Offshoring Industry Trends Affecting California Employment Law

Offshoring Industry Trends Affecting California Employment Law

By Steve Danz

Businesses around the world are expected to spend nearly $1 trillion dollars on outside IT labor services in 2017. Perhaps this figure does not seem overwhelming on a global scale, but, the implications for employers and employees, on a micro-level, can be jarring and disruptive. Take, for example, the case of the IT department at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). Earlier this year, UCSF completed the transition to offshore their entire clinical IT team to an India-based company named HCL, resulting in the displacement of approximately 80 employees. A mere seven months ago, these individuals were gainfully employed. Next thing they know, they are being asked to train their replacements, ultimately culminating in the termination of their employment in favor of their new, ostensibly less expensive, counterparts.

What is striking is how pernicious this trend has become. In this case, this “organizational solution” was implemented at UCSF, a public nonprofit educational institution, who could not reasonably defend such a decision by borrowing the tired line used by for-profit companies that the move was in the “best interests of the shareholder and the bottom line.”  According to UCSF, the move will save nearly $30 million annually and will curb clinical-side IT costs that have nearly tripled between 2011 and 2016. In reality, the $50 million dollar contract would send the majority of the work to India and bring foreign IT staff to the UCSF campus on H-1B Visas.

Aside from the privacy and security concerns resulting from offshoring IT services, there are numerous business and employment law related concerns.  For instance, many large corporations are merely “shells” and offshore every job that does not interface with customers.  This makes it more difficult to bring a breaching or harmful company to court, and may even curtail enforcement from certain agencies such as the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the U.S. Department of Labor.  Our court system and laws have a storied history of protecting California workers.  Permitting companies to contract their labor with the ability to simply terminate a contract, or to instantly disappear altogether, is unacceptable.

When the lines are blurred between employment and contract labor, it not only affects our American tax system by giving reprieve to unscrupulous corporations, it also destabilizes and disenfranchises the American workforce.

The legislature must ensure that these companies are held accountable for how they pay and treat their workers.  This may mean creating new laws to govern these types of contracting industries.  We could look north of the border for an example where Canadian laws permit a third, legally recognized category known as “dependent contractor.”  This worker is economically dependent on, and subject to the control of, one principal employer, but uses his or her own tools and may expect a profit from the services provided. In return, an employer must give the dependent contractor reasonable notice of termination and the dependent contractor can sue the principal similar to how an employee may sue the employer.

The Protect and Grow American Jobs Act, introduced by Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and Scott Peters, a California Democrat, aims to curb the outsourcing of American jobs by reforming the nation’s high-skilled immigration program and helping to adjust the requirements in the issuance of H1-B Visas.  One way that the bill may encourage U.S. based companies to hire American workers is by increasing the minimum salary for foreign workers under the H-1B visa program from $60,000 to $100,000.  This will unquestionably help when companies are considering hiring an American worker versus a foreign worker.

There may still be time to save American jobs.  California’s legislature, as it usually does, should take the lead in protecting our local economy by introducing similar legislation and fighting for the employees, before it is too late.

Steve Danz is senior partner and chief trial attorney at Stephen Danz & Associates. He represents plaintiffs in wrongful termination, discrimination, disability, wage and hour class actions, and false claims act whistleblower litigation in partnership with the Department of Justice.

CELA VOICE Guest Blogger

About Our Guest Bloggers

Our guest bloggers include members of CELA and other employee advocates. Email us if you are interested in guest blogging.

A turning point in paid family leave: California measure has broad political and medical support

A turning point in paid family leave: California measure has broad political and medical support
image1

Charles Anderson, a new father who was denied parental leave by his employer, and his baby girl.

By Jenna Gerry

With unprecedented bi-partisan support, a bill that would expand parental leave to 2.7 million more of California’s working families is on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. Introduced by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), SB 654, the New Parent Leave Act, would extend six weeks of job-protected bonding leave to California workers at companies with at least 20 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite.

This bill addresses one of the biggest barriers workers face when trying to take Paid Family Leave — knowing that their job may not be there when they get back. This bill is remarkable not only for what it will provide to millions of California workers but for the justified bi-partisan support it received on the Assembly floor.

Here in California, the state Chamber of Commerce has consistently put every bill expanding the right to take job-protected parental leave on its infamous “Job Killer” list. In the past, a bill’s placement there has ensured that no Republican legislator would support it, and it has often meant that few to no moderate Democrats would either. Indeed, it can be the kiss of death for progressive legislation, even in our Democratic-controlled Legislature. So, as SB 654, prominent on the “Job Killer” list, headed to the Assembly floor in August, Jackson and the bill’s sponsors were not sure if we had the 41 votes we needed. But something miraculous happened.

