1 institute for corporate counsel recent developments in employment law cynthia e. gitt new york...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Institute For Corporate Counsel
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW
Cynthia E. Gitt
Institute For Corporate Counsel
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW
Cynthia E. Gitt
New York
Washington D.C.
Boston
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Dallas
Miami
Newark
Stamford
Baltimore
![Page 2: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
20002000IN 2000, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CHOSE ITS OWN PATH
EMPLOYERS WITH REMOVAL OPTIONS HAVE A DIFFICULT CHOICE
![Page 3: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
ARMENDARIZ v. FOUNDATION HEALTH SERVICES
ARMENDARIZ v. FOUNDATION HEALTH SERVICES
• UNDER STATE LAW, MANDATORY AGREEMENTS THAT ENCOMPASS STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS WILL BE ENFORCED IF SPECIFIC STANDARDS ARE MET
![Page 4: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SPECIFICALLY ANALYZED AND REJECTED, AT LEAST AS TO STATE CLAIMS, THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN DUFFIELD
![Page 5: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
IN ORDER TO BE ENFORCABLE (CONSCIONABLE) AS TO STATUTORY/DISCRIMNATION CLAIMS, THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT MUST DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
![Page 6: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
AGREEMENT MUST PROVIDE FOR:
NEUTRAL ARBITRATORS
MORE THAN MINIMAL DISCOVERY
WRITTEN AWARD, SUFFICIENT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
ALL RELIEF AVAILABLE IN A COURT ACTION
THE EMPLOYEE NOT TO PAY UNREASONABLE COSTS OR ANY ARBITRATORS’ FEES OR EXPENSES
![Page 7: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
REQUIREMENTS NOT ADDRESSED IN ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT MAY BE IMPLIED INTO THE
AGREEMENT
REQUIREMENTS NOT ADDRESSED IN ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT MAY BE IMPLIED INTO THE
AGREEMENT
![Page 8: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
IF AGREEMENT CONTAINS UNCONSCIONABLE TERMS, THE COURT MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO
EXCISE THE OFFENSIVE PROVISIONS OR INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT
IF AGREEMENT CONTAINS UNCONSCIONABLE TERMS, THE COURT MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO
EXCISE THE OFFENSIVE PROVISIONS OR INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT
•Is the central purpose of the agreement tainted with illegality?
•Can the offensive provision be stricken, or is reformation required to eliminate unconscionability?
![Page 9: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN’S ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WAS FOUND
UNENFORCABLE:
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN’S ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WAS FOUND
UNENFORCABLE:
• It unconscionably limited remedies to back pay
• It unconscionably lacked mutuality because it implied that the employer but not the employee could go to court to enforce claims related to trade secrets or non-competition agreements
![Page 10: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
AFTER ARMENDARIZ, MOST COURTS TRY TO ENFORCE
AGREEMENTS THAT DO NOT LIMIT REMEDIES OR REQUIRE
EMPLOYEES TO PAY SUBSTANTIAL COSTS
AFTER ARMENDARIZ, MOST COURTS TRY TO ENFORCE
AGREEMENTS THAT DO NOT LIMIT REMEDIES OR REQUIRE
EMPLOYEES TO PAY SUBSTANTIAL COSTS
![Page 11: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
EXAMPLES OF UNCONSCIONABLE
PROVISIONS:
EXAMPLES OF UNCONSCIONABLE
PROVISIONS:
• Limitation of Back Pay to Six Months (Pinedo v. Premium Tobacco)
• Requirement that employee pay all initial costs of arbitration (Pinedo)
• Requirement that even prevailing plaintiff pay employer’s costs if go to administrative agency instead of arbitration (Shubin v. William Lyon Homes)
![Page 12: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE APPROVED JAMS AND AAA
EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE RULES AS PROVIDING
NEUTRALITY AND FAIR DISCOVERY
COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE APPROVED JAMS AND AAA
EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE RULES AS PROVIDING
NEUTRALITY AND FAIR DISCOVERY
![Page 13: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
U.S. DISTRICT COURT ENJOINS REQUIREMENT OF ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT FOUND CONSCIONABLE BY STATE COURT OF
APPEAL. DUFFIELD STILL LAW OF NINTH CIRCUIT (EEOC v. Luce,
Forward, Hamilton & Scripps)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT ENJOINS REQUIREMENT OF ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT FOUND CONSCIONABLE BY STATE COURT OF
APPEAL. DUFFIELD STILL LAW OF NINTH CIRCUIT (EEOC v. Luce,
Forward, Hamilton & Scripps)
![Page 14: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR NINTH CIRCUIT CASE, WHICH FOUND EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO THE FAA
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR NINTH CIRCUIT CASE, WHICH FOUND EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO THE FAA
• Circuit City Stores v. St. Clair Adams
![Page 15: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
ARBITRATION vs. REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT:
ARBITRATION vs. REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT:
• Who will be hearing the case?
