Lawyers.com Blog

Employer Discriminates Against Employee Because Of Physical Disability

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:23:32 -0400

Employer Discriminates Against Employee Because Of Physical Disability

An Orange County jury found the employer discriminated against an employee because of their physical disability and also found the employer failed to provide medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act. The jury awarded the employee $75,290 plus punitive damages. Prior to starting the punitive damages phase, the parties stipulated to a $175,000 judgment.

On June 30, 2010, the plaintiff was fired one day after requesting medical leave. The employer claimed that it had a plan to fire plaintiff because of a reduction in force and performance issues prior to requesting leave. The jury did not believe the employer (Case No. 3020110044646922). As an employee, you have a right to reasonable accommodation of any disability and the right to medical leave depending on the size of your employer and several other factors. If you believe you may be the victim of disability discrimination and/or harassment in the workplace, or a denial of medical leave rights or retaliation for taking medical leave, contact our firm. For any employee rights issue, contact our firm for a no-risk, no-cost and no-obligation consultation. Click to our website - www.rrhllp.com - to learn how to contact us and learn more about our firm.

Discrimination In The Workplace - Arbitrator Awards Employee Sizable Award

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:07:49 -0400

Arbitrator Issues Major Award In Response To Disability Discrimination In The Workplace

Plaintiff was a car salesman in Van Nuys, California. He was considered legally blind. The car dealership reasonably accommodated his disability by providing a porter to bring cars to potential buyers who wanted to test drive. Later, the car salesman got an infection in his eye and took an employee medical leave of absence. He provided his employer with a medical note from his health care provider. Less than a year later, his doctor released him to return to work. When he returned, he was told there was no job for him. Plaintiff alleged that his employer discriminated against him because of his disability, that it failed to engage in the interactive process, that it failed to reasonably accommodate his disability, that it failed to rehire him, that if failed to prevent discrimination, and that it wrongfully terminated him in violation of public policy. The arbitrator agreed and awarded $739,887 to him and his attorney (See Case No. BC 388059).

California law prohibits disability discrimination in the workplace and mandates that an employer offer reasonable accommodation for disabilities. An employer is also forbidden to retaliate against an employee because he or she has taken medical leave. To know more about your employee rights, contact us for a no-risk, no-obligation, free consultation - visit our website at www.rrhllp.com to contact us and learn about our background and the legal services we provide.

Sexual Harassment In A Work Environment Can Lead To Alarming Health Problems

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:42:02 -0400

According to an article posted on myhealthynewsdaily.com, not only can sexual harassment in the workplace lead to a stressful work environment, it can cause damage to a woman's health. The article explains that women who have experienced sexual harassment in the work place can suffer from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (which includes re-experiencing the trauma), and boosted blood pressure. The article goes on to explain that sexual harassment in the work place can even lead to neck pains. In addition, a woman who is experiencing sexual harassment in the work place may have heightened anxiety and stress. This heightened anxiety and stress can lead to difficulty sleeping. Further, women who experienced sexual harassment in the work place may become victim to suicidal behaviors.

Clearly, sexual harassment in a work environment can lead to alarming health problems. Sexual harassment is against the law and it is your legal right to defend yourself. It is important to talk with a lawyer to discuss your choices and rights. The right lawyer can help you understand your choices. The right lawyer can help explain the strengths and weaknesses of your case so you can properly seek help.

Sexual Harassment - A Television Fiction, Or A Real Life Fact?

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:37:30 -0400

Mad Men is a television drama about one of New York's most prestigious advertisement agencies in the 1960s, focusing on one of the firm's most mysterious but talented executives, Donald Draper. The show's focus on 1960s fashion and underlining political messages has captivated audiences everywhere. Since season one, Mad Men depicted the cultural practices and belief systems that many believe are no longer acceptable, such as frequent sexual harassment, near-constant smoking and drinking in the work place.

Sexual harassment, however, is not just a 1960s belief that we look back upon; sexual harassment still occurs today. In fact, in 2009, the popular food chain, Jack in the Box, was charged by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allowing a manager at its Paradise, California, store to sexually harass female employees under his supervision. Much like the first episode of Mad Men, the EEOC claimed that the harassment by the Jack in the Box restaurant manager included frequent remarks about female employees' anatomy and unwelcome sexual advances. The EEOC explained that despite constant complaints by female employees, the chain restaurant failed to correct this unacceptable behavior.