After hearing her fellow Republicans voice staunch opposition, Assemblymember Melissa Melendez (R-Murrieta) stood up to speak in support of SB 654. She described her own experience of deciding to leave the military when she became a mother — in part because she would have received only six weeks off after giving birth. She could not imagine having to leave her child that fast. Melendez called on her colleagues to consider that we guarantee the job of any member of the military reserves if they are called to active duty. And she asked whether “the birth of a child is less important than service to one’s country.” She also challenged past rhetoric from both sides of the aisle justifying votes against parental leave measures.

When the final vote came down, nine Republicans joined 45 Democrats in favor of SB 654. We hope this was a turning point, and our state and nation can now transcend partisan politics to understand, finally, that family leave affects us all. As Melendez put it, “Republicans and Democrats agree that family is important, that children are important. And, if you believe that, you have to put your money where your mouth is.”

California’s health community is also speaking out for SB 654. More than 120 California health care professionals and 16 health care organizations — including the American Academy of Pediatrics’ California chapter — delivered a letter to Governor Brown this week urging him to sign it. “This is about clear empirical evidence,” said one signatory, Dr. Paul Chung of UCLA, “showing that the health and well-being of parents and their children — the present and future of our state’s economic productivity — are improved by job-protected paid parental leave.”

In addition to my organization, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, several groups that advocate for policies to support the viability of working families cosponsored and helped promote SB654: the California Employment Lawyers Association, Equal Rights Advocates, and the California Work and Family Coalition (which counts these groups and many more among its members).

Now it is time for Governor Brown to make parental leave a reality for millions more California workers, especially because they’re already funding six weeks of it through payroll deductions. But parental leave is about more than the bottom line; it is about ensuring the wellbeing of California families and the state as a whole.

Jenna Gerry is an attorney at Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC), where she advises workers struggling with family and medical crises and participates in legislative advocacy to expand family-friendly workplace policies.  LAS-ELC is a co-sponsor of SB 654, along with the California Employment Lawyers Association, the Work and Family Coalition, and Equal Rights Advocates.  

 

CELA VOICE Guest Blogger

About Our Guest Bloggers

Our guest bloggers include members of CELA and other employee advocates. Email us if you are interested in guest blogging.

A Mother’s Day gift of job-security

A Mother’s Day gift of job-security

This Mother’s Day, let’s give moms the gift of job-security for the time they take away from work to bond with their new babies.  Just last month, Governor Brown signed into law a bill that would boost Paid Family Leave benefits for parents who take baby bonding leave, but nearly half of all California workers could still be fired for taking the leave and accessing those benefits.  Under current law, job-protection for baby bonding leave is only available to parents who work for large companies with 50 or more employees, leaving out over forty percent of the workforce in California.

A legislative proposal currently underway in California, Senate Bill 1166, by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, would help ensure more mothers can go back to their jobs after taking up to 12 weeks of baby bonding leave, by extending job-protection to parents who work for smaller companies.  The reality is, almost half of the workforce is now women and mothers and fathers are sharing in financial and childcare responsibilities.  Without job-protection for new parents, mothers are usually the ones who are forced out of the job market when they would otherwise choose to return after an extended period of leave.

Many other states have already expanded their family leave laws to provide more parents with job-protection when out on leave.  Most recently, New York signed a bill that provided paid family leave benefits with job protection for nearly all workers in the state, regardless of the size of their employer.  In Washington DC, all employees have 16 weeks of job-protected leave.  In Maine, workers at companies with 15 or more employees have 10 weeks of job-protected leave; Massachusetts provides 8 weeks of job-protected leave for workers at companies with 6 or more employees; Minnesota offers 6 weeks of job-protected leave for workers at companies with 21 or employees; and Oregon provides 12 weeks of job-protected leave for workers at companies with 25 or more employees.

Opponents of SB 1166 argue that the proposed measure would “kill jobs” and “unduly burdens and increases costs of small employers.” These fear-based, sky-will-fall arguments have no basis.  In 2004, the National Federation of Independent Business conducted a poll of small businesses that contradicts the “undue burden” narrative.  The average number of requests for leave is only one per year.  Two-thirds of the small businesses did not receive a request for leave at all in the prior three years.  When asked about the principal problem caused by the employee’s absence, the most frequent response was “no real problems.”  A 2012 national survey of employers conducted by the Department of Labor also found that small employers were less likely to report problems with family leave than were large employers and that fewer than 10 percent of employers reported problems with productivity, absenteeism, turnover, profitability, career advancement, or morale because of family leave.

At last month’s bill signing ceremony raising California’s minimum wage, President pro Tem Kevin de León said, “When it comes to taking care of working families, mark my words, California leads the nation…the rest of the country looks toward California for leadership on this issue.”  It’s time for California to make good on its promise to working families – to provide not just higher paid leave benefits, but an assurance that their job will be there when they need it the most.

