San Francisco Civil Rights Lawyers
The case of Hatai v. Department of Transportation et. al highlights that employees in discrimination trials should be aware that California courts are prepared to reject an employee’s attempt to use “me too” evidence. The “me too” doctrine allows an employee to present evidence of discrimination not only against themselves but also against other employees […]
Published on May 1, 2013With America’s belt line expanding, airlines are finding that they have to begin going into that grey area that surrounds those who are considered ‘customers of size’. While most airlines have policies in place regarding the treatment and protocol of those with a larger waistline, only recently have these policies become more prominent with the […]
Published on April 30, 2013On the December 30, 2012, the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 was amended, and the Fair Employment and Housing Council [1] altered the California Code of Regulations[2] to reflect those changes accordingly.[3] More specifically, the new regulations have expanded on the existing laws and now provide more detailed definitions of recognized disabilities. Mental Disabilities now […]
Published on April 24, 2013The plaintiff of this case is a forty year old female who was wrongfully terminated after she returned from medical leave. Kathryn Sheppard v. Daniel Evans and Assoc. establishes the requirements for a statement of claim of age discrimination. This case overturned previous decisions of the district court, which had ruled that a statement of […]
Published on April 24, 2013Some people may be unsure about how the courts determine the following: Whether an employer is being fair in making a reasonable accommodation, and What the difference is between being unemployed and dismissed. To help address these questions we will refer to the recent appellant court decision in the case of Mooney vs. County of […]
Published on April 10, 2013Sexual harassment in or relating to the workplace is prohibited by law. Fair Employment and Housing Commission regulations define sexual harassment as follows: unwanted sexual advances, visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. There are two main categories of sexual harassment: “Quid pro quo” harassment occurs when one’s employment is contingent upon that […]
Published on April 8, 2013The California Court of Appeal‘s decision in Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., is of great importance, effecting the rights of employees with pregnancy-related disabilities. As a result of the decision, employers may be required to provide an employee with additional leave to that required under California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) and the California Family Rights […]
Published on April 3, 2013Is disability discrimination a problem at our nation’s airports? If one were to ask Michelle Gilstrap, she would no doubt answer with a resounding yes. Her experience with airlines – specifically United Airlines – left much to be desired in the area of customer service. Circumstances: Ms. Gilstrap has a broad range of medical problems, […]
Published on March 27, 2013In March of this year, in the matter of Melissa Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc., the California Court of Appeal recognized that in addition to other forms that are required for proving a breach of privacy occurred, privacy can also be breached verbally. The court held that “disclosure in writing is not required to maintain […]
Published on March 25, 2013As a retired couple from Chico, Tom and Donna Crook love taking vacations to San Francisco. So four years ago, they thought it appropriate to buy a timeshare from Wyndham Vacation Ownership for a room at the company’s Canterbury Hotel. “If you buy a timeshare, take time to read through all the documents and see […]
Published on March 1, 2013Sexual harassment can now be classified as a hate crime. According to a recent ruling in the matter of Ventura v. ABM Industries Incorporated, the California Court of Appeal upheld upheld a lower court’s verdict, concluding that “hate is not an element” in determining whether the section of the Ralph Act (Civil Code § 51.7) […]
Published on February 20, 2013In a highly anticipated decision last week, the California Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Harris v. City of Santa Monica. Terminated a mere eight days after informing her employer that she was pregnant, Ms. Harris sued the City of Santa Monica for pregnancy discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In […]
Published on February 12, 2013