I still remember the day my older sister went to apply for her first job. She was about seventeen and had looked at various employment opportunities around our neighborhood including back and retail stores. However, none of those job application experiences will ever compare to the one she had with Dollar Tree. She walked into the store and the employers wanted to know a little bit more about her. My sister began to give them a little insight into her very active lifestyle. She is Afro-Colombian, held various leadership roles in clubs, was involved in a plethora of school organizations, and was an active member of our church community. To her surprise, when the employers finished talking to her they denied her the job saying that she was an overqualified candidate. 
My sister is a one-in-a-million case of African Americans being denied employment because of an overqualified status. As a matter of fact, according to Forbes magazine, the rate of African-American unemployment is twice as high as the unemployment rate for Caucasian people (2018). This is often due to the systematic racial discrimination of employers and the government which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was implemented to eliminate. Since the act was signed, it has benefited thousands of African-American employees.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) aimed to eliminate the discrimination of persons based on race, color, religion, or nation of origin (EEOC) with Title VII focusing specifically on employment discrimination. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is responsible for enforcing the rights promised in the CRA, reported that out of the 76,418 cases filed under Title VII in 2018, 24,600 of them were due to racial discrimination. If you talk to a discrimination lawyer you will find one of the more monumental cases the title is known for protecting was the Hazelwood School District v. the United States case, which has advanced the employment rights of blacks significantly.
In the Hazelwood v. United States case of 1977, the Hazelwood school district was charged with discriminatory hiring practices against African-American teachers. The district was looking to hire new candidates for teaching positions. The personnel offices chose people based on their eligibility for state certification and those who submitted their applications sooner were most likely to be hired. However, the principals used wide discretion when hiring and received little instruction on how or who to hire. Nonetheless, the superintendents and district fully supported their selections (Quimbee). It was at the end of two years when the state recognized that out of all the teachers that were hired only 2% were African American. It was a shocking statistic when compared to the 15.4% of Black teachers that comprised the faculty of other districts in their vicinity. The district was then convicted for prima facie pattern discrimination against black candidates. There were enough academically qualified black teachers in the market at the time to have satisfied an equal hiring opportunity for both races. The results of the case included cautioning employers of all fields to ensure equal hire opportunities for blacks as well as whites.
When the court’s decision on this case is analyzed by discrimination lawyers in the present day, the results are shocking. According to Pew Research Center, in July of 2013, the unemployment rate for Whites was 6.6%, and for Blacks, it was 12.6%, double the percentage of their White counterparts. They acknowledge a common explanation given for this trend that states that blacks are the last to be hired, but the first to be hired. In other words, “the last to be hired in a good economy, and when there’s a downturn, they’re the first to be released,” according to William Darity of Duke University (Desilver, 2013). Forbes Magazine attributed to it by stating that due to the lack of wealth in the African American community, for every $100 a white family owns, a black family would only have $5.04 and that if this trend continues, by 2053 the median wealth for a Black household will be zero (Thompson, 2018).
This signifies that the court ruled that it was necessary to provide fair employment opportunities for both the black and white community, progressing toward eliminating employment discrimination in 3 steps. One, by giving blacks the fundamental right to have equal employment opportunities. Through the Hazelwood School District v. United States case, employers were made aware that they could not systematically reject the black community from entering the working sphere. This then allows African Americans to market themselves freely to employers and receive the same treatment and wages as whites. This rolls into step number two. Through the Supreme Court ruling, we are also ensuring that children will have access to a quality education which will reduce the use of racial discrimination in the labor force.
According to The Atlantic and a group of discrimination attorneys, one of the main causes of the wage disparity between races is because over the years African Americans have been denied access to quality education by the government. This primarily is seen through the Jim Crow era where black schools would receive less federal funding and resulted in poor education for black children. That would later have a ripple effect in the labor market as many employers refused to hire blacks because of their lack of skills which was ultimately created through discrimination. By ensuring equal hiring opportunities, we are steadily and subtly ensuring quality education for both races so that they can compete equally in the market. The final area that the Supreme Court’s decision through the CRA impacted was the wealth and rights of future employees in general. Once we have made sure that our children will be receiving a quality education and that discrimination is no longer a part of the labor system, we are delivering future generations of blacks and other minority employees to secure wealth and establishment for their families.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 came as an ointment to the oozing sores of America. It eliminated the employment discrimination of persons based on the criteria of race, color, religion, or national origin. Title VII specifically protected the rights of employees in the workspace. The Hazelwood School District v United States was a testament to the effectiveness of the act. It has played a serious role in implying that America should be well on its way to eliminating employee discrimination by ensuring equal hiring opportunities for both races, guaranteeing a quality education to each child to stop employee discrimination at its source, and implying that through continued efforts the wealth gap caused by discrimination will be closed benefiting the lives of all employees for generations to come.

