Employment Law

Is Your Employer Paying Employees Unequally?

The California Equal Pay Act is a law intended to protect employees from receiving unequal pay. The Act prohibits employers from paying their employees less for substantially similar work because of their sex, race, or ethnicity.

It is also illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who file complaints under the California Equal Pay Act. If you believe that your employer has violated your rights or engaged in any unequal pay practices, you may be eligible to file a complaint or lawsuit against your employer.

What is Illegal Under the California Equal Pay Act?

While the California Equal Pay Act passed back in 1949, the Act is regularly strengthened by amendments. One of the most notable amendments was the California Fair Pay Act in 2015, which included extensive changes to the Act.

Amendments in recent years brought some of the most significant changes to the California Equal Pay Act, including:

  1. The requirement to provide equal pay for employees who perform “substantially similar work” (you can find the definition of the term below);
  2. Employees are no longer required to compare work at the same establishment to prove that an employer engaged in unequal pay;
  3. Employers may no longer justify any pay difference between employees because of different sex, race, or ethnicity or based on an employee’s prior salary;
  4. Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who file complaints under the Act; and
  5. Employers are required to maintain employment and wage records for three years.

California legislators introduce additional protections for employees through amendments to the California Equal Pay Act almost every year. A skilled employment lawyer will keep you up to date with the latest changes to the Act.

How Does the Law Define Substantially Similar Work?

You have probably noticed that the California Equal Pay Act uses the term “substantially similar work” when prohibiting employers from paying an employee less than other employees of different sex, race, or ethnicity if the employees perform substantially similar work.

The California Equal Pay Act views the term substantially similar work as a similar level of skill, effort, and responsibility used by employees when performing work under similar working conditions:

  • Working conditions refer to the physical surroundings where an employee performs their duties, including the employee’s exposure to such conditions as temperature, heat, fume, and other hazards.
  • Skills refer to the level of education, training, and experience required to perform work.
  • Effort refers to the amount of mental and physical exertion necessary to perform work.
  • Responsibility refers to the degree of accountability and discretion required in performing the job duties.

When an employee files an unequal pay claim, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) will determine whether the work performed by two or more employees whose job titles and salary is being compared is “substantially similar.”

What Do You Need to Prove When Filing an Unequal Pay Claim?

When you file a complaint with the DFEH alleging unequal pay, you will have to prove that you are paid less than an employee of the opposite sex or a different race or ethnicity even though you perform substantially similar work.

Then, your employer will have the opportunity to provide a legitimate reason, if any, to explain the difference in pay. It is advisable to seek the legal counsel of an attorney to help you strengthen your complaint and prevail on your unequal pay in California.

Keep in mind that California law imposes a time limit on unequal pay claims. Under California Labor Code § 1197.5(i), employees have two years from the date of the last violation to bring a claim to recover lost wages. The only exception to the time limit under the California Equal Pay Act is if the employer engaged in willful conduct. In that case, you have three years to file a claim.

Note: To determine the deadline to bring an unequal pay claim, each paycheck is considered a violation.

Can Your Employer Ask You About Your Past Salary?

In 2018, California legislators amended the California Equal Pay Act to make it illegal for employers to ask job candidates about their salary history. Thus, your prospective employer cannot ask you about your current or past salary at any point during a job interview. However, if an employee decides to volunteer information about their past salary, the employer will not commit a violation.

Can Your Employer Prohibit You From Discussing Your Salary With Coworkers?

No, it is illegal for employers to prohibit their employees from discussing how much they make with their coworkers. Your employer may not implement pay secrecy policies or retaliate against employees who discuss their salary with coworkers.

If your employer fired, demoted, denied benefits, refused to promote you, decreased your salary, or in any other way retaliated against you for asking your coworkers about their pay, you might be able to pursue a retaliation lawsuit. Consult with a retaliation lawyer to discuss your legal options.

How Do You Know That You Have an Unequal Pay Claim Against Your Employer?

Each case is unique, which is why it is best to consult with an attorney to discuss your particular situation and determine if you have a valid claim against your employer. If you believe that you are paid less than another employee who performs substantially similar work because of your sex, race, or ethnicity, do not hesitate to speak with an attorney.

An employment attorney will review your particular situation and determine if your employer is engaging in unequal pay. If you can prevail on your claim, you may be able to recover the difference in wages, attorney’s fees, legal costs, interests, as well as liquidated damages.

Many people are hesitant to file a claim against their employers, so they live with unlawful and unfair conditions at work for far too long. However, the law is in place for a reason, and employees should never accept unlawful employment actions. Stand up for your rights with the help of the right legal team.

