Sacramento Employment Lawyer

What are "reasonable accommodations" withing the meaning of California Employment Law

Please follow this link.

The main source of interpretation of what "reasonable accommodation" duty is, imposed on the employers with regard to the workers who are disable or who are perceived as having a serious medical condition is Cal. Admin Code, title 2, section 7293.9. This regulation provides that any employer shall make reasonable accommodation to the disability of any individual with a disability if the employer or other covered entity knows of the disability, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. 

The examples of such reasonable accommodations include but are not limited to making the existing facilities used by employees readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities; job restructuring, reassignment to a vacation position, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices , adjustment or modification of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters and other similar actions. 

An employer does not have to provide reasonable accommodations if the it can prove that doing so would impose undue hardship on its operations. Under the same regulation, "under hardship" means an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of several factors, including (1) the nature and cost of the accommodations needed; (2) the company's overall financial resources and the size of the employer; (3) the type of operations involved; and (4) the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility. By Arkady Itkin, San Francisco Employment and Wrongful Termination Lawyer

Employers' Obligations to Prevent Sexual Harassment at California Workplace

Please follow this link.

Once an employer is informed of the sexual harassment, the employer must take adequate remedial measures. The measures need to include immediate corrective action that is reasonably calculate to (1) end the current harassment and (2) to deter future harassment. Sarro v. City of Sacramento (E.D.Cal. 1999) 78 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1061-1062. The employer's obligation to take prompt corrective action requires (1) that temporary steps be taken to deal with the situation while the employer determines whether the complaint is justified and (2) the permanent remedial steps be implemented by the employer to prevent future harassment once the investigation is completed. 

An employer has a wide discretion in choosing how to minimize contact between the two employees (the alleged harasser and the alleged victim), so long as it acts to stop the harassment. The reasonableness of an employer's remedy will depend on its ability to stop harassment by the person who engaged in potentially unlawful conduct at workplace. Ellison v. Brady (9th Cir. 1991) 924 F.2d 872, 882.

In Bradley v. California Department of Corrections 158 Cal.App.4th 1612 (2008), one of the claims by the employee was that the employer, the State agency, failed to prevent sexual harassment to which she was subjected by her co-worker. The court noted that while it recognized that things move slowly in the state government, the lack of action by the employer in that case was "startling." Id. at 1633. The court noted that very little investigation was done and nothing was done by the employer to make sure that the harassment stops. Each manager that the victim would approach for help would refer her to someone else over and over. The court further made an important point that an employer may be required to take remedial action even when harassment is not corroborated. Id. at 1634. This means that it's generally proper for employers to at least temporarily suspend or transfer the accused shortly after receiving a complaint before the investigation even begins, to avoid the risk of continuing to expose the victim to harassment.