Although we are no longer in the 1960s, sexual harassment still occurs in the workplace. But, unlike the 1960s depicted in Mad Men, women DO have a right to stand up for themselves. Women have a right to work in an environment where there is no sexual harassment.

Female On Male Sexual Harassment - Does It Really Happen?

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:55:43 -0400

Generally people associate sexual harassment with male on female harassment; however, males can become victims to sexual harassment too. The fact remains that ANYONE can become a victim to sexual harassment. More recently, males are standing up for their rights against female harassers. For example, in 2011, LensCrafters (the major eye wear company) was forced to pay $192,500 to settle a female on male sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. According to the EEOC, LensCrafters violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting a male lab technician to sexual harassment in the work place. The EEOC charged that LensCrafters fostered the hostile climate by disregarding the male technician's complaints because he was a man.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is NEVER acceptable. Just as in this LensCrafters case, filing a case against an employer forces the employer to take responsibility for its failure to protect its employees. After this settlement, LensCrafters was forced to enhance its sexual harassment policies and train its employees on recognizing and preventing sexual harassment.

Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Lawyers - Winning At Trial

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:47:03 -0400

LOS ANGELES SEXUAL HARASSMENT ATTORNEYS - WINNING AT TRIAL

T. Joshua Ritz & Associates, Attorneys-At-Law - Seasoned Trial Attorneys Winning CA Cases For Over 20 Years - Call Us Now For A Free Consultation 866.604.3950 or visit our website at www.rrhllp.com

THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF GOING TO TRIAL.

Should you go trial if you have a sexual harassment claim?

Four recent sexual harassment jury trials demonstrate how rewarding and risky going to trial can be. On May 17, 2012. a San Francisco jury awarded a plaintiff $812,001 (Case No. CGC 10495994). The jury broke down damages as follows: $12,000 for past lost earnings, $1 for future medical expenses and $800,000 for pain and suffering. The plaintiff was a woman claiming she was subjected to unwelcome comments and touching by her supervisor. She also claimed that the supervisor exposed himself to her. The sexual harassment escalated to the point that on October 4, 2004 her supervisor was alleged to have raped her. Instead of removing the supervisor, the employer swore the witnesses to secrecy, retained the supervisor, moved the plaintiff from the work site and refused to provider her other work assignments. She was eventually terminated. The jury believed these events most likely occurred and thus gave the employee a sizable pain and suffering damages award.

LOS ANGELES EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ATTORNEYS

On March 19, 2012, a Los Angeles jury awarded the former deputy chief of the Burbank police department $1,290,000 (Case No. BC 422252). The damages award includes $250,000 for pain and suffering. The plaintiff was the former deputy chief for the Burbank Police Department. He alleged that the City terminated his employment in retaliation for raising concerns of harassment and discrimination within the police department, his refusal to terminate African-American and Hispanic employees because of their race and objections to the handling of a sexual harassment case. A jury agreed that these allegations were most likely true and found in favor of this former employee.

LOS ANGELES WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION LAWYERS

Two recent juries held in favor of the employer. On March 23, 2012, a Los Angeles jury held individual supervisors were not liable for sexual harassment (the court granted a nonsuit as to the employer) (Case No. BC 416527). The plaintiff alleged her supervisors asked her on dates, made comments about other female employees receiving job benefits for giving in to their sexual advances and bragged how their status as supervisors insulated them from getting in trouble for their behavior. The employee alleged the incidents include one supervisor rubbing his arm on her breasts and another offering her $500 for sex.

On April 19, 2012, another jury found the City of El monte did not transfer, discipline or demote a female officer because of her sexual harassment complaints against her sergeant. The plaintiff was a female police officer who after 8 years on the job was promoted to detective. After becoming a detective, the plaintiff alleged her sergeant made many offensive sex and gender based comments. He allegedly told her he was willing to trade time off for sexual favors, "those pants make your ******** look too big," "A woman's place is in the home" and women "are natural witnesses and food servers." Plaintiff complained allegedly to no avail. Plaintiff alleged that after making her complaints cases normally assigned to her were given to other officers, she received false and inaccurate reprimands, she was put on a contrived performance improvement plan and she was demoted from detective.

