Discrimination – Termination Attorneys

Is it discrimination (wrongful termination)? (Jane has a tattoo)

admin — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:43:08 +0000

Jane wore long sleeves to her interview so that the employer would not see the Bon Jovi tattoo that she had tattooed on her forearm when she was, well, not entirely “with it” one night out in college. She was supremely qualified for the position and got the job. She worked for two weeks without any issue and decided that since her office was pretty informal anyway, she would go ahead and wear short sleeves one day and let her tattoo show. She was called into a meeting with her boss and terminated within the first two hours of her shift. Her boss stated, “Your tattoo does not fit with our company image.”

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.”

Is it discrimination (wrongful termination)? (Jennifer and Depression)

admin — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:04:38 +0000

Jennifer worked for an accounting firm with 100 employees. She had a been a full-time employee for two years when she went on a medical leave for depression. Her doctor said she needed thirteen weeks off to become well enough to return to work. She told her employer that she had been diagnosed with clinical depression and provided her employer with a doctor’s order that she be off for thirteen weeks. She received a letter twelve weeks into her leave stating that she was being terminated because she had exhausted her FMLA leave. Was this a wrongful termination? Should she be seeking a wrongful termination lawyer?

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.

Is it discrimination (wrongful termination)? (Sally has MS)

admin — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:25:55 +0000

Sally worked for a small insurance sales office. She was one of only three employees. She was recently diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and needed three weeks off for initial treatment. Her employer terminated her, stating, “we really need someone healthy to do this job.” Is this disability discrimination? Should Sally hire a discrimination lawyer?

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.