Forced Retirement? Not so Fast!

June 15, 2017 by Beck Law P.C.

Are you being targeted for forced retirement? You enjoy working. You show up every day, ready to tackle the next project that comes your way. So, you are more than a little surprised when your boss suggests that retirement is something you should seriously consider. As time progresses, you find less significant tasks being assigned to you, and you notice younger employees eagerly attacking projects that used to be in your domain. Your employer is gently compelling you to ease on out the door. You start to question yourself: Are you too old for the job? Before you concede to your employer’s pressure to leave, you should really consult a knowledgeable employment attorney.

Forced Retirement – Legal Protections

Before you comply with the not-so-subtle forced retirement suggestion to pack up and leave, consider this: Federal law protects workers from being pushed out of a job with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967. Although some may view 65 as the desirable age for retirement, workers cannot be discriminated against due to their age. They certainly cannot be forced into a retirement that they do not want. The law applies to individuals aged 40 and older who work for a private company with at least 20 employees, or for any government entity. Not only are you protected from being forced out; if you are capable of performing your duties, your employer cannot demote you, insist you take a position with les responsibility, lower your pay, or move you into part-time work.

What About Benefits on the Job?

Older workers must be provided access to the same benefits as all other workers, as well. Even if you are eligible for Medicare, your health insurance benefits cannot be reduced. Beyond health care, other opportunities cannot be denied simply because of your age. You must have equal access to:

Training opportunities;
Prospects for promotions;
Lateral movement in the company.

Exceptions: BFOQ

On the other hand, if your employer can demonstrate that your age is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), they may have grounds to discriminate. This is an unusual circumstance and is difficult to prove. (One possibility might be in casting for a commercial requiring a child actor). The employer, who has the burden of proof, must show three key facts:

The job qualifications expected are reasonable and essential to the functioning of the business;
Individuals over a particular age limit could not perform those duties with efficiency and safety;
The practicability of assessing fitness for the job on an individual basis is unreasonable or impossible.

COBRA Insurance for California Workers

March 24, 2017 by Beck Law P.C.

What is COBRA insurance? Let’s say you have enjoyed employer-provided health care benefits for some time, but suddenly find yourself without a job, and therefore without health insurance. What do you do now? An experienced employment attorney can help you to understand the filing requirements and options associated with continuing coverage utilizing state or federal resources.

California Continuation of Benefits Replacement Act

Federal provisions for health insurance coverage provide options for employees who previously worked for a company with 20 or more employees and lost coverage due to a qualifying event. Federal law left a gap in coverage for employees of smaller companies. Thus, in 1997, California legislators expanded federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) coverage for California workers. The legislation requires health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and insurance carriers to provide COBRA-type benefits to employees of smaller companies that employ two to 19 workers. Employees who were enrolled in a healthcare plan within one day prior to a qualifying event are entitled to these benefits.

COBRA Insurance Qualifying Events

Several occurrences may result in a loss of health care coverage with corresponding COBRA insurance coverage options. Those include:

Retirement;
Entitlement to Medicare;
Divorce/remarriage;
Termination for a reason other than “gross misconduct;”
Reduction in a covered employees’ hours at the employer’s behest;
Death of a covered employee.

Additionally, a dependent child whose covered parent dies is entitled to coverage until age 26 as outlined by the Affordable Care Act.

Defining COBRA Insurance Coverage

Insurance benefits, deductibles and limits must be identical to “similarly situated active plan participants” according to COBRA requirements. If or when plans change for active participants, COBRA insurance recipients’ plans will experience like changes.

Qualified beneficiaries are entitled to the same notices as active employees and are allowed to make modifications during the same open enrollment windows that active employees have. Additionally, beneficiaries may expect to know then coverage begins and end, and when they are ineligible for coverage. Pre-existing conditions will not impact your ability to receive coverage. Additionally, you are eligible to receive access to the same dental and vision coverage plans as working employees under COBRA (though not necessarily under Cal-COBRA).

Employees have the responsibility to notify employers when a qualifying event occurs according to employer notice procedures.

If You Choose COBRA Insurance

If, after a qualifying event, you elect to obtain COBRA insurance coverage, your have 60 days from the time you receive notice to enroll. If you do not get a notice about your coverage opportunities, it is important to speak with your former employer or health plan administrator quickly, as these deadlines are pretty hard and fast.

