|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Cal Supreme Court Rejects Sexual Harassment Claim; Conduct Not Severe or Pervasive.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - August 10, 2009 Not all sexual conduct in the workplace is “sexual harassment.” It is a question of degree. An employer who sexually harasses an employee can be liable for damages under both federal law (title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)) and California law (the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)) when the sexually harassing conduct is so “pervasive or severe” that it alters the conditions of employment. Report Link California Supreme Court Affirms High Standards for Sexual Harassment and Emotional Distress Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 10, 2009 For the second time in four years, the California Supreme Court has held that offensive comments must be “severe or pervasive” to constitute actionable sexual harassment as a matter of law. Hughes v. Pair, No. S157197 (July 2, 2009). See also Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Prod., 38 Cal.4th 264 (2006). Although the case was brought under the law which addresses the relationship between professional services providers and their clients (Civil Code section 51.9), the Court noted that the same standards applied in the employment context. The Court also held the comments in Hughes were not actionable quid pro quo harassment and did not support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress because they were not truly outrageous and any distress the plaintiff suffered was not severe. Report Link Sexual Orientation Discrimination: Co-Worker Misconduct: Once a Harasser, Always A Harasser.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - December 03, 2008 When an employee alleges sexual harassment, an employer has an obligation to investigate and promptly stop the harassment. But even where the employer stops the sexual harassment, the employer may face a lawsuit if the accused continues to engage in workplace shenanigans. Potentially any sort of subsequent misconduct by the accused directed at the victim, even if it is not sexually loaded, may be viewed as another form of harassment. The recent California appellate case Dominguez v. WaMu provides an illustration. Report Link Court Reverses $1.4 Million Spanking Verdict Due To Flawed Jury Instructions.Ogletree Deakins - February 08, 2008 A state appellate court in California recently reversed a $1.4 million jury verdict in favor of an employee who claimed that she and others were spanked during company sales meetings. According to the California Court of Appeal, since the jury was not instructed that to prevail the employee had to show that the harassment occurred because she was female, the verdict could not stand. Orlando v. Alarm One, Inc., No. F050759, F051470, California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (January 14, 2008). Report Link Three Instances of Harassing Behavior Did Not Create A Hostile Work Environment.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - November 15, 2007 In In Mokler v. County of Orange, the California Court of Appeal found that the conduct alleged by Pamela Mokler, a employee of the County of Orange, did not rise to the level of actionable sexual harassment. Report Link Lead Employee May Be a "Supervisor" in California Sexual Harassment Case.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 29, 2007 A lead employee may be a supervisor in determining liability for sexual harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Denying the employer's motion for summary judgment, the District Court ruled that the plaintiff could proceed to trial on her claims that the employer was strictly liable for alleged sexual harassment by a lead employee. Although the lead had no authority to hire, fire, discipline, or transfer employees, factual disputes existed regarding his authority to direct employees and his influence on employment decisions.
Report Link Correctional Officer Fails to State A Prima Facie Case of Harassment or Disparate Treatment.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 01, 2007 In Jones v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and against plaintiff Kim Jones on her claims for gender discrimination – hostile work environment; sexual harassment; race discrimination; unlawful retaliation; assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and negligent supervision and retention of employees. Report Link California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Approves Sexual Harassment Training Regulations.Ford & Harrison LLP - July 31, 2007 It took more than a year, but regulations finally have been approved to give employers guidance regarding their obligations to provide sexual harassment training pursuant to California Government Code Section 12950.1 (AB 1825). Report Link California Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Regulations To Go Into Effect.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 24, 2007 After nearly three years of drafts, debates, and delays, extensive regulations implementing California’s mandatory sexual harassment prevention training for supervisors, Assembly Bill 1825 (AB 1825), were finally approved. The final regulations become effective on August 17, 2007. Report Link Effective Employee Training Programs: Money In The Bank.Shaw Valenza LLP - February 02, 2007 “We’ve been sued.” Those few words can strike panic in employers, particularly in California, where multi-million dollar verdicts in favor of employees are not uncommon. What can employers do to reduce their potential exposure for workplace related claims? Adopting and fairly administering lawful policies and procedures is a good start, of course. However, employers also must take the next step to train employees about what is expected of them and the options available for resolving workplace issues within the organization. Report Link Finally, Some Clarity – California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Approves Sexual Harassment Training Regulations.Ford & Harrison LLP - December 04, 2006 It took nearly a full year, but the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing has finally approved regulations to provide employers with guidance regarding California Government Code Section 12950.1 (“AB 1825”). Report Link At Long Last - Done!: The DFEH Releases Final Regulations on A.B. 1825 Compliance.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - November 16, 2006 At its November 14, 2006 meeting, the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission concluded an almost year-long process by approving the agency's final regulations on California's law mandating training of larger employers' supervisors on sexual harassment (A.B. 1825;Cal. Leg. 2003-2004, now codified as Government Code §12950.1.) The good news for employers who followed the regulatory process is that final regulations are identical to the draft regulations issued on October 2, 2006. Report Link California Approves Final Regulations on AB 1825 Harassment Prevention Training.