Pregnancy discrimination claims were up 14% in 2007, the biggest annual increase in 13 years, and a 40% increase from a decade ago.  According to an EEOC spokesperson, this may only be "the tip of the iceberg."  

Changing demographics indicate that females are becoming more aware of their rights in the workplace, including state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination against pregnant women.  

Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is treated as sex discrimination under both federal and California law.  Pregnant women must be treated the same as all other employees.  In addition, under California law, employers must provide reasonable accommodation for employees if a health care provider says that accommodation is required for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.  

Thus, employers that fire, layoff, or discipline a pregnant employee must have ample evidence to demonstrate that the action taken was based on legitimate business reasons, and had nothing to do with the employee's pregnancy. 

In addition, California employers must be aware of the state's Pregnancy Disability Leave law, which provides up to four months of leave for women disabled as a result of pregnancy.  

Employers should review their policies and employee handbooks to ensure that they clearly prohibit pregnancy-based discrimination.  Employers should also train their managers on the risks that attach to decisions affecting pregnant employees, and on how to respond to inquires regarding leaves of absence.  

Note: this is general information, not legal advice.  Contact a lawyer for advice regarding a particular situation.  

Starbucks Tip Pool Ruling

A San Diego Superior Court Judge has issued a $100 million-plus judgment against Starbucks for its practice of allowing supervisors to share in barista tips.  Under California Labor Code Section 351, it's illegal for supervisors to share in tips left for employees.  This statute has been on the books since 1937, and I suspect that it was motivated by the New Deal-Era mentality that workers shouldn't be exploited by their capitalist employers.  The Starbucks ruling, however, shows how ridiculous this approach can be when applied to specific factual situations. Far from being members of the capitalist ruling classes, the Starbucks managers typically work the counter and make coffee for customers.  These customers naturally want to tip the person making their coffee.  Under this ruling, they can't do that.  For example, one of the managers affected by the ruling, shift supervisor Robert Velasquez, 18 years old, is often the only employee working at the crowded Starbucks at La Brea and San Vicente.  "When there are no baristas here, supervisors are the ones who make the drinks.  And we should be able to get the tips," said Velasquez.  Velasquez said he used his $2.50 an hour for tips for gas money, and that he would lose about $100.00 a week because of the ruling.  A harsh way to learn that he's a member of the ruling classes under California labor law.  

Welcome to the Blog

Welcome to the Hamer Legal blog.  I will be posting updates regarding labor and employment law under federal and California law.  If you have any questions about anything posted on the blog, please contact Hamer Legal at (310) 806-9213, or contact@hamerlegal.com.