Author: Carol Mina from Berry College

A hostile working environment can be a form of sexual harassment, which is illegal sex discrimination under Title VII federally and under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in California. However, many companies don’t know how to protect employees from sexual harassment and many people do not understand exactly what do and do not constitute a hostile work environment under the law, understandable given the complexities of legal matters. Importantly, hostile conduct does not necessarily need to be sexual in nature to be considered as creating a hostile work environment and thereby a form of unlawful sex discrimination. In fact, there are many cases where this idea has been upheld. If any of the following scenarios sound familiar to you, you may be a victim of sexual harassment. If so, consider speaking with a discrimination attorney to discuss your rights.

1. Gregory v. Daly
   In this case, After Theresa Gregory talked to a sexual harassment lawyer she alleged that her executive director subjected her to sexual ridicule, advances, and intimidation. Additionally, after she complained, he punished her further by undermining her ability to complete her work, depriving her of job duties and salary increases, and terminating her in the end. Initially, her case was dismissed due to the defense that the complaint was “nothing more than accusations of demeaning comments,” [internal quotes omitted] which essentially pointed to a lack of connection between the plaintiff’s sex and the hostile conduct. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree, however, saying that a work environment can be considered hostile (and thereby a form of sex discrimination) even when the conduct lacks a sexual component or explicit reference to the sex of the victim. They discussed the need to look at the entirety of the evidence and said that the “sex-based character of much of Daly’s behavior permits the inference that the remainder of his harassing conduct was also due to Gregory’s sex.” In other words, just because certain incidents in isolation might not appear to be sex-based discrimination, taken together, they can be inferred to be related to sex.
2. Smith v. Sheahan
   In Smith v. Sheahan, Valeria Smith was violently assaulted by a fellow guard, Ronald Gamble, at a county jail. This was preceded by unpleasantness towards his female colleagues generally. While Smith complained internally, little was done by the department to rectify the wrongs. Due to the inaction of the Sheriff’s Department after her complaints, after a free consultation with a discrimination attorney Smith filed a lawsuit for sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment under Title VII. The district court initially ruled that the harassing behaviors were too isolated to be considered sex discrimination under Title VII, but the Seventh Circuit disagreed. To show that Gamble’s actions were not random violence and were instead motivated by the sex of his victims, Smith presented “me too” evidence, providing affidavits from six other women at the county jail that showed Gamble’s pattern of offensive behavior with female coworkers. For instance, one woman described two incidents with Gamble, one when he made sexual comments about her body while scanning her at the jail’s entrance; when she objected to this, he became hostile and called her a “bitch,” and coworkers had to intervene to prevent escalation. In the other incident, Gamble made a demand without proper authorization and when refused, he again became hostile and called her a “bitch,” going so far as to threaten to “kick [her] ass.” Again, another officer had to intervene and try to calm down Gamble. While this incident was reported, nothing was done about it. Together, there were seven incidents where Gamble became verbally abusive and threatened physical assault, five of which were reported. When Smith filed a criminal complaint against Gamble and he was found guilty of criminal battery, the Sheriff’s Department promoted him. More than that, they effectively demoted Smith by transferring her to an undesirable position. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit found that Gamble’s violent assault of Smith, even though it was not sexual assault, could qualify as an action that created a hostile work environment given the broader context of his patterned negative attitude towards women.
3. EEOC v. National Education Association, Alaska
   In a similar case, EEOC v. National Education Association- Alaska, the EEOC filed a case of sex discrimination on behalf of three women whose manager, Thomas Harvey, abused them daily. Harvey screamed at female staff with little or no provocation, often employing profane language and castigating them publicly. Additionally, he intimated the women physically by doing things like sneaking up on them to watch them work without reason and shaking his fists at them while within striking distance. They feared he might attack them. One woman described working with him as feeling like “working with a ticking time bomb” that “raises the hairs on your neck because you just don’t know what you’re going to get.” Moreover, although high up management officials knew about the harassing conduct, no action was taken to stop it and in fact, Harvey was actually promoted. Initially, the case was dismissed because the behavior was deemed to be not overtly sexual and thereby not sex-based harassment. As in the aforementioned cases, the Court of Appeals, this time the Ninth Circuit, disagreed. The Ninth Circuit said harassing behavior need not be motivated by lust or blatant misogyny to be considered unlawful sex discrimination. In this case, the conduct was targeted at women specifically and therefore can be considered discriminatory. Ultimately, the case was settled for $750,000 in damages and an agreement by the defendants to expunge plaintiffs’ negative employment records associated with the discrimination as well as provide annual training to all employees about how to address issues of discrimination. In these three cases, the final say was that nonsexual hostile conduct can still create a hostile work environment for women. Such conduct can include verbal abuse (e.g. calling women “bitches”), violence, and intimidation, among other things if the behavior is targeted at people because of their sex. Of course, sex discrimination can happen to men or women, as well as to non-binary people. In any case, it is a serious matter that needs to be addressed promptly. If you believe you have suffered from sex discrimination in the workplace, if you have been retaliated against for protesting such discrimination, reach out to a discrimination lawyer and figure out what your options are. You may be entitled to monetary damages.

Sometimes a good training can prevent sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace

What Do You Know About Pregnancy Discrimination?