Proyecto de Ley en California Protégé a Trabajadores de Almacén de Cuotas Inseguras

El 8 de Septiembre 2021, el Senado de California paso AB 701, un proyecto de ley dirigido hacia proporcionar limitaciones a las empresas que les imponen cuotas de velocidad a los trabajadores de almacén en centros de distribución de almacén. 

El proposito del proyecto de ley es asegurarse que los empleados no sean requeridos a cumplir las cuotas que previenen el cumplimiento de períodos de comida o descanso, uso de baños o leyes de salud y seguridad ocupacional.

Si se firma como ley, ¿qué protecciones se requerirán?

El proyecto de ley requiere que los empleadores proporcionen una descripción por escrito de cada cuota a la que están sujetos los empleados, incluida la cantidad cuantificada de proyectos que se realizarán o materiales que se producirán o manipularán, y cualquier acción laboral adversa potencial que pudiera resultar de no cumplir con la cuota dentro de 30 días después de la contratación o dentro de los 30 días posteriores a la entrada en vigencia de la ley.

El proyecto de ley proporciona transparencia entre la empresa y el empleado en cuanto a los niveles de productividad esperada de cada empleado. Tambien évitara que las empresas despidan a sus empleados por no cumplir con cuotas poco realisticas que forzan a los empleados a comprometer su salud y seguridad para cumplir con las demandas de las empresas.

Empleados Tienen El Derecho a Solicitar y Revisar Cuotas

Bajo AB 701, si un empleado actual o anterior cree que cumplir con una cuota causó una violación de su derecho a una comida o un período de descanso o requirió que violaran cualquier ley o norma de salud y seguridad ocupacional, el empleado tiene el derecho de solicitar, y el empleador es requerido a proporcionar, una descripción por escrito de cada cuota a la que el empleado esta sujeto, al igual que una copia de los últimos 90 días de los datos personales de velocidad de trabajo del empleado.

Adémas, hay una presunción refutable de represalia si un empleador de cualquier manera discrimina, toma represalias, o toma alguna acción adversa contra cualquier empleado dentro de los 90 días de la empleado: 

(a) Solicitar al empleador que proporcione información sobre una cuota o datos personales de velocidad de trabajo; o

(b) Presentar una queja relacionada con una cuota alegando cualquier violación de la ley, ante el empleador, el comisionado, la división o la agencia gubernamental local o estatal.

Honorarios de Abogados

En particular, el proyecto de ley prevé los honorarios de los abogados para aquellos que busquen acciones legales de conformidad con AB 701, que crea acceso a la justicia para los empleados afectados.

Publicación de datos por el Comisionado Laboral 

Para el 1 de enero de 2023, el Comisionado Laboral debe reportar:

(1) el número de reclamos presentados ante el comisionado bajo este proyecto de ley,

(2) datos sobre cuotas de producción de almacén en almacenes donde las tasas anuales de lesiones de los empleados están por encima del promedio de la industria, y

(3) el número de investigaciones y acciones de ejecución iniciadas.

Si se convierte en ley, la AB 701 expondrá las cuotas de trabajo inseguras establecidas por empresas como Amazon y dará poder a los empleados que dependen de estos trabajos para mantener a sus familias y hasta ahora no han tenido otra alternativa que priorizar el cumplimiento de las cuotas sobre su propia seguridad.

California Bill Protects Warehouse Workers from Unsafe Quotas

On September 8, 2021, the California Senate passed AB 701, a bill aimed at providing limitations on companies that enforce speed quotas on warehouse workers in warehouse distribution centers. 

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that employees not be required to meet quotas that prevent compliance with meal or rest periods, use of bathroom facilities, or occupational health and safety laws. 

If Signed Into Law, What Protections Will Be Required?

The bill requires employers to provide a written description of each quota employees are subject to, including the quantified number of tasks to be performed or materials to be produced or handled, and any potential adverse employment action that could result from failure to meet the quota within 30 days of hiring or within 30 days after the law comes into effect. 

The bill provides transparency between the company and the employee as to the productivity levels expected of each employee. It will also prevent companies from terminating employees for failing to meet unrealistic quotas that force employees to compromise their health and safety to meet a company’s bottom line.

Employees Have the Right to Request and Review Quotas

Under AB 701, if a current or former employee believes that meeting a quota caused a violation of their right to a meal or rest period or required them to violate any occupational health and safety law or standard, they have the right to request, and the employer is required to provide, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject, as well as a copy of the most recent 90 days of the employee’s personal work speed data.

In addition, there is a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if an employer in any manner discriminates, retaliates, or takes any adverse action against any employee within 90 days of the employee:

(a) Requesting the employer provide information about a quota or personal work speed data; or

(b) Making a complaint related to a quota alleging any violation the law, to the employer, commissioner, the division, or local or state governmental agency.

