What is Religious Discrimination and How to Stop Religious Discrimination

What is Religious Discrimination and How to Stop Religious Discrimination

What are my rights as an employee to practice my faith and can my employer impose their religious values on their employees?

One of the greatest rights we have as citizens of the United States is the freedom to

practice any religion. It is a fundamental right that is protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution. As a citizen, we are allowed to practice (or not practice) any religion we choose without government interference. However, where do we draw the line in the workplace in terms of voicing our religious beliefs and values? Is our employer allowed to impose their own religious beliefs on us?

In California, religious discrimination is illegal and protected by California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). It is illegal for an employer to treat employees any differently based on our religious backgrounds or require employees to change their religious values in order to remain employed. While the concept of treating others who practice a different religion seems like common sense, religious discrimination is still a fairly serious issue in the United States. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), there were 3,825 religious discrimination complaints filed with the EEOC in 2016. As a result, there was $10 million paid out in the settlement as a result of religion-based discriminatory acts by employers. The number of religious-based complaints reported to the EEOC has more than doubled from 1997 to 2016.

There are two different types of religious discrimination that are very similar to sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment. An example of quid pro quo harassment based on religious discrimination is refusing to give a promotion to an employee unless the employee attends church on Sundays. Another example of quid pro quo harassment based on religious discrimination is making an employee take off a hijab if he or she wants to work in the front of workplaces and be seen by clients. The other type of harassment based on religious discrimination is creating a hostile work environment. Some examples of this can be making fun of the practices of a particular religion that employee practices or treating an employee differently after he or she asked for a reasonable accommodation to take a day off to observe a religious holiday. Another example of creating a hostile work environment can be teasing someone because he or she does not eat pork based on religious beliefs. In some cases, an employee who constantly speaks of his or her religious faith with the intent to “convert” other employees can also be seen as creating a hostile work environment. Further, employers are prohibited from forcing workers to engage in religious activities as a requirement for employment.

The California Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012 (WRFA) requires that employer must provide reasonable accommodation to employees to practice their religion. Such accommodation could be allowing an employee to wear a hijab at the workplace even though baseball caps or hats are prohibited. Another accommodation could be allowing an employee to switch shifts with a colleague if the employee needs to observe a certain holiday or allow employees to wear articles of clothing or jewelry affiliated with their religious practice. The accommodation is reasonable as long as it does not cause an undue burden on the employer, cause a lack of staffing, or impose a financial hardship. An example of an unreasonable accommodation can be requesting an employer to allow certain religious attire if the attire causes safety issues in the workplace. The reasonableness of an accommodation can be argued in a variety of ways.

An employer is responsible for ensuring that harassment based on religious discrimination does not occur in the workplace. If you feel that you have been a target of religious discrimination, you should make a written complaint to your human resources department or management. Many incidents of religious discrimination go unreported because employees fear retaliation from their employers, such as losing their job, being demoted, being treated differently by their coworkers, or having the perpetrator discover that the employee complained and having to face further abuse or possible sabotage from the perpetrator. Retaliation is against the law in our country. Therefore, employees cannot be legally fired, disciplined, or demoted for filing a formal complaint with human resources for any incident of religious discrimination. Even if the employee is unsure of whether or not the act was one of religious discrimination and writes a formal complaint, he or she is protected from any sort of retaliation. If retaliation occurs, the employee should contact an experienced employment law office to learn about his or her rights.

Despite the fact that employees are not able to be discriminated against by their religious practice (or lack of religious practice), some religious organizations are exempt from the rule. If the organization or business is primarily religious, it is able to restrict its employment to those who are of the same faith as the organization or business or share the same values. This type of discrimination is called the “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification.” It is only legal if the job description requires that the individual be of a certain religion, such as a pastor or minister. While some religious organizations may try to use this defense to ensure all employees share the same religious beliefs as them, not all job positions require that a person be of a certain faith in order to be employed with the religious organization. As an example, a gardener or a janitor does not have to be Christian in order to work at a Christian church. The religious organization must show that practicing a certain religion is essential to performing the job duties of that position.

There are many different types of remedies that an individual who has been discriminated against can seek, such as back pay, being reinstated, front pay, punitive damages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and/or court costs. Religious discrimination is a serious offense and should not go unaddressed. If you feel that you may be a victim of religious discrimination, you should contact an experienced religious discrimination lawyer.

What is Women’s Rights in the Workplace?

• 
  

 

Do you know What is Women’s Rights in the Workplace? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” These word’s that are located in the United States Declaration of Independence are strong and powerful, but when taken literally they leave out a crucial point. What about the women? Throughout the years it has been a struggle for women to rise and be seen as an equal with their male counterparts in the home and work life. President John K. Kennedy said regarding discrimination, “Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every state of the union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety.”

Their rights have been suppressed by letting them be allowed from certain areas of employment to not receiving equal pay and benefits just because of their gender. Although the opportunities that women can pursue compared to men has improved and increased over the years, discrimination is still a large problem in the workplace. In 1964, the law named Public Law 883-52 was passed by Congress that would no longer allow discrimination “based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” when “hiring, promoting, and firing” of workers.

