The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOA”) included protections for whistleblowers at public companies. Section 806 of the SOA states that no publicly-traded company, or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such public company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee for whistleblowing or engaging in other protected activities…. Read More
Posts Categorized In: Employment Litigation
Can an Employee Who Uses Fake Social Security Card to Get Hired Later Sue for Discrimination?
Well, we’re going to have the answer to that question soon from the California Supreme Court. The case is entitled Salas v. Sierra Chemical (Case Number S196558). The issue in Salas is whether an employee’s claims for discrimination under California’s FEHA can be dismissed on grounds of “after-acquired evidence” and “unclean hands” when that employee provided… Read More
Ninth Circuit Approves $697,972 in Attorneys’ Fees on Jury Award of $27,280
In Muniz v. United Parcel Services, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the prevailing plaintiff $697,972 in attorneys’ fees where the jury awarded her only $27,280 in damages on a single FEHA claim. UPS brought the appeal and claimed that the lower court abused its… Read More
Governor Brown Signs SB 462 Limiting Attorneys’ Fees to Employers
Existing California law (Labor Code §218.5) awards attorneys’ fees to the successful party in any action brought to recover unpaid wages, fringe benefits, or pension fund contributions. Thus, if an employee brings an action to recover unpaid wages and wins, that employee gets his attorneys’ fees paid by the employer in addition to recovering the wages… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Makes Retaliation Cases Harder to Prove
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. The issue in that case was whether a plaintiff alleging illegal retaliation under Title VII against her employer had to show but-for causation (i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for its… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Puts New Limits on Harassment Claims under Title VII
Back in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court announced two important decisions that clarified the scope of an employer’s liability for workplace sexual harassment under Title VII. These two cases are Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and they announced the rule that continues… Read More
CA Supreme Court Upholds Mixed Motive Defense in FEHA Actions
In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, the CA Supreme Court ruled that an employer could be liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) if that employer took “adverse employment action” against an employee and unlawful discrimination was a “substantial factor motivating” that action. However, the Court also ruled that an employer can escape… Read More
The Prevailing Party on a Labor Code §226.7 Claim for Unpaid Meal and/or Rest Breaks Does Not Get Attorneys’ Fees
The California Supreme Court held that attorneys’ fees are not awardable to the winners in cases involving meal and rest period claims under Labor Code §226.7. In Kirby v. Imoos Fire Protection, Inc., the Court held that a Labor Code §226.7 claim is not a claim for which attorney’s fees can be awarded to a… Read More