In addition to signing your Mother’s Day cards today, please sign this petition in support of SB 1166, because no mother in this state should have to choose between caring for a child and keeping a job.

Why California needs stronger parental leave policies

Why California needs stronger parental leave policies

By Menaka Fernando

At first glance, a cultural shift appears to be occurring in the country when it comes to parental leave. In the past year, companies like Facebook, Microsoft, Accenture and Netflix have instituted generous paid parental leave policies that give parents the ability to take time off from work to bond with a new child. However, while paid parental leave may be becoming more accessible to high-wage earning professionals, it remains impossibly out of reach for many workers who risk losing their job if they take any time off after having a new child.  It’s worth noting that Netflix’s parental leave policy glaringly excluded low-wage workers from its benefits.

Last week, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) unveiled a new legislative proposal that would dramatically improve access to parental leave for all California workers by addressing one of its biggest barriers — job protection.

The reality is the patchwork of existing protections for workers who need to take parental leave are woefully inadequate. The California Family Rights Act and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave and job protection, but these laws only cover employees who work for larger companies with 50 or more employees. This leaves over 40% of California’s workforce ineligible for job-protected leave because their employer is too small.

Because nearly half of the workforce is not covered by our family leave laws, employers can punish workers for taking time off to care for a new child.  As a workers’ rights advocate, I often hear stories of employees – particularly low-wage earners – whose careers are slow-tracked, whose hours are restricted, or who are simply fired for taking or even requesting family leave.

Even more troubling is that workers without job protection are unable to take advantage of the state’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) program, which provides partial wage replacement benefits for those who take family leave. Studies have shown that low-wage workers who qualify for these benefits often cannot use them even though they pay into the program.  A 2011 Center for Economic and Policy Research study of the PFL program showed that the ability to use parental leave is far greater for salaried employees (mainly managers and professionals) and high earners (those earning over $20 per hour plus employer health insurance) than for those in hourly and low-quality jobs.

In the same study, 37% of respondents expressed concern that if they took PFL, their employer would be unhappy, their opportunities for advancement would be affected, or they might simply be fired. At a time when financial security and healthcare coverage are so important, the risk of losing one’s job to take leave to care for a new child is simply a risk that many new parents cannot afford to take.

Senator Jackson’s bill would alleviate that risk by extending parental leave rights for new parents (including domestic partners and adoptive or foster parents) who work for employers with 5 or more employees.

The need for expanded and equitable access to parental leave in the state cannot be understated.  The benefits of parental leave on the health and welfare of the economy and our state’s working families have been well-documented.  Research shows that paid family leave, particularly when there is job protection, increased new mothers’ wage growth and future employment rates.  Fathers who take parental leave are more engaged with their newborns, promoting greater gender equity at home and at work. In addition, evidence strongly suggests that children enjoy many short- and long-term benefits from parental leave including better health and  higher high school graduation rates.

While it is encouraging that good corporate policy is pushing the conversation on parental leave forward, it’s time for the Legislature to act. The protections of Senator Jackson’s bill will help ensure the physical, psychological, and economic health of all of California’s working families, and not just Silicon Valley executives.

Menaka Fernando is an associate attorney at Outten & Golden LLP, where she represents individual employees in litigation and negotiation, and a member of the California Employment Lawyers Association.

CELA VOICE Guest Blogger

About Our Guest Bloggers

Our guest bloggers include members of CELA and other employee advocates. Email us if you are interested in guest blogging.

Tis the season: Giving thanks for new employment protections

Tis the season: Giving thanks for new employment protections

By Lisa Mak

In the spirit of the holidays, here’s a round-up of five legal developments that California workers and their advocates can be thankful for this year.

Fair Pay Act

In October 2015, Governor Brown signed the California Fair Pay Act to give our state the strongest equal pay protections in the nation.  In 2014, a woman working full-time in California still earned an average of only 84 cents to every dollar a man earned – a wage gap that has remained unchanged for nearly a decade. The new law mandates equal pay for “substantially similar work,” instead of the old outdated language requiring equal pay only for “equal work on jobs” at the “same establishment.” Thus, male and female employees are now entitled to equal pay if they perform comparable work, even if they have different job titles or work in different offices at a company. The new law also requires that any legitimate, non-gender based factors that employers rely on to explain gender wage differences must be “applied reasonably” and “account for the entire wage differential.” The Fair Pay Act also prohibits retaliation against workers who seek to enforce the Act or who inquire about the wages of other employees. This new law empowers women to challenge unfair pay practices and gives advocates new tools to combat the gender wage gap that has persisted in this state for far too long.

