Total Articles: 10
Transfer While On Medical Leave Did Not Violate California Medical Leave Law
California's medical leave act, the CFRA, requires an employer to reinstate an employee to the same or equivalent position upon the conclusion of the protected leave. It prohibits retaliation for taking the leave. Does that mean an employer is always prohibited from reassigning an employee during a leave? Not necessarily. A recent California appellate court in a case titled Rogers v. County of Los Angeles determined that an employer properly transferred an employee before she returned from leave.
Court of Appeal: No Reinstatement after 12 weeks of CFRA Leave
After taking 19 weeks of leave, the first 12 of which was covered under the California Family Rights Act, LA County reinstated Katrina Rogers, but then transferred her to a new job as a business decision. Rogers did not take the transfer well and sued under various causes of action, including the CFRA. A jury awarded her damages and the county appealed.
Payroll Company Not an "Employer" for Wage Hour Purposes.
If an employer "outsources" payroll services to another company, can that payroll service company be held liable for wage-hour violations as an "employer?" No.
Hospital Visit Should Have Alerted Employer To CFRA Coverage But Termination Not Disability Discrimination.
California employers covered by the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) must promptly respond to employee requests for leave. But what happens when the qualified employee never actually requests leave? A recent California appellate court decision says that the employer may still need to grant CFRA protections if the employee provides mere hints of CFRA coverage.
The California Supreme Court Issues Key CFRA Decision.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California’s equivalent, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), present various challenges to employers. The CFRA, like the FMLA, allows eligible employers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for, among other things, the employee’s own “serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee.” Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued proposed revisions to the FMLA regulations that unfortunately do little to simplify the administration of leaves of absence. Now the California Supreme Court has further complicated the situation. While awaiting the final FMLA regulations, California employers should carefully review the Court’s decision in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central.
California Supreme Court Reverses Judgment in Favor of Employer in California Family Rights Act Case.
In a case of first impression in California, on Monday (April 7, 2008) the California Supreme Court held that working a part time job while seeking medical leave from a full time job is not conclusive evidence under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) that the employee is able to perform the job from which she seeks leave. See Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (4/7/08). The Court also held that the employer’s failure to seek a third opinion regarding the employee’s medical condition did not bar the employer from later claiming that the employee did not suffer from a serious health condition.
California Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument On Its First California Medical Leave Case.
On January 8, 2008, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (12/10/04). This case provides California’s highest court with its first opportunity to interpret provisions of California’s Family Rights Act.
Employee Provided Sufficient Notice of the Need for CFRA Qualifying Leave (scroll down).
In Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., the California Court of Appeal held that plaintiff Michael Faust provided sufficient information to inform his former employer, California Portland Cement Company (“Portland”), of his need for medical leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), and that such notice triggered the employer’s duty to inform the employee of his CFRA rights. Moreover, the employee’s subsequent failure to follow up directly with the employer concerning his medical condition did not abrogate his CFRA claims.
California Court of Appeal Holds that Employer’s Failure to Provide Employee with Notice of Rights under California Family Rights Act Precluded Summary Judgment in Employer’s Favor.
A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal demonstrates the importance of ensuring that employee leave requests are handled by one central manager who is well trained on the laws (both federal and state) governing such requests. In Faust v. California Portland Cement Company (5/10/07), the Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer and reinstated the employee’s claims, based on the employer’s failure to provide the employee with notice of his rights under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).
Laid-Off Pregnant Employee Fails To Establish State Family Leave Discrimination Claim.
The California appellate court found that the state's family leave regulations stating that an employee "has no greater right to reinstatement" than if the employee had been continuously employed allowed an employer to lay off a pregnant employee even though the employee was on approved family leave.
