Bay Area Employment Lawyer Blog

Siegel LeWitter Malkani Wins Appeal Overturning Decision to Deny Class Certification to Patients Denied Coverage for Mental Health Treatment by Kaiser Health Plan

Published on: July 29, 2020 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

“We’re gratified that the Court of Appeal recognized the power of our evidence that Kaiser failed to provide its members sufficient resources for adequate mental health care, and optimistic that we will be certified on remand so we can help provide some real relief to their members. These times especially highlight the importance of mental health care.” – Lead Counsel Jonathan Siegel

On July 13, 2020, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District allowed patients with severe mental illness to pursue a class action against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan for underfunding mental health care, and restricting medically necessary treatment for Kaiser patients, resulting in long waits for individual therapy, forcing them into inappropriate group treatment. The decision overturns the lower court’s ruling denying class certification of the claims brought by Susan Futterman, Acianita Lucero, and Maria Spivey.

The Court’s decision came after significant briefing by Latika Malkani and Laura Heron Weber and oral argument by Jonathan Siegel.

Reason to Celebrate: Supreme Court Holds that Employers Cannot Discriminate Against LGBTQ+ Employees

Published on: June 15, 2020 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear.”

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

In today’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Supreme Court made clear that the anti-discrimination protections of Title VII apply to LGBTQ+ persons across the country.

EEOC Declares That All High-Risk Employees Can Request Reasonable Accommodations at Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Published on: May 13, 2020 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

The EEOC has provided good news for workers who are at high-risk for COVID-19. High-risk employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations in the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic!

High-risk employees include any employees over 65 years of age.

High-risk employees also include employees who have conditions the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has found make them at high-risk for COVID-19. CDC website

COVID-19: Can I Get Unemployment Benefits?

Published on: March 31, 2020 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

General Eligibility Requirements For Unemployment Benefits

As a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many employers are being forced to lay off, furlough, and/or reduce employee hours as a result of slow or nonexistent business. If you find yourself out of work, or working a reduced work schedule through no fault of your own, you may be entitled to unemployment insurance (UI) benefits and should file a claim with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) https://edd.ca.gov/ Benefits range from $40 to $450 per week depending on your earnings history within the base period, and other factors, such as whether you are receiving any wages or pay. Although there is normally a one week waiting period for unemployment benefits, the order issued by the California Governor waived that period.

To be eligible for unemployment benefits, you must meet the eligibility requirements including that you:

New Protections for Workers Under the Federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act

Published on: March 27, 2020 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

Last week, the United States legislature passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This new law provides some much needed relief for workers who are out of work because they or their family members have contracted COVID-19, or because they do not have child care due to school and daycare closures. Below is a summary of what rights you may have under the new law.

What does the new law provide?

10 Paid Sick Days for full-time workers

COVID-19: What Are Your Rights in the Workplace?

Published on: March 23, 2020 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

We know many employees are facing uncertainty about their jobs in light of the current pandemic. You may have questions about what you can do if you are sick, or if you have been laid off due to cuts that have been made as a result of COVID-19 /Coronavirus. Many government agencies have put out guidance on how employees can protect themselves and benefits they may be entitled to if they are out of work due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Below we have summarized some resources that we hope will be helpful.

Sick with or Exposed to COVID-19

In California, the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid job protected leave within a 12 month period to care for yourself or your immediate family if they have a serious health condition. A serious health condition includes any illness that causes any period of incapacity requiring absence from work, school, or other regular daily activities for more than 3 consecutive days. To be eligible for CFRA leave, you must have been employed with your employer for 12 months and you must have worked at least 1250 hours in that twelve month period and your employer must employ 50 or more people within a 75 mile radius. While the CFRA does not provide pay, other laws may provide wage replacement, and your employer may also have other benefits and programs that you may be able to utilize during this time.

No Rehire? No Way!

Published on: November 12, 2019 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

Just ahead of the bill-signing deadline in October, Governor Newsom signed several worker-friendly bills including AB 51, AB 9, SB 142, and AB 749.

When an employment situation sours and an employee pursues his rights, usually at some point there is talk of settlement. Almost routinely, employers include a no-rehire provision in any settlement agreement which prohibits the former employee from seeking reemployment with the employer. While this may not seem like a big deal if you work for a small company and have no intention of seeking reemployment with the same people who wronged you in the first place, for individuals who work for large employers, the no-hire provision can create significant hardship. For example, if you work for a major retailer with numerous locations and you are terminated, a no-rehire provision might prevent you from working for that company ever again, in any capacity. That means, even if you wanted to work for a store 100 miles away, you would be barred from doing so. This is particularly problematic for long-term employees who have deep knowledge of the employer’s policies and practices and have been successful in their positions for years- they know the job, and have done it well, and now they are unable to apply for any future job at the company where their skills are a perfect match. This is also a significant problem for people who work for a utility; it may be that there is really only one employer in the area you can work for and a ban on working for that company will prevent you from working, period. The no-rehire provision would require you to either move to a new location or develop skills for an entirely different field. It seems, to many employees, like a final act of retaliation by their former employer.