It is no secret that pregnancy, while often a blessing, can also be a burden. This is often most true in the context of employment. While there are legal protections prohibiting pregnancy discrimination in many ways, there are still many victims, some who never even realize they were discriminated against. To raise some awareness of what forms pregnancy discrimination can take and help women understand their rights, here is a list of some of the possibly lesser known facts related to pregnancy discrimination.

Lets start from the top:

1- People with pregnancy potential are protected

You likely know that generally speaking, employers cannot refuse to hire women because they are currently pregnant. However, it may be surprising to learn that it is also illegal to refuse to hire a woman because she might become pregnant in the future. Perhaps this makes sense if you understand that pregnancy discrimination is legally considered a form of sex discrimination. If it were not illegal, employers would be free to refuse to hire most women, citing their potential to become pregnant. Really, then, this protects many more women than just pregnant women. What might an example of this form of employment discrimination look like? Let’s see:
Phoebe is a young woman looking for a job in marketing. At one agency, she gets an interview based on her credentials. When she goes in, she is excited initially, but it dampens at some of the questions being asked. She is asked whether or not she has kids at home, which she says no to. Then, she is asked if she plans to do “the family thing” any time soon. She is not sure how to respond to this, so Phoebe just says she is not sure. She is not hired. Disgruntled by the family questions at her interview, Phoebe later looks into the hiring practices of the marketing agency and notices that young men outnumber young women nine to one. She suspects this may qualify as sex discrimination and contacts a discrimination attorney.
Here, Phoebe is adept at seeing the signs of discrimination against women, which seems solely based on a different biological potential between men and women- that is, the ability to get pregnant. Many employers are biased against people they believe will need to take time off for pregnancy and sometimes this bias is so extreme that discrimination will extend not just to pregnant women, but to all women of child-bearing age. Phoebe’s interviewer should not be asking questions about children, current or future, as that is prohibited by state law.

2- Some pregnancies demand protection from disability discrimination

While pregnancy in and of itself is not necessarily considered a disability, sometimes pregnancies are complicated and can result in conditions that are considered disabilities. Legally speaking, disabilities have to limit major life activity. In such cases, employers are required to treat the woman suffering as they would any other person with a disability, which means they are obligated to make reasonable accommodations. A reasonable accommodation is just a change to the employee’s work environment that allows the employee to perform the essential job duties. Sometimes this can entail a leave of absence for up to four months. Moreover, pregnancy leave is unique in that it applies to all female employees of covered employers, which includes employees who are part-time or were recently hired. Examples of conditions related to pregnancy that might be deemed disabling include severe morning sickness, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, post-partum depression, loss or end of pregnancy, and recovery from loss or end of pregnancy, among others.

3- Breastfeeding /pumping time must be allowed

Employers are obligated to provide lactation breaks, or time for recently pregnant women to express milk by pumping or breastfeeding, as long as the breaks would not seriously interrupt business operations. A specific amount of time is not specified, but it must be reasonable. This means it has to take into account more than just the actual time spent expressing milk; it must also consider a number of breaks needed, the time it takes to get to and from the lactation space, any wait time for the lactation space, and the time it takes to set up and later clean up and store the milk, among other things. Lactation breaks can be taken during normally paid breaks or during unpaid extra breaks. Additionally, as you might have assumed, employers must try to provide employees with a private area for lactation breaks (one that is not a toilet stall). This place can be the employee’s office if it fulfills the requirements (e.g. is private).
While discriminating against a woman because of her need to breastfeed, pump, or treat medical conditions related to breastfeeding is illegal, it does occasionally happen. An example may help illustrate what that could look like:
Blossom recently gave birth and is back at work. However, she is still breastfeeding her new baby and needs time during the workday to pump. Her employer allows her to use a room down the hall for this and, in that room, there is a small fridge in which she can store breast milk. During Blossom’s first week back, she is told four jokes about breastfeeding and breast milk by her coworkers, who are mostly male. Blossom tells them to cut it out, but they don’t take her seriously, so she files an official complaint about it. Unfortunately, the complaint does not amount to any resolution and the jokes continue.
In this scenario, Blossom is being harassed because she is breastfeeding, which is considered unlawful pregnancy, or sex-based, discrimination. In fact, even more, employers are liable for workplace harassment than for discrimination (not all employers are subject to discrimination law). If she wanted to, Blossom could file a lawsuit against her employer.

4- Medical benefits during maternity leave must remain

During pregnancy disability leave and family leaves of absence (e.g. time to bond with the new child), your medical benefits should be the same as they were before. Employers are not legally allowed to change the contribution rates during such time off. Moreover, it is illegal for employers to make new requirements for a woman returning from pregnancy-related time off to receive benefits. Were that allowed, employers could retaliate against women for taking maternity leave.

Laws relating to pregnancy discrimination can be quite complicated, and this list touches only on a few. If you think you may have been discriminated against based on your sex, pregnancy, or other protected characteristic, you should contact a Pregnancy Discrimination Attorney to discuss your rights and find a solution.

What does it take to transform a simply annoying work environment into a sexually harassing hostile work environment?

