Employment Law Weekly

  • Skip to content
  • Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

Navigation

  • Home
  • Stay Connected
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Research
  • Employment Law Academy
  • Work Comp Academy
  • LINKS

Search

Article Categories

  • ADEA
  • ADA
  • ADAAA
  • AGE DISCRIMINATION
  • ARBITRATION
  • BACKGROUND CHECKS
  • BENEFITS
  • BFOQ
  • BULLETIN BOARDS
  • CHILD LABOR
  • COBRA
  • CFRA
  • CBAs
  • DFEH
  • DISCRIMINATION
  • DISABILITY
  • DISCIPLINE
  • DOL
  • DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
  • DRESS CODES
  • DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
  • DLSE
  • EQUAL PAY ACT
  • EAPs
  • ERISA
  • EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS
  • EEOC
  • EPLI
  • ERGONOMICS
  • ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
  • EXEMPT vs. NONEXEMPT
  • FEHA
  • FMLA
  • FLSA
  • GENDER DISCRIMINATION
  • GINA
  • HIPAA
  • HEALTHCARE
  • HARASSMENT
  • HOLIDAYS
  • HSA
  • HEALTH BENEFITS
  • HIRING
  • IMMIGRATION STATUS
  • INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
  • INTERACTIVE PROCESS
  • INVESTIGATIONS
  • JOB DESCRIPTIONS
  • LAYOFFS
  • LEAVES OF ABSENCE
  • MEAL AND REST PERIODS
  • MILITARY LEAVE
  • MINIMUM WAGE
  • MINORS
  • NLRB
  • NOTICES
  • OSHA
  • OVERTIME
  • PAID FAMILY LEAVE
  • PERSONNEL RECORDS
  • POSTING
  • PREGNANCY
  • PRIVACY
  • RACE DISCRIMINATION
  • REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
  • RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
  • REFERENCES
  • RETURN-TO-WORK
  • RETALIATION
  • SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  • SEVERANCE PAY
  • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
  • SEXUAL ORIENTATION
  • SOCIAL MEDIA
  • SOCIAL SECURITY
  • TECHNOLOGY
  • TERMINATION
  • TITLE VII
  • USERRA
  • UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
  • UNIONS
  • VACATIONS
  • WARN
  • WHISTLEBLOWING
  • WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
  • WORKPLACE SAFETY
  • WAGE AND HOUR
  • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • Uncategorized
  • All News

Search News

  • Login Form

  • Forgot your password?
  • Forgot your username?
  • Create an account
You are here: Home DFEH

Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

  • Print
  • Email
Article Information
Published on Thursday, 10 May 2012 18:53

The best way to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, or to limit damages if it should occur despite preventative measures, is to implement effective policies and procedures designed to eliminate sexual harassment. Further, employers have a legal obligation to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and must therefore take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. To meet these objectives and legal requirements, employers must provide information to employees on sexual harassment by either distributing a pamphlet that may be obtained from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), "Sexual Harassment is Forbidden by Law" (DFEH-185) or developing an equivalent workplace document, such as a sexual harassment policy contained in an employee handbook and/or standalone policy on sexual harassment, which meets the following requirements:

1. The illegality of sexual harassment is described;

2. The definition of sexual harassment under state and federal laws is detailed;

3. A description of sexual harassment, utilizing examples is provided;

4. The internal complaint process of the employer is explained to employees;

5. The legal remedies and complaint process available through the DFEH is detailed;

6. Directions on how to contact the DFEH are provided;

7. The protection against retaliation for opposing the practices prohibited by law or for filing a complaint with, or otherwise participating in investigative activities conducted by, the DFEH is detailed.

Further, an employer’s sexual harassment policy should contain provisions advising an employee about the scope of his or her rights if the employee is subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace; the employer’s commitment to fully and effectively investigate any complaint of sexual harassment; the employer’s assurance that if harassment has occurred, the employer will take prompt and effective remedial action.

In addition to the above, employers should train all individuals in the workplace on the employer’s policies regarding sexual harassment and post the required notices regarding discrimination and harassment in conspicuous locations in the workplace. And, all employees should be made aware of the seriousness of a violation of the employer’s sexual harassment policy.

Employers with 50 or more employees must also provide at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education by a qualified trainer regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees, and to all new supervisory employees within six months of assuming a supervisory position. Thereafter, covered employers must provide sexual harassment training and education to each supervisory employee once every two years. Read More.

UPS Must Pay 96K for Terminating Disabled Employee

  • Print
  • Email
Article Information
Published on Monday, 28 November 2011 06:14

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced that United Parcel Service (UPS) must pay more than $96,000 in damages after the company terminated employee Eva Linda Mason allegedly because of her disability. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Commission) found that UPS had unlawfully terminated Ms. Mason even though she was able to perform the essential functions of her job. UPS hired Ms. Mason in 1997 as an Operations Management Specialist to handle customer calls and complaints on shipments. Although Ms. Mason occasionally located packages in a warehouse, handling packages was not part of her job. In 2007, Ms. Mason had knee surgery and took a medical leave of absence to recover. Upon her return, she continued to carry out the essential customer service functions of her job. However, UPS allegedly perceived Ms. Mason as disabled because she had some restrictions, such as limited standing, walking, bending, and kneeling. UPS had a 12-month cap on the length of time employees with disabilities could be reasonably accommodated from their regular duties. UPS applied this cap to Ms. Mason and terminated her in August 2008. According to Phyllis Cheng, Director of the DFEH, “Using a 12-month cap to fire disabled employees is unlawful under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)…Employees with disabilities must be allowed to work if they can perform their essential job duties with or without accommodation.”  The Commission ordered UPS to pay $96,170 in damages, including $10,000 in administrative fines to the State. UPS is also required to post a notice about its liability and develop a policy and train management on disability discrimination. Read More.

