Total Articles: 10
Labor Law Review: With Wage Garnishments On The Rise, Employers Must Avoid Retaliatory Discharges.
During these tough economic times, as employees fall into debt, employers may see an increase in wage garnishments. Can an employer terminate an employee if the wage garnishments become a nuisance? The answer is: "It depends." Read this article for details.
SEVERAL NEW “RETALIATION” DECISIONS.
The courts have issued a significant number of retaliation decisions in the past several weeks. The U.S. Supreme Court held in two cases that employees are protected from adverse employment actions for complaining about civil rights violations, even when the underlying statutes did not contain anti-retaliation provisions. Two panels of the California Court of Appeal went in different directions regarding what constitutes “retaliation.”
Cal Supreme Court: Supervisors Not Personally Liable for Retaliation Under FEHA.
The California Supreme Court handed a major victory to employers on March 3rd in a case titled Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines. The decision related to liability under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). The California law prohibits discrimination in the workplace, and also prohibits retaliation against an employee who protests illegal discrimination, files a complaint, or testifies in a legal proceeding.
No Individual Liability for Retaliation under the FEHA.
The California Supreme Court continued a trend on Monday, March 3, 2008, when it held in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines that supervisors cannot be held individually liable for retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Court has consistently shielded individual supervisors from various other forms of employment related claims. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. Bement, a 2005 decision, that individual corporate agents, including officers, directors, and shareholders, could not be personally liable for an employer’s failure to pay wages to its employees. Similarly, in 2000, the Court held in Carrisales v. Department of Corrections that individual, non-supervisory employees could not be held liable for harassment.
California Supreme Court Finds that Individuals Cannot Be Held Liable for Retaliation.
The California Supreme Court recently held that individuals who are not employers cannot be held liable for retaliation under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Gov. Code § 12940(j)). See Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (3/3/08).
In this case, Jones complained that his supervisor, Weiss, and another manager created a hostile work environment and discriminated against him by telling sexual jokes and making sexually charged comments. After Jones complained, Weiss threatened to fire him, gave him a negative performance review, excluded him from weekly management meetings and issued him four performance warnings. Jones later attempted to resign, but was told his services were no longer needed.
Individuals Cannot be Held Liable for Retaliation Claims.
In Reno v. Baird, the California Supreme Court held in 1998 that individuals are not personally liable for discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Similarly, today the Court ruled in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership that while employers may be held liable, individuals may not be held financially responsible for retaliation claims in the discrimination context.
Fire Department’s Refusal To Assign Disabled Captain To His Desired Job Assignment Was Not An “Adverse Employment Action.”
In Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dep’t, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Los Angeles Fire Department on claims for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and adverse employment action in violation of public policy. The court held that the Department did not subject plaintiff Gregory Malais to an adverse employment action as a matter of law.
Summary Judgment On Retaliation Claim Proper Where Terminated Employee Fails to Submit Evidence of Pretext (scroll down).
In Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Int’l, the California Court of Appeal held that summary judgment was properly granted on the retaliation claim of plaintiff Diane Loggins because she failed to offer substantial evidence that her employer’s reason for terminating her was a pretext for retaliation.
California Supreme Court Broadens Retaliation Protections (pdf).
In a 4-2 decision, the California Supreme Court held on Thursday that an employee can maintain
a retaliation action against an employer even where the employee’s protected activity is “subtle” and the employer’s actions are negligible. This ruling reminds California employers to be extremely careful when taking adverse action against any employee who engages in activity that may be considered protected.
Circumstantial Evidence Might Be Sufficient To Support A Claim of Retaliation.
A California appellate court reinstated a discrimination case based on circumstantial evidence that the employee's supervisor said she was "going to get revenge" against anyone who cooperated in the investigation against her.