People usually asked

• What is a hostile work environment?
• What is a hostile work environment definition?
• Which of the following is a factor the courts consider when they determine whether a work environment is hostile or abusive?
• …

To answer this question, it is important to look at all of the circumstances together. Four primary factors are considered when looking at the totality of the circumstances. To your knowledge, these four factors are described in this article, although it is important to note that no single factor is required for a work environment to be deemed hostile. If you think you might have a claim for sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment, contact a discrimination attorney as soon as you can to figure out what you can do about your situation. 

Please look at the four primary factors:

• The frequency of discriminatory conduct
• The severity of discriminatory conduct
• Whether or not the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance
• Whether or not conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance

Let’s start from the top of the list:

1. The frequency of discriminatory conduct

   
   Sometimes, work environments can be deemed hostile because of how pervasive the inappropriate behavior is. Incidents of abusive conduct have to be sufficiently concerted and continuous to be considered pervasive. An isolated inappropriate sexual remark made to a co-worker would not be enough to claim sexual harassment, for example, as was supported by the case, Clark County School District v. Breeden. There are several examples of cases where the plaintiff has not succeeded because the inappropriate behavior was not considered pervasive. In one case, Brennan v. Townsend & O’Leary Enterprises, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that there were four incidents that occurred over four years involving three different employees, and two of the incidents were at Christmas parties that were off of work property. In this case, it was ruled that the evidence did not constitute a concerted pattern of harassment. On the other hand, in Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc., only three incidents were considered enough to create a hostile environment. However, in that case, all three incidents happened in one week and included a forced French kiss, a crass comment, and an attempt to unfasten the plaintiff’s bra. While frequency is an important factor to consider, sometimes a single incident is sufficient to establish a hostile environment claim. However, in those cases, the incident must be quite severe.

2. The severity of discriminatory conduct

   
   Severity is one of the other four primary factors that must be considered in hostile environment claims. As mentioned, a single incident can show a hostile environment if it is very severe. For example, physical groping qualified in the case of Myers v. Trendwest Resorts. Physical assault or the threat of physical assault can also be sufficient in isolation, as seen in Hughes v. Pair. In cases like those, the employer can be held liable if their response does not quickly and effectively eliminate the problem (e.g. removing the harasser from the workplace). For example, a single incident of sexual assault followed by inaction on the part of the employer can mean trouble for that employer, as seen in Doe v. Capital Cities and Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc. This can be true even when the assaulter is not an employee. Employers can be held liable for their conduct following severe harassment by a third party, such as a client. This was the case in Little v. Windermere Relocation: an employee was drugged and raped by a client and when the employer found out, he cut her pay and told her to move on and clean out her desk after she protested the pay reduction. The plaintiff claimed her employer had made the work environment hostile with his reaction, and the Ninth Circuit agreed with the logic of her argument that the employer’s response following a single, severe incident can be grounds for a hostile work environment claim. In general, the more pervasive the conduct, the less severe it has to be, and the more severe the conduct, the less pervasive it has to be, to be considered a hostile environment. 

3. Whether or not the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance

   
   In claims of a hostile working environment, it can be helpful for a plaintiff to show that there was some sort of negative effect on their psychological well-being, which could be produced by a physical threat, for example. While this kind of evidence of psychological injury is relevant and helpful, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to demonstrate that they suffered a psychological injury as a result of the sexual harassment. This was upheld in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.

4. Whether or not conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance

   
   Lastly, it is important to consider if the harasser’s abusive conduct was so severe or pervasive that it actually altered the work environment. In one case, Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Inc., the plaintiff alleged a violation of Title VII based on her supervisor’s sexual remarks to her at work on four occasions over a three-month period. For example, he told her that she needed to clean a trailer in a French maid uniform and asked if women “got off” using a specific type of tampon. She was also asked by the supervisor and another co-worker if she was intimidated by another woman’s breast size, a woman they called “Double D.” The court decided that these remarks were not severe or pervasive enough to alter the plaintiff’s terms of employment under Title VII. A similar case came to the same conclusion but under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In this case, McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association, the plaintiff’s coworkers made offensive and inappropriate remarks in her presence fewer than ten times across four months. These incidents included shouting and calling the plaintiff “stupid,” making crass comments about female employees’ buttocks, and making crude gestures towards an employee once her back was turned. The court decided that the comments, which were not generally directed at the plaintiff, were not so severe or pervasive that they changed the conditions of her employment.
   Every situation is different and has its own nuances. Sometimes, one court will disagree with another on the facts or legal standards to employ in a given case. For that reason, it is very important when considering litigation for sex discrimination to speak with an experienced employment attorney or consult with a professional sexual harassment lawyer who can navigate the common pitfalls and obstacles posed by such cases and give you a better chance at getting justice.

……………………………………..

Can an employer force you to resign? or is it legal for an employer to force you to quit?

