Employment lawsuits have risen to a historic high, with nearly 100,000 claims filed in 2010, according to the EEOC. Incredibly, that figure reflects a 31% increase from just 4 years ago! There is a never-ending stream of new cases and court decisions changing the employment landscape, making it very difficult for employers to stay ahead of the curve. Especially in California, labor laws are evolving faster than federal laws, adding to the complexity of work compliance.
In the first half of 2011, California’s employment and labor lawsuits have resulted in many important decisions that will directly affect the way employers in the state relate to their employees. Many of these cases have been decided by the California Supreme Court, while others are still pending.
Below is a brief outline of the three main cases, and important “takes” for employers from each case.
Case 1
Summary: Plaintiff is a senior executive at Google and claims he was discriminated against because of his age in the company’s notoriously “young” culture. To support his case, he relied on various comments from superiors and coworkers that his ideas were “outdated” or “too old to be a problem”, that he didn’t “fit the culture” and that he was an “old man” and an “old Fuddy-duddy.” .” Google argues that none of these statements are made in connection with any employment decisions and should be considered irrelevant “misleading statements”.
The California Supreme Court rejected the idea that “deviant statements” made by non-managerial staff, or by supervisors outside of disciplinary proceedings, should not be given weight in court. On the other hand, such “deviant statements” are possible and should be considered in the context of evidence and can be used to reach a final decision.
Conclusion: All managers should be aware of what is being said in the workplace, even in casual conversation among employees, and be proactive in eliminating derogatory or discriminatory comments.
Case #2
Summary: This employer’s company location is based in California, but has employees working out of state. Because of California’s different overtime laws, employers pay out-of-state employees based on their state of residence, and not under California’s overtime regulations. The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case to determine whether the California Labor Code applies to overtime work in California for employers based in California, by out-of-state workers.
Take: While the case is still pending in the Supreme Court, employers should carefully review all state labor code guidelines.
Case #3
Summary: The EEOC sued a California airport services company based on a male employee’s allegations that he was sexually harassed by a female co-worker and thus suffered from a hostile work environment. The California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the summary decision for employers, stressing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act gives men, like women, the right to protection from abusive work environments. The California Supreme Court ultimately won the male plaintiff.
Take away: Never just tell a male employee to “Be a boy” or “Ignore it”, if he admits to being harassed. Take claims seriously and carry out appropriate investigations.
Conclusion
Most work-related actions taken by employers against employees are not intentionally bigoted, malicious, or discriminatory. However, the complexities of labor laws in California require employers to act with extreme care when engaging employees and making employment decisions. In many cases, these actions can and will be brought against them in labor lawsuits. As a reminder, California labor laws differ in many areas from Federal law, so check with legal counsel before making any questionable employment decisions or actions.