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 15, 2006 After four revisions, public hearings, and an extended comment period, the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission has voted unanimously to approve regulations implementing the state's AB 1825 harassment prevention training mandate. The required workplace training for many covered employers had to have been completed by January 1, 2006 despite the lack of regulations implementing the statute. Report Link California Again Modifies Proposed Harassment Training Regulations to Address Timing, Prior Training.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 20, 2006 Recently revised proposed sexual harassment training regulations may provide a little more guidance for employers in determining who must be trained and how often. Report Link Amendments to Fair Employment and Wage Payment Laws Provide Common Sense Guidance for Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 10, 2006 Amendments to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act have made certain requirements regarding the mandatory harassment prevention training and the payment of overtime wages more "employer friendly." On September 29, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 2095, which clarifies California's existing harassment training requirements so they apply only to those supervisors in California. The law also eliminates confusion regarding the timing for payment of overtime wages by allowing both the overtime pay and a corrected itemization of overtime pay to appear on the pay stub issued for the next regular pay period. Report Link Third Time a Charm? The FEHC Further Refines Draft Regulations as Employers Prepare for the 2007 Training Year.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - September 08, 2006 On August 2006, the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ("the Commission" or FEHC) issued revisions to its second set of draft regulations issued in this past June. The revisions contain important clarifications and guidance at a time when most employers are preparing to retrain their supervisory employees in 2007 as required by California law. (A.B. 1825 (Cal. Leg. 2003-2004) now codified as Government Code §12950.1)/ Report Link FEHC Modifies Proposed AB 1825 Training Regulations.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 07, 2006 California's Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) has issued a third version of proposed regulations under Government Code section 12950.1, or AB 1825. As of January 1, 2005, employers with 50 or more employees have been required to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to supervisory employees every two years. Since then, Jackson Lewis has trained thousands of supervisors through in-person seminars, e-learning through our alliance with Workplace Answers, and blended solutions of live training and e-learning. Report Link FEHC Modifies Proposed Regulations on California Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Law.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 28, 2006 On June 20, 2006, California's Fair Employment and Housing Commission issued modified proposed regulations under Government Code section 12950.1, familiarly known as AB 1825, requiring employers with 50 or more employees to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to supervisory employees every two years. AB 1825 became law on January 1, 2005, and Jackson Lewis has trained thousands of supervisors by either in-person seminars, e-learning through our alliance with Workplace Answers, or a blended solution of live training and e-learning. Report Link In The Home Stretch (Again): The FEHC Issues Revised Draft Regulations as Employers Prepare for the 2007 Training Year.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 07, 2006 On June 30, 2006, the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ("the Commission" or FEHC) issued its second set of draft regulations on sexual harassment training of supervisors of California employees. Substantially different than the initial draft regulations, the new draft provides important guidance at a time when most employers are preparing to retrain their supervisory employees in 2007 as required by California law. (A.B. 1825 (Cal. Leg. 2003-2004) now codified as Government Code §12950.1). Report Link CA Supreme Court Holds Vulgar Language Insufficient To Support Hostile Work Environment (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - April 28, 2006 The California Supreme Court held that sexually coarse and vulgar language used
regularly in the writers' room of a popular television situation comedy did not create a hostile work
environment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Prods., ___ Cal.4th ___ (April 20, 2006). Report Link California Supreme Court Approves Raunchy Talk as Part of the "Creative Workplace" EnvironmentLittler Mendelson, P.C. - April 25, 2006 Talking dirty can sometimes be a necessary part of the job, the California Supreme Court in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Prods., No. S125171 (April 20, 2006), unanimously ruled when it threw out sexual harassment claims made by a former writers' assistant on the NBC television show "Friends." The court sided with Warner Brothers and reversed a lower court ruling that would have allowed the case to proceed to trial. Report Link Fair Employment and Housing Commission Issues Proposed Regulations on Harassment Prevention Training.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 21, 2005 On December 16, 2005, the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ("FEHC") published draft regulations, in compliance with the California Administrative Procedure Act, to provide more detailed guidance to employers regarding how to comply with Assembly Bill 1825 [California Government Code section 12950.1 ("AB 1825")]. The regulatory process provides the opportunity for public comments on the Commission's proposals. Accordingly, the proposed regulations may change significantly prior to their finalization and adoption. The regulations will be codified at California Code of Regulations Section 7288.0 under the heading "Harassment Training and Education." Report Link IN THE HOME STRETCH: Huggers, Instructional Designers, and the Pending Draft of the FEHC's Proposed Regulations for California's Required A.B. 1825 Sexual Harassment Training.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - December 06, 2005 California's Fair Employment and Housing Commission announces release of draft regulations for complying with the state's mandatory harassment training requirements. A.B. 1825, passed in the 2003-2004 session of the California Legislature, requires employers who do business in California, and who have 50 or more employees, to provide harassment prevention training to all supervisors. The first round of training must be completed by December 31, 2005.