If your boss fires you for an illegal reason, you can assume you should call a wrongful termination attorney to discuss a potential suit against the organization for wrongful termination at the very least, but what if you were forced to resign? Being “forced to quit” or “forced to resign” at first blush sounds a bit out of the ordinary. What does it mean to be forced out of your position, and if you were forced out, do you still have a claim against your ex-employer?  Usually, if an employee finds themselves in this kind of situation, he or she may bring a claim for wrongful termination and or breach of employment contract which came out of an employee’s forced resignation.  Below are five things you may not have known about being forced to quit.
 

• Being forced out of your job is an actual thing
• Were you pressured into quitting or resigning?
• It’s based on an objective standard
• Where is the line drawn?
• “I quit” doesn’t necessarily mean no claim

Let’s start from the top:
 

1.  Being forced to resign and out of your job is an actual thing

 
                Being squeezed out of your employment by your employer is a thing; it’s called “constructive discharge.”  Constructive discharge arises in situations where an employer actively tries to make the particular employee’s employment so unbearable that they are forced to resign or retire, which may be a reason to sue for wrongful termination and or breach of their employment contract. 
 
                In order to pursue a claim against an employer for construct discharge, an employee would need to prove it is more likely than not that their employer purposely made the employee’s work conditions unbearable or the employer knew the conditions were unbearable and did nothing to cease further occurrences.  Again, this is something a wrongful termination lawyer should analyze in order to decide whether there is a potential claim.

2. Were you pressured into quitting or resigning?

                What factors are taken into account in deciding if an employee really was constructively discharged? Although not an exhaustive list, there are certain features an Employment Attorney will consider in deciding if an employee was constructively discharged.  The features include a reduction in rank, a decrease in pay, a decrease in job responsibilities, harassment, including sexual harassment or harassment based on a protected class, and causing extreme humiliation, all of which amounts to forcing the employee to quit.
 
 

3. It’s based on an objective standard

 
                In deciding whether an employee was constructively discharged, the behavior of the employer is observed from an objective standpoint, not subjective. This means the employer’s acts are judged based on what a reasonable employee in that particular position would have found to be intolerable work conditions, not what the particular individual may find to be unbearable. The rationale is to avoid the allowance of overly sensitive employees to make claims but it also does not allow employers to escape a forced resignation lawsuit even if a particular employee is more tolerant than most.
 
                Keep in mind that in applying the objective view, even if the reasonable employee would find certain treatment to be upsetting or disappointing, those feelings are not enough to amount to an unbearable work environment.
 
                An employment lawyer will be able to apply the reasonable person standard to your situation and tell you if a reasonable employee would likely find the circumstances unbearable.

4.  Where is the line drawn?

                “Intolerable” or “unbearable” working environments are usually measured by how often the acts in question occur. For example,  the more frequent the conduct or harassment, the more likely it is considered insufferable. Also, employment law will likely classify a work situation as “intolerable” if it is abnormally antagonized. For example, Pam worked at a retirement home as a nurse. For several months, her boss had been continuously transferring her to different positions, placing her under the supervision of other employees who were less qualified than she was and also much younger.

Often, her boss would violently scream and torment her in front of other employees to the point where she could not get her work done because it was so distracting. Finally, Pam was forced to resign from her position because the constant disruption of being transferred as well as harassed daily was intolerable. Here, because the acts were continuous over an extended period of time, Pam’s Labor Attorney may be able to file suit against her employer for constructive discharge.
 
 

5.  “I quit” doesn’t necessarily mean no claim

                It would seem rational to assume that if an employee quits their job, they can’t turn around and sue their boss but that’s not always the case.  An employee quitting may be the end result of their employer’s behavior towards him or her in the workplace. If an employee decides to quit or resign due to the way in which they have been treated by their employer, under the forced resignation law the resignation may be classified as a termination. For example, George, an agent at a real estate company made a complaint to his boss about illegal practices conducted by the company. After he made the complaint, George was demoted to a lower-paying position and was forced to move his desk into the break room.

This put George at an extreme disadvantage on many levels, and above all, he felt humiliated, ultimately leading him to quit. Here, George was entitled to make a complaint about illegal practices at the workplace. Therefore, the demotion and moving his desk to the break room may all be forms of retaliation. George may also show he was constructively discharged because he was subjected to the demotion and lower pay, and his demotion was put on display for the whole agency to see in the break room. A discrimination attorney may be able to decipher whether George has a claim against his employer.
 
                Although it seems like an employee may not have a claim against their employer because they quit their job, depending on the circumstances he or she may be classified as “fired” regardless. If the employer subjected the employee to an unbearable work environment, the employee must consult a legal professional.  An employee who suspects they are heading toward constructive discharge should contact an employment attorney to discuss the facts of their case.

Can a company make you resign in California? or what is it called when you are forced to quit your job?

Can a company force you to resign? California law recognizes constructive firing (also known as constructive discharge or constructive dismissal). This is when an employer creates or knowingly allows such inhospitable conditions for employees that the worker feels no choice but to resign.

What should you do if you have to resign?

These are the steps you should take if your company made you resign.

1. Take a look at the alternatives. …
2. Ask about the options. …
3. Ask if you can renegotiate your resignation. …
4. Understand your benefits. …
5. Get a recommendation. …
6. Consider the situation an opportunity. …
7. Find out if a claim can be made.

