BERNSTEIN & FRIEDLAND, P.C.

Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. – Los Angeles Employment Counsel – Legal Blog

A Resource for Los Angeles Area Employees and Employers Interested in Wrongful Termination, Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, and Unpaid Wage and Overtime News

New CA Case Holds That Employer Should Have Accommodated Employee’s Scheduling Needs So That He Could Care For His Disabled Son

Does an employer need to reasonably accommodate an employee’s shift scheduling requirements to enable the employee to tend to the medical needs of his son?  The court in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 2 Cal. App. 5th 1028 (Aug. 29, 2016), answered that question “yes.” In this case, the plaintiff had informed his manager upon hire that he had daily obligations at home related to

Read More »
September 19, 2016

Jury Awards $240 Million in Disability Discrimination Case Involving Severe Abuse of Workers with Intellectual Disabilities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced its largest jury verdict in the federal agency’s history–$240 million–in a case in which an Iowa jury found Hill County Farms liable for subjecting 32 men with intellectual disabilities to substantial abuse and discrimination. According to an EEOC press release, available here, the agency presented evidence that for years, the owners and staffers of the defendant company “subjected the

Read More »
May 14, 2013

California Court Reaffirms Employers’ Obligations to Accommodate Pregnant Employees

In Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., — Cal. App. — (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District held that California employers’ obligations as to employees requiring medical leaves of absence caused by pregnancy-related disabilities do not end at allowing a four-month leave of absence–and can instead include permitting employees suffering from pregnancy-related disabilities significantly more leave time. In

Read More »
February 28, 2013

In Wake of Harris, Jury Awards $21.7 Million to Disabled Employee in Discrimination Case

Despite the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, discussed in detail Here, in which the Court stated that plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases must prove discrimination was a “substantial factor motivating a termination of employment, and when the employer proves it would have made the same decision absent such discrimination, a court may not award damages, backpay, or an order of reinstatement,” 

Read More »
February 22, 2013

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Nurse’s Disability Discrimination Claim, Finding That Where Regular Attendance is an Essential Function of the Job Position, Employee’s Disability-Induced Irregular Attendance was Fatal to Her Claim

In Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit stated: “This case tests the limits of an employer’s attendance policy.  Just how essential is showing up for work on a predictable basis?  In the case of a neo-natal intensive care nurse, we conclude that attendance really is essential.” In this case, the plaintiff worked for the defendant for eleven years

Read More »
May 1, 2012

California Court Approves $1,571,500 Verdict In Favor of Disabled LAPD Officer

In Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 4th 757 (2011), the California Court of Appeal concluded that substantial evidence supported a $1,571,500 verdict in favor of plaintiff Rory Cuiellette, a former Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer, on his claims of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act In this case, the plaintiff had

Read More »
May 1, 2011

Recent Posts

Categories

DISCLAIMER

The content of this website is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained in this website for legal advice. Viewing or using this website is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. Emails or other forms of communication that you transmit to the firm will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. makes no representation, warranty or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this website or in links to other websites which is provided “as is,” nor about the outcome or result of any legal representation that might be undertaken by the firm. Your use of this website is at your own risk. You may use this website and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. nor anyone acting on its behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind, including, without limitation, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, arising from the use of this website.

© 2023 Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. All rights reserved

Skip to content