Is Florida becoming an autonomous driving state safe?

Santa Clara, CAThe world has changed so much since the invention of the automobile and it has not slowed down. When cars were first invented, people did not trust the new technology. They weren't used to a carriage that could travel by itself. Now, we cannot imagine a world without motor vehicles. As automobiles continued to be improved upon, so did the safety standards and the car accident laws regarding them. Florida driving laws, such as speed limits and which way to drive down the road, were implemented to increase the safety of those who operated the vehicles and pedestrians.

In 1950 and the first few decades following, basic convenience and safety features such as cruise control, seatbelts and antilock brakes were implemented. Advanced safety features such as electronic stability control, blind spot detection, lane departure warning and forward collision warnings came between the years 2000 and 2010.

By 2016, driver assistance features advanced with rearview video systems, automatic emergency braking, lane centering assist, rear automatic emergency braking and other safety features. Partially automated safety features including lane keeping assist, adaptive cruise control and traffic jam assist were developed after 2016. By 2025, the automotive industry plans to have developed fully automated safety features for automobiles.

What are the potential benefits of making Florida a fully autonomous driving state?

A fully automated vehicle is a car, truck or van that can drive itself, without the assistance of a human driver. This means that your car would be able to speed up, slow down, stop, turn, start up and turn itself off all on its own. Without any human intervention, will the roads we drive on become more dangerous? In 2020, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that 94% of fatal accidents are due to human error. Decreasing the amount of human input could potentially reduce accidents that are caused by human error. One study says fully automated vehicles could reduce fatal accidents by 90%.

While decreasing fatalities is the biggest potential benefit of having Florida become a fully autonomous driving state, there are other ways Florida could potentially benefit from the change. Some of the often cited reasons why autonomous vehicles could be beneficial are:

• Reduced Congestion: studies suggest that switching to fully automated vehicles could reduce the amount of traffic on the roads.
• Increased Mobility: full automated vehicles could increase mobility for those members of the population who are unable to drive themselves. They would be able to move about on their own.
• Economic Benefits: According to the NHTSA, billions of dollars are spent on wrecks each year. By moving to vehicles that are not susceptible to human error, Florida could use that money for much needed projects.
• Environmental Benefits: With less personal driving, fully automated vehicles could lessen the need for entire parking lots. Less personal driving would also mean less harmful emissions and pollutants from vehicles. The automotive industry is preparing for more travelers to participate in ride shares and shuttles.
• Efficiency Benefits: If automated vehicles allow more people to share transportation, that would mean there would be fewer single-occupant automobiles on the road. This would mean less time spent in traffic, fewer employees late to work and the amount of students late to school would decrease.

In the long run, these benefits could greatly improve the quality of life in Florida. Change has started and it does not seem to be slowing down. In order to keep up with the state of technology, considering switching to autonomous driving could be an appropriate action to take. It will take time for people to get used to the new vehicles and the new way of driving, but it is not impossible.

How can Floridians feel safe about autonomous driving?

It is important, first, for people to understand that vehicles of any kind go through rigorous testing before they ever reach the road. The NHTSA has data voluntarily submitted by companies regarding the safety testing of their vehicles. This information is available on their website and can be accessed by anyone. Automobiles must pass a number of inspections before they can be considered safe and therefore purchasable by the public.

One of the safety benefits that is being built into fully automated vehicles is the ability to detect a potential crash. Not only can they detect that you are about to be involved in a collision, they can also act faster than a human can. This way, your car can keep you safe as well as get you from point A to point B.

Thinking about self-driving automobiles can be unnerving. Data shows, however, that most accidents are due to driver error. The following are some of the reasons that people get into accidents that can be linked to driver error:

• Distracted driving - Drivers have a lot to contend with when they are on the road. There’s music, phones, passengers, even the signs on the side of the road can take a motorist’s attention away from the task at hand.
• Speeding - Some drivers have a need for speed that can cause their driving to become reckless and dangerous to other people on the road around them.
• Failure to yield the right of way - At stop signs and stop lights, there is a big problem with drivers either being unsure of who goes next, or ignoring the driving laws altogether. This leads to so many accidents that could be prevented.
• Intoxicated driving or driving under the influence - Another major cause of accidents that could be prevented with automated driving are drunk driving and driving under the influence of a substance. Drinking and driving is a deadly problem in America, causing an enormous amount of monetary, emotional and physical damage every year.

 

What is the future of autonomous driving in Florida?