After enrolling, your first premium must be paid within 45 days. You are able to keep your COBRA plan for at least 18 months, and can switch over to Cal-COBRA for another 18 months after that. For employees from smaller companies, Cal-COBRA plans allow you to stay enrolled for up to 36 months. Premium payments will be your responsibility. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Health Insurance Tagged With: California employment attorney, COBRA, health insurance

National Origin Discrimination

March 7, 2017 by Beck Law P.C.

National origin discrimination in the workplace. Angry rhetoric and fear surrounding immigration are all over the current news headlines. What impact does it have on individuals from foreign countries, particularly those countries called out as dangerous? With all the debate on immigration, many individuals who have legal status in California are worried that they are bound to face national origin discrimination in the workplace. If you believe your national origin has impacted employer’s decisions toward you, you may need an experienced employment attorney.

Legal protections exist for individuals from every country. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to protect both applicants and employees from employment discrimination, whether they or their ancestors hail from France or Somalia, Australia or Sudan.

What Does National Origin Discrimination Look Like?

This type of discrimination, which is based on a person’s heritage, or cultural, physical or linguistic attributes associated with a particular national origin, can display itself in many ways:

Refusing to recruit or hire workers based on surname, traditional attire, or nationality;
Requiring workers to stay behind the scenes, or out of the public eye due to appearance or national origin;
Segregating workers of one background from those of another;
Harassing or teasing workers about their food, attire, habits, etc.;
Disciplining workers more frequently or severely based on nationality;
Failing to provide equal wages and benefits, or failing to promote due to national origin;
Transferring, or refusing to transfer, based on national origin;
Terminating or laying off employees based on national origin.

National Origin Discrimination – Overlapping Issues

Multiple issues frequently intersect when discrimination based on national origin occurs. For instances, prejudice toward someone of Somali descent may be predicated on issues surrounding religion. Perhaps discrimination associated with Asian ancestry may be connected to racial sentiments. Gender, religion, race, color, and national origin may all be involved in a single discrimination complaint.

Inappropriate Job Screening

Practices that create a disparate impact on particular groups by screening out individuals on the basis of national origin are unlawful. The elimination of obstacles that either inadvertently or purposefully limit applicants based on national origin must be removed. Even when recruiters or temporary job placement agencies are involved, equal access to employment is required.

Conflicting Motives in Employment Decisions

Often employers make decisions based on multiple factors, and contend that a given outcome would have occurred regardless of national origin. While there may be merit to such a claim, it is incumbent upon an employer to make this showing. If the employer can make a case for the employment decisions, the employer may still be on the hook for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorney’s fees. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Employment Discrimination Tagged With: California employment attorney, employment discrimination, nation of origin, nationality

Reverse Discrimination? The Court Says No

January 25, 2017 by Beck Law P.C.

Reverse discrimination? Male prison guards performing strip searches on female inmates is an issue just asking for a lawsuit, right? The Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) needed a strong response to the lack of female correctional officers, and to a growing number of lawsuits involving the abuse and harassment of female inmates by their male prison guards. Complaints ranging from privacy breaches to sexual abuse were not uncommon. Authorities assigned the primary cause to the severe deficiency of female correctional officers in women’s prisons. The result was that male officers were responsible for sensitive duties, including supervising showers and performing pat-downs and other potentially delicate duties.

In response to this problem, officials designated 110 corrections positions as female-only, only to be slapped with a lawsuit from the Teamsters Union, claiming discrimination against male corrections officers. The Teamsters claimed that creating positions specifically for female officers was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, in that males were denied jobs purely based on gender.

Reverse discrimination? The 9th Circuit Court found that the deliberation behind the decision to create female positions was sound. Because the DOC had undergone extensive study, including consultation with other states, expert soundings, case law reviews, and Human Rights Commission reviews, the decision to make the gender-specific positions was ruled not discriminatory, as gender was, indeed, a bona-fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the positions created.

Bona-Fide Occupational Qualification in Federal Law

Clearly, gender cannot be a disqualifier for hiring, promotion, or advancement in the majority of cases. On the other hand, a clear exception to Title VII regulations exists when sex is essential to a particular job. Hence, the BFOQ stipulations: They are narrowly applied, but deemed necessary in cases such as the corrections department scenario.