Protecting Reasonable Accommodation Requests

AB 987 was passed in July 2015 to explicitly affirm that workers who request reasonable accommodation based on religion or disability are protected from retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The legislation was passed in response to a misguided California appellate court’s decision in Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. In that case, the employee was fired after requesting a work accommodation so that he could donate his kidney to his ailing sister. The court held that accommodation requests did not constitute a protected activity sufficient to support a FEHA retaliation claim. This decision threatened to overturn years of legal interpretation that protected workers’ rights to request accommodations. With the passage of AB 987, we can now be sure that workers have legal protection if they request an accommodation from their employer due to disability or religion.

Increased Wage Theft Protections

To help combat pervasive wage theft in this state, SB 588 was passed to authorize the California Labor Commissioner to file a lien or levy on an employer’s property to assist employees in collecting judgments for unpaid wages. According to a 2013 report by the National Employment Law Project and the UCLA Labor Center, only 17% of workers who prevailed in their wage claim at the Labor Commissioner’s office were able to receive any payment between 2008 and 2011. Workers who did receive payment were able to collect only 15% of what was owed. The new law also provides that any employer or any person acting on behalf of an employer who “violates, or causes to be violated,” regulations regarding minimum wages or hours and days of work, may be on the hook for wage theft. Workers and their advocates now have significantly stronger tools to go after employers who try to evade liability by shifting responsibility to other companies or by refusing to pay their judgments.

Scrutiny Of Misclassification In Shared Economy Companies

In June 2015, the California Labor Commissioner ruled that a driver for Uber was an employee, not an independent contractor, and ordered the company to pay her back for work-related expenses. In August, the California Employment Development Department determined that a former Uber driver was an employee and was entitled to receive unemployment benefits. Then in September, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Uber drivers could proceed as a class action in a lawsuit over whether the drivers should be classified as employees or independent contractors. The class action alleges that Uber failed to pass on tips left for drivers. Although the classification issue for Uber drivers and other similar workers is not yet settled in California, it reflects the willingness of the state’s legal authorities to scrutinize misclassification issues and enforce labor rights in the evolving world of shared economy businesses.

Cost-Shifting To Employees Only If FEHA Lawsuit Frivolous

Previously, employees who lost on their Fair Employment and Housing Act claims could be required to pay the employer’s legal costs. Since these costs could be substantial, workers could be discouraged from trying to vindicate their workplace civil rights out of fear of having to pay if they lost their lawsuit. However, now after the California Supreme Court’s decision in May 2015 in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, an employee who loses his or her FEHA claims in a lawsuit will not have to pay the employer’s legal costs on those claims unless the employer shows the claims were frivolous. This new standard can help reduce some of the financial risk for employees seeking to enforce their rights.

These developments reflect our state’s continuing trend of protecting working people, low-wage workers in particular, from exploitation and unfair treatment. Although there’s always more advocacy to be done, we have these positive steps to celebrate for this year.

Lisa Mak

About Lisa Mak

Lisa Mak is an associate attorney in the Consumer & Employee Rights Group at Minami Tamaki LLP in San Francisco. She is passionate about representing employees and consumers on an individual and class basis to protect their rights. Her practice includes cases involving employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, labor violations, and severance negotiations. Ms. Mak is the Co-Chair of the CELA Diversity Committee, Co-Chair of the Asian American Bar Association’s Community Services Committee, and an active volunteer at the Asian Law Caucus Workers’ Rights Clinic. Ms. Mak is a graduate of UC Hastings School of Law and UC San Diego. She is fluent in Cantonese and conversant in French.

Lactating men, toilet stalls and the arc of justice

Lactating men, toilet stalls and the arc of justice

By Christian Schreiber3 month baby

For the vast majority of workers, the laws that protect their rights operate silently in the background. This is especially true in California, where labor laws are frequently hailed – or assailed – as the country’s most protective for workers.

It’s easy to forget that the standards we take for granted today were once uncharted frontiers, but sometimes a reminder is in order: the provision of new rights always meets resistance, but seldom do we regret the expansion.

A recent example makes the point. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a breastfeeding mother’s last chance at an appeal last month. The plaintiff in the case, Angela Ames, alleged that she was wrongfully terminated from her job at an Iowa insurance company after returning to work from pregnancy leave. Ames requested a room where she could express breast milk, and was instead told by her boss to “go home and be with your babies.” The district court tossed the case on summary judgment, noting that her sex discrimination claims could not stand because “lactation is not a physiological condition experienced exclusively by women.” The 8th Circuit upheld the decision.