There is no disguising the fact that we live in a quickly evolving, ever changing world. Things get replaced and altered by technology every day. Recent advancements in technology have improved the lives of so many people in new ways every day. This is the same forward momentum that has seeped into the automotive industry, causing engineers to come up with exciting new things for us. While new things are exciting, they can sometimes be scary, too. When you are uncertain about the changes, it can be hard to be confident in them.

Change can be scary though for many people and many groups of people that have a more difficult time embracing and using technology. However, the future of autonomous driving in Florida would mean many more people will have access to the greater world than they previously had. The roads could also become much safer for everyone, pedestrians and passengers alike. With the absence of driver error, the roads could be free of deadly accidents. Fully automated vehicles have the potential to save countless lives and save Floridians countless dollars.

The future for fully automated, self-driving vehicles is exciting; the possibilities seem endless in the world of automobiles. The safety and monetary benefits from the new are countless for the people of Florida. Understanding the rigorous testing, how fully automated vehicles could make the roads safer and the money saving potential could all go a long way in helping Floridians feel safer with the future of fully automated, self-driving automobiles in Florida.

The Feds Sue California over State Immigration Laws

Los Angeles, CA: It is a well-known fact that the State of California is, and has remained progressive with regard to standing up for the rights of it undocumented workers. And with good reason: immigrants, including those who don’t necessarily have their papers account for 10 percent of the State’s workforce. Removing the undocumented worker from the equation would have a dramatic and negative impact on the California economy. The State’s defense of the undocumented worker, however, puts California in the crosshairs of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), which is now suing the State of California over its immigration policies.

According to Court documents the DOJ was in a California federal court earlier this month asking a judge to invalidate three California laws protecting the undocumented worker, based on the DOJ’s view that such laws are getting in the way of federal enforcement of US immigration laws inherent with the Trump Administration.

Immigrants and undocumented workers, in general, face discrimination and harassment to a greater degree than indigenous Americans – with undocumented workers threatened with job loss and deportation, amongst other forms of harassment. In California, undocumented workers are encouraged to fight back with an undocumented worker lawsuit, if necessary – in tandem with State statutes that shield undocumented workers from unnecessary abuse through wrongful termination, or otherwise.

The US Fed v. the State of California on undocumented workers

Three California statutes in particular have infuriated the DOJ, which appeared before a US District Court Judge on March 6 in an attempt to have them quashed.

The Immigrant Worker Protection Act regulates the way private employers in California can respond to federal efforts to investigate workplace immigration law compliance, and prohibits private employers from voluntarily permitting immigration enforcement agents on any nonpublic workplaces unless that agent has a warrant.

AB 103 subjects local detention facilities to twice-yearly inspections by California’s Office of the Attorney General. Finally, the California Values Act (SB 54) prohibits state and local law enforcement officials other than people who work in correctional facilities from providing information about release dates, or other information such as home addresses of detainees.

The three statutes in question were signed into law in California within the last nine months. The feds argue that State lawmakers shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent federal statutes and thereby, preventing enforcement efforts.

“The provisions of state law at issue have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California,” the Justice Department said. “The Supremacy Clause does not allow California to obstruct the United States’ ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution. Accordingly, the provisions at issue here are invalid.”

California pledges to continue policies of fairness to immigrants

The Governor of California, Jerry Brown – long a champion of the undocumented worker – appeared amused by the federal effort and posted a tweet reminiscent of the Twitter musings of the President. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued his own statement, promising to uphold all laws.

“No matter what happens in Washington, California will stay the course and enforce all our laws and protect all our people. That’s how we keep our communities safe.”

California’s position with regard to this federal lawsuit gives pause for optimism to the undocumented worker, who will retain the freedom to fight needless abuse and harassment with the help of an undocumented worker lawyer, if necessary.

The federal lawsuit is US v the State of California et al., Case No. 2:18-at-00264, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Investors Launch Compliance Lawsuit against AMD et al in California

San Francisco, CA: The rights of employees and consumers alike to have unfettered use of firewall-protected computers without the threat of unwanted infiltration by hackers is now in focus with the filing of a class action compliance lawsuit against Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), one of the premiere manufacturers of microprocessors that power computers in homes and workplaces.

The lawsuit was brought by investors who claim losses due to an alleged failure on the part of AMD principles to reveal the security flaw, and misrepresented the value of its stock.

Compliance lawsuit asserts defendants were not forthcoming to investors

"Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies," the lawsuit states. "Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a fundamental security flaw in AMD's processor chips renders them susceptible to hacking; and (ii) as a result, AMD's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times."

