Employment Attorneys Serving Oakland, California
California has some of the most extensive and complex employment laws in the country. Discrimination and harassment are the most common among those laws. Many clients experience different treatment or feel like they are getting picked on. However, the laws often require a greater extent of offensive treatment to trigger protection. An employment attorney would be able to explain the difference between those two areas especially when it comes to borderline hostile work environment. By examining the facts, attorneys at Stephen Danz and Associates would be able to identify strong cases and confidently represent your case.
Our law firm is committed to helping California employees by upholding their employers accountable. By doing so, the firm’s attorneys even the playing field. For instance, when employers, who hold most of the power, discriminate against, harass, retaliate, steal wages, or find other ways to intimidate or wrong an employee, we take a stand by bringing our knowledge and experience. We represent employees throughout California. In Oakland, California, our lawyers are known for handling complex employment lawsuits where private individuals trust us to bring forth their cases in state and federal courts.
What Actions are Protected by the California Military Whistleblower Protection Act?
This Act prohibits “any person” from:
- Restricting a member of the California Military Department (CMD) from lawfully communicating with a member of congress, the governor, a member of the legislature, or any state or federal inspector general.
- Taking or threatening to take an unfavorable personnel action, or withholding or threatening to withhold a favorable personnel action, against a member of the CMD as a reprisal for communicating with specified elected and other officials.
What Actions Are Protected by the Legislative Employee Whistleblower Protection Act?
Although prior to the enactment of the Legislative Employee Whistleblower Protection Act (LEWPA), effective January 1, 2019, existing law protected legislative employees who disclosed illegal or improper workplace conduct by means of procedures to file a complaint alleging violations of legislative ethics as well as giving each house latitude to adopt procedural rules, the LEWPA adopted a more robust approach to achieving these objectives.
Under the act a member of the legislature or a legislative employee may be subject to criminal and civil liability for:
(1) directly or indirectly using or attempting to use official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with the right of a legislative employee to make a protected disclosure, or
(2) intentionally retaliating against a legislative employee for having made a protected disclosure.
Under the statute, a “protected disclosure” is defined as a legislative employee’s good faith allegation to specified legislative or agency entities that a member of the Legislature or a legislative employee has engaged in, or will engage in, conduct that may violate the law, including sexual harassment, or violate a legislative standard of conduct. The provisions of LEWPA do not limit application of the rights or remedies under federal or state law, including but not limited to Labor Code 1102.5 or the FEHA.
What Actions Lead to Violations of Health Care Worker Rights?
Several statutes provide protection to health care workers who file reports of patient abuse with governmental authorities.
Penal Code section 11161.8 requires that certain health care workers who observe a patient suffering from a condition that appears to be the result of abuse or neglect must file a report within 36 hours with the local police authority and the county health department. An employee may not be discharged, suspended, disciplined, or harassed for making such a report.
Government Code section 12940(g), which is part of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), also forbids discrimination against or discharge of a person who has made such a report.
Health & Safety Code section 1278.5 declares the public policy of the state to encourage patients, nurses, members of the medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe patient care and conditions. It prohibits discrimination or retaliation against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the health facility on the basis that such a person has done either of the following:
(A)Presented a grievance, complaint, or report to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity.
(B)Initiated, participated, or cooperated in an investigation or administrative proceeding related to, the quality of care, services, or conditions at the facility that is carried out by an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility or its medical staff, or governmental entity.
Health & Safety Code section 1278.5 entitles the worker to prove a statutory violation, and to obtain appropriate relief, in a civil suit before a judicial fact finder. When a physician claims that a hospital’s quasi-judicial decision to restrict or terminate the physician’s privileges was a means of retaliating against the physician “because” the physician reported concerns about the treatment of patients, the physician need not first seek and obtain a mandamus judgment setting aside the hospital’s decision before pursuing a statutory claim for relief.