enter

Phone: (415) 677-9058 | Email: prk@kitchinlegal.com

Posts by Patrick Kitchin

An Economically Rational Approach to Resolving Wage and Hour Claims In California

christian machon dissertation By

http://www.bygrabowicz.pl/?p=custom-literature-review-writers-givu-556 Employers sometimes respond to employee wage and hour claims in ways that cause them to sustain unnecessary financial loss and workplace stress. They pay more money in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs than they should. They sacrifice the time and resources of key employees over the course of litigation lasting a year or more. And they expose their workforce to the stress of an on-going lawsuit, leaving employees guessing as to what is happening in the case or, worse yet, directly participating in the proceedings. People take sides. Once litigation begins these same employers produce reams of internal documents to the employee’s attorney whose singular goal is to take as much money away from the company as the law permits on behalf of as many of the employer’s workers as possible. To add even more workplace stress and potential future loss to the equation, employers expose themselves to an increased risk that other employees will assert similar claims against them as they learn about the claims and the law. Click here to read full white paper: An Economically Rational Approach to Resolving Wage and Hour Claims In...

Read More

Crossing the Line: The Ninth Circuit’s Guidelines for Flirting at Work

http://www.premierinternationalws.com/?p=maps8 By

After months of complaining that a female co-worker had repeatedly harassed him to have sex with her, Rudolpho Lamas’s boss offered a suggestion.  Maybe, the boss said, Rudolpho should try walking around the office singing, “I’m too sexy for my shirt.”  Everyone at work thought the situation was hilarious:  a widower turning down the explicit sexual advances of an attractive woman.  But Rudolpho Lamas and his lawyers are not laughing. When does flirting at work cross the line and become sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Lamas’s lawyers asked.  And, does Title VII impose different standards on men and women in sexual harassment cases?  Finally, do gender stereotypes have a place in the jurisprudence of Title VII? Earlier this month the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco answered Rudolpho’s attorneys’ questions in a case involving a man who alleged he had been sexually harassed by a female co-worker in direct violation of Title VII.  (E.E.O.C. v. Prospect Airport Services (9th Cir. 9/3/2010).) The Court’s decision is interesting, not so much for its ultimate finding—that Title VII indeed provides equal protection to male and female victims of sexual harassment is well established—but for the way the Court considers socio-cultural stereotypes about gender in the context of a Title VII claim. Before turning to the drama of E.E.O.C. v. Prospect Airport Services, a few words about the stage on which Rudolpho Lamas’s story is now playing out. It is illegal to discriminate in the terms and conditions of employment based on the gender of a person under Title VII of the Civil Right Act.  Under Title VII, sexual harassment is considered to be a form of sex discrimination. A Title VII sex harassment claim can be based on two theories of liability:  (1) economic quid pro quo; or (2) hostile environment. In a typical case of quid pro quo sexual harassment, “a supervisor relies upon his [or her] apparent or actual authority to extort sexual consideration from an employee.”  Hensen v. City of Dundee 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). “Have sex with me,” says the supervisor, “and you’ll get that promotion.” In a hostile work environment Title VII case, a co-worker or a supervisor’s...

Read More

“But I Signed An Independent Contractor Agreement…”

By

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Weighs In On Workforce Classification Under California Law Every time I review an independent contractor agreement I find myself humming George and Ira Gershwin’s song, It Ain’t Necessarily So from Porgy and Bess. In California, at least, such agreements do not prove that a worker is an independent contractor. (“The label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced.” SG Borello & Sons v. Dept. of Industrial Relations) Were it otherwise, of course, companies and individuals who hire workers would have an incentive always to require workers to sign independent contractor agreements so they might avoid the costs associated with maintaining a workforce made up of employees. Complying with minimum and overtime wage requirements, paying workers’ compensation insurance premiums, and making rest and meal breaks available are significantly more burdensome and expensive than maintaining a workforce made up of independent contractors. Further, because independent contractors generally are not protected by federal or state anti-discrimination laws, maintaining a workforce comprised of independent contractors can shield companies from civil rights lawsuits. California’s Multi-Factor Approach Under California law the existence of an independent contractor agreement is only one of over a dozen factors used by the courts to evaluate whether a worker has been properly classified under the law. The most important factor is the “right to discharge at will, without cause.” In a state where employment is “at will,” but where contracts often include specific provisions pertaining to the termination of the contractor’s services, the right to fire a worker without apparent consequence is a prime indicator of an employment relationship. As the California Supreme Court ruled back in 1989, other factors crucial to the classification determination are: whether the one performing services is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision; the skill required in the particular occupation; whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; the length of time for which the services are to be...

