Sacramento Employment Lawyer

Tardiness and absences due to depression are not ground for not receiving unemployment benefits...

Please follow this link.

I was happy to receive the decision in one of my recent unemployment benefits appeals hearings in Sacramento. In that case, the employer - Kaiser of Sacramento - appealed my clients eligibility for unemployment benefits after terminating a nurse with a 13-year career at Kaiser for not returning to work after being on medical leave due to symptoms of severe anxiety and depression, which were diagnosed, well documented and known to the employer for years several years prior to my client's termination. Kaiser tried to argue that my client's absenteeism was "misconduct" within section 1256 of unemployment insurance code. I was happy to learn that the judge made a correct ruling, pointing out that since the absenteeism was caused by the typical symptoms associated with depression, the terminated nurse should not be disqualified from benefits. 

I was surprised that my client's former manager  - a supervising nurse at a major hospital with many years of experiencing taking care of patients and managing other nurses - knew so little about the workers disability rights. If a hospital, charged with care for those who are sick, is unable or unwilling to comply with disability laws, what kind of example does it set to other employers?

Your Union Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Fully Determine Your Disability Leave Rights

Please follow this link.

Employees who are union members often face a situation where they sustain an industrial or repetitive motion injury and upon request for medial leave or reasonable accommodation, they are informed by their HR department that they have a set amount of weeks or months of leave, upon expiration of which they will be terminated regardless of the circumstances. This practice is a common mistake on the part of the employers and the unions as it often fails to take into account the fact that state and federal disability laws cannot be circumvented by the collective bargaining agreement or any other agreement. Workers who are otherwise qualified for certain protections, do not waiver those protections just because they become members of a labor union. 

A classic California case on the issue is Jimeno v. Mobil Oil Corp., 66 F.3d 1514 (1995). In that case, an employee who suffered from an injury and a degenerative disc disease was dismissed after exhausting his limited medical leave rights under the union bargaining agreement. At trial, the employer argued that the employee's claims under FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to engage in interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation were completely preempted by the signed agreement, and therefore the employee couldn't sue under FEHA. The ninth circuit court disagreed, analyzing the legal issue extensively and eventually holding that the agreement did not preempt FEHA disability discrimination claims. 

Thus, employees should be aware that their disability rights, and the right to reasonable accommodations due to their physical or mental condition might be more extensive than those provided in the booklet provided by the union.