To Be or Not to Be an Adverse Employment Action – What is Paid Administrative Leave?

To Be or Not to Be an Adverse Employment Action – What is Paid Administrative Leave?

This principle used to be clear – paid administrative leave was outside the scope of an adverse employment action.  This was based on court holdings that an employee suffers no substantial or material change in terms and conditions of employment while on paid administrative leave.  For years, courts held that an employee who is put on paid administrative leave cannot prove he or she suffered an adverse employment action to give rise to a viable discrimination or retaliation claim.  However, what once was clear, is no more.

Nov 17, 2017 Client Update

California Supreme Court to Decide Whether Law Enforcement Agencies May Share Names of Officers on Employing Department’s “Brady List” With Prosecution Agencies Absent a Court Order Granting a Pitchess Motion

On October 11, 2017, the California Supreme Court agreed to review an appellate court decision which found that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Department) is prohibited from making “Brady alerts” to prosecution agencies.  That is, the State Supreme Court will review a decision by which held that the Department was prohibited from sharing the names of officers on the Department’s “Brady list” with prosecutors absent a court order granting what is commonly called a “Pitchess motion.” 

Nov 17, 2017 Client Update

Boss’ Son-in-Law Could Not Prove Marital Status Discrimination or Failure to Investigate

The case involved claims by Orlando Nakai (Orlando), who was employed by Friendship House Association of American Indians, Inc. (Friendship House), a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program.  Nakai’s wife, Karen Nakai (Karen), was also an employee of Friendship House.  The program’s CEO, Helen Waukazoo (Helen) was Orlando’s mother-in-law. 

Nov 17, 2017 Client Update

Appellate Court Upholds Jury Verdict for Officer Claiming FEHA Retaliation

A federal appellate court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of three police officers of Latino descent (“Officers”) who sued the City of Westminster (“City”) and its current and former Police Department Chiefs (“Chiefs”).  The lead plaintiff, Officer Jose Flores, claimed that the City and Chiefs violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) when they discriminated against him because of his race and national origin and retaliated against him by denying him special assignments.  The other Officers made similar claims and the jury found in the Officers’ favor.  The City and Chiefs then asserted that Flores failed to prove his retaliation claim and requested a new trial.  

Nov 17, 2017 Client Update

Correctional Officers Could Not Pursue Discrimination Claims in Court After Loss at WCAB

The California Court of Appeal found that an employee may be legally barred from bringing claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in a trial court if the legal issues are identical to issues that have already been heard and decided in proceedings before the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).

Nov 7, 2017 Blog Posts
California Supreme Court Lets Stand New Case on Officers’ Rights to Discovery Prior to Second Interrogation

California Supreme Court Lets Stand New Case on Officers’ Rights to Discovery Prior to Second Interrogation

Nov 2, 2017 Business & Facilities

New Statute Prohibits Inquiries into Applicant’s Private Sector Salary History

On October 12, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 168, which will go into effect January 1, 2018 as Labor Code 432.3.  This new statute prohibits employers, in many circumstances, from attempting to obtain information regarding a job applicant’s salary history, or from considering that salary history in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant.  This prohibition applies only to the applicant’s salary history in the private sector, and generally does not prohibit employers from considering public sector salary history.