Attorney’s Fees 

Notably, the bill provides for attorneys’ fees for those who seek legal action pursuant to AB 701 which creates access to justice for affected employees. 

Publication of Data by the Labor Commissioner

By January 1, 2023, the Labor Commissioner is required to report: (1) the number of claims filed with the commissioner under this bill; (2) data on warehouse production quotas in warehouses where annual employee injury rates are above the industry average, and (3) the number of investigations and enforcement actions initiated.

If passed into law, AB 701 will expose unsafe work quotas set by companies like Amazon and give power to employees who depend on these jobs to provide for their families and until now have had no alternative but to prioritize quota compliance over their own safety.

California Judge Rules Ballot Initiative Classifying App-Based Drivers As Independent Contractors Is Unconstitutional

Proposition 22, the controversial California ballot measure classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors, hit another roadblock on Friday after a judge ruled the law was unconstitutional.  

In its decision, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch determined the law unconstitutionally limited the “power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law” – a power reserved solely for the legislature under the state constitution.  Further, the law violated the constitutional provision requiring laws and initiatives be limited to a single subject, as it added language preventing app-drivers from unionizing.  The bar on Californians’ right to collective bargaining “appears only to protect the economic interests of the network companies in having a divided, un-unionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation.”  As the unconstitutional provisions could not be severed from the initiative, the entire proposition was found to be unconstitutional.  

What does this mean now?  The ride-sharing companies will assuredly appeal, as Uber spokesperson Noah Edwardsen has already vowed, “we will appeal and we expect to win.”  In the meantime, the ride-sharing companies will pursue a stay on the judge’s ruling, which would essentially freeze the court order until the state court of appeals has weighed in.   Given the interests at stake, this issue could be litigated up to the California Supreme Court. 

A link to the Court’s order can be found here:  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046905-prop-22-unconstitutional

Is It Discrimination If My Employer Doesn’t Use My Personal Pronouns?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 173 (US 2020) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination, also protects both gay and transgender employees against discrimination. It was the first major victory for LGBTQIA+ advocates at the federal level in years, because it specifically included protection for transgender employees, who often face unique challenges and prejudices at work.

One of those challenges is the use of personal pronouns. Because pronouns can indicate gender, it is important for many transgender employees that their employers and colleagues use the pronouns that correlate with their gender identity or expression. The same principle applies to non-binary and non-conforming employees. If you have had your rights violated reach out to us at Haeggquist & Eck and get a consultation for your case.

The Haggquist & Eck Team Gets Results

We get you the results you need and provide legal advice through the whole court process. Don’t be unprepared when you could have one of the best legal teams out there to assist you. Reach out to us today to get your consultation.

Contact

Preferred Pronouns versus Personal Pronouns

As we continue to evolve and strive to be more sensitive, allies wanting to avoid misgendering have asked, “What are your preferred pronouns?” Although, well-intentioned, there is no need to qualify a pronoun by calling it a “preferred pronoun.” The definition of the word prefer is to like better or best; tend to choose. Deeming something a preference implies there are other options that work, they are just not their preference. We can simply ask, what are your pronouns? To be more inclusive, employers can create opportunities for employees to share pronouns if they are willing to share that information. However, employers cannot require them to disclose pronouns. 

It begs the question: Does an employer’s failure to use an employee’s accurate pronouns amount to discrimination?

Is Misgendering a Form of Harassment or Discrimination?

Before the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protected California employees who are transgender, persons who are perceived to be transgender, or gender nonconforming, non-binary, and persons undergoing gender transition against discrimination. That includes harassment when an employee is discriminated against based on their gender identity or expression. 

As previously mentioned, pronoun use is important for people to express their gender, especially if they identify as something other than what they were assigned at birth. Using a pronoun that contradicts one’s gender expression is known as misgendering. When people are misgendered, it can be demoralizing, create unsafe spaces, and negatively impact their mental health and ability to function in the workplace.

Can I file a lawsuit against my employer for using the wrong pronouns or misgendering me?

Is It Discrimination If My Employer Doesn’t Use My Preferred Pronouns?

Mistakes happen and failing to refer to an employee by the correct name or pronouns by accident will not be enough to merit a lawsuit. However, there are situations when “accidents” are more than honest mistakes. If coworkers or supervisors consistently and intentionally refer to an employee with the incorrect set of pronouns or by a previous name, despite being corrected numerous times, this may constitute workplace harassment. If the employer fails to intercede with a meaningful solution to correct the misgendering, the employee may have grounds for a lawsuit.

Sexual harassment may not necessarily be related to actual sexual interest – it may, instead, be a type of bullying based on gender, gender identity, or gender stereotyping. In either case, verbal sexual harassment is defined as inappropriate sexual or gender-related statements that become so serious or so pervasive that they create a hostile work environment in which the employee becomes unable to perform their job function. 

