Best Best & Krieger News Feed

AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Avoidance Training Webinar (November 16, 2016)

16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 -0800

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, pursuant to AB 1825, requires that employers with 50 or more employees in California provide at least two hours of Sexual Harassment Avoidance Training every two years to any employee who has a supervisory role in operations. This presentation is designed to satisfy those requirements.

Joseph Ortiz will present the training via a live webinar. The webinar is interactive, allowing attendees to ask questions.

The webinar will cover:

What constitutes sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace
How to recognize and avoid harassment
What procedures to follow if you witness harassment or are harassed yourself
The potential consequences - including personal liability - of harassment
Training and discussion on abusive conduct in the workplace ("workplace bullying"), in compliance with AB 2053
New FEHA regulations that took effect April 2016

Who should attend:

Supervisors
Human Resources Professionals
Public Officials
Managers & Private Business Professionals with 50 or More Employees

When:
Wed., Nov. 16, 2016
10 a.m. - noon PT

BB&K Presenter:
Joseph Ortiz, Partner
Labor & Employment Practice Group, Riverside office

Cost:
$50 per person

Please provide payment before the training. Otherwise, you will not be able to join the webinar or receive a certificate of completion. Colleagues must register separately.

Registration:
To register for this webinar, please click here.

Deadline for registration and payment is Monday, November 14.

Payment:

PIHRA 2016 Legal Year in Review

10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 -0800

Best Best & Krieger LLP Partner Joseph Ortiz will present “2016 Legal Year in Review,” for the Professionals In Human Resources Association. This presentation focuses on the laws that the savvy HR practitioner should know about, and the significant changes that occurred in Human Resources in 2016. The presentation will include a roll call of the most recent employment-related laws passed by the California Legislature, as well as a "best of" summary of the five biggest legal changes that occurred in 2016. Included will be a discussion of the status of the new white collar exemption salary requirements, new gender protection issues, and much, much more.

When
Thursday, Nov. 10
11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Where
Best Best Krieger
3390 University Ave.
5th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501

For more information or to register, click here.

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0800

Best Best & Krieger LLP Partner Joseph Ortiz will provide Sexual Harassment Prevention Training during a seminar hosted by the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce. The training will provide instruction on preventing sexual harassment within the workplace. Attendees will receive a certificate of completion.

When:
Friday, Aug. 26
9 a.m.

Where:
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce
3985 University Ave
Riverside, CA 92501

For more information or to register, click here.

California Offers Guidance on Educating Employees About Workplace Bullying

12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 -0800

A California law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2015 mandated that managers must be trained to identify “abusive conduct,” or workplace bullying, in conjunction with sexual harassment prevention training. The law was an amendment to the Fair Employment and Housing Act, but lacked details, according to a report by the Society for Human Resource Management. But a new set of regulations that took effect April 1 provide greater details so businesses know what training should include.

Best Best & Krieger LLP Partner Alison Alpert, who is head of the firm’s Labor & Employment practice group, was interviewed by SHRM on the new guidelines:

The new regulations must by necessity remain somewhat ambiguous, said Alison Alpert…. “The fear—and I think it’s legitimate—is that [a more specific definition of abusive conduct] would just increase litigation against employers in an unfair way,” said Alpert, who educates supervisors about harassment law and investigates claims of harassment and retaliation.”

…

California law bars abusive conduct in the workplace that targets someone in a category protected from discrimination under categories such as gender, age, disability or ethnic origin. Denying a job or a promotion to someone because he or she uses a wheelchair is illegal; calling his or her presentation “a piece of junk” may be evidence of poor management skills, but it’s not barred by law. As Alpert puts it: “Is it a harasser or a jerk boss?”

Abusive behavior can create a hostile work environment yet not meet the legal standard of actionable, harassing conduct, said Alpert, who has probed allegations of workplace harassment that were, upon review, more accurately defined as bullying.

…

When HR professionals meet with an aggrieved employee, they would be wise to drill down on the list of problematic behaviors detailed by the worker. “When employees come forward,” Alpert said, “they may not be certain what complaint they are making if they don’t really understand the harassment laws. People use the term ‘harassment’ a lot … and they don’t necessarily mean it in terms of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and that legal way. They just mean ‘My boss is being mean to me.’”

To read the full report, which was posted March 30, 2016 to the Society for Human Resource Management website, click here.

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 -0800

Employers with 50 or more employees, including temporary workers and independent contractors, are required to provide all supervisory employees two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years.

The Chamber hosted a sexual harassment prevention training seminar to provide local Riverside business leaders the opportunity to receive this legally required training. Joseph Ortiz, attorney at Best Best & Krieger, facilitated and lead this training seminar. This was an opportunity to fulfill AB 1825 requirements and protect businesses from potential future lawsuits.

When
Thursday, Nov. 20, 2014
10 a.m. – Noon

Where
Chamber Bourns Boardroom

For more information, click here.