Two security flaws or 'exploits' in particular are at the heart of the compliance lawsuit, plaintiffs say. "Meltdown" allows access to passwords and other information by splicing in between an operating system and an application, whereas "Spectre" causes applications to leak information between programs that are usually isolated from one another.

That allows for data to be more easily hijacked.

The stakes are high. Both identified exploits are believed to be accessible in every AMD chip made (as well as those of Intel), and carries the potential to put private data at risk. It has been estimated by experts that almost every Central Processing Unit (CPU) manufactured in the last 10 to 20 years, could be affected, according to the lawsuit.

Patches, and fixes devised by various companies to safeguard their data and injected into their systems as automatic updates have been variously described as slowing down CPUs anywhere from five, to 30 percent and thereby negatively impacting productivity and increasing levels of stress - especially in a busy work environment where many tasks are deadline-oriented.

Does reduced productivity and increased stress violate employee rights?

Employee rights come into play with regard to the provision of workplace computers that serve to hamstring their productivity, due to the slowness of CPUs to respond. This can impact job performance.

The complaint names AMD as well as Lisa T. Su, the CEO of Advanced Micro Devices and Devinder Kumar, the chief financial officer (CFO), senior vice president and treasurer for the company.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in mid-January and seeks to represent anyone who purchased or acquired AMD shares between February 21 of 2017 and January 11, 2018. It presents claims of violations against guidelines and requirements mandated by the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). Plaintiffs assert that defendants dropped the ball when it came to compliance requirements related to disclosure, resulting in false and misleading statements that may have impacted and falsely inflated the value of AMD stock, leading to losses.

The lawsuit is Does, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Lisa T. Su and Devinder Kumar, filed January 16, 2018 in US District Court for the Northern District of California. Named plaintiff(s), and the specific case number was not available at press time.

Former Employee of California Hair Care Company Sues for Harassment

Los Angeles, CA: Another well-known name has been hit with a harassment and discrimination lawsuit after the co-owner of a hair-care company based in California has been accused of sexual harassment. The charges are allegations only and have yet to be proven in a court of law. However, the harassment lawsuit follows in the wake of the #metoo movement that continues to gain momentum across North America.

The Daily Mail (02/05/18) reports the lawsuit was filed by a former employee of John Paul Mitchell Systems (JPMS), Tally Rossi. According to Court documents the plaintiff was employed as a media project manager with the enterprise. Rossi alleges she was coerced into a sexual relationship with the co-defendant, identified as Angus Mitchell, to which she consented as she feared for her job. Later, when Rossi attempted to get out of the relationship, she claims various examples of retaliation against her on the part of her employer, which eventually ended in her dismissal.

Plaintiff says she feared for her job

Rossi's harassment and discrimination lawsuit asserts that the trouble began in September 2015. The co-defendant had invited Rossi to share a glass of wine while Mitchell allegedly shared the details of what was described as a contentious divorce from his wife, Sian.

During this encounter, the plaintiff claims that Mitchell grabbed her and forcibly kissed her without her consent. The lawsuit alleges that Mitchell continued to pursue the plaintiff, convincing her to go out to dinner with him at some later date in spite of Rossi not being comfortable with the idea, the plaintiff says. Rossi asserts the co-defendant eventually pressured her into taking ecstasy and then "had sex with her," the complaint says.

The relationship - which was described as sexual - is alleged to have continued until January of 2016, when Rossi decided to end the relationship. As a result, Rossi claims she was subjected to various forms of retaliation by her employer, including instances of being "demoted and transferred," the complaint says.

"It was clear that plaintiff was being retaliated against for refusing to continue having a sexual relationship with defendant Mitchell," the complaint said. "Plaintiff was humiliated and felt bullied by defendants."

Plaintiff says she was paid to keep quiet

Rossi claims she spoke with Mitchell about the situation two months later, in March 2016, and shared with him the ill-treatment she was being subjected to in the workplace. The following day, the plaintiff and the defendant had one final sexual encounter before Mitchell allegedly begged Rossi "not to say anything" and proceeded to wire her the sum of $50,000 in cash, or so it is alleged. Rossi claims the payment was hush money, paid in exchange for her confidentiality.

The plaintiff, according to the lawsuit, shared the harassment and retaliation with the president of the firm a few days later. At that time Rossi was allegedly asked if "she wanted to leave immediately or at the end of the day."

Rossi took this as a constructive dismissal. The plaintiff proceeded to retain a harassment lawyer, and filed her harassment lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging harassment, retaliation and wrongful dismissal.

"Defendant Mitchell had a history of using defendant JPMS as a hunting ground to find women to date and have sex with," the complaint alleges. Mitchell is the son of JPMS co-founder Paul Mitchell.

The lawsuit claims discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex, failure to prevent harassment or discrimination, and constructive wrongful termination all in violation of California state law.

The lawsuit is Tally Rossi v. John Paul Mitchell Systems et al., Case No. BC692486, filed February 5 of this year in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

California Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Resort in Napa Valley

Napa Valley, CA: A wrongful termination lawsuit brought against a California resort is turning into a case of "he said, she said" in the early stages: the plaintiff suggesting he was fired from his job, while a public relations firm representing the defendant maintains the plaintiff resigned from his job voluntarily after attempts to renegotiate his terms of employment proved unsuccessful.

According to the Napa Valley Register (01/31/18), the plaintiff in the wrongful termination lawsuit is identified as Daniel Philbin (Dan). The plaintiff was employed as the Director of Facilities for Carneros Resort and Spa, located in the Napa Valley. In his capacity as Director of Facilities the plaintiff made various attempts, according to his wrongful termination lawyer, to ensure his employer complied with standards required by the American with Disabilities Act, as well as accurate reporting of water usage and the procurement of proper permits as required.

The plaintiff says he was fired out of retaliation

Philbin holds that in response to his overtures, Carneros let him go as a form of retaliation.

But that's not what Carneros says, according to the Register report.

A PR firm advocating on behalf of Carneros released a statement, suggesting that "the water issues alluded to in Dan's complaint long pre-date the current ownership. In fact, it was the new owners who brought the issues to the County's attention when they acquired the property in 2014. Since then, ownership has worked diligently and cooperatively with the County to resolve them, and think they are very close to a solution."

In sum, Carneros holds that Philbin's California wrongful termination lawsuit is without merit and is being driven by a personal agenda maintained by the plaintiff.

The defendant's advocate also held that Carneros addressed all concerns with regard to ADA issues once they were brought to the employer's attention.

Philbin's lawsuit however, disagrees with that statement. As a result in a change of ownership in 2013 much of the property has been renovated. In 2014, according to the lawsuit, the resort refused to install ramps between the deck and patio spaces, and also failed to install lifts at hot tubs and pools that would otherwise allow guests with disabilities to use those facilities.

While Carneros secured the necessary permit for the drilling of a new well in 2015, associated permits for subsequent electrical and water connections were not obtained, or so it is alleged. The plaintiff maintained there were other examples of work for which proper permits were not arranged, in spite of the plaintiff's personal overtures in his role as Director of Facilities that Carneros was duly required to obtain them.

Philbin claims he installed a new, more accurate water meter for the facility in 2013, prior to the ownership change. Three years later, the plaintiff noted an error in documents pertaining to water consumption submitted to the requisite municipality.

The plaintiff maintains all of his overtures fell on deaf ears. The lawsuit maintains that Philbin soon found himself shut out from important meetings, and things soon became convoluted after that, according to the wrongful termination lawsuit.

The defendants say the plaintiff tendered his resignation

The plaintiff had previously suggested that he focus exclusively on the resort's water issues given the importance of that portfolio, and hand the remainder of his duties to a colleague. After that proposal was rejected by the owners, Philbin was informed some weeks later that an outside vendor was being hired to manage the resort's water issues, while the plaintiff was offered the opportunity to remain with Carneros for a flat rate paid monthly.

Following a terse meeting with his immediate supervisor, identified as the CEO of minority owner Flynn Properties, the plaintiff mulled things over for about a week before accepting the flat-rate offer from his employer. Instead, according to the lawsuit, Philbin received notice that his resignation had been accepted, even though he had not issued his resignation, or so it is alleged in the wrongful termination lawsuit.

Philbin is requesting a trial by jury and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Register notes a case management conference is slated for early June.

The Carneros Resort and Spa was formerly known as the Carneros Inn. The facility is currently owned by GF Carneros Holdings, LLC, GEM Realty Capital, Inc. and Flynn Properties, Inc.

There was no specific case information available at press time. The California wrongful termination lawsuit was filed in Napa County Superior Court in December 2017.

The Takeaway from Conclusion of Long-running California ERISA Lawsuit

Los Angeles, CA: A California ERISA lawsuit that began life in the Golden State only to wind up in the highest court in the land was finally resolved this past August with a decision favoring the plaintiffs.

