FEHA

05 Nov FEHA Protected Activity Retaliation

Retaliation for Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA, protected activity is a common form of unlawful retaliation. The FEHA prohibits employment discrimination and harassment. But it also makes it unlawful to retaliate against employees for engaging in protected activity. There are two central parts to a FEHA retaliation claim: protected activity and retaliation. FEHA protected activity that triggers retaliation provision The FEHA prohibits retaliation. But it only prohibits certain kinds of retaliation. Specifically, it prohibits retaliation against employees for engaging in conduct that qualifies as protected activity. Under the FEHA, protected activity means opposing employment practices that the FEHA makes unlawful. All sorts of things can count as opposition. But, most commonly, it's reporting or complaining to a manager or HR. For example, the FEHA makes sexual harassment unlawful. Reporting to HR is a form of opposition. Accordingly, an employer cannot retaliate against an employee for reporting sexual harassment to HR. Doing so would violate the FEHA. Conversely, the FEHA doesn't make it unlawful for your boss to criticize your work. So suppose your boss criticizes your work. You think her criticism is unfair and you complain to HR. While that complaint to HR might be opposition, it's still probably not protected activity. That's because the conduct about which you're complaining isn't prohibited by the FEHA. Of course, the law is not black and white. There is a fine line between conduct that is impolite and conduct that violates the FEHA. Fortunately, the underlying conduct need not actually violate the FEHA. Instead the employee just needs to show they had a good faith belief that it does. For example, if an employee complains about what they honestly think is unlawful harassment, then the FEHA protects that employee from retaliation. Of course, that honest belief typically has to be at least somewhat reasonable. FEHA protected activity retaliation requires an adverse employment action Technically under the law, retaliation refers to the overall act of retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected activity. The employer does the retaliating by taking what's called an adverse employment action. Many people assume this means firing, but it's actually much broader. In simple terms, an adverse employment action is anything that negatively affects the conditions of your employment. In addition to termination, this can be things like, demotions, failure to promote, or transfer to a less desirable role. This is not an exhaustive list. In fact, there isn't necessarily an exhaustive list. Whether something qualifies as an adverse employment action depends on the facts of the situation. Causation is an element of retaliation Critically, it is not enough to show merely protected activity and an adverse employment action. To establish a retaliation claim, an employee must show some causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. That is, they must show the adverse employment action was at least partly because of the protected activity. Obviously, the best evidence is direct evidence. But in most cases, an employer won't say they're firing an employee because of their protected activity. More often, an employer will offer some legitimate reason for the adverse employment action and the employee will need to use circumstantial evidence to establish causation. For example, close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action is evidence of causation (though usually not enough evidence on it's own). There are non-FEHA retaliation laws that apply in California It's important to note that there are other types of unlawful retaliation. For example, California Labor Code section 1102.5  prohibits retaliation against qualifying employees. There are also federal laws, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that prohibit retaliation in certain circumstances.Consequently, if you have experienced retaliation that doesn't fit within the FEHA retaliation discussed above, that doesn't mean you don't have a case. You should contact an employer lawyer to evaluate your case. They can determine what, if any, retaliation claims you may have. If you an employer has retaliated against you, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For more, follow us on Twitter....

Read More

30 Oct You’re Unlikely to Pay Defendant’s Expenses

You're unlikely to pay defendant's expenses, even if you lose your harassment, discrimination, or retaliation case. This is a concern many people have when they consider suing their employer. While it's not technically impossible, it's very unlikely in practice. In general, you're unlikely to pay defendant's expenses (at least their attorney's fees) in the United States Many non-lawyers assume that if you lose a lawsuit, you have to pay for the opposing party's expenses. But this is generally not the case in the United States. Under the American Rule, each party pays their own attorneys. This default rule applies unless a statute or contract says otherwise. Statutes that require a losing party to pay for the winning party's expenses are called shifting statutes. Shifting statutes: Exception to the American Rule Shifting statutes apply to certain types of legal claims. For example, you can get attorney's fees if you win a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. That's because that law specifically says you can. If it didn't, both sides would pay their own attorneys, regardless of outcome. Conversely, if you're injured in a car accident and sue the other driver for negligence, you'll probably have to pay your own attorney, even if you win. Likewise, if you lose, the other driver will still pay her own attorneys. That's because no shifting statute applies to negligence lawsuits in California. Another exception to the American Rule is contracts. Some contracts say that if one party sues the other in connection with the contract, the loser pays the winner's expenses. But this more common in commercial settings. If you're suing your employer for discrimination, you're not suing to enforce a contract, so this less of a concern in a typical employment case. Lastly, as a practical matter, most cases settle before trial. Shifting statutes only apply once trial is over. But very few cases make it that far. So even when a shifting statute applies, the case usually settles before it comes into play. If a case settles before a verdict, each side typically pays their own attorneys. Asymmetrical fee and cost shifting in Title VII and FEHA Even if an exception to the American Rule applies, there is an exception to the exception for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases in California. If you're bringing a lawsuit in California for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at work, you're likely bringing it under Title VII or the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA). Title VII is federal law and the FEHA is state law. They have some differences, but both prohibit discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at work. Title VII and FEHA both provide for asymmetrical fee and cost shifting (fees are what you pay your attorney, costs are other expenses). Asymmetrical shifting schemes make it easier for one side to recover fees and costs. Under both Title VII and FEHA, a victorious plaintiff can recover both fees and costs from the defendant. But a victorious defendant cannot recover fees or costs from a plaintiff unless the plaintiff's case is frivolous (courts very rarely find that a case is frivolous). This gets a bit tricky because California has a statute that allows prevailing parties to collect costs (but not attorney's fees) from the losing party. But Title VII and the FEHA are exceptions to this rule. Accordingly, while California's default rule entitles a prevailing defendant to costs, this is not the case with non-frivolous Title VII or FEHA claims. Talk to an employment attorney about your potential discrimination, harassment, or retaliation case In summary, Title VII or FEHA plaintiffs are unlikely to pay the defendant's expenses, even if they lose. As such, the risk of bearing the employer's expenses should not prevent you from pursuing a legitimate claim for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. This is why the asymmetrical shifting scheme exists. The drafters of Title VII and the FEHA didn't want fear of having to pay defendant's expenses to scare plaintiffs away. Of course, this is only one of many things to consider before suing your employer. But don't let fear of losing and paying the defendant's expenses prevent you from having a lawyer evaluate your case. If you need an attorney for an employment matter, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For more, follow us on Twitter....