• No jury
• Conventional wisdom that arbitration awards less likely to be unreasonable
• Conventional wisdom that arbitration more expeditious
• Cost to employer of arbitration
• Question as to nature of judicial review
![Page 16: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL RULED THAT ACCEPTANCE OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS IMPLIED BY CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT Craig v. Brown & Root)
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL RULED THAT ACCEPTANCE OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS IMPLIED BY CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT Craig v. Brown & Root)
![Page 17: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PERMITS
EMPLOYERS, TO CHANGE, WITH ADEQUATE NOTICE,
“UNILATERALLY ADOPTED” EMPLOYMENT POLICIES OF
INDEFINITE DURATION Asmus v. Pacific Bell
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PERMITS
EMPLOYERS, TO CHANGE, WITH ADEQUATE NOTICE,
“UNILATERALLY ADOPTED” EMPLOYMENT POLICIES OF
INDEFINITE DURATION Asmus v. Pacific Bell
![Page 18: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
SIX MONTHS ADEQUATE NOTICE TO RESCIND
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY POLICY FOR MANAGERS
SIX MONTHS ADEQUATE NOTICE TO RESCIND
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY POLICY FOR MANAGERS
![Page 19: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
CAN EMPLOYERS GET SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IN DISCRIMINATION CASES?
CAN EMPLOYERS GET SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IN DISCRIMINATION CASES?
![Page 20: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
• Evidence that an employer’s explanation may be pretextual, combined with employee’s prima facie case, may defeat summary judgment even without independent evidence that actual motive was discriminatory
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
![Page 21: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Reaffirms analysis of St. Mary’s Honor Society v. Hicks that pretext may itself support
inference of discrimination
Reaffirms analysis of St. Mary’s Honor Society v. Hicks that pretext may itself support
inference of discrimination
![Page 22: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
ReevesReeves
ONCE AGAIN,
BAD FACTS MAKE BAD LAW
![Page 23: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
SUPREME COURT MINIMIZES SIGNIFICANCE OF AGE OF DECISION-
MAKERS AND OTHER MANAGERS, AND FOCUSES ON “AGEIST
REMARKS” OF EMPLOYEE’S SUPERVISOR
SUPREME COURT MINIMIZES SIGNIFICANCE OF AGE OF DECISION-
MAKERS AND OTHER MANAGERS, AND FOCUSES ON “AGEIST
REMARKS” OF EMPLOYEE’S SUPERVISOR
ReevesReeves
![Page 24: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
SUPREME COURT ASSURES THAT THIS DECISION DOES NOT
NULLIFY JUDGMENT AS MATTER OF LAW IN EMPLOYMENT CASES
(But at least one justice says it will be the rare case)
SUPREME COURT ASSURES THAT THIS DECISION DOES NOT
NULLIFY JUDGMENT AS MATTER OF LAW IN EMPLOYMENT CASES
(But at least one justice says it will be the rare case)
![Page 25: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
[Summary] Judgment Available “If the record conclusively revealed
some other, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s decision, or if the plaintiff created only a weak issue of
fact as to whether the employer’s reason was untrue and there was
abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination has occurred.”
[Summary] Judgment Available “If the record conclusively revealed
some other, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s decision, or if the plaintiff created only a weak issue of
fact as to whether the employer’s reason was untrue and there was
abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination has occurred.”
