This & That Tuesday 15.3.17
"This & That" Tuesday: Pregnancy Discrimination, Retaliation, Employer Liability
March 17, 2015
Here is the latest issue of “This & That” Tuesday. I hope you find it to be informative and useful.
Announcements
You can always check out my website for upcoming speaking engagements that are guaranteed to be of value to business owners or for a list of topics that I can speak on at Chambers, Clubs, Business Associations, etc. More details about the events, topics and Human Resources 4U, in general, can be found on my website.
Upcoming Events
March 23, 2015, How to Create and Conduct a Formal Discipline Discussion
How to Build a Salary Structure & Merit Pay System
Cal-OSHA & IIPP Basics
AB 1825 Mandated Harassment Training for Supervisors
Mt. Sac Community College
Information at: (909) 274-4027 or workforcetraining@mtsac.edu
March 24, 2015
Human Resources Issues for Business Owners
Chino Commercial Bank
Information can be found on my website.
April 21, 2015
2015 Labor Law Update & Paid Sick Leave
Institute of Management Accountants, LA chapter
Information can be found on my website.
April 28, 2015
2015 Labor Law Update & Paid Sick Leave
Pomona Rotary Club
Information can be found on my website.
June 2, 2015
Understanding and Building a Disciplinary Process
Compliance Key
Webinar
Information can be found on my website.
June 4, 2015
East SGV CPA Group
2015 Labor Law Update
Information can be found on my website.
Annapolis Internal Medicine Pays $22,500 to Settle Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation Suit
Annapolis Internal Medicine, a large Annapolis-based internal medicine practice, will pay $22,500 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal pregnancy discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC.
The EEOC had charged that when Elizabeth Rodriguez, a newly hired medical receptionist, reported to a supervisor to receive an influenza vaccination, Rodriguez disclosed her pregnancy and asked that the information be kept confidential. However, management failed to honor her request and also began subjecting her to unequal treatment. When Rodriguez complained, Annapolis Internal Medicine gave Rodriguez a counseling report about "the value of being honest" instead of addressing her concerns about discrimination. The medical practice continued to treat Rodriguez more harshly because of her pregnancy and she continued to report this disproportionate treatment, the EEOC said. Rodriguez's final complaint came three days before Annapolis Internal Medicine fired her.
In addition to the $22,500 in monetary relief to Rodriguez, which represents her full wage loss as well as compensatory damages, the three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Annapolis Internal Medicine from taking adverse employment actions on the basis of pregnancy or in retaliation for complaining about discrimination in the future. The medical practice will implement and disseminate to all employees a policy prohibiting pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. Annapolis Internal Medicine will provide anti-discrimination training to all managers, supervisors and employees and post a notice regarding the settlement. The medical practice will also report to the EEOC on its compliance with the consent decree.
Requiring Employee to Use Personal Vehicle Results in Employer Liability
Commonly known as the “going and coming” rule, an employer is generally not liable for an employee’s actions during the course of an employee’s daily commute to and from work. If the employer requires an employee to use his or her own vehicle to complete work assignments, however, the employer can face vicarious liability for personal injury and property damage should the employee get into a traffic accident. A recent California Court of Appeal’s ruling could potentially expand the scope of employer liability in this area.
After transporting some employees to a work-related program, Judy Bamberger left her office for the day in her personal vehicle, intending to stop for frozen yogurt and a yoga class on the way home. While entering the yogurt shop’s parking lot, she struck and injured motorcyclist Majid Moradi, who subsequently sued both Bamberger and her employer, Marsh USA. The trial court granted Marsh USA’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Bamberger was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident.
The California Court of Appeal rejected that argument, reasoning that Bamberger was actually acting “within the scope of her employment” when commuting to and from work because her job duties required frequent use of an automobile, and also because her employer required her to use her own personal vehicle and make frequent trips using that vehicle throughout the course of a given work day. Under these circumstances, an employee is deemed to be engaged in the course of employment even when driving to and from work because the employer gains an incidental benefit from the employee using her personal vehicle. The court ostensibly carved out an exception to respondeat superior. At one time, Marsh USA issued its sales people company cars, but Bamberger’s use of her personal vehicle brings the case within the “required vehicle” exception to the “going and coming” rule. Thus, it became foreseeable that Bamberger could stop for errands, while not constituting a significant departure from her regular commute.
Factoids
- 76% of temporary workers work full time
- 53% of employers plan to enhance wellness incentives in 2015
- 86% of millennials say they are experiencing burnout while only 76% of more experienced workers are
- The average 401k participant is 43 years old and has saved $91,000
- 77% of employees contribute the maximum amount their employers will match
Quote of the Blog
“Courage is the virtue on which all other virtues mount.”
~Clare Booth Luce~