Read More

21 Oct Different Sources of Employment Law

There are different sources of employment law in California. You've probably heard about Title VII. This is federal law, which Congress enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits harassment and discrimination in the workplace. But California also has its own version of Title VII: the Fair Employment and Housing Act, also known as the FEHA. Like Title VII, the FEHA prohibits workplace harassment and discrimination. Both Title VII and the FEHA apply in California. If you're considering suing your employer, you may be able to choose between the two. Different sources of employment law, similar rules and remedies After the federal government enacted Title VII, many states passed their own versions of the law. The FEHA is California's version of Title VII. Because the FEHA is based on Title VII, there are many similarities between the two laws. For example, both prohibit harassment and discrimination based on certain characteristics, such as race, gender, and religion. They both also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who oppose harassment or discrimination. Moreover, they both set up a mandatory administrative process. Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If you want to sue your employer under Title VII, you have to go to the EEOC first. Likewise, the FEHA has the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Like under Title VII, you must go through the DFEH's administrative process before you sue your employer in court under the FEHA. Finally, Title VII and the FEHA both authorize punitive damages and allow victorious plaintiffs to collect attorney fees and costs. They both also have asymmetrical cost shifting. This means prevailing plaintiffs can recover fees and costs as a matter of right, but when defendants win, they can't recover fees and costs unless the plaintiff's lawsuit was frivolous. Though similar, there are important differences between Title VII and the FEHA While similar, there some key differences between Title VII and the FEHA. Perhaps the most important difference from a plaintiff's prospective is Title VII's damages cap. While the FEHA allows for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, Title VII limits recoverable damages. Additionally, Title VII is federal law. This means that federal courts automatically have jurisdiction over Title VII cases. While California courts can hear cases involving federal law, a defendant being sued under federal law has the right to remove the case to federal court. While this doesn't affect the substantive law, federal courts use different procedural rules. For example, California courts do not require plaintiffs to win unanimous jury verdicts, while federal courts do require unanimous verdicts. Moreover, it's often more expensive to litigate in federal court and plaintiffs' attorney are generally less experienced there. Accordingly, plaintiffs often prefer state court. Because the FEHA is not federal law, defendants have a harder time removing FEHA cases to federal court. Finally, there are some differences in the substance of the two laws. For example, the FEHA prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It's unclear whether Title VII does so, though the Supreme Court is expected to conclusively resolve this issue in the spring of 2020. Different sources of employment law: which law should I use? Now you know there are different sources of employment law in California. If you're considering suing your employer, you might be wondering: which source of law should I use? The answer: it depends. Most plaintiffs' attorney probably prefer the FEHA. But that doesn't mean that every plaintiff in every situation should proceed under the FEHA. There are some instances in which Title VII is the way to go. First, in some situations, Title VII is your only option. For example, if you are an employee of the federal government, you generally can't use the FEHA to sue the federal government in state court. There are also some areas, called federal enclaves, where only federal law applies. If the offending conduct occurred in a federal enclave, Title VII may be the exclusive remedy. Additionally, you may be in an area where the juries are not favorable for plaintiffs. Because the applicable federal court may be in a different city or county, it's possible you could get a more favorable jury in federal court. Because you probably can't bring your FEHA claims in federal court, you may want to use Title VII if this is the case. These are only a few of the many factors involved in choosing whether to pursue claims under Title VII or the FEHA. Ultimately, this is a decision you'll need make in consultation with your attorney. It's also important to remember that there are other laws, both state and federal, that might apply in the employment context. If you believe you have a claim against your employer, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. To stay up to date on our blog posts and more, follow us on Twitter....

