscrimination Laws,
Anti-discrimination laws generally are simple to understand and abide by. Employers are prohibited from making decisions that are based on illegal criteria such as race, sex, or religion. In most cases, there is a straightforward analysis regarding the reasons an employer treated a plaintiff less favorably than a similarly situated co-employee.
FEHA Imposes A Broader Duty On Employers to Accommodate Disabled Employees Than Does The ADA.
A California Court of Appeal reinstated a disabled employee's lawsuit which had been dismissed under the more employer friendly provisions of the ADA. The court ruled that California's disability law is more favorable to employees, and must be used in state job bias cases.