Three of these four trials were tried in downtown Los Angeles. All four cases were tried this past spring. These trial outcomes demonstrate the all or nothing risk of going to trial. In two trials, the employers lost big, while in the other two the employee received nothing at all. All of the cases had similar narratives. The widely divergent outcomes are not only the result of obvious factors such as the skills of the trial attorneys, the evidence presented, the demeanor of the parties and the witnesses and the predispositions of the jurors. Trial outcomes depend on many intangibles, most of which still have to do with the attorneys. This includes an attorney being too aggressive during cross-examination, wearing a poor choice of clothes, appearing disorganized and having other eccentricities or turn-offs not apparent to the attorney.

The one constant is that going to trial in employment cases is unpredictable when so much depends on the conflicting testimony of witnesses. Our firm since its inception has known how to evaluate these risks and navigate them successfully. We know when to go to trial and how to go trial with a strong likelihood of prevailing.

To learn more about us, visit our website here or learn how to contact us here. We offer no risk, free consultations and evaluations so you can understand your employee rights and the best way of proceeding with your claim.

LOS ANGELES EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS | EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ATTORNEYS

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:35:19 -0500

LOS ANGELES EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS | EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ATTORNEYS

Employer May Violate Disability
Discrimination Laws When Terminating

Employee Able To Perform Light Duty Tasks

T.
Joshua Ritz & Associates

www.rrhllp.com

866.604.3950

Recent
Court of Appeal decision, Cuiellette
v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 194
Cal.App.4th 757, helps clarify rights of disabled employees. The City of Los Angeles appealed a judgment
of $1,571,500 in favor of Rory Cuiellette, a Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD) officer, on his claims of disability discrimination and failure to
accommodate a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(the "FEHA"). On appeal, the
City argued that the evidence showed the disabled officer was unable to perform
the essential duties of a police officer with or without a reasonable
accommodation. But the Court of Appeal
reasoned that even if the disabled officer could not perform all of the
essential functions of a police officer, he could perform the essential
functions of a position into which he had been placed by the LAPD as a
reasonable accommodation in accordance with its then existing practice.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supports the
trial court's determination that the City of Los Angeles is liable for a FEHA
violation.

It is
unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of the employee's
physical disability. But an employer can
"discriminate" if the disabled employee is not qualified, even with
reasonable accommodation, to perform essential job duties. Therefore, in order to establish that a
defendant employer has discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of
the FEHA, the plaintiff employee bears the burden of proving he or she was able
to do the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.

The
FEHA imposes on employers the duty to reasonably to accommodate their employees'
physical disabilities. The essential
elements of a failure to accommodate claim are: (1) the plaintiff has a
disability covered by the FEHA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual
(i.e., he or she can perform the essential functions of the position); and (3)
the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's disability. Under the FEHA, “reasonable accommodation”
means “a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee
to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired.” Nadaf–Rahrov
v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008)
166 Cal.App.4th 952, 974. “If the
employee cannot be accommodated in his or her existing position and the
requested accommodation is reassignment, an employer must make affirmative
efforts to determine whether a position is available. Spitzer v. The Good Guys,
Inc. (2000) ] 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1389.
A reassignment, however, is not required if "there is no vacant
position for which the employee is qualified." Id.

“Under
the FEHA ... an employer is relieved of the duty to reassign a disabled
employee whose limitations cannot be reasonably accommodated in his or her
current job only if reassignment would impose an ‘undue hardship’ on its
operations or if there is no vacant position for which the employee is
qualified.” Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at 1389.

Consistent
with its accommodation policy, upon presentation of a doctor's note clearing
plaintiff for “permanent light duty—administrative work only,” the LAPD allowed
plaintiff to return to work in May 2003 and placed him in the court desk
position. As stated above, the trial court found that plaintiff could perform
the essential duties of the court desk position, and defendant does not
challenge that finding. The Court of
Appeal held that because plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential
duties of the court desk position and was placed in that position pursuant to
the LAPD's accommodation policy then in effect, his removal from that position
based on the 100 percent total permanent disability rating plaintiff received in
the workers' compensation proceeding violated the accommodation provisions of
the FEHA.