Read More

08 Oct #MeToo inspired sexual harassment bills await signature

Three #MeToo inspired sexual harassment bills await the governor's signature. The legislature passed each of the three bills partly in response to the #MeToo movement, which has grown in response to sexual harassment in the workplace. As part of the movement, #MeToo advocates have called for updates to California's sexual harassment laws. While the bills all aim to deter sexual harassment, they each address distinct issues. AB 9, inspired by #MeToo criticisms, would extend the statute of limitations for sexual harassment claims AB 9 would extend the time victims of sexual harassment have to file claims under state law. Currently, sexual harassment victims generally have only one year to take action. AB 9 would change the statute of limitations for sexual harassment to three years. Employment lawyers and supporters of the #MeToo movement have criticized the short statute of limitations California has for sexual harassment claims. They argue many sexual harassment victims don't immediately recognize they've experienced legally actionable sexual harassment. By the time they do, it may be too late to take action. Meanwhile, critics of AB 9 argue that it will increase employers' liability. Undoubtedly, this would be a major change to state employment law. But until the bill goes into effect, nobody can say for sure how much real world impact the change would have. AB 51 seeks to protect sexual harassment victims' right to sue in court AB 51 would prohibit employers from enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses against victims of sexual harassment. Employers are increasingly using mandatory arbitration clauses in their contracts with employees. Arbitration is essentially a private court system. Arbitration generally has similar procedures as court, but there are some important differences. These differences, tend to advantage employers. Moreover, it's very rare that a court will decline to enforce an arbitration agreement. Unsurprisingly, many #MeToo advocates have been critical of arbitration agreements, arguing they take rights away from sexual harassment victims. Moreover, because arbitration is private, it allows employers to sweep sexual harassment lawsuits under the rug. AB 51 would make it harder for employers to enforce such agreements against victims of sexual harassment. Advocates hope the legislation would help victims fight back more effectively against sexual harassment at work. Even if passed, however, it's possible that AB 51 would conflict with federal law regarding arbitration agreements. Where state and federal law directly conflict, federal law prevails. Therefore, it's possible AB 51 would have little or no impact on sexual harassment lawsuits. If AB 51 does become law, courts will have to work this out. AB 749 would prohibit employers from including "no rehire" clauses in sexual harassment settlements AB 749 prohibits employers from including "no rehire" clauses in settlement agreements with sexual harassment victims. These clauses give employers the right to refuse to hire or employ the victim in the future. #MeToo advocates argue this is a form of retaliation against employees who file sexual harassment lawsuits. By prohibiting such clauses, the legislature sought to ensure that victims can move on without sacrificing future opportunities. #MeToo advocates hope governor will sign the sexual harassment bills As of now, these three #MeToo inspired sexual harassment bills are not law. They will only become law with the governor's signature. The governor has until October 13, 2019 to sign them. Activists in the growing anti-sexual harassment movement are hoping the governor will sign them before the upcoming deadline. If the governor does not sign one or more of the bills, don't expect that to be the end of the line. This is only the beginning of what will likely to be a long effort to reshape California's civil rights laws to combat sexual harassment. If you believe you have been a victim of sexual harassment, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For updates on these bills and more, follow us on Twitter....

Read More

03 Oct Court case on gay, transgender employment discrimination

The Supreme Court will decide whether discrimination against gay and transgender employees is illegal under federal law. The Court has agreed to hear three cases on the issues in the fall term. The cases involve Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on protected classes such as race, gender, and national origin. In these cases, the Court will decide whether sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes. Lower courts are divided on whether employment discrimination against gay and transgender workers is unlawful under Title VII Courts are split on whether Title VII protects gay and transgender employees. Most courts have found Title VII does not protect sexual orientation and gender identity. Where this is the law, employers can discriminate against gay and transgender people. For example, an employer can fire an employee for being gay. Some courts, however, say Title VII does protect gay and transgender workers. This means that gay and transgender employees can sue their employers for employment discrimination under Title VII. Therefore, whether federal law protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination currently depends on location. In some places it does, in other places it does not. This creates what's called a "circuit split." This means courts are split on the issue. The Supreme Court's decision will set the law for the whole country. Many states do not have laws prohibiting employment discrimination against gay and transgender people Title VII is federal law so it applies across the entire country. Because many states do not have strong employment discrimination laws, Title VII is very important. If you live in a state that does not protect gay or transgender employees, Title VII is your only protection. Therefore, millions of gay and transgender Americans will be left with no protection if the Supreme Court decides Title VII does not protect them. The Court will hear arguments on gay and transgender employment discrimination on October 8 The court will hear oral arguments in these cases on October 8, 2019. Next, the Court will issue decisions. This will likely happen in the next several months. However, it's possible the Court could dodge the issue and resolve the cases on procedural grounds. Accordingly, the Court may not definitely resolve the issues raised in these cases at this time. The Supreme Court will decide whether employers can discriminate against gay and transgender workers under federal law only Fortunately, California law does protect gay and transgender people from employment discrimination. Therefore, whatever the Supreme Court decides, California law will still protect gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination. If you believe an employer has discriminated against you, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For updates on these cases and more, follow us on Twitter....

Read More