Air Canada Must Pay $325,000 for Alleged Disability Discrimination

  • Print
  • Email
Article Information
Published on Monday, 31 October 2011 23:59

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced that Air Canada must pay more than $325,000 in damages after the company allegedly terminated one of its customer service representatives on the basis of her disability. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) found that Air Canada allegedly failed to accommodate the employee’s disability and then terminated her because she could not lift cargo – a job function customer service representatives apparently rarely perform. The employee, Caroline Messih Zemaitis, worked as a customer service agent for Air Canada at Los Angeles International Airport from 1993 to 2007. Starting in 2004, she performed clerical duties in the cargo division, which did not involve physical labor. In 2005 and 2006, Ms. Zemaitis injured her back, shoulder, knee and wrist, and her physician restricted her from performing such tasks as heavy lifting and repeated bending. However, Ms. Zemaitis was able to keep working in the cargo division with minor accommodations provided by Air Canada such as provision of a telephone headset and heating pad, and time off for physical therapy. When Ms. Zemaitis became pregnant, her back condition worsened and she went out on a medical leave of absence for approximately one year. She then tried to return to work in 2007 when released by her physician with restrictions similar to those she had before, but Air Canada allegedly refused to respond to her many communications regarding returning to work. Instead, Air Canada allegedly terminated Ms. Zemaitis’s because she could not lift cargo. DFEH Director Phyllis Cheng commented that “Employers must attempt to find reasonable modifications that allow employees with disabilities to keep working…Using non-essential job functions as a pretext to deny employment to persons with disabilities is unlawful in California.” In addition to the monetary damages, Air Canada must reinstate Ms. Zemaitis, post a notice about their liability, and develop a policy and train management on reasonable accommodations necessary to allow disabled employees to continue working. Read More.

New Procedural Regulations For DFEH To Take Effect October 7, 2011

  • Print
  • Email
Article Information
Published on Friday, 23 September 2011 04:59

California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) proposed procedural regulations in 2010, which have now been approved and will go into effect on October 7, 2011, The regulations have been codified at Title 2, California Code of Regulations, sections 10000 through 10066.  The purpose of these new  regulations is to codify into regulations existing procedures the DFEH had been following and provide “duly noted and vetted procedures” for processing complaints of discrimination.  Initially, the stated purpose by the DFEH was to capture and formally adopt their current procedures, but was later amended to state that “in most cases” the regulations will capture existing procedures. The amended purpose is significant as these regulations change the DFEH's administrative procedures in key respects. The regulations now make it easier for applicants to file a complaint and obtain a “right to sue notice,” thereby essentially bypassing the requirement that complainant “exhaust” their administrative remedies first.  The new procedures appear to be part of a broader effort by the head of the DFEH, Phyllis Cheng, to redirect the department's limited resources away from individual complaints and towards cases of discrimination involving multiple egregious acts by an employer. Read More.

Employer Must Pay $846,300 for Firing Cancer Survivor

  • Print
  • Email
Article Information
Published on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 03:58

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced its largest-ever administrative award of $846,300 against Acme Electric Corporation for allegedly terminating an employee because he had cancer. The employee, Charles Richard Wideman, worked for Acme Electric as a regional sales manager for the company’s largest territory. He developed kidney and prostate cancer which required two surgeries and numerous cancer-related outpatient appointments. The company immediately granted his two requests for time off for surgery and post surgery recovery. However, Mr. Wideman then requested that the company grant him an additional accommodation for the travel limitation caused by his cancers. Acme Electric allegedly refused to grant or even acknowledge these accommodation requests. In December 2007, Mr. Wideman’s supervisor gave him an unfavorable performance evaluation, criticizing him for insufficient travel. On February 28, 2008, even though Mr. Wideman had allegedly improved his job performance, Acme Electric terminated Mr. Wideman, based on the insufficient travel issue. After a three-day hearing, the State’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission found Acme Electric violated the FEHA by: (1) allegedly failing to accommodate Mr. Wideman's known travel limitation due to his cancers; (2) allegedly failing to engage in a good faith interactive process; (3) allegedly discriminating against Mr. Wideman because of his disability; and, (4) allegedly failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring. The Commission awarded Widerman $748,571 for lost wages, $22,729 for out-of-pocket expenses and $50,000 for emotional distress. In addition, Acme Electric must pay $25,000 to the State’s General Fund as an administrative fine. Acme Electric must also comply with posting, policy changes, and training requirements ordered by the Commission. According to DFEH Director Phyllis Cheng, "This historic administrative victory underscores the Department’s commitment to vindicating the rights of Californians victimized by workplace discrimination.”

Subscribe to RSS Feed

feed-image Subscribe to RSS Feed
  ©Copyright 2011-2012 Employment Law Weekly  A Division of Floyd, Skeren & Kelly, LLP, All rights reserved. DISCLAIMER: The information on this site is for general information only. This information should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship with the authors of any of this information or their employers. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.