Employers need note that BFOQ is not an easy way out of hiring women for jobs that may traditionally be considered “men’s work.” Stereotypes, assumptions, or simple preferences are not acceptable arguments to use in denying employment based on gender.

Reverse Discrimination and Affirmative Action Programs

Many companies may have affirmative action goals designed to encourage a diverse workforce. These may be used to strive for parity, but actual quota systems are unlawful unless specifically court-ordered to rectify discriminatory practices.

It is noteworthy, however, that the Supreme Court has found that merit-based evaluations may, in fact, reflect evaluator bias. In an affirmative action plan that gave promotional preference to a woman who had scored marginally lower than her male counterpart, the court found that since the interviewers were all male, and one had a history of sexually degrading speech, the promotion was proper.

In truth, although there are detractors who believe reverse discrimination is a serious problem in our country, fewer than 2% of discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission might be categorized as such. That is because affirmative action plans are designed to assist individuals who already have germane qualifications. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Employment Discrimination Tagged With: affirmative action, California employment attorney, gender discrimination, gender equality

Can an Employee Be Required to Pay Back the Cost of Their Training if They Quit?

December 27, 2016 by Beck Law P.C.

It is a common arrangement for an employer to offer to pay for an employee’s education or training, so long as the employee agrees to pay back some (if not all) of these costs if he or she leaves the company within a certain period of time. However, a former employee of a California steel plant recently sued after he was required to pay back the cost of his education – and he argued that these kinds of reimbursement agreements violate state law.

The employee, Floyd Case, worked as a laborer for USS-Posco Industries (UPI), which introduced a program allowing workers to be trained to become Maintenance Technical Electrical workers. The training was provided to each participating employee free of charge, unless an employee voluntarily quit his or her job within 30 months of completing the training. In that case, the employee would be required to pay back $30,000, minus $1,000 for each month the employee worked after the training ended.

Case quit his job two months after finishing the training, and was expected to repay $28,000. He filed a complaint, arguing that the reimbursement agreement he signed violated the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Had the courts sided with Case, the result could have been disastrous for employers, as their reimbursement agreement contracts with employees could have been rendered invalid across the board.

However, Case’s complaint was dismissed at trial, and a California appeals court upheld the dismissal. The ruling, USS-Posco Industries v. Case, asserts that reimbursement contracts like the one signed by Case are valid. However, the ruling also makes it clear that there are certain types of reimbursement contracts that courts should not enforce.

Which Reimbursement Contracts are Valid, and Which Are Not?

The court held that the training program offered by UPI was strictly voluntary and optional, and thus UPI could enforce a contract requiring an employee such as Case to pay back the program’s costs. The court pointed out that Case:

Did not incur any losses or make any expenditures when he took part in the training program, as it was paid for entirely by his employer,
Was not required to participate in the program,
Had other ways of securing a position as a Maintenance Technical Electrical worker, such as devising a training program of his own, or taking the test without a training program, and
Understood that he would be required to pay back the costs of the training if he quit his job within 30 months of completion.

If, however, an employee was required to make expenditures in order to perform his or her job, the employer would not be able to recoup these expenses from the employee – even if the employee signed a contract agreeing to reimburse the employer. An example offered by the court is In Re Acknowledgement Cases, in which Los Angeles police officers who quit their jobs after less than five years on the force were required to reimburse the city for their training costs. The policy was ruled impermissible at court, because the officers were required to undergo the trainings. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Employment Contract Tagged With: California employment attorney

Final Paycheck When Leaving a Job

November 16, 2016 by Beck Law P.C.

When can I expect to receive my final paycheck? Dissatisfied with your employment situation, you look for another job, providing your current employer with two weeks’ notice. You expect your final paycheck On the last day of employment along with unused vacation and sick pay. You are told, however, that payment will be deferred until the end of the pay period. So you scratch your head and wait for the check. Ten days later when it comes, the paycheck includes payment for the hours you worked, but nothing more. Where is the compensation for unused vacation and sick days?

What now? This is precisely the type of question that an experienced employment lawyer can assist with.

Was I Entitled to my Final Paycheck on the Last Day I was Employed?