If you’re thinking this sounds like an article in the Onion, you’re not alone. Legal opinions relying on “Strange But True” articles make me think that my trivia-minded children have a too-near-term future on the bench. And I can’t be alone in being reminded of this:

Unfortunately, Ames and other women trying to breastfeed remain unprotected in many settings, and experience resistance in even unlikely places. Last fall, my sister-in-law was prepared to sit for her board exams in for Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. When she asked the American Board of Internal Medicine for accommodation to express milk during the 10-hour testing day, she was told to spend her break time pumping. Because as every lactating man knows, pumping is the same thing as studying, resting, eating, smoking, or taking a break.

In California, breastfeeding rights are well established. But because she lives in Indiana (where she is currently completing her fellowship), she enlisted help from me and the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. We wrote a letter explaining the shortsightedness of ABIM’s position. The good news is ABIM accommodated her request, and subsequently changed its policy. Ms. Ames was not so lucky.

California working mothers can now rely on Labor Code section 1030, which since 2003 has required employers to provide unpaid time and non-bathroom space for employees to express breast milk. When the bill mandating these changes was debated, however, the Chamber of Commerce predictably opposed the bill.

The Chamber’s position evolved over the next decade. Last year it did not oppose AB 1787, which would have required large commercial airports to provide places for nursing mothers. But the Chamber is nothing if not consistent. Instead of recognizing that today’s vanguard is tomorrow’s baseline, the Chamber still reflexively opposes any “new rights” in the workplace, typically tagging such efforts as “job killers.”

It is time our elected officials stop crediting the tired perspective of holdouts quivering at the edge of a civil rights moment. Time has a way of showing that the Chamber’s unbroken chorus of “impending doom” and “runaway rights” holds neither moral nor economic sway. And it never stands the test of time. A dozen years later, what California employer is clamoring to end the tyranny of nursing mothers being released from the confines of a toilet stall?

The Chamber’s economic perspective is just as faulty.. Consider the following two slides:

image1

image2

If the Chamber’s perspective were valid, the laws enacted to protect workers in San Francisco should have crushed the City’s economic vitality. Plainly,they didn’t..

The Legislature is poised to consider any number of bills this session that will expand the rights of workers, including a renewed effort to guarantee equal pay for working women.  When the Chamber begins its craven “job killer” refrain, as it will both publicly and privately in the days ahead, it should be met with  skepticism. California legislators need not shy away from the reality that civil rights legislation has demonstrated a distinct, eastward migratory pattern.

If the arc of the moral universe is long and bends towards justice, short-term plans that offer only the promise of continued inequity should be met with a new chorus. “See me in 10 years if you’re still interested in reversing these rights. Otherwise, I hear they’re hiring in Iowa.”

Christian Schreiber

About Christian Schreiber

Christian Schreiber is a partner at Chavez & Gertler, where he works primarily on class actions involving employment and consumer rights, civil rights, and financial services matters.

The Civil Rights Act – looking ahead

The Civil Rights Act – looking ahead

By Marvin Krakow

When we look back, few of us would want to be associated with opposition to our country’s efforts to end discrimination.  Yet, today, as we did then, we all too quickly close our eyes to the mistreatment of others, and all too readily harden our hearts against the suffering of those we call “other”.  As we try to imagine the challenges and opportunities of the next fifty years, an appreciation of how far we have come may help us choose progress and compassion over misplaced caution and over “all deliberate speed”.   We have a chance to think big.

Looking Ahead — Part 2

We can draw a two part lesson from the changes which followed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

First, we have learned to appreciate diversity and inclusion.  People once excluded by law and by custom, when given a chance, contribute to our communities.  They become our co-workers, our business partners, our friends, our loved ones. We share celebrations, food, holidays, life’s passages.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Our work becomes more productive.  Our art, our writing, our music, the entirety of human expressive effort becomes more creative.  Our lives are enriched beyond measure.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Second, we have learned that we often fail to see or to appreciate discrimination inherent in our daily lives.  In the mid-twentieth century, we failed to appreciate the extent to which our laws and customs abused and marginalized women, minorities, members of the LGBT community, immigrants, people with physical and mental challenges, and older people.

Occupy_Wall_Street_spreads_to_PortlandToday, we fail to recognize the ways in which we abuse and marginalize people without money, people with limited education, and people whose religions we do not understand.  We fail to recognize the ways in which we deny the humanity of working men and women  and degrade their lives.  What we don’t see, we can’t acknowledge: the more subtle and hidden forms that traditional discrimination now takes.