![Page 26: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
FACTORS FOR EVALUATING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW:
FACTORS FOR EVALUATING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW:
• Strengths of plaintiff’s prima facie case
• Probative value of proof that employer’s explanation false
• Any other proper evidence that supports an employer’s case
![Page 27: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CHOSE THE CAVEAT RATHER THAN THE HOLDING OF REEVES IN ITS OWN DISCUSSION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASES
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
![Page 28: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
•GUZ HAD EVIDENCE THAT HIS
“LAY-OFF” FOR COST REASONS WAS PRETEXTUAL AND COMPANY DID NOT FOLLOW ITS OWN POLICIES
COMPANY’S “LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPLANATION” FOR CHOOSING YOUNGER WORKERS
WAS “SUBJECTIVE”
•GUZ HAD EVIDENCE THAT HIS
“LAY-OFF” FOR COST REASONS WAS PRETEXTUAL AND COMPANY DID NOT FOLLOW ITS OWN POLICIES
COMPANY’S “LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPLANATION” FOR CHOOSING YOUNGER WORKERS
WAS “SUBJECTIVE”
![Page 29: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
CALIFORNIA COURT HELD THAT INFERENCE OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION CANNOT BE DRAWN SOLELY FROM EVIDENCE THAT EMPLOYER LIED ABOUT ITS REASONS: EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION REQUIRED
CALIFORNIA COURT HELD THAT INFERENCE OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION CANNOT BE DRAWN SOLELY FROM EVIDENCE THAT EMPLOYER LIED ABOUT ITS REASONS: EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION REQUIRED
GuzGuz
![Page 30: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
IN ANALYZING THE AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM,
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FOCUSED ON
NUMBERS AND AGES OF REMAINING PEOPLE
IN ANALYZING THE AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM,
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FOCUSED ON
NUMBERS AND AGES OF REMAINING PEOPLE
GuzGuz
![Page 31: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
COURT FOUND THAT PLAINTIFF’S STATISTICS
“MANIFESTLY LACKS SUFFICIENT PROBATIVE FORCE”
IN LIGHT OF BECHTEL’S “STRONG AND UNREBUTTED SHOWING THAT IT TOOK ITS
ACTIONS FOR NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASONS”
COURT FOUND THAT PLAINTIFF’S STATISTICS
“MANIFESTLY LACKS SUFFICIENT PROBATIVE FORCE”
IN LIGHT OF BECHTEL’S “STRONG AND UNREBUTTED SHOWING THAT IT TOOK ITS
ACTIONS FOR NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASONS”
GuzGuz
![Page 32: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
RE STATISTICAL EVIDENCE:RE STATISTICAL EVIDENCE:
• Employee pool affected by lay-offs "TOO MINISCULE" TO DEMONSTRATE A STATISTICALLY RELIABLE PATTERN OF DISCRIMINATION
• Employees with DIFFERENT JOB SKILLS COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN SAME STATISTICAL POOL
• Since retained employees had different skills than plaintiff, could not make statistical conclusion
![Page 33: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
GUZGUZ
• BECAUSE EMPLOYER DID VIOLATE ITS OWN LAY-OFF POLICY, PLAINTIFF WAS PERMITTED TO PROCEED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT WRONGFUL TERMINATION CLAIM
![Page 34: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
HOWEVER, COURT STATED THAT ABSENT OTHER EVIDENCE, LONGEVITY, RAISES AND PROMOTIONS ARE THEIR OWN REWARDS: NOT A CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
GuzGuz
![Page 35: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION NOW A
MAJOR FOCUS IN EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS, AND CALIFORNIA LAW
NOW TOUGHER THAN ADA
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION NOW A
MAJOR FOCUS IN EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS, AND CALIFORNIA LAW
NOW TOUGHER THAN ADA
![Page 36: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
EXAMPLES OF PROTECTED DISABILITIES :
EXAMPLES OF PROTECTED DISABILITIES :
Post-traumatic stress disorder (bank robbery at work)
Jensen v. Wells Fargo
Compulsive Obsessive Disorder (obsessive rituals re bathing and grooming)
Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals
![Page 37: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
ACCOMMODATION REQUIREMENTS NOW
SUBSTANTIAL AND ONGOING
ACCOMMODATION REQUIREMENTS NOW
SUBSTANTIAL AND ONGOING
![Page 38: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
EMPLOYEE HAS OBLIGATION TO REQUEST ACCOMMODATION, THUS
INITIATING THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS, BUT EMPLOYER THAT
KNOWS OF NEED FOR ACCOMMODATION HAS OBLIGATION
TO OFFER IT Downey v. Crowley Marine Services
Spitzer v. The Good Guys
(quoting EEOC Guidelines)
![Page 39: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Lower Performance Evaluations
Continued Medical Leaves