In this situation, the answer is yes. The employee’s final paycheck is due within 72 hours of termination if the employee leaves without notice. The check may be picked up at the office or mailed to a designated address. If notice was given 72 hours or more prior to leaving, as in this case, the final check is due at the time of termination and at the location of the employer’s office.

What About Unused Sick Days and Vacation Days?

Earned, unused vacation pay must be included in the final payment. The same is not true for unused sick leave, however. Unless your contract says otherwise, California law does not ensure payment for these unused days.

Can Penalties Be Assessed if I am Forced to Wait for My Final Paycheck?

California law provides for employees who were discharged or who quit to be reimbursed at their daily wage for up to 30 days if an employer willfully fails to pay the earned wages in the time frame outlined. In this case, the 10 days of waiting may qualify for penalties. Also, the failure to pay out the unused vacation days may result in additional penalties. In Mamika v. Barca (1998) the court determined that the penalty would be calculated based on the monthly wage rather than at the daily rate for 30 days, which resulted in a slightly lower penalty.

Am I Entitled to Severance Pay?

California law does not require employers to provide severance pay, although many companies do have their own contractual obligations. It is important to examine your contract with regard to this matter.

Can I Collect Unemployment While Looking for a New Job?

All employers must pay unemployment insurance, which covers employees except in certain circumstances. In this case, you quit your job. Unless you can demonstrate good cause for quitting, you are likely ineligible for unemployment benefits. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Termination of Employment Tagged With: California employment attorney, final pay, Labor Law, Petaluma Final Paycheck Attorney, Santa Rosa Final Paycheck Attorney, Termination of Employment Attorney, Ukiah Final Paycheck Attorney

Unused Vacation Time Lawsuit – Reznik v. IBM

August 11, 2016 by Beck Law P.C.

Reznik v. International Business Machines Corporation lawsuit. How much money is owed to an exiting employee for unused vacation time? Lots of us are familiar with “use it or lose it” vacation time policies – in which an employee forfeits any unused vacation time that he or she still has by the end of a year. In California, these types of policies are generally considered illegal. The California Supreme Court stated in the case of Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co. that when an employer offers vacation time, that time vests, and is protected from forfeiture of unused vacation time.

This means that when an employee’s position is terminated, the employee is most likely entitled to compensation for any unused vacation time that the employee has accumulated. Section 223.7 of the California Labor Code states that an employee in this situation must be paid for all vested vacation time at his or her final salary rate. (There is an exception, however, if a collective bargaining agreement is in place, and the agreement allows vested vacation time to be forfeited.)

IBM was recently accused of violating this statute by a former employee named Yakov Reznik.

Reznik began working for IBM in 2012, and went on long term disability in 2014. During his time at IBM, he did not take any vacation days. He maintained that IBM failed to fully compensate him for his unused vacation days at the conclusion of his employment – and alleged that IBM’s real vacation policy is significantly different than its stated policy.

Does IBM’s Unused Vacation Time Policy Violate the Labor Code?

IBM’s stated policy for employees working in California is often referred to as the “California Plan.” According to the plan, employees with less than 10 years of experience at IBM, such as Reznik, may accrue up to 15 vacation days per year. In addition, employees are given “personal choice holidays,” and are allowed to carry over up to six unused personal choice holidays per year.

Under the California Plan, Reznik had accumulated six unused personal choice holidays, and had accrued 15 vacation days. When Reznik left IBM, he was paid $12,502.75, which amounted to 25 days of work at the salary he had been receiving.

Reznik alleged that IBM’s practices did not adhere to the California Plan. He claimed that he had been shown a PowerPoint presentation which stated that unused days cannot be carried over from one year to another, and that they cannot be “cashed out.” He alleged that this represented IBM’s true policy on the accrual of vacation time. He also argued that personal choice holidays should be regarded as vacation days, and thus should be subject to Section 227.3.

At trial, Reznik’s complaint was dismissed. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted IBM’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Reznik received proper compensation for his vacation time.

The ruling pointed out that, regardless of the language of the PowerPoint presentation, IBM had allowed Reznik to accrue 15 days worth of vacation time from a previous year and had paid him for his six unused personal choice holidays as though they were vacation days. According to the ruling, Reznik was only entitled to payment for 21 days of work, and thus he had actually been overpaid by four days. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Wage and Hour Law Tagged With: California employment attorney, employment law, vacation time

I’m Being Laid Off But Must Train My Replacement?