Our work is not done.  Imagine how our communities might look fifty years from now at the one hundredth anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.  Imagining the future gives us a sense of the struggles ahead, but at the same time, it acknowledges changes already underway, and it provides hope to sustain our efforts.  Here is my personal wish list for 2064:

  1. Employers must have good cause before firing a worker.  Job security will be a fundamental right for all.
  2. Countries participating in the global economy will develop and enforce international standards for treatment of working men and women.  Participating countries will require that goods and services sold in their domestic markets be produced in safe facilities, by workers who are paid a living wage,  enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education for their families.
  3. The countries of the world will develop and enforce international standards for environmentally sustainable production.  No business will be allowed to operate without systems and processes to prevent environmental damage.  Participating countries will no longer permit the degradation of land, water, and air as a part of doing business.
  4. The right to free movement of all people among the countries of the world will be guaranteed in the same way that the right to free movement of all people among the states of the United States is guaranteed by our Constitution. How we treat a person will not depend on where he or she was born.  We will recognize that laws which restrict immigrants are fundamentally unfair.  We will provide sufficient support and services to fully integrate newcomers into our communities.
  5. In the United States, we will expand Social Security to develop an effective and financially sound workplace benefit system, including unemployment stipends, paid medical and family leave, disability insurance and retirement pensions which support a decent life.
  6. Both here and abroad, we will find ways to reduce inequality of income and wealth, making sure that all people can earn enough to provide a decent life for themselves and for their families.
  7. Workplaces will follow the model of union grievances, and will provide informal, effective, and speedy dispute resolution mechanisms to address claims of unfair treatment, and to serve as a check on unilateral management actions.
  8. We will reaffirm and guarantee the rights of working people and consumers to present discrimination and workplace fairness claims to juries.
  9. Workplaces will provide support for family obligations, including decent childcare, and paid leave for medical and newborn care.
  10. Successful businesses will develop mechanisms to involve workers in decisions affecting the operation of the workplace.  In the unionized sector of the economy, an expansion of the mandatory subjects of collective bargaining may support that change.  In every workplace, we will protect working men and women who speak out about issues at work, safety, pay, discrimination, illegal conduct.   Even in the absence of legal requirements, the economic advantages realized by fully engaging working men and women will provide a competitive advantage to businesses which seize the initiative.
  11. We will surrender the illusion of superiority.  The mistreatment of others, including all forms of discrimination and retaliation, rests on the often unacknowledged assumption that the person in power is better than the person oppressed.  It is possible, however, to affirm our own needs and desires without denigrating the humanity of others.
  12. This item left blank.  It will be filled in by the struggles of ordinary people.  It will amaze us!
Marvin Krakow

About Marvin Krakow

Marvin Krakow (B.A., Yale, 1970, J.D. Yale, 1974), a founding partner of Alexander Krakow + Glick LLP, focuses on discrimination based on race, age, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and ethnicity, wrongful termination of employment, civil rights, and class actions. He has won seven, and eight figure results. He helps victims of sexual harassment and rape, and represents whistle blowers. He argued landmark cases before the California Supreme Court, Loder v. City of Glendale and Superior Court v. Department of Health Services (McGinnis).

The Civil Rights Act – looking back

The Civil Rights Act – looking back

By Marvin Krakow

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 guaranteed equal treatment in the workplace, in public facilities, and in public accommodations, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sex.  Equality was not the norm in 1964.  Remembering where we started may provide hope and inspiration for the next fifty years.

This is the first of a two part posting: first, a history we have lived, second, imagining and planning for the future.

Looking Back – Part 1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Little_Rock_Desegregation_1957.jpg

Little Rock Desegregation 1957” by Will Counts. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia.

By beginning with a look at the United States of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, we can better appreciate the magnitude of the changes we have experienced.  There and then were the conditions which the Civil Rights Act was meant to address.  The United States Supreme Court struck down segregated schools and the doctrine of “separate but equal” public facilities, only in 1954.  A year later, the Court called for dismantling segregated public schools with “all deliberate speed.”   In practice, communities and states intent on resisting the required changes made much of “deliberate” at the expense of “speed.”

In 1960, as part of the Wilmington, Delaware school district’s long delayed preparation for desegregation, I, with a few classmates, had a chance to visit the black school about six blocks from our own.  The only apparent equal part was the architectural plan.  The two schools had the same floor plans.  Even as an eleven year old, I could see that the black school had almost no books, that the sandstone bricks were crumbling, the toilets broken and foul.  By contrast, my own school had well maintained granite, a fully stocked library, plenty of classroom supplies and materials, clean and functioning lavatories.

Courtesy of South Carolina Department of Archives and History

Courtesy of South Carolina Department of Archives and History

Courtesy of South Carolina Department of Archives and History

Courtesy of South Carolina Department of Archives and History

The lack of adequate facilities and the open lie of “separate but equal” were but the tip of the iceberg of de jure segregation.  Our country had opportunities only for a select few.  We did not tolerate differences.  We murdered those who challenged the assigned order.   State sponsored and state enforced racial separation — combined with political disenfranchisement, and an economic and social caste system — was violent, brutal, and unremitting.   In the Summer of 1964, the world witnessed the terrorism supporting American segregation in the murders of James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner.

