Sacramento Employment Lawyer

Unemployment Benefits and Good Cause Resignation

Please follow this link.

Recently, I had represented an employee at a hearing in front of the unemployment appeals board in Contra Costa County. She was a hard worker, who was an unfortunate victim of the timing of certain events in her employment that lead to the denial of her employment benefits, which is a lesson to other employees who may find themselves in a similar situation.  

The employee held two jobs: one full time and the other one was a part time position. Having worked 60 hours per week without any days off, the employee has made the decision to quit her part time employment and keep her full time job. On day A, she gave her part time employer a two-week notice of resignation and has informed the part time employer than she will resign on date C. A week from Date A (let's call that date - Date B), the employee was unexpectedly laid off from her full time position. The employee continued working at her part time job for a week from Date B till Date C - which was the last date of her employment as per her resignation notice. When the employee applied for benefits, she was formally denied, because she actually voluntarily quit her last place of employment (her part-time job), and from the EDD's standpoint, the fact that she was laid off a week before by her full-time employer and would have clearly qualified for benefits, had that employer was her last employer and had she not continued working for her part time employer after the lay-off did not make a difference. 

At the appeal hearing, the administrative law judge emphasized the rule that an employee is not entitled to benefits if he voluntarily quits his last employment, unless there is good cause. As I expected, the main issue on appeal was whether the employee invested sufficient effort into rescinding her resignation and trying to keep her part-time job after she was laid of from her full time employment. The main question was whether the employee approached her part-time employer and asked whether she could continue working or, if her position was already filled, apply or hold another position or a different shift at the same position. 

In this case, the employee did not sufficiently inquire into her ability to continue working for her part-time employer. Even though I argued that it is usually embarrassing and uncomfortable for an employee to ask for her job back after resigning, I don't think the judge was impressed by that argument and I expect that he will affirm the denial of unemployment benefits.

California Employment Law: Whistleblower Retaliation Protection After Complaining about Safety Violations

Please follow this link.

California Labor Code section 6399.7 states that no person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because of protected conduct, nor shall any pay, seniority, or other benefits be lost for exercise of any such right. This protection extends to filing any complaint or testifying in any matter related to occupational safety.

This provision is a powerful protection in those relatively common situations where a production/assembly plant employee complains to his boss about a certain dangerous condition or safety violation at workplace. After not having those concerns addressed, the employee contacts OSHA or any other governmental agency in charge of enforcing specific safety regulations. Shortly after the management is contacted by the agency, the employer is likely to feel "back-stabbed" and will engage in a campaign of discrimination, harassment and creating hostile work environment for the employee that only wanted to make sure that his workplace is safe for himself and his co-workers. 

It is important to note, that the protection against retaliation extends to those employees who "reasonable believe" that safety violations take place. This means that the employee does not have to prove that the workplace is unsafe or in violation of any code, but only has to "reasonably believe" that such violations take place. Thus, in many cases, even though the employer proves that no violation took place and that the employer was in compliance with all the rules, the employee still prevailed on his retaliation claim, after the employer suspended, demoted, or terminated the complainant.