Articles Discussing The California Fair Employment And Housing Act (FEHA).

By: District Attorneys’ Unfair Competition Claim Against Serial ADA Litigant Barred By Litigation Privilege

Companies hit with website accessibility or physical access claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and/or California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) may experience great frustration upon learning that it too has

By: New Law Makes Establishing Retaliation Claims Easier For California Employees

By: New Law Makes Establishing Retaliation Claims Easier For California Employees

On October 8, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 497, which makes it easier for employees to establish retaliation claims in California.

SB 497

Halloween season is a good time for spooky stories, so let’s talk about a subject that strikes fear in the hearts of employers everywhere: retaliation claims.

On September 30, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) No. 235, which adds new rules for initial disclosures of information in discovery.

On October 7, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed proposed bill SB 403, which, as previously discussed, sought to ban discrimination based on caste under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Education Code.  Governor Newsom’s message called this change “unnecessary” because these statutes

California is one step closer to becoming the first state to enact legislation banning caste-based discrimination. Senate Bill No. 403 adds caste to the list of characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Education Code.

In this episode, Jen explains a recent California Court of Appeals decision involving whether employers must grant accommodations to vaccine policies.

While California’s COVID-19 State of Emergency is set to end on February 28, 2023, and California’s Supplemental COVID Supplemental Sick Pay has already sunsetted, the effects of the pandemic continue to impact California employers. Most recently, there has been a major uptick in employee requests for accommodation for mental issues such as depression, stress, and anxiety related to pandemic issues.

Whether it is depression from being isolated while working from home, stress from being short-staffed during COVID-related leaves, or anxiety from facing an employer mandate to return to in-office work, when a California employee raises a mental health concern, there are many issues the employer should keep in mind.

Here are some quick tips for dealing with mental health accommodations:

Executive Summary: Recently, the California appellate court provided guidance on how employers may comply with the Golden State’s workplace seating requirement. While the court found that the inquiry is fact-intensive and involves a multitude of job- and workplace-specific factors, the court’s opinion suggests employers should use a commonsense approach when providing seating to their employees, including an inquiry into how employers can meaningfully provide seats to their employees. The opinion, issued July 19, 2022, is Meda v. AutoZone.

After an explosion of “website accessibility” cases in recent years where plaintiffs sue internet-based companies under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging that the websites are not accessible (usually alleged by visually impaired individuals), there is a ray of sunshine for some companies. The question of whether Title III of the ADA even applies to internet-based companies (as opposed to companies with physical storefronts) has been the subject of an ongoing debate, and inconsistent rulings, in courts.

In Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., the Second Appellate District declined to extend the meaning of “a place of public accommodation” under Title III to digital-only websites. Thus, an Unruh Act claim based on a violation of Title III cannot extend to purely digital websites and does not constitute a Title III violation. Based on this, those trying to recover against a digital-only website can only establish an Unruh Act claim under the theory of a “denial of access to a business establishment based on intentional discrimination.”

By: Los Angeles Country Trial Court Strikes Down Another California Board Diversity Law 

Last month, on May 13, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that SB 826, which requires publicly held California corporations with a principal executive office in California to follow gender diversity requirements for board of

The California courts have cast doubt on the legality of laws mandating the number of women and individuals from “underrepresented communities” on the boards of directors of publicly traded corporations based in California.

On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County judge ruled that AB 979, which requires publicly held corporations with a principal executive office in California to have at least one member of the Board of Directors from an “underrepresented community,” violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. Under AB 979, which was codified as California Corporations Code 301.4, a director from an underrepresented community included a person who self-identified as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Covered companies that did not have at least one underrepresented community Board member by the end of 2021 faced large fines.

In this episode, Jen and Erika Frank remind employers about the importance of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) training, a.k.a sexual harassment prevention training. Jen explains that EEO Compliance is not just about sex.  Diversity, equity, inclusion (and belonging) are important topics to include when training employees about EEO compliance.  Remember:

In 2018, the California Legislature passed a slew of bills to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, including Senate Bill No. 1343. This bill expanded employee protections to require employers who employ 5 or more employees, including temporary or seasonal employees, to provide at least 2 hours of sexual harassment prevention training to all supervisory employees and at least 1 hour of sexual harassment prevention training to all nonsupervisory employees. These regulations previously only applied to employers with 50 or more employees. The initial deadline for providing new training to those employees not previously covered under prior state law was January 1, 2020. However, SB 778, which was passed on August 30, 2019, extended the deadline to January 1, 2021.