Lynchings, counted in the thousands, were carried out over generations, not only in the South, but throughout the country.  “Race riots”, actually pogroms and massacres of entire communities, terrorized people of color.  The ferocity of racial as well as ethnic violence characterized and defined American society in the first half of the twentieth century.

SVHO2004-0366

“Student and Faculty Civil Rights Rally, San Jose State College, February 28, 1964” by Moore, John. Courtesy of San José State University, Special Collections and Archives

Pervasive discrimination was not limited to African Americans.  Universities had quotas for Jews, Catholics, and other minorities.  Large corporations, law firms, hospitals would not consider ethnic minorities for hire.  Women had limited rights to own property.   Gays were invisible. In quantitative terms, almost two-thirds of our country’s people suffered discrimination.  Freedom and opportunity were reserved for members of a small and privileged class consisting almost exclusively of economically fortunate, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant men.    The norm, the life experienced by most people, included closed doors, hatred, persecution, and violence.

When we hear the stories of individuals we can begin to understand the extent and severity of discrimination in the mid-twentieth century United States.  From my own family stories: a young woman limited to secretarial work for men who were far less talented than she, a high school girl learning from her admired father that his field of work was closed to all women, a man who died unable to tell his family of his love for another human being, a woman hospitalized for “hysteria” as she came to terms with her love of another woman, an entire family whose parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins were slaughtered after the United States refused them safe haven from Nazi genocide.

There are few in my generation, coming of age in the 1960’s, who do not know such stories.  The details may vary. The story tellers may be Asian, Hispanic, African American, Irish, Native American. Regardless of one’s origins, America of the early and middle twentieth century held up the torch of liberty and opportunity while unapologetically shutting doors and crushing hopes.

Discrimination and violence strike deeply.  At its core, discrimination is a disregard and disrespect of another person’s humanity.  It is an expression of contempt and hatred.  When we suffer discrimination, the pain stays with us for years.  It is felt for generations.  When we engage in discrimination, when we tolerate contempt and hatred, and when we acquiesce in violence, we rend the fabric of our communities.  We corrupt our souls.

O’Connor, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan” by Steve Petteway. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, at the time of its passage, represented our country’s highest aspirations in the face of social and political realities far different than our Constitution’s promises.  The ongoing success of that legislation is all around us. Women and minorities have entered the workplace.  Many have risen to positions of prominence.  People with physical and emotional challenges are emerging from the shadows of dependence and isolation.  We are beginning to understand the waste of human potential and the pain we inflict in denying and demonizing love and sexuality.  We have made room for a true diversity of spiritual beliefs and practices.

But we can’t take our progress for granted.  As we try to imagine the challenges and opportunities of the next fifty years, an appreciation of how far we have come may help us choose compassion over misplaced caution and progress over the next iteration of “all deliberate speed.”

We now have a chance to be on the right side of history.  In my next post, I will discuss how we might get there.

 

 

Marvin Krakow

About Marvin Krakow

Marvin Krakow (B.A., Yale, 1970, J.D. Yale, 1974), a founding partner of Alexander Krakow + Glick LLP, focuses on discrimination based on race, age, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and ethnicity, wrongful termination of employment, civil rights, and class actions. He has won seven, and eight figure results. He helps victims of sexual harassment and rape, and represents whistle blowers. He argued landmark cases before the California Supreme Court, Loder v. City of Glendale and Superior Court v. Department of Health Services (McGinnis).

With so many corporations coming out for LGBT rights, why are so many workers still in the closet? 1

With so many corporations coming out for LGBT rights, why are so many workers still in the closet?

charlotte pride photo.fixed

It is hard to deny the remarkable ascendance of LGBT rights over the past decade. But the breathtaking gains in marriage equality in all corners of the country have obscured the focus on at least one important arena where we still lack equality – the workplace.

A recent Human Rights Campaign survey details the experiences of LGBT people at work.  Perhaps most startlingly in an era when being out is in for LGBT celebrities, sports figures, and politicians the survey revealed that 53% of everyday LGBT folks are still fully or mostly closeted at work.  When polled about why they remain closeted, 38% of respondents cited the possibility of making others feel uncomfortable; 36% responded that they feared the possibility of being stereotyped; 31% feared losing connections or relationships with coworkers; and 23% anticipated being passed over for advancement or development opportunities.

LGBT workers who fear disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity are probably pretty accurate in predicting how their co-workers might react.  Less than half of non-LGBT survey respondents said they felt comfortable hearing an LGBT coworker talk about their social life, dating, or a related subject, and more than 70% agreed that it would be “unprofessional” to talk openly about one’s sexual orientation or gender identity in the workplace. Of course, this is a standard that is not applied to straight workers, who routinely regale their closeted LGBT co-workers with stories about their opposite-sex relationships and social life.  Indeed, more than 60% of non-LGBT respondents reported that children, spouses, and social activities were indispensable topics of conversation in the workplace.