The California Gender Recognition Act (SB-179) also known as the Gender Identity Bill was signed into law in 2017 and became effective January 1, 2019. This law states that every person deserves full legal recognition and equal treatment under the law to ensure that intersex, transgender, and nonbinary people have state-issued identification documents that provide full legal recognition of their accurate gender identity. This allows for people in California to change their gender on state identification and birth certificates, including choosing a non-binary gender marker.

Whether or not an employee has taken the steps to change their legal name and gender is irrelevant.

Employers may attempt to explain that they will only refer to employees by what is on their driver’s licenses or other legal documents, but there is no legal basis for this. They must address and refer to an employee by the name and gender the employee identifies. Employers cannot require documentation as proof of sex, gender, gender identity or expression as a condition of employment. Employers may not ask interview questions designed to detect a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, such as inquiring about an applicant’s marital status, spouse’s name, or relation to household members. 

We at Haeggquist & Eck, LLP understand these can be emotionally difficult experiences, especially when they are intentional. If you believe your employer or coworkers are harassing you, misgendering you, or discriminating against you because of your gender identity and expression, we can provide the legal support you need.

For more information about how Haeggquist & Eck, LLP can help, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 to schedule a free initial consultation.

5 Examples of Discriminatory Company Policies

When you think about discrimination at work, you might think a lot about how people treat each other. While it’s true that discrimination is particularly noticeable on such a personal level, it can also exist on an institutional level through a company’s policies.

Here are five examples of company policies that may be discriminatory. If you believe you were subjected to a discriminatory policy at work, get in contact with an employment law attorney to assess your situation.

1. Dress Codes & Grooming Standards

Many companies have a dress code and grooming policy. Generally speaking, if a company wishes to enforce certain dressing and grooming standards for its employees, that’s legally permissible.

However, bans on culturally or religiously significant garments, such as headscarves or skullcaps, can discriminate against one’s religion. And grooming standards that ban afros, beards, dreadlocks, and/or braids can discriminate against one’s race or religion.

These policies may also discriminate based on sex or sexual identify if they compel transgender or gender non-conforming employees to dress or groom in a manner that contradicts their gender identities or expressions.

2. Mandatory Retirement

In most professions, forced retirement based on age is illegal. Although mandatory retirement policies were once common, this practice was prohibited by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The ADEA protects employees who at least 40 years old against discrimination based upon their age. This means that employees generally can’t be fired or compelled to resign simply because they’ve reached 65 or a certain age.

That said, there are a few exceptions to this general rule. An employer may consider age for the following:a. Public Safety Officers – such as firefighters;

b. Executives and policy makers – if the employee has worked for at least the past two years as an executive or in a high policy making position, and is entitled to an annual retirement benefit of at least $44,000 from the employer; and

c. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) – an employer may set an age limit for a job if

(i) substantially all people older than the age limit would be unable to perform the job; or

(ii) Some people over the age limit would be unable to perform the job, and testing each person individually to determine if she could perform the job would be impossible or impractical.

3. Compulsory Participation in Religious Holidays & Observances

Many employers consider themselves to be faith-based even when the purpose of character of their business isn’t religious. An example might be a hardware store whose owners are deeply religious and strive to run their company according to a certain religious doctrine.

If the owners create policies that compel their employees to participate in religious holidays and observances, these are likely illegal as they impose religion upon workers. The employers would also open themselves up to liability if they attempted to discriminate on the basis of employees’ sex, religion, race, disability status, or another protected characteristic, using their own religious beliefs as a cover.

4. Pregnancy Termination Policies

For many years, employees who could become pregnant risked their jobs when they wanted to expand their families. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 gave workers the protection they needed against employers who sought to discriminate against those who became pregnant.

Under no circumstances can employers have general policies that terminate pregnant employees. Quite to the contrary, employers are actually obligated to provide reasonable accommodation to pregnant employees who need it to continue performing essential job functions.

When it comes time to give birth or bond with new children, employees are further protected by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to go on unpaid job-protected leave.

5. ‘U.S. Citizen-Only’ Policies

Citizenship status and national origin are two important protected characteristics. This means that employers can’t base any decisions regarding someone’s employment on them. It’s illegal for employers to adopt or enforce any policies that require their employees to be U.S. citizens unless federal, state, or local laws require U.S. citizenship for a particular job.

We Represent Employees Who’ve Experienced Discrimination

If you have been discriminated against, retaliated against or wrongfully terminated because of a company’s discriminatory policies, you may have a claim against your employer for damages, and we at Haeggquist & Eck, LLP can help. Get in touch with us today to schedule a free consultation where you can discuss your situation with an experienced attorney.

For more information, please contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today.

Translate »