What can I do to make my boss resign?

An employer may request that an employee resign voluntarily rather than being terminated. … Companies cannot force employees to quit. A company that is trying to avoid firing an employee can make it difficult for the employee to stay in their current job in the hope that the employee will eventually leave.

If you resign, can you sue for constructive disqualification?

If an employee resigns because their employer has seriously violated their employment contract, they can file a constructive dismissal claim. Examples include not receiving the agreed amount of pay without good cause.

How can you prove forced resignation?

Reports from co-workers about instances in which you were discriminated against because of the behavior of certain employees or your employer are one of the best forms of evidence.

Is forced resignation equivalent to being fired?

The employee decides to quit his or her job. This is often called quitting. The employer may terminate the employment. This is also known as being fired, terminated, or laid off.

………………………………………..

What is considered an invasion of privacy in the workplace?

People usually ask:

• Can I sue my employer for breach of privacy?
• What constitutes a violation of privacy?
• What can I do if my privacy is invaded at work?
• Do employees have a right to privacy in the workplace?
• What is the penalty for violating the Privacy Act?
• What is an example of a violation of privacy?

Unlike other states, California has a special protection of privacy written into its constitution, which says citizens have certain inalienable rights, including “pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Different statutes also provide specific privacy protections for California employees. For instance, employers cannot demote, suspend, or terminate employees for participating in conduct that is not illegal during off-duty hours (given that the behavior occurs away from the place of work). Employees have the right to sue employers for violating reasonable expectations of privacy, as measured by objective and widely accepted social norms.  This article describes a few of the ways in which employers are not allowed to invade the privacy of their employees. If you find that your legal rights in the workplace are being violated, it is a good idea to consult with an employment attorney, as the law can be complex and difficult to navigate for people who are not experts.

3 Examples of Invasions of Privacy in the Workplace:

• Drug testing in some cases
• The imposition of medical exams or questions about medical information
• Invasions of privacy related to social media

Let’s start from the top of the list:

1. Drug testing in some cases

Job applicants can be drug tested once they have received conditional offers, as long as they are all drug tested and it is not an issue of discrimination. For instance, an employer who only obliges African American applicants to take drug tests as a condition of employment would be in blatant violation of federal and state discrimination laws. For most jobs, random drug testing of current employees is typically considered unreasonable. Exceptions, of course, do exist and include employees who work in safety or security-sensitive roles. Employers who have reasonable suspicions about illicit drug use can do a drug test; it is random ones that are unannounced and not previously consented to that are most problematic. If you talk to a discrimination lawyer you will find out that Employers should have written policies about drug testing, which can be important to set employee expectations (recall that it is illegal for employers to violate their employees’ reasonable expectations of privacy).

2. The imposition of medical exams or questions about medical information

            Employers are not allowed to discriminate based on a medical condition or disability status. To this end, they generally cannot oblige employees to disclose the medications they are taking or to provide information about the internal state of their bodies. Generally speaking, employers cannot ask job applicants to reveal confidential medical information or to submit to medical examinations. However, once a job offer is made, an employer can make it conditional upon you passing a job-related medical examination (e.g. a fitness test for a firefighter that assesses specifically job-related duties). Of course, that means all entering employees in that kind of position must be required to do the same. One person cannot be singled out due to the employer’s belief that they have a disability, as that would be illegal discrimination. Additionally, even if a disability is revealed during such a medical exam, if the individual can perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation (one that does not pose an undue hardship on the employer) then the employer cannot refuse to hire them. 

Moreover, medical records that an employer might have about employees for health insurance claims, workers’ compensation claims, or disability or medical leaves must be kept confidential. Your boss cannot go around telling all your coworkers that you have diabetes, for instance, if you only told your boss because you needed to take leave because of it and do not want that information shared with others. It is best for employers to keep medical documents separate from personnel files and kept in a secure location that only designated staff members can access.

A professional discrimination attorney can help you stop discriminating based on a medical condition or disability status

3. Invasions of privacy related to social media

            With the pervasiveness of social media in today’s world, it is likely no surprise that privacy concerns can be a huge issue for people who use it. Most employees do not want their bosses snooping on their social media accounts. Where else would they complain about their micromanaging and silly habits? To help address this issue, California enacted Labor Code Section 980 in 2013. Generally, it limits employers from accessing employee social media. The law bars employers from asking or demanding that an employee or job applicant do a few different things. For example, your boss cannot request or order that you tell them your username or password so they can access your personal social media.

Your boss also cannot require you to access your social media accounts in their presence (they don’t need to see that you complained about them twice last week!). Employers also cannot retaliate against an employee for refusing access to personal social media. However, employees who do not want their employers looking at their information online should ensure that their privacy settings hide their information from people whom they have not explicitly granted access to (e.g. Facebook friends).  