But this survey gives us more to worry about than how LGBT workers are censored in coffee room conversations.  Another finding is that more than one in five respondents had looked for alternate employment in order to avoid anti-LGBT hostility.  And nearly 10% of LGBT employees report they felt so much hostility at their workplace due to their sexual orientation that they had no choice but to leave their job.

The numbers are far worse for transgender workers: a report issued in 2011 by two LGBT rights organizations found that 90% of transgender people nationwide had experienced at least one form of harassment, physical assault, mistreatment, or sexual assault at work because of their gender identity.  And almost half have been fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of anti-transgender bias.

So what is to be done to turn the promise of welcoming workplaces into a reality?  Some might blame closeted employees for hiding their identities from co-workers, thus depriving co-workers of the opportunity to unlearn their stereotypes and bias.  However, the burden should not fall on LGBT employees to expose themselves to the very real risks of harassment, ostracism, job loss, or worse.  As has been the case in the marriage equality movement, coming out has an important role to play in making change in the workplace for LGBT people.  But it cannot happen without the protections of strong anti-discrimination laws and comprehensive employer policies that promote inclusion, train managers to combat harassment, and provide equal benefits for LGBT employees and their families.   In another post, I will be outlining how corporations can do just that.  As for passing laws to end employment discrimination and harassment against LGBT people, the prescription is simple — Congress should finally to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act!

Elizabeth Kristen

About Elizabeth Kristen

Elizabeth Kristen is the Director of the Gender Equity & LGBT Rights Program and a senior staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work.  Ms. Kristen began her public interest career as a Skadden Fellow at Legal Aid.  Ms. Kristen graduated from University of California at Berkeley School of Law in 2001 and served as a law clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.  In 2012-13, she served as a Harvard law School Wasserstein Public Interest Fellow.  She has been a lecturer at Berkeley Law School since 2008. Legal Aid at Work together with the California Women’s Law Center and Equal Rights Advocates make up the California Fair Pay Collaborative dedicated to engaging and informing Californians about fair pay issues.

Interns may work without pay, but that does not mean they should work without protection against harassment and discrimination

Interns may work without pay, but that does not mean they should work without protection against harassment and discrimination

By Amy Semmel

Unpaid internships are touted as the first rung on the modern ladder to career success.  But it may come as a surprise to learn that unpaid interns are currently falling through a loophole in California’s comprehensive anti-discrimination laws.  Next week, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to consider Assembly Bill 1443, a bill designed to close that loophole and provide interns the same protections against discrimination, harassment and retaliation that regular employees now have.

According to editors at the popular fashion industry website, Fashionista, “Internships can be a great way to break into the industry – actually we’d argue that they’re pretty much the only way to break into the industry.”  Here in Hollywood where I work, successful directors, producers, actors, writers and show runners regale us with stories of their lowly start as interns, fetching the coffee and running production errands.

College students and recent grads clamor for the opportunity to get a shot at these entry level “jobs.”  The 2013 College Graduate Employment Survey by a management consulting firm estimates that almost 30% of 2012 college graduates worked at an unpaid internship during college.   Unfortunately, the inherent opportunity of internships brings with it the potential for exploitation of workers who are young, anxious to succeed, and eager to please.

AB 1443 would protect against the kind of sexual harassment faced by Lihuan Wang, a 22-year-old broadcasting intern who took an unpaid internship at Phoenix Satellite Television, only to find herself being lured to a hotel room where she claims her supervisor forcibly kissed and groped her.  Ms. Wang says she learned that the same supervisor had harassed others and reported the harassment to management.  After she complained, the supervisor blocked her employment prospects with the company.  Her discrimination and harassment claims were thrown out of court in New York, which like California had no protection for unpaid interns because they are not considered employees.

Let’s make sure that the first step on the career ladder is a sturdy one for Californians just entering the working world.  Particularly in an economic climate where new college graduates and other young people are willing to work for nothing more than the experience they gain, interns deserve the full protection of California’s equal opportunity laws.

 

Amy Semmel

About Amy Semmel

Ms. Semmel devotes her practice to eradicating discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. She advocates for employees seeking remedies for retaliation for whistleblowing, discrimination and wage theft. Ms. Semmel is frequently invited to speak at conferences and seminars throughout the state. Subjects on which she has spoken include discovery issues in employment litigation; liability of successor, electronic discovery, alter ego and joint employers; the Private Attorney General Act, and developments in wage and hour law.

%d bloggers like this: