Among the new employment laws in effect this new year is the expansion of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to include “reproductive health decision-making” in the list of classifications protected by the FEHA. Accordingly, the FEHA now expressly prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on employees’ reproductive health-decision-making.
Continue Reading FEHA Expanded to Include “Reproductive Health Decision-making” as Protected Category

On September 18, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2188, which prohibits employer discrimination based on employees’ use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace.
Continue Reading New California Legislation Protects Workers’ Personal Marijuana Use

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) not only prohibits discrimination, harassment and retaliation, but goes a step farther than similar state laws in its explicit requirement that employers take reasonable steps to prevent and correct such conduct.
Continue Reading California Issues Guidelines for Preventing and Correcting Workplace Harassment

The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently held that a Department of Corrections employee’s claim that he was constructively discharged after being discriminated against on the basis of his religion–“Sun Worshipping Atheism”–was properly dismissed.
Continue Reading California Appeals Court Finds “Sun Worshipping Atheism” Not a Religion

What should an employer do when a pregnant employee has used all of her allotted leave under CFRA (the California Family Rights Act) and PDLL (Pregnancy Disability Leave Law) but is still not yet able to return to work? Following the appellate court’s recent decision in Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., No. B237761 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013), the employer may be required to grant even more leave.Continue Reading When Pregnancy Disability Leave Is Not Enough

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004 (Cal. Feb. 7, 2013), the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can establish a claim of employment discrimination by showing that discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in the decision-making process.  The Supreme Court also held that even if a plaintiff establishes that discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in the decision-making process, the defendant is entitled to establish a “mixed motive” defense by proving that legitimate factors would have been sufficient, absent the discrimination, to produce the same decision.  On the surface, these two holdings appear contradictory.  That each of those propositions is true highlights the significance of the Court’s rulings on remedies.  Even if the defendant establishes its mixed motive – or same-decision – defense, that defense does not immunize the employer from liability.  Instead, the plaintiff may potentially be entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief, and may recover attorneys’ fees even though the employer successfully establishes its defense.Continue Reading The California Supreme Court Recognizes Mixed-Motive Defense In Employment Discrimination Litigation, But With A Catch

In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s order granting summary judgment to a franchisor and held that the terms of the franchise agreement did not necessarily govern whether the franchisor could be held strictly liable for the actions of an employee of the franchisee. Continue Reading California Appeals Court Holds That Franchisor May Be Liable For Harassment By Employee Of Franchisee

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law Senate Bill No. 559 (SB 559), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s genetic information.  While SB 559 significantly expands the protections from genetic discrimination provided under the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), at this time, its impact on most California employers is thought to be limited to the potential for greater damages to be awarded under it than under its federal counterpart.Continue Reading California Passes Law Prohibiting Discrimination Based On Genetic Information