Employers Can be Sued for Invading Employees' Privacy

In Ignat v. Yum Brands, Inc. (March 18, 2013) Case No. G046343, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled employees can sue when their employers publicly disclose private facts about them, even if just verbally.  The case started when Melissa Ignat, a Yum Brands employee, returned to work after an absence to learn that her employer had revealed to her co-workers that she suffered from bipolar disorder.  She filed a lawsuit, alleging public disclosure of private facts.

The case is especially significant because the Court of Appeal abolished the requirement that disclosure happened in a document.  The Court decided there was no good reason for the "document requirement" and recognized that verbal disclosures can be just as harmful and written ones.  Since the requirement served no legitimate purpose, the Court allowed Ms. Ignat to sue her employer for verbally disclosing her condition to her co-workers.

Court of Appeal Increases Protections for Pregnant Workers

In Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (February 21, 2013) 2013 WL 635266, the Court of Appeal ruled employees fired for not returning to work after a pregnancy can still sue for pregnancy discrimination even though the employee exhausted all permissible leave available under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL).

In this case of first impression, the court explained that an employee who exhausts all of her statutory pregnancy disability leave may still state a claim for employment discrimination under FEHA because the remedies of the PDLL are meant to “augment, rather than supplant, those set forth elsewhere in the FEHA.” The statutory leave of four months available under the PDLL is “in addition to” the remedies set forth in FEHA governing pregnancy, childbirth, and pregnancy-related medical conditions. Compliance with the PDLL, thus, does not relieve an employer of its obligations under FEHA, including the obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation (which may in some cases exceed four months) to an employee disabled by pregnancy, so long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

In this case, the employee said Swissport terminated her because she was pregnant, was unable to work during her high-risk pregnancy, refused to grant her a reasonable accommodation in the form of allowing her to remain on leave until she gave birth, and terminated her because she sought such reasonable accommodations for her disability. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient to state claims for sex and disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA.

Mastagni Law Fights for Veterans' Rights

The December 2012 issue of the California Public Employee Relations (CPER) Journal features an article by Mastagni Law partner, Christopher W. Miller.  After the Homecoming: A User’s Guide to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act discusses how to honor the rights of returning veterans and comply with the law.

Under USERRA, employers must treat returning veterans as if they had been present and continuously working at their civilian jobs throughout their military service. Employees are entitled to more than merely their old job back. They are entitled to all the benefits, positions, and promotions they would have achieved if they had never left.  When employers do not honor veterans' rights, Mastagni Law fights for veterans' rights under the Act.

Mastagni Law to Host Webinar on Workers' Comp Reform

Senate Bill 863 makes major changes to California's Workers' Compensation System. On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 at 10:30 a.m., Mastagni Law attorneys John Holstedt, John P. Tribuiano, Jonathan W. A. Liff, and Eric Ledger will discuss the bill and how public safety professionals can protect their rights in the new Workers' Comp system.

  Workers' Compensation Reform: 

What SB 863 Means For Public Safety Professionals

Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:30 AM

Registration is free.  

Register at:  https://mastagni.webex.com/mw0307l/mywebex/default.do?siteurl=mastagni

Mastagni Law Celebrates the Firm's 2012 Super Lawyers

Mastagni Law celebrates the firm's 2012 Northern California Super Lawyers David P. Mastagni and John R. Holstedt and 2012 Northern California Rising Stars David E. Mastagni, Phillip R.A. Mastagni and John P. Tribuiano.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Businesses use many names, words, and titles in an attempt to define relationships with workers.  The California courts, however, are not bound by mere titles or words, and instead look to a company’s conduct to determine the real nature of its relationship with workers.

The Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently held that a franchisor could be held accountable for workplace harassment at one of its franchises when the franchisor exercises control over personnel decisions.  In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, an employee of a Domino’s restaurant alleged sexual harassment and assault at her job against both the local Domino’s franchisee and its parent company, the Domino’s franchisor.

The Court of Appeal rejected the franchisor’s attempt to dismiss the case against it on the grounds that plaintiff’s only employer was the local restaurant.  The Court held that despite the restaurant’s contract with Domino’s establishing it as franchisee and an independent contractor, there was evidence that the Dominos’ maintained substantial control over the franchisee’s local operation, management-employee relations and employee discipline.  

Further, the alleged harasser in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC was the plaintiff’s supervisor, and in California an employer is held strictly liable for workplace harassment by its supervisors.             

You should contact an attorney experienced in matters involving employment law as soon as possible, if you believe you are the subject of workplace discrimination.

Age Discrimination Claims in the Age of Layoffs

Stale economies inevitably result in layoffs. As revenues dip, employers make tough decisions to balance budgets. Impacted employers often choose to layoff high-salary workers to cut costs. Firing high wage earners generally hurts older employees, and the courts are often called upon to determine whether eliminating high-salary workers, who happen to be over 40 years of age, is age discrimination.

A recent decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is an example of the courts’ general reluctance to second guess an employer’s cost-saving choices, even when said choices harm older employees. Schechner v. KPIX-TV was about two forty-plus year old bay area television news reporters whose positions were eliminated by a local news station. During the case an expert statistician showed that the layoffs disparately affected older workers. In response, the employer claimed that the statistics did not explain differences in types of jobs, such as the difference between an anchor versus a general assignment reporter.

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs could use statistics as some evidence of discrimination. The statistics alone, however, were not enough to overcome their employer’s excuse that they were targeted for termination because they worked as general assignment reporters, and the argument that there was no discrimination because the very same individuals who had recently extended the plaintiffs’ contracts were the ones that made the decision to let the plaintiffs go.

You should contact an attorney experienced in matters involving employment law as soon as possible, if you believe you are the subject of discrimination.