Starting January 1, 2020, employment dispute settlement agreements cannot contain a no-rehire provision and such provisions are void as a matter of law and public policy. There is an exception, undoubtedly inspired by the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements- if an employer has made a good faith determination that the terminated employee engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault, the employer may prohibit or restrict the terminated employee from obtaining future employment with the employer.

Working Moms Rejoice! Improved Lactation Accommodations Will Be Required Throughout California

Published on: October 30, 2019 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

In June 2017, San Francisco enacted a groundbreaking ordinance that requires employers to provide lactating employees with reasonable breaks and a safe, clean space to pump breast milk. The ordinance acknowledged the health benefits and importance of breast feeding to both children and lactating mothers. The ordinance also prohibited employers from retaliating against women who attempted to exercise their lactation rights and provided enforcement procedures. However, the ordinance only applied to employees who worked in San Francisco.

Although California has had basic “lactation accommodation” requirements since 2002, earlier this month, the legislature enacted an amendment to the Labor Code to provide lactation rights, similar to those enacted in San Francisco, to employees throughout the state. The changes to the law provide that a lactating employee is permitted a “reasonable amount” of break time to express breast milk for her child, each time she needs to do so, as well as a private room to express breast milk.

Even prior to these amendments, employers were supposed to provide a room other than the bathroom for an employee to express breast milk. The changes to the law reiterate that the room shall not be the bathroom and also sets forth several additional requirements including that the room must: (1) be safe, clean, and free of hazardous materials, (2) contain a surface to place a pump and personal items, (3) have a place to sit, and (4) have access to electricity or alternative devices (i.e. extension cords or charging stations). In addition, an employer must provide a sink and refrigerator (or other “cooling device” if a refrigerator cannot be provided) for storing breast milk.

New Year Brings a Longer Statute of Limitations But Proceed With Caution For Claims That Arise Before January 1, 2020

Published on: October 21, 2019 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

As employers across the country reckon with the impacts of the #MeToo movement, the California legislature and Governor Newsom took decisive action to extend the statute of limitations on certain workplace claims, acknowledging that those who have been targeted by discrimination, harassment, and retaliation do not always come forward immediately.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against California employees on a variety of bases. The FEHA provides some of the best employment protections in the country, and has been expanded several times over the years to afford additional protections in the workplace. However, one of the greatest hurdles to employees is the statute of limitations. In California, an employee has one year from the date of the unlawful practice to file a charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Failure to file a charge within the limitations period waives an employee’s rights to any claims she has under the FEHA. Further complicating matters is that the intake process at the DFEH has several steps and it has been unclear to employees as to when their charge was actually filed, and thus, whether they filed within the one-year period.

On Thursday, Governor Newsom signed AB 9 which extends the one year period to three years starting on January 1, 2020. The bill also specifies filing a complaint means filing an intake form with the DFEH and the operative date of the verified complaint relates back to the filing of the intake form- clarifying what has been a confusing issue for employees over the years. This new statute triples the time an employee has to file their charge, which is particularly valuable for those employees who feel they cannot come forward soon after the adverse employment action.

Governor Newsom Signs AB 51 Preventing Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in Employment

Published on: October 15, 2019 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

For years, the battle over arbitration clauses and agreements has raged on in courts and legislatures throughout the country. The latest development in arbitration in employment in California came on Thursday in California when Governor Newsom signed AB 51. The governor’s approval of AB 51 is a victory employees throughout California- it effectively prohibits employers from forcing employees into mandatory arbitration agreements starting January 1, 2020.

It is common practice throughout California to have an employee sign an arbitration agreement at the time she is hired. These agreements are generally non-negotiable, buried in a pile of new hire paperwork, and require the employee to arbitrate any claims arising out of employment. While valid arbitration agreements provide some of the safeguards that are afforded to litigants in court, it often takes away basic protections and rights including a trial by jury, and class or collective action. Arbitration is also a private process so it allows an employer to keep their wrongdoing under wraps.

The United States Supreme Court has said, repeatedly, that arbitration agreements are valid in the employment context. Recognizing the inherent imbalance in power between employers and employees, several states have tried to stop employers from forcing employees into arbitration. However, given the Supreme Court’s rulings, it is impossible to ban arbitration in employment altogether. The hope is that in California, AB 51 will even the playing field before an employee signs an arbitration agreement; requiring that an employee can only enter such an agreement voluntarily. The law also prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who declines to enter into an arbitration agreement, which provides additional protection.

Bay Area Employment Lawyer Blog

“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear.” “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

General Eligibility Requirements For Unemployment Benefits

What does the new law provide?

Sick with or Exposed to COVID-19

“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear.”

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”