A related issue that comes up in the context of discrimination is employers using social media and having access to information that they are not legally permitted to use in the hiring process, like age/race/sex. Wittingly or unwittingly, people who make hiring decisions may discriminate against people based on membership in protected categories if they look up the social media profiles of applicants. Even if only your profile picture is available to the public, that can still tell employers your approximate age, gender, and race, which could bias their decisions. To avoid this problem, employers should employ a hiring system that erases the problem. For instance, a third party could be asked to look up the social media profiles of applicants and scrub all the details about things employers are not allowed to ask of applicants and then give only the relevant details to the person or people making hiring decisions.

            Do any of these situations sound familiar to you? If so, you may be a victim of a workplace privacy violation. If you think your reasonable expectations of privacy in the workplace have been violated or you have been wronged at work in some other way (e.g. discriminated against, sexually harassed, or retaliated against for protected activity), you may want to contact a labor attorney to see what you might be able to do about your situation.   

1.  Where do my rights come from?

When it comes to disability discrimination, there are a few different sources of rights an employee may use to defend himself or herself from mistreatment.  Depending on what type of employee and employer the scenario involves will determine what body of law to apply.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) are the sources of rights for employees with a disability.  Although all three are very similar, FEHA, unlike the other two Acts, is not a federal Act. This means it applies at a state level and is less likely to be interpreted via federal decisions.  The good thing about FEHA is that provides more protection for employees. 

2.  What legislation provides rights to me specifically? 

The answer is not straightforward and may depend on the facts of the particular case, but the Rehabilitation Act will apply to you if work for a federal agency, a federal contractor, or you receive federal financial support.  You may have rights under the ADA if you are one of more than 15 employees at your job.  However, for those employees at a smaller company, FEHA will protect an employee who is one of five or more employees. 

3.  Are employers required to take into account my disability when hiring?

Affirmative action is a particular type of hiring policy enforced by employers to afford equal opportunities to legally recognized minority groups.  Per the Rehabilitation Act, federal contractors are required to incorporate affirmative action in their hiring practices.  This means an employer must consider an employee’s disability when choosing a candidate to fill a position.  However, employers that fall under the ADA and FEHA are not required to apply affirmative action when hiring. For example, an employer would not be obligated to take into account the fact that an employee belonged to a minority group and hire them as a means of representing an underrepresented group. 

4.  Do I have a legally recognized disability?

  Not all conditions, illnesses, or impairments are identified as a “disability” under the law.  It can be frustrating for some employees of interviewees who are entitled to benefits from the government for their disability because this does not automatically deem he or she as an employee with a disability under the ADA.  An employee or interviewee would need to discuss with an employment lawyer as to whether he or she has a legally recognized disability by a particular Act. 

5.  Are my eyeglasses or contact lenses considered a disability?

  Usually, the law determines whether an employee’s disability is legally recognized which is measured by whether the disability impairs an individual’s ability to carry out a major life activity.  But what about if an employee or candidate has poor eyesight, is that considered as a disability? In most cases, an employee or candidate who has poor vision will only be considered as having a disability if the impairment cannot be corrected with prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses. 

6.  What if my disability requires an interpreter or reader?

  For some individuals who have been professionally diagnosed to have a disability may require a reader or an interpreter.  This may arise if an employee or candidate wears a hearing aid or has a processing deficit.  For instance, an employee may be able to carry out a job but on occasion may need someone to read him or her certain paperwork during an annual training seminar or for a person who is undergoing a test in an interview for a position.  Depending on what legislation is relevant to the particular employee or candidate will determine whether the employer is obligated to provide this kind of accommodation.  If an employer is required to provide this type of accommodation to an employee and in which cases refuses, that employer could be liable for disability discrimination. 

7.  What if my disability is irregular?

  For an employee or interviewee, it can be difficult to explain to an employer that their disability impacts them sporadically. does an employee or interviewee tell their employer that their disability is unpredictable?  In other words, the individual can have periods of being in a well state followed by random spells of their disability impacting their health.  Some examples of this may be HIV, epilepsy, diabetes, or remission for cancer. Flare-ups or a spike of impairment does not mean an employee does not have a disability and should not be entitled to accommodation in the workplace. Disabilities are not always predictable and the legislation recognizes individuals who experience sporadic impairments. 

 In certain situations, depending on the specific disability and how the disability affects the employee or interviewee’s ability to perform key life activities, may be considered a disability under California legislation. 

8.  The name disability is not listed under the legislation

  Just because the medical term used to diagnose your disability is not specified under the legislation or perhaps your employer has never heard of it, does not mean you are not entitled to protection under the legislation. In order ensure that most disabilities are recognized, the legislation does not look to the name of a disability or condition but rather to how it impacts an employee or interviewee’s ability to perform key life activities.  Examples of key life activities include bathing, walling, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, etc.

9.  How do I know if I was discriminated against based on my disability?

  Many laws in California protect employees with a disability as well as individuals who are participating in job interviews.  Although the laws are there to provide protection, the laws are complicated so employees may not know their rights and employers may not be abiding by their obligations.  The best way to know if you are being discriminated against by an employer to meet with an employment lawyer who specializes in representing employees against their employers.

A good place to start in your search for a discrimination lawyer would be to search for a firm that offers free consultations. 