When Congress first brought this bill to be passed, a representative known as Howard Smith who was a Democrat from Virginia, added this word arguably to no longer get the bill passed.  It is interesting and showing that a large moment in the women’s rights wasn’t even originally passed for their best interest. Instead, women’s rights and issues were used as a political battlefield. Title VII of this bill which provided equal employment opportunities to individuals who are seeking employment prohibited against discrimination on the basis of sex and race subsequently created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well.

This act, title, and commission were very large monumental stepping stones for the promotion of women’s civil rights and equality, but the fight is far from over.

 

 

There are thousands of sex discrimination claims in the workplace filed every year. Looking back to when this law was in its infancy every single claim that was filed between 1964 and 1966 had been ruled against the women who filed the claim.

This raises the large question of has anything improved from then to today? The enforcement of Title VII has gone through the court system countless times, and in every instance, that title has gotten stronger. The enforcement has been able to provide more protection to women, but the largest battle has also been changing the mindset of women and discrimination as well. Women who are thought to be ambitious are also described as selfish and cold. Women in careers who show aspirations of having a family are automatically stereotyped as not wanting to pursue or continue their careers as well. Title VII protects women from being discriminated against regardless of where they are in their family life, or what their family planning might be in the future. A woman cannot be discriminated against for being pregnant, have young children, or a possibility of future pregnancy. For example, women who had young children who yet were yet at a school attending age were protected from employment discrimination unless the employers established the same rule for men as well.

Women in the sixties were fighting for many issues that are similar and different than what women are fighting for today. This goes to show that the discrimination issue is constant and every adapting. In the sixties, women were fighting to be able to obtain degrees and enter fields that once were not allowed to them. While women today are fighting for equal pay and promotions as well. Women are a considerably large portion of the modern-day workforce, however, in the same position with the same criteria as men earn on average twenty percent lower.

 

 

The wage gap has been a large controversial issue that should not be ignored.  It seems that most aspects of employment were kept from women at some point, and they have to continue to fight for equality on every detail. The Title VII has been historical because it now provides a legal precedent that individuals can use to build upon for substance of their legal fights. In the 1980’s the federal courts prohibited sexual harassment under the Act stating that sexual harassment is sexual discrimination.

Also, there is a foundation and legal path that women can continue on, it all began with this trailblazing act in 1964 and the individuals who passed it. One thing that has been shown over history is that women will not stop fighting or back down until equality is achieved.

Despite all the current challenges that take place over the years and today, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with Title VII is important for every person. This Act has provided women with the positive changes that have pushed them towards no longer being discriminated against because of their gender. Better yet, it provides legal protection against that discrimination. While the legal standing of discrimination is much more substantive than 50 years ago, discrimination is still existing and women are still being suppressed in the workforce. While this fight is strong, it will probably never fully be won and will exist in some form. What should now be don’t to help provide protection of equal rights under the law? 

By continuing to back Title VII and creating a strong precedent, discrimination will be harder to get away with legally. The Federal Government should also continue to work with state and local governments to enforce and create local laws that protect against infringing on these rights. Continuing to pursue legal rights of women and the discrimination of sex will help fight this issue to every extent possible, and will provide everyone with the opportunities and rights they deserve.

For more info please contact a professional employment lawyer.

How to stop Age Discrimination and Hiring of Older Workers

1 big reform purpose is to create more powerful incentives for older people to remain in the workforce more. But, hiring discrimination against older employees generates demand-side obstacles that restrict the efficacy of those supply-side reforms. Evidence from a field experiment designed to check for hiring discrimination suggests that age discrimination makes it tougher for elderly people, particularly girls, to have hired for new jobs.

With considerably lower employment among people aged 65 and above, the aging of the populace will present fundamental public policy battles, as the dependency rate the ratio of nonworkers into worker rises sharply and labor force growth slows.

Figure 1

Projection of U.S. working-age inhabitants by age group

Policy efforts to raise the labour supply of older Americans have concentrated on reforms to Social Security, such as reducing benefits for individuals asserting at the first eligibility age of 62, raising the entire retirement age (with added gains scheduled later on), and decreasing the earnings of earnings after Social Security benefits are claims which increases advantage promising at earlier occasions but also increases labour distribution post-claim (Martin and Weaver 2005, Figinski and Neumark 2016). Efforts to encourage people to work more through these supply-side reforms might be thwarted, but by age discrimination in labor markets. This possibility for age discrimination could be problematic: If companies dot respond to the policy-induced bigger labor supply by hiring older employees, it might result in stricter policy reforms for seniors who have more negative effects on older employees that aren't actively trying to work more.

Age discrimination in hiring could be critical to if elderly individuals can work considerably more because most seniors transition into part-time or even shorter-term high-income jobs at the end of their careers (see, as an instance, Johnson, Kawachi, and Lewis 2009). Additionally, present policies to fight age discrimination, which relies on large part on personal litigation for authorities, may be unsuccessful at eliminating or reducing age discrimination in hiring. Specifically, the possible benefits to plaintiff lawyers might be too low to promote adequate authorities, since it's challenging to file a class action litigation, and financial compensation from discrimination in hiring could be modest.

The evidence points to this discrimination, especially against elderly girls. These findings imply that demand-side policies to decrease discrimination in hiring may also be beneficial in fostering older employee employment to meet the challenges of population aging.

Assessing age discrimination

Generally, economists find it hard to establish signs of labor market discrimination. A working definition of average age discrimination settlements is when both productive men and women are handled differently in the labor market this scenario, determined by getting here simply due to their group membership, whether according to age, race, gender, etc.. Whether such offenses is based on outright dislike or stereotyping about set traits, it's prohibited under U.S. civil rights legislation. When we just see various outcomes for classes in observational information, but it can be tough to ascertain whether the difference arises only due to group membership which represents discrimination because of additional differences between the two groups. By way of instance, from the context of age discrimination, an individual might posit that longer duration of unemployment for older employees appear not due to age discrimination, but since older employees are less prepared to take certain sorts of jobs, like jobs with lower salaries or higher physical requirements.

These studies are intended to mimic controlled experiments by producing artificial job applicants that have equal job-related background characteristics apart from race, ethnicity, or sex. Thus, when they employ for the exact same real-world tasks, differences in hiring results are plausibly attributable to discrimination. Audit studies utilize real applicants trained to behave alike and quantify job offers as the consequence. Correspondence studies are used a lot more commonly, since they can collect larger samples of project programs and consequences, especially utilizing the Internet; since they avoid experimenter impact that could help determine the behaviour of the genuine applicants utilized in audit studies (Heckman and Siegelman 1993); also since they impose less weight on real-world companies. These methods are utilized to examine discrimination in hiring based on race, sex, ethnicity, age, and even the context of retrieval from the fantastic Recessiolength of previous unemployment spells.

Field experimentation proof on age discrimination

To garner evidence regarding the value of age discrimination in hiring, particularly at ages near retirement in which policymakers want to strengthen incentives to work more, we carefully made a correspondence analysis to overcome possible biases in previous studies on age discrimination (Neumark, Burn, and Button 2016). We made realistic but false resumes for young (aged 231), middle-aged (elderly 451), and elderly (elderly 666) project applicants. We then filed these resumes to advertisements for job classes that use large numbers of quite low-skilled employees of all ages, which do a hiring of both younger and older employees. Be aware that the experiment covers quite low-skilled jobs. That's because labor economists utilizing correspondence and audit research methods think that really answers to untrue job applicants are less likely in more high-skilled labor markets in which companies are more inclined to be knowledgeable about job applicants.

We specifically crafted variants on resumes that elderly employees really pose, including one which revealed the frequent route of moving into a lower-skill occupation later in life (belief, somewhat stereotypically, of shop greeters at Walmart).

We leveraged technologies to run our research on a huge scale. In the long run, we delivered triplets of otherwise indistinguishable youthful, middle-aged, and elderly false software to over 13,000 places in 12 cities spread throughout 11 states, totaling over 40,000 applicants much the most significant scale audit or correspondence research thus far.

In general, across all five collections of job programs, the callback rate was greater for applicants and reduced for elderly applicants, consistent with age discrimination in hiring. But, there are a number of essential differences. The first two sets of bars in Figure 2 reveal the callback prices for female job applicants to administrative tasks and then to earnings endeavors. In both scenarios, there's a different pattern of callback rates being greatest for the young applicants, lower for its non-profit candidates, and cheapest for its previous applicants. Relative to the youthful applicants, elderly female candidates for administrative occupations had a 47% reduced callback speed, 7.6 percent versus 14.4 percent. In earnings, the gap was somewhat smaller with a 36% reduced callback rat18.4 percent versus 28.7 percent. In addition to being big, these openings can also be highly statistically significant.

Figure 2

Comparison of occupation candidate callback rates by age

For male labor application earnings, safety, and janitor job there can also be a decrease callback rate for elderly men generally. But in this instance, the era pattern is much less consistent or conspicuous, and sometimes the estimated differences between the old and young groups aren't statistically significant. For sales occupations, which we could directly compare with women outcomes, the gap in callback prices between young and old applicants reveals a slightly smaller but still statistically significant 30% fall, 14.70 percent versus 20.89 percent.

In retail sales, where we can compare results for the two genders, we discovered that a sharper drop-off at callback levels with age for women compared to men. And for its only male candidates to janitor and safety occupations, the pattern of reduced callback rates for elderly applicants was less apparent compared to elderly versus younger only female applicants to retail or administrative jobs.

Our analysis comprises lots of different investigations, however, they coalesce around the exact same few messages. And next, girls undergo more age discrimination than guys do. We don't have proof on why era discrimination might be worse for older girls, but it might be since offender appearance issues within our sample of low-skilled tasks, and also the consequences of aging on physical appearance are assessed more harshly for girls compared to men (Deutsch, Zalenski, and Clark 1986).

Conclusions

Our field experiment offers compelling evidence that older employees undergo age discrimination in hiring from the lower-skilled kinds of tasks the experimentation covers. This evidence suggests that you will find demand-side obstacles to significantly extending lives. What's more, there's evidence that decreasing age discrimination may increase the effect of supply-side reforms meant to induce increased labor supply among older workers (Neumark and Song 2013).

The proof that elderly girls undergo more age discrimination compared to mature men gives an extra argument for combining policies which reduce demand-side obstacles to employing with supply-side reforms to inspire individuals to work more. Supply-side reforms normally function in part by decreasing retirement benefits at younger ages. If age discrimination is very severe for elderly girls, then utilizing supply-side policies to cause later retirement might mainly reduce elderly women retirement benefits without doing much to boost their employment

How to avoid of Age Discrimination in the Workplace

I had been silent. That took away my breath, also.

I inquired. "As in older?"

"The headhunter really explained that the customer said that I was too old for the task. I asked him if this was illegal - I am pretty certain it's - and he explained that the customer's opinion is that should they do not interview me, I am not even a candidate, so it is not age discrimination."

"That is untrue," I said, but as I said it I understood it does not make any difference.

What's Philip likely to do - sue the company that he never fulfilled as a third party recruiter told him that a hiring supervisor made an improper remark? So-called Failure to seek the services of cases are notoriously difficult to attract and much more difficult to prove. Provided that the company ends up hiring somebody who's qualified for your job, how can Phil ever establish he was rejected due to his age? It is not like the company will release the new hire's era for several of the other candidates to determine.

I hear more cases of age discrimination than I hear regarding gender discrimination, racial discrimination and each other type put together. I expect that is because some companies think that older workers are not as eloquent or maybe are not as easy to train. A number of them certainly worry that an elderly individual is always overqualified, and so very likely to bolt the moment a better job comes along.

The ugly facts about average age discrimination settlements That's absurd, obviously. Younger folks are equally as likely to bond for a better chance as old ones are. Many elderly workers are more interested in the struggle and the environment than they're at a rocket-to-the-stars career course. But age discrimination continues. It is the only sort of job discrimination I know of the people today discuss publicly, possibly because they are unaware of this legislation preventing it (from the U.S., you are assumed to be protected from age discrimination as soon as you're 40 years old, that does not do something for young men and women that are told "you are too young for this particular task") or because they do not care.

The overly painstaking recruitment process just makes age discrimination worse, as when you complete an internet job application, the duration of your livelihood is instantly evident. (I would like that they prevent the Dark Hole recruiting systems entirely by sending pithy Pain Letters right to their hiring supervisors, but that is a subject for another column.)

If you are a job-seeker of a certain age and you are not having an easy time, worries about age discrimination may sink your mojo into the stage that it is difficult to even to keep striving. I encourage you to not give up, and here is why: there is a way to solve the age discrimination issue.

What could you do if it had been 100 percent up for you since it is not legislative - we already have legislation on the books! It is not an enforcement alternative, either. That is a costly waste of your time plus a mojo-crushing encounter, just to be utilized while the discrimination is laborious and laborious.

It is legal to refuse to employ someone because he is Republican or because she is vegan. We are all in precisely the exact same boat. We hurt ourselves mentally and emotionally when we allow an amorphous bogeyman such as Age Discrimination slow us down. We can not manage to do this. We must keep in mind that we are stronger than any obstacle in our way, and discover an argument persuasive enough that hiring managers cannot ignore it.

This man should be fired Here's the other side of this age-discrimination question: should you understand what company pain you resolve and may speak to hiring managers relating to this pain, they can not manage to take care how old you're. When you quit discussing your abilities and Abilities about the job hunt -- newly, please-like-me features that no hiring supervisor could possibly assess, from circumstance and be sounding precisely like each other banana in the crowd - you may discuss something a lot more important. That significant something is that the company pain supporting the work advertisement - that the excruciating and pricey business problem that warranted the new hire in the first location.

When there's no pain, there is no fresh hire. We hurt ourselves about the work hunt (and leave ourselves exposed to age discrimination along with each other type) when we create our pitch about us and our fabulousness. We will need to consider salespeople, and zero on the company pain going to be maintaining our hiring supervisor up at nighttime.

The same as a salesperson, you have to come up with a Pain Hypothesis to your hiring supervisor. If you go on an interview and answer the supervisor's questions in a sheeplike manner, striving hard to please her or him, you are going to be lined up against the rest of the candidates following the first-round interviews are finished. It is at the comparison procedure that matters like era can harm you.

We might hire Philip, who can do that?

You do not wish to maintain that police lineup, and also the way from it would be to utilize your spare time to research for company pain. Get your hiring supervisor speaking about what is happening behind the job advertisement, and you might discover that the quality of the conversation varies radically. All of a sudden, you are not a supplicant, however, a trusted adviser, a consultant digging to find out more about what is not working. Job-seekers using their interview atmosphere time to ask questions regarding the procedures, the barriers at a hiring manager's manner and the thorny issues they have seen before in similar scenarios vault themselves into a greater degree of conversation than the individuals who do not.

Try it in another job interview. Pain interviewing is not a cure for age discrimination but it is going to provide you a focus and a border that can make discrimination a non-factor in your work search.

8 Things You Need To Know About Disability Discrimination

 

1- At the Federal and State level, discrimination against employees with disabilities is prohibited by law. Under the Federal law, the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) prohibits discriminatory actions taken by employers against their employees. The same applies at the State level in California and is regulated by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  Amongst other recognized protected classes and or characteristics, employees with physical or mental disabilities have rights that protect them from being discriminated against based on their disability. Employees with disabilities in California have many rights under FEHA, however it is a matter of knowing your rights as a disabled employee in order to know you have a claim against your employer or organization who has violated those rights.  Call a Disability Discrimination Lawyer to discuss this further.

2- An employee may have a disability discrimination case if they can show that they had a recognized disability, they possessed the skills and qualifications for the position they occupied at the time or applied for, they were subjected to adverse treatment in the workplace, and the reason for this treatment was based on their recognized disability. A Disability Discrimination Lawyer in your area is the professional to contact in this kind of situation,

3- Recognized mental disabilities under FEHA may include mental or psychological disorders such as learning disabilities, associated deficits and disorders, intellectual disabilities, organic brain syndrome, and/or emotional or mental illness. A recognized physical disability under FEHA may include any physical impairment by a physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or any loss of control of the body. Physical impairments must affect the employee’s body system as well as limit major life activity. Consider speaking to a Disability Discrimination Lawyer for more assistance.

4- The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, in this case, the employee, to prove that he or she has been discriminated against by the employer. In order to prove an employee has been discriminated against, the employee must prove that there was a causal connection between their disability and their termination, constructive termination or resignation from their position. This causal connection would demonstrate that the employee was terminated based on their disability.  For example, an employee with a recognized learning disability is asked to sit for an exam for training purposes. This employee’s particular disability required that he have a person read the exam directions and questions aloud to him. When the employee sent a formal request for this accommodation, the employer said they had to let him go because “this company didn’t need the dead weight of someone who couldn’t handle taking an exam without having someone read the instructions for them”. Here, the employer’s actions and words may be characterized as discriminatory  because the employee’s request for accommodation triggered the employer’s decision to terminate his employment (Hoffman v. Caterpillar, Inc., 368 F. 3d 709, 2004 U.S. App.) Therefore, there is a direct causal link between the employee’s disability and the decision to terminate.  In this scenario the employee would be able to draw this link and have a potential action against the employer for disability discrimination under FEHA.  For a clearer understanding of this contact a  Disability Discrimination Lawyer.

5- If the case was to go to trial, the employee in this scenario would have to show that their disability was the substantial and driving force behind the termination.(Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005)) Referring back to the employee with the learning disability, let’s say prior to the employee’s request for accommodation he had been caught stealing products from his job-site. Based on those facts the employer may argue that the reason for firing the employee was based on the theft. Therefore, the employee may not be able to prove that his disability was the substantial cause of his termination. Asking a Disability Discrimination Lawyer is the best way to pursue a disability discrimination case.

6- As mentioned previously, an employer’s choice of words can be calculated to being discriminatory and contribute to the evidence that the employee was wrongfully terminated. An employer may choose to verbalize, or write words or make remarks that may be discriminatory. This could occur anywhere from being said in an email or in passing in the break room. In some circumstances the remark could be characterized as discriminatory even if the remark was not directed at the employee with a disability (Metoyer v. Chassman (9th 2007)) For example, referring the employee with the learning disability, prior to his termination his employer may have made jokes at the company Christmas party to other employees about “how lazy people with disabilities are”. Here, even though this comment was made to another employee, the employee with the disability may present this as evidence that their disability was the ultimate cause of his termination. However, keep in mind that it bolsters an employee’s claim if the remarks made by the employer were related to the ultimate decision to terminate the employee otherwise they may be considered “stray remarks” (Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)). In California, “stray remarks”, which may be discriminatory remarks made outside of the decision-process to terminate an employee, are still taken into account and considered part of all evidence as a whole (Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010)). With the assistance of a Disability Discrimination Lawyer, an employee can make claim against their former employer.

7- An employee may strengthen their claim if they can prove that their employer did not implement the reasonable accommodation. Depending on the circumstances and the particular disability, in general, an employer would need to reasonably accommodate an employee through modifications and adjustments, facilitate processes that would enable the employee to carry out essential job functions, and provide paid or unpaid leave to the employee while they receive treatment for their disability. Some ways that an employer could accommodate the disabled employee would be by allowing the employee to switch to a part-time position, allow flexibility in scheduling, adjust facilities within the workplace to be accessible to the employee based on the employee’s disability needs, provide extra training to ensure the employee receives an equal opportunity in comparison to all other employees, allow the employee to have support or guide dog accompany them at work,

8- Above all, it is imperative that the employer maintains open communication with the employee in relation to any changes in their needs as a disabled employee, also known as an “interactive process”. It is the organization or employer’s responsibility to ensure that all supervisors who oversee the disabled employee are aware of any accommodations that need to be provided to the employee. For further guidance on the matter, call a Disability Discrimination Lawyer.

8 Main Disability Discrimination Questions

 

What are the 8 Main Disability Discrimination Questions? California is an at-will employment state.  As an at-will employee in California, an individual may be terminated for any reason or no reason at all unless terminated for an illegal reason. Per California Government Code § 12940  an employer’s decision to terminate an employee may be characterized as illegal if the reason is based on an employee’s religion, race, color, national origin, gender, ancestry, age, military or veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and or disability.  Although this is not an exhaustive list, these are considered as protected classes and if an employee belongs to one of these classes and is terminated based on belonging to one of these classes there are remedies available.  Specifically, employees with a disability, whether he or she is mentally or physically impaired are protected. In order to make a claim, the employee would need to contact a Disability Discrimination Attorney.

1- What constitutes a physical disability?  A physical disability includes a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss or health impairment (§ 12926 (m)(1).  The disability of this kind must also impact the employee both in a body system and limit a major life activity. Affecting a body system includes but is not limited to special sense organs, neurological, musculoskeletal, reproductive, digestive, and respiratory. The particular system affected would need to limit major life activities socially, physically, mentally, or while working (§ 12926 (m)(1)(B)(iii).

2- Are mental disabilities recognized?  Mental disabilities that limit major life activities are considered protected and include mental or psychological conditions, which range from emotional or mental illness to specific learning disabilities (§ 12926 (j)(1)). Mental disabilities that limit major life activities includes the impairment hindering the efficiency and execution of everyday physical, mental, and social functions (ibid). Further details can be provided by a  Disability Discrimination Attorney.

3- How does an employee know if they are being discriminated against in the workplace based on their disability? Discrimination within the workplace takes on various forms which may foreshadow an unlawful termination. Forms of discrimination in the workplace are demonstrated through name calling, singling an individual out, passing an individual up for promotion or opportunities, demotion, failing to accommodate a request for reasonable accommodation, involuntary transfer or reassignment, bullying, constructive discharge, and denying benefits.  Although not an exhaustive list, discriminatory behavior takes on various forms and is determined on a case by case basis. For further enquirers regarding this type of situation, call a Disability Discrimination Attorney.

4- What is expected of an employer? Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11069, the employer should endeavor to facilitate an interactive process between themselves and the employee with a recognized disability. This interactive process is built on open communication between the employer and employee in order to maintain up to date knowledge of the circumstances. By maintaining this interactive process, the employer is on notice and subject to accountability for being aware of the employee’s needs for accommodation. In addition, this process promotes the exchange of ideas to reach a set of reasonable accommodations that are appropriate for the individual.

5- What kind of accommodation should an employer provide? An employer should provide reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation provided to an employee entails adjustments and modifications of the employee’s position that enables the employee to have an equal opportunity as their peers to carry out tasks. Some circumstances may require the employer to suggest transferring the employee to a more practicable position, ensuring the job-site facilities are accessible to the employee, permitting a service animal to accompany the employee at work, supplying the employee with a reader or interpreter, providing a modified schedule as well as part-time work, providing accommodation for training or tests or additional training, and providing any other reasonable modifications to the employee’s work-site and or environment. For more clarification on what kind of accommodation should be provided, ask a   Disability Discrimination Attorney.

6- What does it mean to be retaliated against? Once an employee makes a complaint against their employer or against any practice within the organization regarding their recognized disability, the employee could be mistreated by means of retaliation. This situation arises when the employee makes a complaint against certain unlawful practices that violate FEHA regulations being conducted within the workplace. In response to the complaint(s), the employer or organization takes adverse employment action against the employee. For example, an employee with a hearing impairment makes a formal complaint to their human resources department regarding his or her supervisor refusing to hire a sign language interpreter for a required training seminar. Shortly after the complaint is made, the employee is demoted to a lower paying position that does not require attending the training session. Here, the organization’s response to the complaint may be characterized as discriminatory and retaliatory based on the employee’s protest against their supervisor’s refusal to provide reasonable accommodation.

Even if the employee’s specific request for accommodation is not granted, the employee is still under the protection of FEHA in that they can both be discriminated or retaliated against for making the request in the first place. Such circumstances need to be evaluated by a  Disability Discrimination Attorney.

7- What is considered unlawful employment practices?  If an employee falls under one of the recognized protected classes, specifically in this case the employee possesses a physical or mental disability, and an employer mistreats the employee based on having a disability may be considered unlawful. The FEHA and California Government Code § 12940(a) qualify unlawful treatment as being demonstrated through hiring practices, path to promotion selection, distribution of work benefits and privileges or compensation.

As previously mentioned, an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee with a recognized disability. It is considered unlawful under  FEHA for an employer to refuse to implement reasonable accommodation(s) requested by the employee as well as not consider recommendations made by the employee’s licensed physician.  Also, for further assistance on the matter, discuss the matter with a local Disability Discrimination Attorney.

8- How to prove an employee has an action in disability discrimination against their employer? There must be a direct link between the employee’s disability and the reason for termination. In other words, the employee must prove that they were fired based on their recognized disability. For example, an employee is diagnosed with a condition in which their vision is significantly impaired and shortly after their employer is put on notice of this, the employee is let go from their position “because they can’t see”. This would demonstrate a causal link between the employee’s disability and the decision to terminate. Alternatively, the employee may need to prove that the connection between the disability and the termination was demonstrated through unequal treatment or failure to make adjustments or modifications were necessary to do so.

If an employee wants to know if they have a case concerning these issues they need to reach out to a  Disability Discrimination Attorney.

3 Types of Sexual Harassment at The Workplace

What are the 3 Types of Sexual Harassment at the workplace? California’s Constitution protects employees from being harassed within the workplace.  Employees and employers should be familiar with the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Government Code § 12940(j)(1), which makes it illegal to harass an employee. Harassment isn’t always physical and it is not always directed at a particular employee but it may still offend that employee. Employees may be targets of harassment based on their gender, gender identity, the way in which they express their gender, or based on an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (Cal Gov Code § 12940(j)(4)(C)). However, sexual harassment remains the most prevalent in the workplace above all other forms of harassment. Sexual harassment can come in the form of physical, verbal or visual acts.

 

What is expected of the employer and or organization?

It is not always an employer who is sexually harassing the employee, sometimes it can even be other employees sexually harassing an individual, however, this does not absolve the employer from being responsible for the occurrence of the harassment (Gov. C. § 12940(k)). Under FEHA regulations, employers are held accountable for not taking reasonable steps to prevent harassment from taking place. Reasonable steps taken by employers to ensure a safe and sexual harassment-free work environment includes providing prevention training. Employers are also expected to provide a copy of the California Fair Employment and Housing fact sheet to all employees upon being hired.

If an employee feels unsafe in their own workplace, it is important to discuss their potential claim with a Sexual Harassment Lawyer.

 

1- Physical Sexual Harassment

 

Physical sexual harassment is the most obvious and well-known form of sexual harassment. It is exercised through unwelcome touching such as rubbing up against a person or physically interfering with another’s movements or preventing another from completing their work. Examples of unwanted touching would be if employee A placed his arms around employee B and employee B felt uncomfortable with this and asked employee A to stop. Another example would be if employee A would block employee B with his body from leaving the copy room, preventing employee B from leaving that area without having to touch employee A. An employee who has been subjected to physical sexual harassment should discuss the matter with a Sexual Harassment Lawyer.

 

2- Verbal Sexual Harassment

Remarks or comments that are disrespectful insults or slurs may also be considered as verbal harassment towards an individual. Under FEHA regulations, an employee may identify their experience with verbal comments as “harassment” even through nicknames, labeling, or titles.  Examples of this would be employee A nicknaming employee B “Hot Stuff” or “Big Butt Balinda”. These kinds of nicknames or titles are offensive and comment on an individual’s anatomy and also have a sexual connotation.

Although the workplace is a space for professionals who are employed by an organization, some employees today are subjected to feeling uncomfortable and endure unwelcome interactions while at their place of employment.  This can be distracting for a victim of this behavior, leaving him or her afraid to go to work.  The Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations recognize verbal harassment as a form of harassment and specifies  “romantic overtures” as a type of verbal harassment. But what exactly does that even mean? Put simply, this means romantic or flirtatious gestures from person A to person B in an attempt to progress a platonic or formal relationship to a romantic level. These attempts as in plural, are continuous and consistent.

In order to give rise to a claim, romantic or flirtatious remarks are still considered harassment whether the remarks are subtle or obvious. Subtle verbal overtures may be an invitation to go on a lunch or dinner date.  In this scenario, although an invitation to lunch or dinner may be a way in which friends interact with one another, depending the particular circumstances this may be construed as harassment.  An obvious verbal overture may be a comment such as “we would make beautiful babies together” or “I wonder what it would be like if we dated”. These comments are obvious in an attempt to escalate a relationship into a romantic and or sexual realm.

An individual who has this issue at their place of work would need to contact a Sexual Harassment Lawyer to see if they have a claim against their employer.

 

 

3- Visual Sexual Harassment

The Fair Employment and Housing Act recognizes that sexual harassment may come in the form of visual harassment (2. Cal Gov. Regs. § 11019(b)(1)). At first glance “visual harassment” by definition may seem obvious in that one individual is exposing themselves to another individual who does not appreciate the exposure. However, visual harassment comes in other forms that are not as blatant as perhaps a fellow employee exposing themselves. Visual harassment can be demonstrated through cartoons or drawings that are considered offensive and or insulting to the victim. For example, a male employee may draw a character of a fellow female colleague in which her breast size is exaggerated. In that scenario, the female employee is being sexual harassed based on the visual of herself which could be construed as sexual in nature while also making her feel uncomfortable.

More commonly, in an age of technology, one employee showing a video or picture to another employee in the workplace in which that individual finds the visual offensive or insulting, may be considered as visual harassment even though it does not involve that particular employee who is offended. For example, a female or male employee may show or attempt to show another coworker a video of herself or himself having sexual intercourse with his or her partner. In this scenario, although the video does not have anything to do with the employee who is being shown the video, this act is still considered as visual harassment because it is sexual in nature, offensive, and unwelcome.

Visual sexual harassment is also exercised through posters displayed within the workplace. Posters that would fall under this category of visual harassment as mentioned above, would contain visuals that are offensive in their sexual nature and offend the particular individual.

Lewd gestures are also recognized under the Fair Employment and Housing Act as visual harassment. This could be interpreted to cover an array of acts being performed by one employee that offends another particular employee. For example, one employee may gyrate or perform pelvic thrusts towards another employee. Although the employee carrying out the act is not touching this particular employee nor are they even conducting themselves in that way in reference to that particular employee, it is still considered visual harassment.

An employee who is experiencing this type visual harassment should call a Sexual Harassment Lawyer.

How to Deal With Sexual Harassment Outside of The Workplace

 

How to deal with sexual harassment outside of the workplace? It is well-settled law in California under the Fair Employment and Housing Act as well as the California Government Code § 12940(k) that an employer owes a duty to their employees to prevent harassment within the workplace. But what if an employee is sexually harassed off-site yet within a work capacity? This may be a situation where an employee is not at work but he or she is carrying out tasks or participating in functions that are work-related. More importantly, are employees the only individuals who are covered by the law in this area? What about applicants? In a heavily populated State such as California, the job market can be fierce and highly competitive, making it difficult for job-seekers to get their foot in the door. As a result, these applicants seeking jobs are vulnerable to illegal hiring processes which promote discrimination and sexual harassment. In these situations, employers are liable for the acts of their own employees who posses hiring power and abuse this power. When issues such as these arise, reaching out to a local Sexual Harassment Attorney is the best way to find out if further legal action should be taken.

An employer or organization is responsible for and held accountable for the acts of their employees whom they have delegated hiring power to within the workplace.  The Court in the case Doe v Capitol Cities, 50, Cal. App. 4th 1038 had to address this issue of just how far an employer’s liability extends in these “off-site” situations. In that case, the plaintiff was an actor who was applying, or rather auditioning for a role which took place on a Sunday at the casting director’s home. During this encounter, the plaintiff alleged that he was drugged and gang raped by the casting director as well as four other men. The plaintiff brought an action against the employer of the company, inter alia, for violating the California Government Code § 12940 (h). Under that regulation, it is illegal for an employer or organization to retaliate against an applicant or employee because the applicant or employee made a complaint against the employer or organization for unlawful practices. The action was brought against the employer who oversaw the casting director because it was ultimately the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the workplace was harassment-free. In this case, the Court of Appeal decided that the plaintiff did have a case if he could provide evidence that his allegations were true, then as a result, strict liability would be placed upon the employer. This meant that the plaintiff in this case only had to prove that the acts actually took place and that the employer was responsible for the casting director’s acts, and it did not matter what the employer knew or was supposed to have known about the casting director’s tendencies. Today, if an employee was in a similar situation when attempting to apply for a position and was subjected to such treatment, they should reach out to a Sexual Harassment Attorney to discuss their case.

But how could the employer be held liable for what happened at the casting director’s home and on a Sunday? The Court reviewed the facts and evidence of the case and was able to conclude that the casting director was acting within his capacity as an employee because he was locating, discovering, training, and acquiring actors, just as he did to the plaintiff. Therefore, even though the incident did not occur at the actual work-site, nevertheless the casting director was acting as an agent for his boss. Importantly, the Court did take into account that the incident took place off-site, and it also occurred outside of work hours. However, the Court found that because the casting director’s acts were so closely related to his position of employment that it did not absolve the employer of responsibility. Lastly, it is significant to take note that the plaintiff, in this case, was not an actual employee of the company when the incident took place. The court also took this into account that the plaintiff was not an applicant yet decided that this did not matter and the employer of the company remained liable for the casting director’s behavior.  This was because the plaintiff was in pursuit of employment which placed both the plaintiff and the casting director in a work-related context.

 

Here in California, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employer’s liability for sexual harassment extends to managers, supervisors, and controllers who foster a hostile work environment. Per Title VII, a manager is seen as acting for the employer when generating this hostile work environment, therefore the employer can be held vicariously liable. Under the California Government Code  § 12926(t) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the definition of “supervisor” is much broader and considers this title to be anyone who has hiring power, a power to transfer an employee, fire an employee, demote an employee, or even a power to reward an employee.

 

Liability at the federal level is slightly different. In a particular federal case, an employee was a lifeguard and employed by the city. She brought a suit against her employer because she felt that she was being subjected to a sexually charged as well as hostile work environment which was created by her supervisors. The environment at issue was considered hostile because the supervisors were causing the particular employee and other employees to experience unwanted touching. Here the employee made a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq for these acts and the environment imposed on her as an employee. The Court, in this case, found that the employee who brought the action had a claim against her employer by extending the employer’s liability to cover the supervisor’s acts Faragher v City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 US 775, 807, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2292-2293. A Sexual Harassment Attorney would be able to evaluate an employee’s case for free if they have a similar problem at work and may be able to file suit against the company.