March 5, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

I’m being laid off but have to train my replacement? SCE is Southern California’s biggest utility provider. The company has recently faced public criticism after it was confirmed that SCE would be laying off many members of its large IT department in order to replace them with new hires from Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in Mumbai, India, as well as from Infosys, an IT company in Bangalore. These new employees will be allowed to begin work in Southern California through the U.S. federal government’s H-1B program. The intent of the H-1B program is to allow foreign workers to access jobs in the U.S. that employers are unable to fill with U.S. employees. The main complaint about using the two Indian companies is that SCE already had U.S. employees who were trained, ready and willing to complete the work required, thus negating the very need for H-1B employees in the first place.

SCE and the Alleged H-1B Program Abuse

SCE is one of Southern California’s largest utility companies, which, before layoffs, reported having 1,800 employees in its IT department alone, with an additional 1,500 workers on contract. The IT department’s transition effort will result in an estimated 400 employee layoffs along with an additional 100 employees terminating their employment voluntarily. The employees who will be leaving SCE’s IT department have years of experience in their jobs, and will be forced to train their replacements in the upcoming months as part of the broader transition effort. Not surprisingly, many of the workers feel betrayed by SCE, and believe this transition is an attempt to pay lower wages to foreign employees, through the abuse of the U.S. federal government H-1B program. This argument is somewhat persuasive when one considers the very goals and purpose of the H-1B program, which is to provide employers access to non-U.S. employees when there are not enough domestic employees to provide the unique services that their businesses require. However, as one employee put it,

“Not one of these jobs being filled by India was a job that an…employee wasn’t already performing”.

Laid Off and Training My Replacement

The fact that some of the laid-off U.S. employees will be training their own successors seems to support the claim that the U.S. employees are skilled, trained and capable of providing all of the employment services that SCE requires.

In response, SCE has stated that the transition towards using Tata and Infosys H-1B employees will inevitably “lead to enhancements that deliver faster and more efficient tools and applications for services that customers rely on. Through outsourcing, SCE’s information technology organization will adopt a proven business strategy commonly and successfully used by top U.S. companies that SCE benchmarks against.”

However, SCE’s response does not touch on the issue of why California, home to Silicon Valley and some of the most advanced tech specialists and professionals, was not an adequate location to find the employees that SCE required. Some from within SCE have voiced concerns that the new Indian tech workers do not posses the necessary skill levels of the very people that they will soon replace.

The layoffs at SCE are a unique example of the immigration issues involved in foreign labor and employment. If you think you need a Santa Rosa Labor Attorney, or Mendocino County Labor Lawyer, contact the California labor and employment lawyers at Beck Law P.C. in Santa Rosa today.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, Labor Law Tagged With: California employment attorney, california employment lawyer, lake county labor lawyer, Santa Rosa Labor Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Attorney

Employers Warned Against Providing Financial Incentives to Buy Non Employer Health Coverage

January 8, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Why is the Government warning employers against providing financial incentives to buy non employer health coverage? The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has effectively revolutionized the U.S. healthcare insurance system. Now there is no longer an emphasis primarily on employers sponsoring the bulk of workers’ health insurance plans. In fact, there are now online exchanges where employees can shop for and purchase their own medical coverage instead of paying into their existing employment based plan. Some employers have welcomed this shift in burdens. However, some employers may be taking it too far, and the federal government has gone on record warning employers against providing financial payments to their high-cost employees as incentive for them to leave their employer’s medical plan in favor of purchasing their own individual market policy.

Non Employer Health Coverage, Rising Costs and Employer Incentive

From the employer standpoint, the costs associated with providing employee healthcare have risen so much since the ACA’s implementation that they are looking for any way to lessen their financial burdens. Some employers are finding it cheaper to pay their high-cost workers in exchange for the worker agreeing to exit their existing benefit plans, so that the employer does not have to continue making contribution payments on that employee’s behalf.

A November 14, 2014 memo released by the U.S. Department of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (the “Departments”) stated that providing payments in exchange for employees purchasing individual market policies is considered unlawful discrimination against employees on the basis of their health status. In fact, according to a May Kaiser Health news report, health insurance consultants and brokers have been advising employers to shift workers with expensive health conditions into individual market policies as a cost-cutting mechanism. Such practices are in direct opposition of the ACA, which requires that health insurance exchange plans accept all applicants, regardless of their existing illnesses or health conditions. This acceptance must be at prices that have been pre-established before acceptance.