KNOW YOUR EMPLOYEE DISABILITY
RIGHTS. CALL OUR OFFICE FOR A FREE,
NO-RISK CONSULTATION. YOU CAN SEND US AN
EMAIL BY GOING HERE OR CALL US AT 866.604.3950

LOS ANGELES SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWYERS | EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ATTORNEYS

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:20:54 -0500

LOS ANGELES SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWYERS | EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ATTORNEYS

Sex Talk In the Workplace Is Not Always
Actionable

T.
Joshua Ritz & Associates

www.rrhllp.com

866.604.3950

Five
years ago, a prominent California Supreme Court decision upheld a judgment
against an employee claiming sexual harassment/gender discrimination because
her co-workers frequently discussed sex.
Plaintiff was a comedy writers' assistant who worked on the production
of a popular television show called Friends. The show revolved around a group
of young, sexually active adults, featured adult-oriented sexual humor, and
typically relied on sexual and anatomical language, innuendo, wordplay, and
physical gestures to convey its humor. Before plaintiff was hired, she had been
forewarned that the show dealt with sexual matters and that, as an assistant to
the comedy writers, she would be listening to their sexual jokes and
discussions about sex and transcribing the jokes and dialogue most likely to be
used for scripts. After four months of employment, plaintiff was fired because
of problems with her typing and transcription. She then filed a lawsuit against
three of the male comedy writers and others, asserting among other things that
the writers' use of sexually coarse and vulgar language and conduct, including
the recounting of their own sexual experiences, constituted harassment based on
sex within the meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA).

The
record in this case discloses that most of the sexually coarse and vulgar
language at issue did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women
in the workplace. Based on the totality of the undisputed circumstances,
particularly the fact the Friends production was a creative workplace focused
on generating scripts for an adult-oriented comedy show featuring sexual themes,
the Supreme Court found no reasonable trier of fact could conclude such
language constituted harassment directed at plaintiff because of her sex within
the meaning of the FEHA.

There
is no dispute that sexually coarse and vulgar language was used regularly in
the Friends writers' room. But the use
of sexually coarse and vulgar language in the workplace is not actionable per
se. The Court held we must look to the
specific facts and circumstances presented to determine whether the language at issue constituted harassment based on
sex within the meaning of FEHA and whether such language was severe enough or
sufficiently pervasive to create a work environment that was hostile or abusive to plaintiff because of her
sex.

The
Supreme Court reasoned:

We do not suggest the use of
sexually coarse and vulgar language in the workplace can never constitute harassment
because of sex; indeed, language similar to that at issue     here might
well establish actionable harassment depending on the circumstances. Nor    do we
imply that employees generally should be free, without employer restriction, to     engage
in sexually coarse and vulgar language or conduct at the workplace. We simply   recognize
that, like Title VII, the FEHA
is “not a ‘civility code’ and [is] not designed to rid the workplace of
vulgarity.”

The facts of this case are very unique. Most workplaces do not legitimately include
sexually explicit exchanges. But the
case does illustrate an important point.
A trier of fact will look to the totality of circumstances to determine
whether sexual harassment is legally present.

If you
are an employee and you believe you may be facing sexual harassment or gender
discrimination, send us an email or contact us at 866.604.3950 and get a free,
no-risk case evaluation. Visit our
website to learn more about your employee rights.

Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Lawyers Take Notice - Sexual Harassment Claim Settles For $530,000

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:37:14 -0500

LOS ANGELES SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWYERS TAKE NOTICE -

HOSPITAL SETTLES SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM FOR $530,000

In a victory that the EEOC is applauding, Garfield Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, settled with 10 plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit for sexual harassment. Over the course of two years, a male emergency room employee harassed other hospital employees through inappropriate touching, propositions for sex, graphic discussions of sex, obscene pictures and comments regarding female body parts, including those of underage patients.

The EEOC contends that Garfield Medical Center retained the offending employee two years after the first victim reported his offensive behavior and then retaliated against those who came forward to complain about the harassment.

While Garfield Medical Center denies any wrongdoing and states that it disagrees with the EEOC’s characterization of events, it is paying the victims of the sexual harassment over $530,000. Furthermore, the hospital has agreed to purge the victims’ employment records of negative employment actions and is establishing a toll-free complaint hotline to assist staff to make proper reports.

This is not an uncommon case. Sexual harassment occurs in all employment settings and often goes unreported. The retaliatory nature of Garfield Medical Center’s action against the employees after reporting the sexual harassment is evidence of the deterrents victims face for reporting harassing behavior. However, if this settlement demonstrates anything, it shows that justice is available to victims and no entity, however large, can escape responsibility for its reprehensible actions.