More Articles about ADA and disability discrimination at the workplace:

• How The American Disability Act (ADA) has protected disabled workers?
• How ADA Can Protect Millions of American lives
• 4 Things an Employee Should Know About Filing a Disability Discrimination Claim
• 5 Important Questions Asked about Disability Discrimination and Wrongful Termination
• 5 Disabilities that May Be Protected By Employment Law
• 5 Ways an Employer May Be Liable For Disability Discrimination
• 6 Nuances of Disability Discrimination Law in California
• 8 Things You Need To Know About Disability Discrimination
• 8 Main Disability Discrimination Questions

From suing a dry cleaning service for losing a pair of pants to filing for the return of a kidney, people today will sue for the craziest things.  In order to sue for all of these wacky claims, there needs to be a lawyer to take it to court. There are so many lawyers out there today who specialize in particular types of law in order to represent a multitude of lawsuits.  However, while people are busy suing over strange things, most seem to forget that there is an entire body of law that helps those who have been fired or mistreated at work.  Employment lawyers are the type of lawyers who uphold and protect the rights employees have at work or even individuals applying for jobs. Below are 3 types of situations employment lawyers may handle.

Discrimination

In the great state of California, employees and individuals applying for jobs have the right to not be discriminated against.  To be more specific, employees and job applicants who can say they belong to a protected class cannot be mistreated or denied employment benefits or opportunities for belonging to that class.  Some examples of protected classes included race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, pregnancy, and religion.  For example, Fred, an employee at an ice cream manufacturing company, recently was injured in a biking accident.  Fred’s initial job at the company was to operate the machine that sealed the lids on the ice cream tubs.  Although he was injured from his accident, he was still able to operate the machine as long as he was permitted to take a sitting break every 3-4 hours, per his doctor’s recommendation.  When Fred provided the documents from his doctor explaining the adjustment he would need to continue working, his boss Ned refused to allow Fred to return to the company. Whenever Fred called Human Resources or emailed Ned regarding his return, he was told the work roster was “full”.  After being denied work for two months, Fred was finally let go by the company.  Normally, in California, the company does not need a reason to fire Fred because California is an at-will state.  Here, because Fred has a temporary disability from his accident, he is considered to belong to a protected class.  Ned, as well as the Human Resources Department refusing to allow Fred to work because of his disability, may be considered as disability discrimination.  This is a type of case that Fred could seek the guidance of an Employment Lawyer. 

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment cases can be tricky because the majority of cases are based on behavior that was directed at an employee who did not want the behavior directed towards them.  The experience and expertise of an employment lawyer are needed to examine the facts of a case to identify what behavior may constitute as sexual harassment.  Basically, certain behavior can become categorized as sexual harassment when it is “unwanted” or “unwelcome”.  For example, Kelly, an employee at the headquarters of a media-services provider, had been working at the company for three years.  A few weeks ago, a new manager Greg was hired to manage Kelly’s team.  Kelly began having issues with Greg once he started hugging her every chance he could.  He would hug her whenever he saw her; upon her arrival, in the break room, at meetings, and even once in the elevator.  Once, Kelly tried to avoid one of Greg’s hugs and later that day Greg did not choose Kelly for a project that was promised to her the previous month.  Denying Kelly this opportunity meant missing out on a pay increase and a chance to enhance her job experience.  This demonstrated to Kelly that unless she allowed Greg’s physical affection, she was going to be punished.  Here, although the facts do not mention whether these hugs were sexual or if Greg was even romantically interested in Kelly, nonetheless the behavior was unwelcome and made Kelly feel uncomfortable.  The fact that following a rejection of one of his hugs, Greg took Kelly off of a project, we can infer that Greg may have retaliated against Kelly, sending the message that if she refused his physical affection she would be denied employment benefits.  Kelly would likely need to report the issue to another manager or Human Resources or she could also call an employment lawyer to discuss what her next step should be.

From inappropriate touching to crude jokes, certain actions can be considered as sexual harassment and may be deemed unlawful in the workplace.  More specifically, not only is it unlawful, but an employer is responsible for enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for particular types of harassment that involve sexual harassment. Within reason, an employer is expected to take certain measures to ensure that the workplace is free from being susceptible to sexual harassment. For instance, an employer should arrange sexual harassment prevention seminars for their employees in order to educate staff on what behaviors are appropriate and which may be unwelcome and/or offensive. 

Wrongful Termination

Wrongful termination means that an employee was fired for an unlawful reason. Wrongful termination can cover a multitude of situations in the workplace.  One example of wrongful termination may be found where an employee reports illegal activity occurring at their workplace.  If the employee reports the issue and is then fired, it may be inferred that the employee was fired for an unlawful reason.  Another example of wrongful termination may be if an employee requests to take a medical leave due to pregnancy or a medical condition.  Also, if an employee is fired for having a disability, for requesting accommodation for their disability, and/or for taking time off for their disability, that may constitute as wrongful termination.  Lastly, another example of wrongful termination may be if an employee makes a complaint about being sexually harassed or discriminated against. 

Some lawyers may handle some wacky cases, but employment lawyers are there to protect the rights of employees across California.