There is also a lingering message for retirement plan fiduciaries.

The lawsuit is Glen Tibble, et al v. Edison International, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05359-SVW-AGR, originally filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California. According to documents associated with the lawsuit the class action dates back to August 16, 2007 and took various twists and turns before finally achieving resolution.

Writing in Forbes (12/12/17), contributor Brian Menickella noted that the lawsuit grew from allegations made by former employees of Midwest Generation LLC – a subsidiary of Southern California Edison Company (SCE). The plaintiffs claimed that the basket of named defendants in the class action mishandled management of the employee 401(k) retirement plan, resulting in losses amounting to more than $7 million.

Under statutes observed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, as amended 1974), those tasked with managing an employee 401(k) plan are mandated to make all investment decisions with the best interests of Plan members first and foremost. Plaintiffs in the ERISA lawsuit alleged the Plan managers failed to do this, resulting in losses to the Plan.

Plaintiffs alleged Plan fiduciaries purchased the wrong type of shares

Specifically, Plan administrators were accused of purchasing retail shares of product in March of 1999 rather than institutional shares – the latter incurring lower fees than retail shares. Tibble et al also accused Edison et al of utilizing the monies from the retail shares to offset Plan management costs, which plaintiffs deemed was not in the best interests of Plan members – and thus a violation of ERISA.

While the district court duly ruled that three of the funds invested post-2001 should, indeed have been purchased as institutional shares rather than retail shares, at the same time some of the plaintiff’s claims were not allowed as they were time-barred by the statute of limitations as outlined in ERISA Section 1113.

Plaintiffs appealed the time-bar ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The case eventually was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, which subsequently found that the district court got it wrong by failing to consider the nature of the fiduciary duty required to have been followed by the defendants. The case was sent back to the district court, and the entire matter was finally resolved this past August.

Fiduciaries can no longer lean on time-barring as insurance against past errors

According to PLANSPONSOR (08/17/17), a respected newsletter serving the investment industry, the takeaway message for those tasked with fiduciary duties of 401(k) retirement plans can no longer operate against the cushion of time-barring for previous investment decisions that may have gone off the ERISA rails.

The California district court is described as taking the rulings from both the Ninth Circuit and the US Supreme Court to arrive at the determination that Plan fiduciaries had actually breached their obligations towards fiduciary prudence in the selection of all 17 funds at issue in the ERISA lawsuit.

Damages are to be calculated from 2011 to present day, “based not on the statutory rate, but by the 401(k) plan’s overall returns in this time period,” the Court said.

Defendants in the ERISA lawsuit were Edison International, Southern California Edison Company, the Southern California Edison Company Benefits Committee, the Edison International Trust Investment Committee, the Secretary of the SCE Benefits Committee, SCE’s Vice President of Human Resources, and the Manager of SCE’s Human Resources Service Center.

New Cal/OSHA Rules Came Into Effect in the New Year

Sacramento, CA: A new year often brings changes and updates to regulations requiring the attention of employers in order to avoid the scornful gaze of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (known variously as DOSH or Cal/OSHA). With the health and safety of employees coming into greater focus and scrutiny with each passing year, it behooves not only the employer to become conversant with the new rules, but also employees. To wit, an educated employee is better able to know if, and when his rights have been violated under OSHA if properly conversant with the rules, perhaps with help from a Cal/OSHA lawyer.

To that end the California state budget bill that came into effect at the first of the year also carries various updates to Cal/OSHA regulations any employer interested in avoiding a OSHA lawsuit would be wise to become familiar with.

As well as monetary changes in fines and penalties, Senate Bill 96 (SB 96) increases the window through which the Division of Occupational Safety and Health can investigate a retaliation claim. Under the old rules, Cal/OSHA had but 60 days to complete an investigation. Under updated rules, DOSH now has a full year to spend with the file.

As noted above, penalties are going up: the hit for repeated violations against Cal/OSHA on the part of employers rises from $70,000 to $124,709, while at the same time maximum fines for civic penalties increase from $7,000 to 12,471 for every violation deemed as not serious.

For industrial applications, maximums have been removed from fines levied for violations related to carcinogens or crane safety orders.

While the changes came into effect the first of the year, enforcement is not expected to occur until a public rule-making process has been completed.