Call our office at 866.604.3950 or 818.788.1123 or send us an email by clicking this link or visiting our site at www.rrhllp.com. Our consulations are absolutely free. We have over 20 years experience advocating and winning cases for our clients.

T. Joshua Ritz, Esq.

Suren Weerasuriya, Esq.

T. Joshua Ritz & Associates

Attorneys-At-Law

14724 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 509

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

818.788.1123

www.rrhllp.com

Horrible Bosses - When Is Harassment Or Retaliation Legally Actionable?

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:02:52 -0500

HORRIBLE BOSSES? When is harassment and retaliation legally actionable?

A recent comedy depicts three horrible bosses that the central characters decide to murder. Putting aside the comedic murder premise, when is a horrible boss the basis for a lawsuit? The first boss, played by Kevin Spacey, operates in an archetypical corporate office. He is cruel, unfair and self-absorbed. For the most part, this miserable boss, as depicted in the beginning of the movie, does not create a legally actionable claim. Many a defense lawyer will be quick to point out that employment law is not intended to enforce basic civility. Employers can be rude and even unethical. The Kevin Spacey character unfairly decides to promote himself instead of the deserving, hard-working character played by Jason Bateman - these facts by themselves are not legally actionable. The second boss, a dentist played by Jennifer Aniston, depicts a boss that relentlessly seeks sexual relations with her male subordinate. The Aniston character makes sex a part of the working conditions at her office and takes matters further by insisting her subordinate participate in the sexual abuse of her anesthetized patients. Aniston's character depicts an obvious case of sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation (the subordinate refuses to engage in the legal violations) and gender discrimination, among other claims. The final boss played by Colin Farrell insists that his subordinate terminate employees on account of their age, disability, gender and other protected categories. Like the Aniston character, the Farrell character is the type of boss whose actions go beyond the normal employment bargain and therefore, the behavior is legally actionable.

Horrible Bosses is a playful comedy. A real horrible boss is no joke and it's not remotely funny. The daily torment of a horrible boss takes an enormous emotional toll on people compounded by the reality that you need the job to pay your bills and maintain your lifestyle. If you have a horrible boss, don't decide for yourself if it is legally actionable. Contact us by email by completing our online form at this link or call us at 866.604.3950 or 818.788.1123. We offer a free initial consultation. When you call or email us, we will conduct an initial intake followed by a free consultation if you present a potential claim. Joshua Ritz has over 20 years experience advocating for employees and provides individual attention to every matter our office accepts.

T. Joshua Ritz, Esq.

Suren Weerasuriya, Esq.

T. Joshua Ritz & Associates

Attorneys-At-Law

14724 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 509

Sherman Oaks CA 91403

www.rrhllp.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW IN CALIFORNIA

nospam@example.com (T. Joshua Ritz) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:00:24 -0500

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW IN CALIFORNIA

The Use of "Me Too" Evidence to Prove Harassment

Many sexual harassment victims worry about securing justice when their claim depends in part on a “he said, she said” account of events. The typical victim worries that when their word is pitted against their employer or boss, it will be difficult to establish the truth.

A recent California Courts of Appeal decision, Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, confirms that a sexual harassment victim may use "me too” evidence to prove their claim. Pantoja reasons that evidence from other victims or witnesses to the sexual harasser's behavior, "me too" evidence, is admissible and may properly lead a jury to believe the sexual harassment victim's claim.

Pantoja reinforces that evidence supporting sexual harassment claims is not limited to specific events that took place in the victim’s presence. Limiting admissible evidence to events occurring in the victim's presence would unfairly stack the deck in favor of the harasser. Pantoja is the latest in a series of decisions allowing more leeway for a harassment victim to prove their harasser’s intent.

If you believe you may be a victim of sexual harassment, don’t write it off as a “he said, she said” situation that cannot be proved. There are many methods to prove you have been sexually harassed, so don’t be discouraged by swearing contests. It’s important to contact an experienced sexual harassment attorney if you feel you have been sexually harassed in the workplace. Contact our office at 866.604.3950 or 818.788.1123 and, after an initial phone interview, an experienced attorney will provide you a free initial consultation. Visit our website at www.rrhllp.com to send us an email or click this link to learn more about our firm.

T. Joshua Ritz, Esq.

Kayleigh White, Esq.

T. Joshua & Associates

Attorneys-At-Law

www.rrhllp.com