The reality is that the costs associated with implementing the ACA have resulted in some companies’ health insurance liability costs increasing by over 100 percent. As a result, large, self-insured employers are looking for any way to cut costs. Employers are finding that the removal of just one high-cost employee from the group insurance plan can result in annual savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. For some, a one-off lump sum payment to an employee is well worth the future financial benefits associated with that employee’s exit from the group policy.

Both the federal government as well as consumer advocates are concerned about this practice because it could erode the effectiveness of employer-based coverage, while creating higher costs and premiums for the entire insurance marketplace. If employees who would be better suited in employer-based plans are incentivized to switch to individual market policies, the entire marketplace would be forced to absorb the costs associated with the employee’s sickness instead of the employers, which are the one’s with the actual vested interest in the employee’s well being.

Employer payments in exchange for a worker exiting their existing employment based insurance policy is a violation of the ACA, and is considered unlawful discrimination. If an employer has propositioned you about switching to an individual market policy in exchange for payment, you should contact the Santa Rosa, Ukiah, Lake County California employment law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. today.

Filed Under: Affordable Care Act, Blog, California Employment Law Tagged With: California employment attorney, california labor attorney, labor and employement attorney, Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Santa Rosa Discrimination Attorney, Ukiah Employment Attorney

Understanding the Basics of California Age Discrimination Laws

December 2, 2014 by Beck Law P.C.

California age discrimination law – Understanding the basics. Age discrimination is the unlawful practice of treating someone differently because of their perceived or actual age. Age discrimination is specifically prohibited under both employment law and housing law. Age discrimination is one of the many forms of discrimination along with discrimination based on sex, race, and religion, and is explicitly prohibited under both California state and federal laws. Under federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination in the workplace against people who are 40 years old or older. This law does not provide protections for those workers who are under the age of 40 and face age discrimination in the workplace, and the ADEA also does not make it illegal for an employer to favor an older worker over a younger worker, even if both workers are 40 years of age or older.

The FEHA & Employment Discrimination

The California state law that provides protections against age discrimination in the workplace is the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The FEHA prohibits discrimination, retaliation and harassment in both housing and employment when such illegal practices are based on a person being 40 years or older or because of that person’s “religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability (including AIDS and HIV), mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), age (40 or older), or sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality).”

The FEHA is part of California’s broader public policy goals of protecting residents’ civil rights to obtain, hold and seek employment while being free from discrimination. The FEHA is enforced by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), the agency that prosecutes cases brought under the FEHA, and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC), the state agency that rules on cases brought by the DFEH and citizens. Claims that an employer has violated the FEHA can be litigated either in an administrative hearing before the FEHC, or in civil court. If an administrative hearing is held, an employee who wins a claim against an employer can recover past wages, out of pocket expenses, and also up to $150,000 in emotional distress damages. When an FEHA case is litigated in civil court, the employee can recover unlimited monetary damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, past wages, attorney’s fees and any other out-of-pocket expenses associated with the case.

Employers Covered Under FEHA

Any employer that regularly employs five or more persons is covered under the FEHA. Ultimately, private employers, as well as state, local, counties and all other governmental bodies are covered by the FEHA, as well as labor organizations, apprenticeship programs and employment agencies. Furthermore, an exception to the five-employee minimum requirement exists when harassment is alleged. In such a situation, all employers who employ one or more persons or receive the services of one or more independent contractor(s) can be found guilty of violating the FEHA because harassment occurred based on age in the workplace. Under the FEHA, an employer is guilty for harassment that occurred in the workplace that the employer either ignored, or should have known about, but did not act to prevent further discrimination, harassment or retaliation. Furthermore, individual co-workers can be found personally liable for violating the FEHA, but only if they engaged in harassment.

Do you need legal representation in an age discrimination employment law suit? Contact an employment law attorney at Beck Law P.C. in Santa Rosa, California today.

Filed Under: Age Discrimination, Blog, California Labor Law Tagged With: California employment attorney, california employment lawyer, Labor attorney santa rosa, Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Attorney