Labor Commissioner starts the New Year with the issuance of citations

In the meantime, the Office of the California Labor Commissioner began 2018 with a citation issued against the owner of six residential care homes in Los Angeles for wage theft and other violations against the California Labor Code. According to a press release issued on January 9, Adat Shalom Board & Care, Inc. was assessed citations totaling over $7 million for the underpayment of wages and other penalties associated with 149 current and former employees providing care to elderly residents. The Labor Commissioner noted that some of those employees took home little more than $3 per hour.

“Adult care facilities require caregivers to work around the clock, making workers in this industry vulnerable to wage theft and exploitation,” said Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su, in a statement. “We encourage other residential caregivers to speak up and report wage theft if they are not paid for the work they do.”

The investigation was opened in June of last year. Amongst other violations, workers were not paid overtime and were not relieved from their duties in order to take rest break and meal periods.

You Win Some, You Lose Some: But Plaintiff Wants to Keep Winning

Los Angeles, CA: In a decision that will be of interest to any California resident intent on bringing individual wage and hour claims against an employer in addition to claims under The Private Attorneys General Act of California (PAGA), a three-judge appellate panel recently determined that any plaintiff having settled individual claims is barred from continuing with a claim under PAGA.

Employer Knowledge is Key to Avoiding FMLA Lawsuits

Sacramento, CA: It’s hard to fathom that the number of lawsuits over denied family and medical leave were found to be increasing last year, even though statutes such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) have been around for years.

However, that was the finding from a study conducted by the Center for Worklife Law at the University of California’s Hastings Law School in 2016.

Paid Family Leave (PFL) in California is another statue that augments existing leave provisions both federally (FMLA) and at the State level (CFRA). To that end, paid family leave has been around for no fewer than 14 years and known in the Golden State even longer, ever since the California State legislature first created paid family leave and gave administrative authority to the California Employment Development Department.

Thus, any employer denying a legitimate claim for paid family leave in California who pleads ignorance to the statutes, doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

What’s more, possessing intimate knowledge of both FMLA and CFRA does not necessarily dictate, or drive PFL. For example, FMLA and CFRA generally require employers with 50 or more employees to provide eligible workers unpaid time off to attend their own medical needs, or those of certain family members.

In contrast, the paid family leave program applies to all California employers, regardless of the size of their workforce.

Employers need to do their homework

Numerous industry watchers have opined that when a number of laws and statutes co-exist with one another – as is the case with FMLA, CFRA, the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Act (CPDL), and PFL – keeping track of all the various associations and overlaps takes some diligence. That said, the weight is on the employer to ensure human resource departments are up to speed on all the various nuances, lest the employer inadvertently cause a hardship to the employee that could result in a FMLA lawsuit.

For example, FMLA and CFRA guarantee reinstatement of their job to employees except when limited exceptions apply. Unlike the FMLA and CFRA however, there is no automatic reinstatement provision in the language governing paid family leave in California. The PFL exists as a funding program only: job protection, on the other hand, extends to CFRA or FMLA. Thus, an employer contemplating a reinstatement request and assuming he, or she does not owe the returning employee their job back, could be misinformed.

That’s because the PFL program does not eliminate the reinstatement requirements mandated by the FMLA, CFRA or CPDL. Even though the PFL, through which the employee has received paid leave benefits, does not guarantee job reinstatement – other laws under which the employee may be protected, does. In this way a misinformed employer could open themselves up for an FMLA lawsuit, or similar litigation under CFRA.

There are resources available

The State of California Employment Development Department maintains a website that is accessible to both employers and employees for guidance in either making claims, or in the case of the employer, facilitating claims.

Meanwhile, a blog appearing last year in the Huffington Post (06/14/16) raised the specter of the potential for discrimination on the part of the employer against an employee for simply being pregnant, wishing to take time to bond with an infant, or to care for an elderly family member. For those employees who allege discrimination or have been made to suffer by way of an unfair denial of legitimate family leave – paid or otherwise – an FMLA lawsuit or equivalent is often an appropriate response. And according to the Center for Worklife Law at the Hastings Law School, University of California, the aggregate success rate in FMLA litigation is higher than 50 percent.

Revelations of Discrimination and Harassment Extend Even to the Halls of Justice

San Jose, CA: The wide-ranging #MeToo movement that has seen scores of women calling out men for harassment, discrimination and other allegations of deplorable behavior has gone beyond media, entertainment and the hallowed Halls of Congress to encompass the judiciary. While there remain no harassment or discrimination lawsuits in the offing, two respected California news sources – including the Los Angeles Times (12/11/17) – nonetheless reveal various examples of behavior towards women, one wouldn’t expect to see in the Halls of Justice.