Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Only In California ....

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Only In California ....

    Ask any labor lawyer and he/she will tell you it is against the law for an employer to base hiring/firing decisions on an individual's race, religion, skin color, national origin, marital status, sex, age or sexual orientation. California employers might soon have to add "familial status" to the list, as the senate voted yesterday to pass SB 836 http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil...sen_floor.html

    If enacted into law, SB 836 would make it unlawful for California employer's to discriminate against individuals because they have "familial duties" to care for or support one or more family members. The bill defines "caring for or supporting" a family member as providing supervision or transportation; providing psychological or emotional comfort and support; addressing medical, educational, nutritional, hygienic or safety needs; or attending to an illness, injury or mental or physical disability.
    Barry S. Phillips, CPA
    www.BarryPhillips.com

    IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: This response is intended to provide general information and written for educational purposes only. It does not establish a client relationship. This communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to any party any matters addressed herein.

  • #2
    Good Lord.

    My state was the first to enact a Small Necessities Leave Act for employees who needed to drive elderly parents to the doctor, visit a child's teacher, etc. And I'm fine with laws like that.

    But, at least as written in MA, the law provides limits as to reasons and number of hours permitted. It's not open-ended and there are only specific reasons permitted.

    I don't even have a problem with the concept of family status being a protected characteristic, in the way most states with such a law - you can't discriminate BECAUSE you're married, single, do or do not have kids.

    But it sounds as if this new law, if passed, would essentially give employees carte blanche to leave work whenever they like claiming a family reason, and the employer would have no control over it.

    Seems to me that a case could be made that the law is in itself discriminatory to employees with no families.
    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

    Comment


    • #3
      cbg: it sounds as if this new law, if passed, would essentially give employees carte blanche to leave work whenever they like claiming a family reason, and the employer would have no control over it.

      Senator Kuehl, the bill's author, swears up and down this is not the intent of her legislation, although the California Chamber of Commerce (in opposition to the bill) has gone on record saying SB 836 "significantly opens the door" for these types of claims, along with a waive of frivoulous lawsuits. Time will tell.
      Barry S. Phillips, CPA
      www.BarryPhillips.com

      IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: This response is intended to provide general information and written for educational purposes only. It does not establish a client relationship. This communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to any party any matters addressed herein.

      Comment


      • #4
        We all know that the intent of the bill has nothing to do with how it ends up being interpreted onced passed. I imagine there would have to be eventual case law to clarify the parameters.
        The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by cbg View Post
          Good Lord.

          Seems to me that a case could be made that the law is in itself discriminatory to employees with no families.
          As one of those employees with no family, I couldn't agree more. Can I claim my cats?
          I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Keep the cats, but...

            Originally posted by Pattymd View Post
            As one of those employees with no family, I couldn't agree more.
            I'll send you a family, if you'd like. They are of no use here

            Comment

            The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
            Working...
            X