EEOC Releases Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination Laws

31 Jul 2014 00:00:00 -0800

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has released its new enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination issues. This is the first time in three decades that the EEOC has updated its guidance. The guidance covers the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, pregnancy-related matters under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act, as well as several other federal laws. The EEOC also provided a fact sheet and question-and-answer document for small businesses. Notably, the guidance does not address California’s specific laws and requirements.

The guidance explains that under the PDA, discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions are prohibited forms of sex discrimination. Employers must treat pregnant employees and applicants the same way they treat non-pregnant employees and applicants who have similar physical limitations. Similarly, the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilities, which may include impairments related to pregnancy though not the pregnancy itself.

The new enforcement guidance explains how these basic principles apply prior to, during and after a pregnancy. For instance, the guidance covers how employers should treat pregnant applicants for employment. Particularly, the guidance outlines breastfeeding and lactation rights of new mothers and also covers diverse advice for employers related to an employee’s infertility treatment, contraceptive use or abortions. The guidance also discusses the range of potential reasonable accommodations under the ADA that may be made for pregnant employees.

Employers should note that the EEOC guidance is not law. In fact, the recent release has sparked some criticism – including from the two republicans on the EEOC who opposed the decision to publish the guidance. Specifically, those objections relate to the decision to publish the guidance shortly after the Supreme Court decided to consider Young v. United Parcel Services, Inc., a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case addressing which employees to compare to a pregnant worker when determining if a similarly situated employee was treated differently and what entitlements or accommodations may be available to a pregnant employee. Critics assert the EEOC should have waited for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue before releasing its guidance.

California employers must be cognizant that state-specific laws impact their rights and obligations regarding pregnant employees. For more information on the new EEOC guidance and California-specific pregnancy discrimination laws, or other discrimination laws and compliance issues, please contact one of the attorney authors of this legal alert listed at right in the Labor and Employment practice group, or your BB&K attorney.

Disclaimer: BB&K legal alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué.

Alison Alpert & Joseph Sanchez Discussed Off-duty Misconduct at CALPELRA Conference

05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

November 3-6, 2009 - Monterey, CA

BB&K attorneys Alison Alpert and Joseph Sanchez presented "I Still Know What You Did Last Night" at the California Public Employers Labor Relations Association Annual Training Conference.

The session revisited off-duty misconduct and investigations into criminal activity in the workplace in light of Spielbauer and other recent cases. Session topics included due process issues, investigations, use of criminal convictions in discipline, and privacy issues including search of employee work areas, lockers and computer/email files.

For more information on the conference, visit the CALPELRA website.

BB&K Successfully Defends Client in Racial Discrimination/Retaliation Case

18 May 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Daniel Villanueva v. City of Colton

BB&K Partner John Higginbotham represented the City of Colton in Daniel Villanueva v. City of Colton. The case involved claims by an employee that he was suspended and later included in a reduction-in-force because of his race, and in retaliation for whistle-blowing activity. BB&K prevailed on summary judgment, and then brought a motion for recovery of its attorney fees against the employee. The motion was granted in its entirety, resulting in a judgment of over $44,000 against the plaintiff. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety and decided to publish the case.

Alpert and Dale Apoke about Off-Duty Misconduct at CALPELRA Conference

14 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Labor and Employment attorneys Alison Alpert and Kevin Dale presented "I Know What You Did Last Night: Off-Duty Misconduct" at CALPELRA's 32nd Annual Training Conference on November 14 at the Portola Plaza Hotel in Monterey.

During this session, they discussed issues such as the nexus requirement between an employee's position and off-duty misconduct, issues related to public employees being charged and prosecuted for crimes, conducting independent investigations of off-duty employee misconduct, and more.

For more information on the conference, visit the CALPELRA website.

BB&K Prevails on Summary Judgment in Discrimination Case; Recoups Nearly All Attorneys’ Fees for Client

27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 -0800

Richard Gonzales v. City of Colton

BB&K Partners John Higginbotham and Cynthia Germano obtained summary judgment and a substantial attorney fee award in favor of firm client, City of Colton, in San Bernardino County Superior Court. The case involved claims by a current employee that he was passed over for a promotion because of his race and in retaliation for whistle-blowing activity. The employee also sued two of his supervisors for retaliation, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The BB&K team eliminated the claims against the supervisors at the demurrer stage based on deficiencies in the employee's government tort claim. Subsequently, the BB&K team convinced the court that the promotional decision was fair and unbiased, and that the employee lacked any credible evidence of race discrimination or retaliation.

Following the summary judgment, the BB&K team brought a motion for recovery of its attorneys' fees against the employee. The motion was granted and the City was awarded the sum of $39,060.00, which represented over 93% of its attorneys' fees for the entire case.

Colton City officials were obviously ecstatic with the outcome and the firm's work on their behalf, particularly given the deterrent effect that this case may have on like-minded employees who might otherwise file similarly baseless employment lawsuits against the City.