First, remember that every situation we address on this website is intended to be in a non-union context with no “contract” in place. This is the situation for the vast majority of employees in California who work for private companies. They are “at will” employees.

Here, Robert is in the very common position of being accused of something he adamantly denies doing. We receive calls from people in this situation very often. Unfortunately, the “at will” employment rules do not provide Robert with any avenue of relief, here. If an employer “thinks you did it,” then it can take action. It does not have to prove anything and even if you can prove you didn’t, you will not be able to save your job (at least as far as the law is concerned). Now this would be different if Robert could show that he was targeted by the employer for an unlawful reason–such as because he complained he was not being paid overtime appropriately. But if the employer was not unlawfully motivated, but simply thought Robert “did it,” Robert could be fired.

First, remember that every situation we address on this website is intended to be in a non-union context with no “contract” in place. This is the situation for the vast majority of employees in California who work for private companies. They are “at will” employees.

There is no protection for employees with tattoos, so they are left to the mercy of their employers (it may be that in a very rate circumstance, if it could be shown that a tattoo was a requirement of a bona fide religion, there may be the need to accommodate, but it is still unlikely). Jane may be wearing long sleeves for life or at least until she finds a boss who appreciates a little “ink.”

First, remember that every situation we address on this website is intended to be in a non-union context with no “contract” in place. This is the situation for the vast majority of employees in California who work for private companies. They are “at will” employees.

Here, the employer made the very common mistake of not considering all laws applicable to the situation. Jennifer was not only provided protection by the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) but also by federal and state disability discrimination laws. Clinical Depression is a disability under California law and Jennifer was entitled to a “reasonable accommodation” for her disability. In this case, the reasonable accommodation that she needed was thirteen weeks of leave. It is true that she was only entitled to twelve weeks under the FMLA, but the thirteenth week could have been a reasonable accommodation for her disability and should have been. Thus, the employer is likely liable for wrongful termination and failure to reasonably accommodate a known disability. Jennifer probably has a case. We would definitely want to speak with her about it.

First, remember that every situation we address on this website is intended to be in a non-union context with no “contract” in place. This is the situation for the vast majority of employees in California who work for private companies. They are “at will” employees.

Here, if Joanna can prove that the reason she was terminated was her complaints about safety, which it looks like she can, then she has a case. California has a law that states that an employee may complain about workplace safety issues without retaliation. This law is considered to have established a fundamental public policy against retaliating against employees who make these complaints. Therefore, Joanna could not be fired for making these complaints even though she is an “at will” employee.

First, remember that every situation we address on this website is intended to be in a non-union context with no “contract” in place. This is the situation for the vast majority of employees in California who work for private companies. They are “at will” employees.

Here, Adam made the common mistake of thinking that he would not be subjected to retaliation for simply trying to help the company by pointing out his supervisor’s weaknesses. The law does not provide any protection for those who take this risky approach to “fixing” things at work. If Adam had complained that his supervisor was calling him racist names or sexually harassing him or a number of other “protected” complaints, he could not have been fired. However, here, there was no protection for his complaint and it was well within the rights of his employer to terminate him. This might fall into the “unfair” category, but not the “unlawful” category.

First, remember that every situation we address on this website is intended to be in a non-union context with no “contract” in place. This is the situation for the vast majority of employees in California who work for private companies. They are “at will” employees.

Both federal and California law prohibit certain employers from discriminating against employees based on their disabilities. Under federal law, only employers with fifteen or more employees are covered. Under California law, only employers with five or more employees are covered. Here, Sally was one of only three employees. Thus, she is not protected by the disability discrimination laws.

But what about the FMLA or the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”)? These laws only protect employees who work for employers with fifty or more employees and only in specific circumstances. Here, Sally could not take advantage of these laws because her employer was so small, so there was no need to look at other requirements.

Unfair? Sure seems like it. Unlawful? No.