Skip to main content

New Laws for 2016: Accomomodation Request a Protected Activity (CA)


Last summer, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law, Assembly Bill No. 987, which amended California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").  Under this amendment, an employer is prohibited from retaliating and/or otherwise discriminating against a person that requests an accommodation as a result of his/her disability or religious belief, regardless of whether the request for accommodation is granted.

For those not familiar with California labor & employment laws, this bill was a result of a 2013 California Court of Appeal case that held a fired employee could proceed with a lawsuit against an employer who allegedly discriminated against the employee based upon his association with his disabled sister to whom he planned to donate a kidney.  In that case, Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc., an employee was hired by Auto-Chlor and informed them that he would need time off to donate a kidney to his sister.  The employee requested time off for the transplant but was continually told by management that they would "look into it."  The employee also told Auto-Chlor that he might need some accommodation upon his return from leave.  Although the employee had satisfactory performance reviews, Auto-Chlor terminated him.  As a result of a lack of prior California caselaw on the matter, the Court looked to the Seventh Circuit and held that the employee could proceed with his suit as a result of apparent discrimination by Auto-Chlor.

Note, this law became effective January 1, 2016.


A copy of Assembly Bill No. 987 can be found here:  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB987

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more