Report Link Proposed Regulations on California AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Expected November 1.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 31, 2005 The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing is expected to issue proposed regulations on Assembly Bill 1825. This law requires that employers doing business in California and employing 50 or more workers to provide sexual harassment prevention training and retraining for supervisors. The proposed regulations are intended to provide more detailed guidance to employers regarding how to comply with AB 1825. According to Michael J. Lotito, Esq., coordinator of the Jackson Lewis Management Education Practice Group, "The proposed regulations provide much needed clarification on ambiguities in the AB 1825 statute; for example, the regulations as currently drafted clarify that AB 1825 applies to out-of-state employers with California employees, and that the 50-employee threshold takes into account employees outside of the state." Report Link Sexual Harassment Training Deadline Approaches.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 15, 2005 Time is running out to get into compliance with legal mandates to train supervisors to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Failure to comply could have significant and damaging implications for your business, and increase your risk of liability. Employers with any California employees and 50 or more workers in any jurisdiction are reminded that they have until December 31, 2005, to complete the mandatory education and training of all supervisory personnel in the prevention of sexual harassment.
Report Link Workplace Romance Presents Liability Risk For California Employers (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - August 10, 2005 The California Supreme Court recently
issued an eagerly-anticipated
decision pertaining to sexual harassment
claims brought under California’s
Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA). The justices held that widespread
sexual favoritism in the workplace
may create a hostile worker environment
that demeans other employees. Report Link California Ruling on Workplace Romance Sends Employers Scrambling for Cover.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 09, 2005 When the California Supreme Court ruled late last month that employers are liable for a hostile work environment created when supervisors show job-related favoritism to their co-worker paramours, it wasn't just California employers that sounded the alarm. The decision attracted the attention of international media outlets, such as The Economist (see July 21, 2005) and The New York Times (see July 24, 2005). Report Link Workplace Romance May Create Hostile Work Environment for Unaffected Employees.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 26, 2005 California's Supreme Court has unanimously decided that favoritism shown an employee in a romantic relationship with a supervisor may, if sufficiently widespread, create an actionable hostile work environment resulting in unlawful harassment of other employees. The court found the basis for potential sexual harassment liability even when no objectionable conduct is directed at the other employees. Report Link Deadline for AB 1825 Compliance Is Rapidly Approaching.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 26, 2005 Employers with 50 or more workers are reminded that they have until December 31, 2005, to complete the education and training of all personnel in supervisory positions as of July 1, 2005, in the prevention of sexual harassment. Out-of-state companies with employees within California also need to comply, and new supervisors as of July 1 must be trained within six months. The training must be two hours, interactive, and repeated every two years. Report Link Employers Face Greater Risk from Workplace Romance: California Supreme Court Rules That Office Affairs May Give Rise to Sexual Favoritism Claims.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 25, 2005 Employees in California may now sue their employers for sexual harassment if a sexual affair between a supervisor and a subordinate results in “sexual favoritism” creating a hostile work environment for those employees not involved in the affair. A unanimous California Supreme Court in Miller v. Department of Corrections held that consensual sexual affairs may constitute sexual harassment if “sexual favoritism” – giving preference with regard to the terms of employment to a lover to the detriment of other employees – is sufficiently widespread to create an actionable hostile work environment under California’s unlawful harassment law. Report Link Workplace Romances Can Form Basis of Harassment Claims Under CA Law (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - July 25, 2005 On Tuesday, July 18, 2005, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Miller v. Department