Observation That Previous Accommodations Do Not Resolve Problem
May Require Employer To Inquire About Need for (Further) Accommodation
Lower Performance Evaluations
Continued Medical Leaves
Observation That Previous Accommodations Do Not Resolve Problem
May Require Employer To Inquire About Need for (Further) Accommodation
![Page 40: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
ACCOMMODATION REQUIRES MORE THAN TREATING
DISABLED EMPLOYEE LIKE ANY OTHER JOB APPLICANT
OR JOB BIDDER-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIRED
Spitzer v. Good Guys
![Page 41: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
ABSENT UNDUE HARDSHIP, JOB RESTRUCTURING
REQUIRED AS AN INITIAL ACCOMMODATION
Change in HoursPart-time positionWorking from home
![Page 42: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
WHERE JOB RESTRUCTURING OR OTHER ACCOMMODATION
NOT EFFECTIVE, JOB REASSIGNMENT REQUIRED ABSENT UNDUE HARDSHIP
![Page 43: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
REASSIGNMENT NOT REQUIRED WHERE:• No Position Exists • No Vacancy in an Existing Position for Which the Disabled Employee Qualifies• Reassignment Would Involve Promotion of Disabled Employee• Reassignment Would Violate Rights of Another Employee under Collective Bargaining Agreement
Spitzer v. Good Guys, Citing Federal Cases
![Page 44: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
BUT ABSENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT OR OTHER “UNDUE HARDSHIP”, REASSIGNMENT TO APPROPRIATE VACANT POSITION REQUIRED EVEN IF EMPLOYER MUST DEVIATE FROM ITS POLICIES
![Page 45: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Barnett v. U.S. Air
• Plaintiff protected from policy allowing senior employees to bump
Willis v. Pacific Maritime Assn.
• Seniority system embodied in collective bargaining agreement should not be interfered with
Federal LawFederal Law
![Page 46: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
• ACCORDING TO NINTH CIRCUIT, DANGER TO ANOTHER EMPLOYEE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE UNDUE HARDSHIP UNDER ADA WITH RESPECT TO ASSIGNMENTS
Echazabal v. Chevron USA
• CONFLICT WITH CALIFORNIA LAW?
![Page 47: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
SEXUAL HARASSMENTSEXUAL HARASSMENT
DISCHARGE OF OFFENDER NOT REQUIRED IF LESSER REMEDY IS EFFECTIVE
Star v. West
![Page 48: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
SEX DISCRIMINATIONSEX DISCRIMINATION
• EEOC finds exclusion of prescription contraceptives discrimination on basis of sex and pregnancy, where plan covered other drugs designed to prevent development of medical conditions
![Page 49: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
RETALIATIONRETALIATION
• NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS FAILURE TO PREVENT CO-WORKERS’ “SHUNNING” OF COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE CAN CREATE EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR HARASSMENT
Fielder v. United Airlines• CALIFORNIA COURTS SAY EMPLOYER
NOT RESPONSIBLE
Thomas v. Department of Corrections
![Page 50: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONSSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
• NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT ANY ACT WITHIN LIMITATIONS PERIOD CAN “REVIVE” PRIOR ACTS UNDER CONTINUING VIOLATION THEORY
Fielder v. United Airlines
Morgan v. National Railroad
O’Loghlin v. County of Orange
![Page 51: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
COVENANTS NOT TO COMPETE
COVENANTS NOT TO COMPETE
• DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEE WHO REFUSES TO SIGN UNLAWFUL NON-COMPETE COVENANT (NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT TRADE SECRETS) VIOLATES PUBLIC POLICY
D’Sa v. Playhut
![Page 52: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
WITNESSES AT EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS
WITNESSES AT EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS
• NLRB RULED, IN A NON-UNION SETTING, THAT EMPLOYEE HAS RIGHT TO A CO-WORKER WITNESS IN AN INVESTIGATORY INTERVIEW THAT EMPLOYEE REASONABLY BELIEVES COULD LEAD TO DISCIPLINE
Epilepsy Foundation
![Page 53: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
WAGE CLAIMS WAGE CLAIMS
• WAGE CLAIMS (e.g. Improper classification or overtime issues) MAY BE ASSERTED UNDER UNFAIR COMPETION LAW—BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 – Restitution may be sought even by non-
affected claimant (i.e. no “standing”) without class action certification
– Claims for disgorgement of profits or “fluid recovery” require class action certification
![Page 54: 1 Institute For Corporate Counsel RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW Cynthia E. Gitt New York Washington D.C. Boston Los Angeles San Francisco Dallas](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022110319/56649c7f5503460f949358c9/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
CYNTHIA E. GITT