Read More

“Stray Remarks” Showing Discriminatory Attitudes in the Workplace Can Be Important Evidence of Employer

By

On August 5, 2010, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision concerning the type of evidence a worker can rely upon to prove an employer discriminated against him or her. The Court’s decision concerns the so-called “stray remarks doctrine.” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor coined the term in a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision, writing that “stray remarks” made by “non-decisionmaking coworkers or remarks made by decisionmaking supervisors outside of the decisional process” are insufficient evidence of an employer’s discriminatory attitude. Without additional evidence of discrimination, she wrote, a gender discrimination claim can be and should be dismissed by the court before trial. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) 490 U.S. 228, the worker presented evidence that a partner of the firm told her to “walk more femininely,” “talk more femininely,” “dress more femininely,” “wear make-up,” “have her hair styled,” and “wear jewelry” to improve her chances for partnership. Justice O’Connor concluded that though such “stray remarks” might constitute evidence of a discriminatory attitude in the workplace, they are not sufficient evidence of discrimination on their own. When combined with more direct kinds of evidence of discrimination, however, stray remarks evidence can tend to support a discrimination claim. Since 1989, some federal courts have expanded the stay remarks doctrine substantially. In Hill v. Lockheed Martin, for example, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that remarks by non-decisionmakers that the worker was a “useless old lady” “who needed to retire” and was a “troubled old lady,” did not influence the decisional process directly and, therefore, were completely irrelevant to the worker’s discrimination claim. In its August 5th decision, the California Supreme Court concluded that the wholesale rejection of evidence of stray remarks, as suggested by the Fourth Circuit, is improper. It explained that such evidence can tend to show discriminatory animus or attitudes within the workplace. Under California law, then, stray remarks are relevant and cannot be completely ignored by the trial courts in ruling on pre-trial motions for summary judgment. While the California Supreme Court’s decision focuses on evidentiary issues and pretrial procedures, the importance of the decision for California workers is significant. Although a racial, sexual or age-based slur might not conclusively demonstrate employment discrimination, such stray...

Read More

Capturing Wages for Off-the-Clock Work in California Retail Stores

By

During the past several years, we have represented employees of several clothing retailers, including sales associates working for Polo Ralph Lauren, Gap and Banana Republic, and Chico’s in California-wide class action cases. All of these cases were prosecuted under California labor law. Our most recent employment class action against Polo Ralph Lauren challenged its failure to pay employees for the time they spent waiting for and undergoing “bag checks” or internal theft prevention inspections at the end of their shifts. Our clients alleged they sometimes had to wait for up to a half an hour for managers to perform bag checks and let them leave the stores. They alleged that under California law this off-the-clock time was “work” and that they were entitled to wages for the time they spent in their stores between “clock out and walk out.” Bag Checks Are Common In the Retail Setting In the retail store environment, many companies require employees to undergo bag check inspections before they can leave their stores for breaks or at the end of their shifts. According to industry experts, bag checks are a loss prevention tool used by retailers to discourage internal theft. These bag checks are permitted under California law and are generally a mandatory condition of employment for certain types of retail workers. The problem arises when employees are required to wait for their managers or other authorized personnel to perform bag checks on them after they have clocked out and are no longer being paid for their time. Is this waiting time compensable under California, however? Under California Law, an Employer’s Control Over the Worker Is Key With certain limited exceptions, hourly employees in California are entitled to be paid for all the time they are “subject to the control of an employer.” Bono Enterprises, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 968. This “includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” Industrial Welfare Commission Order 7-2001. In the Polo case, our clients alleged they had been locked inside their stores after they had clocked out at the end of their shifts. From our clients’ perspective, physical confinement plainly satisfied the “control” requirement...

Read More