of Corrections, an eagerly-anticipated decision pertaining to sexual harassment claims brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). According to Scott J. Witlin, a shareholder in the Los Angeles office of Ogletree Deakins, “[t]his decision weakens somewhat the long line of cases that held that favoritism toward a paramour was not discrimination against others.” Report Link California Mandates Sexual Harassment Training.Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - March 11, 2005 The California legislature has enacted a law requiring employers with 50 or more employees to provide sexual harassment classroom training to all supervisors. Report Link New California Training Law Strengthens Legal Mandate for All Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 07, 2005 Under California's new law designed to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace (AB 1825, ß 12950.1 of the Government Code), a covered employer must provide classroom or other training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees. Report Link Jury May Consider Employer's 'Creative Necessity' Defense Against Sexual Harassment Claim.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 07, 2005 Considering an unusual defense to a sexual harassment claim, the California Court of Appeal ruled an employee need not show the harassing conduct was directed at the employee personally, but must prove only that she/he witnessed the harassing conduct and it was in her/his immediate work environment. Report Link AB 1825: A California Training Mandate for Supervisors.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 18, 2005 Through an alliance of Jackson Lewis LLP and Workplace Answers, employers have the option of an exclusive web-based course delivery technology for easy-to-use, interactive employee training. We are ready to deliver personalized education specifically designed to comply with California AB 1825. Report Link Mandatory Sex Harassment Training in California: An Update.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 08, 2004 California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission have clarified a state law requirement mandating that supervisors receive two hours of sex harassment training. Report Link Defining "Interactive" Training Under California's New Sexual Harassment Prevention Mandate.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 22, 2004 As many of you are probably keenly aware, AB 1825, which requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide sexual harassment prevention training to supervisors and managers in California, becomes effective on January 1, 2005. The statute requires "interactive" training. Report Link An Imperative for Employers: California Enacts Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 11, 2004 A new California law mandating sexual harassment prevention training, AB 1825, became effective on September 30, 2004. It requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to supervisory employees every two years. Report Link Most Over-Reaching New State Employment Law: Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training (pdf).Jones Walker - October 22, 2004 Sexual harassment prevention training is now mandatory for California
employers. Report Link An Imperative for Employers Everywhere: California Enacts Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Statute.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 21, 2004 What do the U. S. Supreme Court, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the States of California, Connecticut and Maine, and Jackson Lewis have in common? Report Link Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Now Mandatory for California Employers.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - October 11, 2004 Prudent employers have trained managers and employees on preventing unlawful discrimination and harassment in the workplace for years. Such training helps employers avoid conflicts that result in litigation and can also help defend against lawsuits if they arise. This wise course of action has become a legal responsibility since Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1825 on September 30, 2004. Report Link New California Law Mandates Anti-Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 04, 2004 On September 30, 2004, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger enacted AB 1825, a bill that now requires certain California employers to provide two hours of anti-harassment training every two years. Report Link California Supreme Court Rejects Federal Defense to Harassment Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 07, 2004 In one of the year's most eagerly anticipated employment law decisions, Department of Health Services v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (McGinnis), the California Supreme Court recently refused to adopt the federal Faragher/Ellerth defense to harassment claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Report Link Verdict In Favor Of Adult Video Store Employee Claiming Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Orientation Discrimination Affirmed.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 15, 2002 In Briseno v. Diamond Video World Inc., 99 D.L.R. A-6 (Cal. Ct. App. 5/22/2002) (unpublished opinion), the California Court of Appeal affirmed the $10,608 jury verdict for sex harassment of a former employee of an adult video store and the $19,123 attorney's fee award. Report Link California Does Not Recognize a Common Law Action for Sexual Harassment.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - April 22, 2002 Discusses Medix Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Superior Ct., No. G029042, 2002 DAR 3377 (3/29/02 B Decision issued 3/27/02), in which the court ruled that California common law does not provide a cause of action for sexual harassment. Report Link "Worthy Question -- California Supreme Court Should Decide Applicability of Federal Defense" Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - January 24, 2002 California courts have been wrestling with whether to adopt the federal rule on vicarious liability in sex harassment cases.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 46SUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds