Court: Grocery Worker Regulation Does Not Violate California Labor Law

Los Angeles, CA The California Supreme Court recently ruled that a city law that strives to protect grocery workers in the state is not a violation of California labor code, reports The Associated Press.

According to the news source, the California Grocers Association had sued the city of Los Angeles after it adopted a regulation that hindered the ability of companies to replace workers under new ownership.

The 2005 grocery "worker retention" regulation was allegedly conflicting with other employment laws in the state and the rest of the country, the association claimed in the lawsuit.

However, the state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the regulation was "fully consistent" with both federal and state legislation, according to the news source. The decision reportedly represented a reversal of two previous rulings that had been made in lower courts.

"This is an important victory for tens of thousands of grocery workers who now don't have to worry about losing their jobs simply because of a corporate ownership change," said Roxana Tynan, deputy director of Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, reports the news source.

The news source reported that a call and e-mail sent to the association was not immediately returned.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the law is one of a number of regulations in California requiring companies to maintain workforces for a certain period of time after ownership changes hands.

The law in Los Angeles reportedly covered grocery stores in the city of at least 15,000 square feet, with new owners needing to hire back most previous employees for at least 90 days after the facility became operational under the new ownership.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, in writing for the court, said that the law did not interfere with other regulations and that it "applies equally to unionized and nonunionized workplaces," according to the news source.

"It does not selectively preserve or favor unionization or unionized workers; it simply preserves, temporarily, the status quo, whatever that might be," Werdegar explained.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, similar laws are in effect in other California cities including San Jose, Oakland, Emeryville and Berkeley, with some cities extending the regulations to hotel and airport workers.

California Labor Law Violations: Last-Day Pay and More…

Colton, CA Michelle put up with a lot at her job but stuck it out hoping that she would get promoted with better pay. She was promised $10 per hour but was paid minimum wage ($8 per hour according to California labor law); she worked through lunch without overtime pay and sometimes worked more than 12 hours per shift without receiving double-time compensation. But getting fired without just cause and not yet receiving her final paycheck was the last straw. It was time to call an employment attorney.

When the bakery hired Michelle - who is a cake decorator and has a culinary arts degree - last December, she wouldn’t have taken the job if it paid minimum wage, mainly because she had to drive one hour each way to work. “When I got my first paycheck I thought my hours were short but HR said I had to start at minimum wage because I was a new employee. After one month the manager sent me to the other bakery where I was supposed to start baking and decorating. Instead I was on customer service for five months.

“I pretty much stuck with the job, hoping it would turn into a better position. Many things improved and we started doing ‘market night,’ like a farmers market where local vendors sell their wares. The first night the manager's friend, who wasn't on payroll, was working. Everything I did was wrong in his eyes. Instead of arguing I stepped back and waited for either one of them to tell me what to do. Later that evening, my co-worker had to run back to the bakery for coffee and she left the cash box with me. ‘You aren't supposed to touch the cash box,’ my manager screamed at me in public - how embarrassing.

“Market night was an 11-hour shift without lunch. I found out that after five hours you are supposed to be paid time and a half, but we were only paid overtime after eight hours. A few days before the market night, we informed our manager that we weren't able to take a lunch break with this kind of set up. 'No problem,' she said, which we interpreted as getting overtime pay. (My fiancé and I checked the hours and overtime compensation with the California labor board and it clearly states overtime is due when you work through lunch…

“The next day my schedule was changed and I was sent back to the first bakery. When I talked to a co-worker, she informed me that I was “getting a second chance’ but at the same time, I was very talented and a good worker. I asked her if I was possibly getting fired. Apparently my work wasn't very professional at market night, but I was getting all this instruction from the “friend.’ I think that no matter what I did, it wouldn’t have been correct.

“Over the last three weeks I worked at both bakeries which meant more travel time. And I was given tasks that were making it impossible to do in one shift. A few days before Easter we were extremely busy and one night I worked overnight. My shift was supposed to be 1am-9am. Instead I worked until 1:30 pm - 12.5 hours. Again, I only got time and-a-half over eight hours, and again without lunch. My manager said I could take my lunch while making a delivery to the other bakery.

“The next night the same thing happened again, and at the end of my shift my manager asked if I could work longer.

“I didn’t know that they were violating the California labor law until last week, when they fired me. I have no idea why I was fired. ‘I want you to come in tomorrow and decorate and I will call you with your schedule,’ my manager said. I finally phoned her. ‘I removed you from the schedule permanently and we no longer need your services,’ she told me. When I picked up my belongings, my coworker said I was fired because I was ‘no longer a good fit.’

“Going through the California labor code, I found out employers are supposed to pay you right away when you are terminated. But it's been more than a week, and I still haven't received my last paycheck.

“I also heard that it is illegal to fire someone over the phone. According to my mother, the employee has to be called in and then released person-to-person. But she works at Chevron, so maybe that is Chevron’s rule…

“As for overtime, I am waiting to hear back from a wage and hour attorney to find out if I am legally allowed to request my time cards and all payroll information pertaining to me. And I am going to speak with an attorney before I phone the California labor board so I don't screw up anything with my case.”

California Labor Law: C&S Grocers Class Action—Again

Sacramento, CA A recent (February 2011) C&S Wholesale Grocers class-action lawsuit claims that the giant grocery chain deliberately cheated its workers to avoid paying overtime, and violated a number of other California labor laws. If you were employed by C&S Wholesale Grocers during the past four years or work for any company that has refused to pay overtime, and believe your California labor rights to overtime pay have been violated, read on...

C&S has to be one of the worst companies in the United States to work for. This latest class-action suit alleges that the second-largest wholesale grocery store supplier in the United States misclassified warehouse supervisors as exempt to avoid paying overtime, did not allow employees to take meal and rest breaks or pay them for these missed breaks, failed to pay them minimum wages, and failed to keep accurate payroll records and supply accurate wage statements.

Not only has C&S allegedly failed to pay its employees overtime pay, it has also been accused of punishing workers for mistakes on the job by decreasing their wages! Yes, this practice apparently takes place in the US today and not in Siberia during the 20th century. Pay decrease is prohibited under the California labor law and in every state where C&S operates.

C&S must have deep pockets, or believe it is above the law, or both: a nationwide class action in 2006 was filed by C&S employees seeking $750 million in unpaid wages and overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws in each of the 14 states, including California, where the company operates warehouses. This suit applied to workers who have been employed by C&S since 2000, with identical violations.

According to attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in 2006, C&S “violates federal and state laws by illegally chopping workers’ wages as punishment for mistakes on the job; failing to pay overtime; failing to pay for time worked in excess of 10 hours; failing to pay employees their agreed hourly rates; and encouraging employees to work off-the-clock and through lunch without pay.”

A lead attorney for the C&S employees said that “C&S punishes an entire team of workers for one person’s mistake. C&S employees work in 4-8 member ‘selection’ teams. If one team member makes an error, for example selecting a case of apple juice instead of grape juice, C&S collectively punishes everyone on that team and cuts their pay.”

Meanwhile, the company projected record revenues of $18 billion for 2006, thanks to their employees for making profits possible.

The Sacramento suit was brought on behalf of warehouse supervisors or employees who held similar job titles and/or performed similar job duties, and who worked for C&S in California from February 3, 2007, to the present. About 20,000 people are employed by C&S nationwide. In 2006, Forbes magazine listed it as the seventh-largest privately held company in the United States. Shame on you, C&S.

Was Worker's Death Due to Ignorance of California Labor Laws?

San Francisco, CA The very premise of California labor law dictates a number of assumptions: that workers will be paid fairly, that they will be properly trained, and that they ultimately have a safe environment in which to work. The latter tenet appears to have been lacking in 2008 when a young mother met a horrible death at a California printing plant.

Margarita Mojica was 26 at the time of her death two years ago when she became entrapped in a box creasing and cutting machine. She was 17 weeks pregnant at the time with her second child.

California labor code, as with many federal statutes, dictates not only the requirement that an employer provide a safe work environment, but also that a worker has a right to protest if he or she feels at any time in danger while on the job.

It is not clear if the victim was even aware of the potential for disaster while simply doing her job.

According to the October 19th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland wife and mother of a young daughter was preparing a box creasing and cutting machine to start a job at the facility to replace a cutting die. According to prosecutors she was leaning into the machine when it suddenly activated and closed like a giant clamshell around her.

It is alleged that the owners of Digital Pre-Press International (DPI) of San Francisco were employing a previously owned cutting and creasing machine originally purchased in 2003. It has been reported that workers at some juncture asked to have a safety bar removed from the machine to allow for the handling of thicker cardboard. Investigators say the safety bar was not reinstalled.

While it is unclear if the accident would have been prevented had the safety bar been in place, there are a number of allegations that suggest workers at the facility were not properly schooled in safety protocols according to the tenets of California and labor law.

Regulators cited DPI on two previous occasions, in 1998 and again in 2001, for failing to maintain a worker safety program. The owner of DPI, Sanjay Sakhuja, is reported to have communicated to regulators that he had a training program in place by 2002; and an insurance inspection in 2007 found no problems with the machines at the facility.

However, following the tragic death of Mojica, state regulators under California labor employment law issued no fewer than 14 citations against DPI for not training workers properly. While the plant was reported to have a written safety program, workers told regulators they were never instructed on machine safety.

Sakhuja, along with pressroom manager Alick Yeung, have each been charged with manslaughter and willful violation of California state labor laws. A wrongful death civil suit has since been settled, according to The Chronicle. The value of the settlement was reported to be $6 million.

California Overtime: Threatened and Harassed

San Diego, CA "I worked at a restaurant where the managers consider tips to be our overtime," says Cheryl. "We didn't get any breaks, nor were we allowed to bring food on the premises from another eatery. When I complained to my manager that they were violating the California labor law, I was laid off. Now my lawyer is filing a lawsuit against them."

Cheryl worked for three years at the restaurant, collecting minimum wage. She worked five days a week, eight hours per day. But on Friday and Saturday she worked from 5 pm until 2 am, and she wasn't paid overtime.

California law requires overtime after eight hours, and after 40 hours in the payroll week, plus double time over 12 hours and on the seventh consecutive day of work. As well, federal law requires overtime after 40 hours. In some cases, California law permits an employee to waive the requirement for overtime after eight hours if she does so in advance, and if she is legitimately working a four day, 10-hour per day schedule. But Cheryl never agreed to waive her overtime rights.

"When I complained to our general manager he said I should talk to my union rep, as a joke. We aren't unionized??"no one is in a union. My employers had their own dictatorship going on: they don't provide food for us but if we order from another eatery or someone picks up a sub or pizza from next door, we would be reprimanded. You aren't written up but you are told not to do it again. We don't get lunch breaks or any break. The smokers, however, can go outside for a smoke break, but I don't smoke.

"When I complained about not getting five-minute breaks, my manager told me to get back to work and call my union rep. I was written up the next day, complaining that I wasn't a team player, the other bartenders didn't like me and customers didn't like me - after three years! I was the original waitress; they went through so many staff, mainly because of these long hours without overtime. I'm definitely not the only one. Some of the girls were young and playful and they were in favor with the boss, but if you just want to work, you aren't a team player.

"I was fed up and filed a complaint with the labor board; I took my check stubs and schedules. Then I talked to the restaurant owner to find out if she knew how I was being treated. She said that overtime was time over 40 hours a week but not over eight hours a day. I told her that the California labor law changed a long time ago and overtime kicks in after eight hours in one day. She has other employees who should be paid overtime. She said she would be willing to pay if she owed me.

"The labor board figured out that I am owed over $1,000. The owner rebutted and said she owes me $88 and she paid me $100 - I could keep $12 as a settlement. That is when I went to a lawyer.

"The lawyer told me to dismiss this claim 'without prejudice' because the owner wrote a retaliation letter to the labor board saying I had personal problems and that I tried to extort money from her by saying the law had changed ages ago. My lawyer was so disgusted with the letter; he said I have a solid case.

"We were scheduled for a meeting at the labor board last week. My lawyer told me to put off the meeting - dismiss without prejudice - until he has time to get the paperwork together. He is going to file a suit on my behalf for slander and defamation of character. And I will discuss the question of overtime at our next appointment; he is going to include that too. This letter was so scathing, there is no way that she should get away with this.

"When I was at the labor board I heard so many stories similar to mine. People know jobs are scarce and they were in the same position as me--getting threatened and harassed, not getting breaks and not getting overtime. It's like I was working on a plantation - I wasn't even allowed to bring in my own food!"

Discrimination against a Senior Black Woman: a California Labor Law Violation

Pasadena, CA "It's not just about me," says Florene, 75. "There are lots of people who are discriminated against by Sodexo. My reason to file a complaint is to add my voice, because if people don't, this kind of behavior will continue. How can companies in the 21st century act this way?" Florene is not alone in claiming that Sodexo violated California labor laws.

In 2005 Sodexo settled to the tune of $80 million a discrimination lawsuit filed by thousands of black employees who charged that they were barred from promotions and segregated within the company. The giant provider of food and facilities management services also agreed to follow diversity and inclusion guidelines that would increase opportunities for African Americans to advance within the company. In fact, the Sodexo website states, "Sodexo's leadership in diversity and inclusion stems from our recognition that being a dynamic company requires people with rich backgrounds and diverse perspectives." A picture of two happy black people supplements the text.

Five years later, on April 27, 2010, community leaders and Sodexo workers testified at a press conference and released a new report scrutinizing Sodexo's progress.

None of this is news to Florene.

Discriminatory actions started even before Florene's first day on the job. "My friend, who is the general manager and got me the job, said I would start at $12 per hour. But when I met my supervisor, he said the job only paid $10.50 per hour.

"When I got this job I was so excited, like someone had thrown me a lifeline," says Florene, who had been out of work for some time. "My supervisor and a few co-workers made unreasonable demands on me, but I figured if they saw my efforts and hard work, they would get through this." Unfortunately, their racist behavior continued, with the obvious goal of forcing Florene to resign.

"I wouldn't resign. I knew I was doing a good job and I'm a hard worker, regardless of my age. My age doesn't bother me but others think if you are over 60 you can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I look and feel 55 but I don't have control over the calendar. I can easily work 40-hour weeks; I wasn't going to mess up this job.

"However, the complaints against me continued at weekly meetings. They wanted me to sign reports??"complaints about me??"but I wouldn't. The badgering continued. One person said, 'Why don't you just resign and maintain your dignity?'

"'Whatever it is you want, I will try to do that but I will not resign,' I told my supervisor. I complained to HR but they ignored me. I finally left, and for three days I was so overwhelmed that I couldn't leave my house.

"My friends said I should file a complaint, because I was also replaced by a 20-year-old. I believe I was discriminated because of my age and race. I know I was doing a good job and I was working very hard. The way I was treated indicates discrimination, and I know that is a violation of the California labor law. And discrimination must not be tolerated anywhere. I owe it to myself and others to file a claim against Sodexo. Certainly I need money, but this isn't just about the money. They are horrible people, and I am devastated by this.

"I get social security but we all know that isn't enough. I need to work because the cost of living is just too high. My job prospects aren't good and I'm struggling emotionally. And I'm not alone: lots of people are discriminated against within this company."

"We had a director at our unit actually refer to the employees as monkeys," writes George Spivey, a Sodexo worker at Georgia Tech. "It bothers me to even talk about it. I went to Human Resources to report a complaint. I don't know if they ever did an investigation."

"I worked with a chef who would pull down his pants, use the 'n' word, and always had this thing about 'you people' referring to us being different from him," said Rubynell Barbee, a Sodexo worker at Morehouse College. "I brought it up with Human Resources but they said since he was part black it was ok. I don't think that it's ok."

California Labor Law: Pause for Pregnancy

San Mateo, CA Federal laws regarding pregnancy discrimination have changed since 1992, thus making it easier to bring cases to trial, but pregnancy bias claims are growing: in 2006, almost 5,000 pregnancy discrimination complaints were filed with the US Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Pregnancy discrimination is a violation of the California Labor Law, and "strikes its victims at a time when they are quite vulnerable," said Joan Ehrlich, EEOC's San Francisco district director.

"Since I told my boss I am pregnant, he has threatened to fire me," says Clarety S. "I bartend at a private restaurant and everything was great up until now. He says I am not performing and if I get another write-up I will be fired." Clarety says the boss's wife has harassed her, "being rude and talking about me behind my back." Further into her pregnancy, Clarety became a bit limited in what she could do and the boss got madder. "I would try to sit with the servers and help fold napkins during my free time, just to help out and stay working but he would tell me to get up and go clean the bar. He got upset when we were setting up for a private party because I couldn't do heavy lifting." Clarety has numerous incidents documented such as this one…

Clarety was written up for not doing her duty. When she refused to do any heavy lifting, her boss said she was on "thin ice" and all she needed was three more write-ups then she would get her pink slip "and I would be out the door," she adds. "Then he told me he didn't care that I'm pregnant because if I have four write-ups I can get fired without having to worry about California labor laws. I feel like they are just trying to get me out the door so they don't have to worry about my maternity leave and hiring me back after I have the baby."

"The Christian school that I work for is terminating me because I am pregnant and unmarried," says Felicia G. "They claim that my pregnancy goes against my commitment as a Christian. "I have always received great reviews each year for my work performance at the school but now, the school official is requesting I sign a letter of mutual agreement of my termination. It offers me a $2,000 severance payment and payment of my health benefits (COBRA) until the end of my pregnancy. Due to this situation, I am under a lot of stress." Felicia wants to know if this termination is legal and whether she has to sign the termination letter even though she does not agree with their decision.

"The rise in pregnancy-related cases is part of a rise in motherhood cases," said law professor Joan Williams, director of the Hastings Center on WorkLife Law at the University of California. "Motherhood is a key trigger for gender discrimination," she said. And a reason for an increase in lawsuits is because times have changed: just a few decades ago, women felt privileged to be in the workforce, whereas today, women believe it is their entitlement, just as they are entitled to be good mothers. "When employers penalize them for getting pregnant or having children, young women tend to say, 'Hey, that's sex discrimination' and they are more likely to sue," says Williams.

A few examples:

In August 2007 the Fresno Bee reported that Radio personality Athena Matsikas filed a lawsuit against KHGE, FM 102.1, the local radio station where she served as a morning on-air personality since March 2006. The station fired Matsikas when she was eight months pregnant. Matsikas' lawsuit, filed July 27 in Superior Court in Fresno, alleges sex harassment; pregnancy discrimination; failure to maintain an environment free from harassment; negligent supervision, hiring and retention; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; sexual battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and retaliation. The Bee reported that, "according to Matsikas, the station offered her a three-month severance package and an extension of her insurance if she signed an agreement not to take legal action against the station. Matsikas says she didn't sign it."

A few months later, a separate lawsuit was filed against the news and financial services company Bloomberg, alleging the company demoted and reduced the pay of female employees after they announced their pregnancies and after they took maternity leaves. The EEOC said some women were replaced by more junior male employees. The lawsuit also alleges that the same pregnant women and new mothers were excluded from management meetings.

And In November 2007, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan agreed to pay $180,000 to a labor and delivery nurse to settle a lawsuit that claimed the woman's promotion was rescinded after she disclosed her pregnancy. The EEOC said two weeks before starting her new job??"a transfer from California to Maui--Margaret McIlroy disclosed her pregnancy and in less than 24 hours, she was told the offer had been withdrawn. McIlroy, who was 44 at the time, eventually lost her job. She and Kaiser also entered into a separate confidential agreement to settle her non-civil rights claims.

If you believe your employer has violated the California Labor law due to pregnancy discrimination, you must file a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year of the violation, in order to be able to file a lawsuit under the California Family Rights Act (in addition to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act). Or you can retain a lawyer and file a lawsuit yourself.

It is very important that you find out about California's state filing deadline so you may want to call a lawyer to find out what you need to do and when.

California Labor Law: Caution: Pregnant Women at Work

Paradise, CA The following accounts are about two pregnant women: Nancy refused to work around toxic chemicals and after much bickering and paperwork back and forth, she is still at working at the pizza parlor, on her terms. Tiffany wasn't so fortunate and believes she was fired because her employer didn't want her to take maternity leave and rehire her. She was unfairly discriminated against, which is contrary to the California labor law.

"Nancy was a few months pregnant and didn't want to be around all those fumes every night, plus she has asthma," says her husband Jorge. "She talked to her employers about it but they threw a fit so she brought them a doctor's note. They got even madder, saying it wasn't a real note and they were going to phone her doctor. Then they started telling other employees not to get pregnant like Nancy, just to try to get out of work."

Nancy was a shift manager and had never missed work, neither had she taken any sick leave. Her immediate boss treated her like a five-year-old and used tactics that a grade-school teacher in the past century might resort to. "On Sunday night he wrote in the log book that everything went well and nobody was harmed by fumes, just to ridicule Nancy," says Jorge. "He was definitely out to get her. He started telling people that he had 'a firing list and Nancy is on top.' As soon as Nancy told them she was pregnant, they were jerks to her."

"So we told the manager if this keeps up we would find a way to resolve the problem. Nancy wrote them a letter saying she was being discriminated against but they didn't do anything about it. Then she wrote an official letter to the main manager and he had to show it to the district manager. We don't know what happened behind the scenes but they sure changed their tune within a few days of receiving the letter." Nancy will soon be taking maternity leave and has been promised her job when she returns.

Tiffany was a certified trainer for El Torrito's and had worked there for just over a year when a new manager came on board. "As soon as the new manager found out I was pregnant, she became very nasty to me," says Tiffany," and fired me two weeks later."

The excuse the new manager used to get rid of Tiffany was an altercation that occurred between Tiffany and Odie, another server. "Odie started yelling at me so I told him to stop acting like an asshole," says Tiffany. Three co-workers witnessed the argument and heard everything Tiffany said. "I continued working in my section then when I got an order, I overheard Odie tell another manager that I called him a 'faggot'. I never said that.

Two supervisors told me just to ignore him and I worked for the next few days; I just brushed it off. I took Sunday off and I was scheduled to work Monday, but the new manager phoned and told me I was under investigation because I called Odie a 'faggot'. I told her my side of the story and that I had witnesses. That word has never come out of my mouth; I have many gay friends and I would never use this derogatory term.

So I decided to be sneaky. I called the hostess and asked if Odie was working. He was. A few days went by and I called work and asked what was going on. Nothing. Then I phoned corporate office. But Odie had also called corporate office and told his side of the story. They didn't believe me.

On Wednesday the manager told me to come in and bring my uniform. 'I am sorry, we have to let you go, here is your last pay check in cash,' she said. I started crying--I have never been fired from a job in my life. I couldn't believe it. My co-workers, the witnesses, are willing to vouch for me, but they were never asked to come forward, they were never questioned.

Right after I was fired, one of the witnesses told them she was pregnant??"she was fired as well.

I am petite and I was showing at almost five months. There was no way I could find another job. I applied to several places but who is going to hire a pregnant woman? I was on unemployment for about three months and after it ran out they wanted me to get on disability. My husband has a good job so I didn't apply.

I should have been given six weeks maternity leave from El Torrito's. I can't think of any reason to be fired other than the fact that they didn't want me to take time off. You would think they would have investigated. Instead they lied and didn't conduct any investigation. I went to the labor board and they said that since I worked for an at-will employer, I could be fired at any time. But I was wrongfully discriminated against so I believe I have a case??"my employer violated the California labor law."

Generally, if the plaintiff can establish she was discriminated against for being pregnant, the settlement value of the case is there. Who is going to say no to a pregnant woman? A pregnant woman should have a lot of leniency.

However, if you are pregnant and employed by a small business, you need to be careful regarding how you request limitations. Too often, when a pregnant woman begins to show, she is either terminated when she announces her limitations as prescribed by her doctor or expressed by her (as in Nancy's case when she didn't want to be around toxic fumes).

Larger companies have large HR departments and attorneys, and generally they are more sophisticated about pregnancies.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act states that:

It explicitly prohibits employers from harassing, demoting, terminating, or otherwise discriminating against any employee for becoming pregnant, or for requesting or taking pregnancy leave. The Act applies to all employers that regularly employed five or more full-time employees in the preceding year.

The California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law ("PDLL") is part of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and requires employers who employ 5 or more employees to provide employees who are disabled by their pregnancy a reasonable period of leave, not to exceed four months. An employee who is disabled by her pregnancy and entitled to PDLL leave may take the leave all at once, or in increments. An employer is not required to pay wages to an employee taking PDLL leave, unless it has a policy of continuing the payment of wages for other types of temporary disability leaves.

However, the employer may require the pregnant employee to use, or the employee may elect to use, any accrued sick leave during the period of leave. For most purposes, employees who are on pregnancy disability leave must be treated the same as employees on other types of disability leave in terms of pay, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. There is no length of service requirement, so even recently hired employees are eligible for this leave.

In addition, in California, once the employee has given birth she may be entitled to an additional 12-weeks of leave "for the reason of the birth of a child" under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), which is California's version of the FMLA. Entitlement to CFRA leave for birth of a child depends on, 1) whether the employer employs more than 50 employees within a seventy five mile radius; and 2) Whether the employee worked more than 1250 hours in the 12 months preceding the first day of the requested CFRA leave or any pregnancy disability leave; and 3) Whether the employee has more than one year of service with the employer.

If you have been discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy, you may be entitled to recover damages for emotional distress, lost wages, and more.

Worker Denied Tips Contrary to California Labor Law

San Diego, CA: All the service staff at the restaurant where Tuyen worked pooled their tips in the 'tip box' and the money was divided equally amongst all employees, including the hostesses and busboys, and the manager, at the end of the week. But when Tuyen gave her notice and asked for her share, her employer denied her any tip money??"two violations against the California labor law.

"My employer said the tips belong to the restaurant and they can split them however they please," says Tuyen, "even though when I was hired I was told that the tips would be spilt between all employees based on the numbers of hours they work and not the managers." Tuyen was fired after she gave notice (not surprisingly) and one of her co-workers said the tips were split equally amongst the rest of the staff a few days later. And Tuyen's tips were split equally too.

"After I kindly tried to explain to my employer that he didn't have the right to do that he was very rude to me and acted as if he and the restaurant are above the law," she says.

It would likely benefit Tuyen's employer to acquaint himself with the California labor law because it isn't just about protecting employee's wages and preventing discrimination, etc. One law protects employees who earn tips during their employment.

A customer tips an employee as a thank you for services given or goods sold. Tip pooling is common, particularly in restaurants and is usually at the request of the employer. All employees are required to combine all their tips and split the money among their co-workers. Under California law, tip pools are allowed when the tips are shared with employees who provide direct services that result in a tip. In a restaurant this would include hosts, servers, busboys and anyone else who provides direct table service. Chefs are only included in tip pooling in restaurants where the chef prepares the meals at the customer's table.

Tuyen is right when she told her employer that tips belong to the employees and not the restaurant. In fact, supervisors cannot share in tip pools because tips can only be shared with workers who do not perform any managerial duties such as hiring and firing or supervising the direct actions of their co-workers. And employers cannot deduct money from wages because of earned tips, nor can tips be used to compensate business owners.

Any tips that are made on a credit card must be paid to the employee by the next regular payday that follows the date the credit card payment was authorized. Employers must give their employees the full amount of a tip given on a credit card and may not deduct any credit card processing fees from the tip.

Tips are currently not considered part of a regular pay rate in California. In this way, California law differs from federal law in how tips are viewed. Under California law, "an employer cannot use an employee's tips as a credit towards its obligation to pay the minimum wage." Therefore, tips that are collected are over and above the required minimum wage pay.

Workers whose employers violate California labor law can file a lawsuit against their employers. In March 2008 Starbucks baristas did just that and a US Superior Court judge ordered Starbucks to pay its baristas more than $100 million in back tips that were paid out to their shift supervisors, saying that the practice of sharing tips with managers and supervisors was a violation of the state law.

The lawsuit was filed in October 2004 by a former Starbucks barista in La Jolla, California who complained that shift supervisors were sharing employee tips. In 2006, about 100,000 former and current baristas in the giant coffee chain's California stores joined the lawsuit that was granted class action status. Why did Starbucks think it was above the California labor law? Tuyen's employer might learn a lesson from the Starbucks lawsuit and settle sooner than later.

California Labor Law: Discriminated Against and Dismissed

Sacramento, CA Not only was Violeta wrongfully terminated; she was treated like a criminal and fired in the company's parking lot. "I am 57 years old and a Fillipino woman??"this new boss is bringing in students in their early 20s who work on call," says Violeta. He may be saving money for the company but it cost Violeta her livelihood.

"Getting fired really surprised me, we were all getting along at work," says Violeta. She worked for three years as a senior cook in the food services department for the Navy, Army and Marines. Everything was fine until two months ago when she got a new boss.

"I basically run the kitchen, especially when the manager is not there," she says. Which means that she has to give orders. "The boss cut back everyone's hours back except mine," she says. "They were working less than 30 hours a week and I continued to work 40 hours. This created a lot of tension and resentment. My co-workers filed complaints about me and one boy said that I pushed him. Another assistant said that I harassed them-but I was just telling them what to do??"that is my job.

After I explained everything to Rick, my boss, and I wrote everything down, he talked to the people who complained. The next day, Rick told me that this boy was on probation.

The following week, my boss said that he got another complaint and had to suspend me. After three days, he called me at home at 8.30am and asked me to come in at 10.30. 'Am I going to wear my uniform', I asked. 'No', he said. I was very worried about the outcome and asked my aunt to come with me. My boss and one of the cooks were waiting for me outside in the parking lot. He handed me my jacket and termination papers. No check.

'For the good of the company, I have to let you go,' he said. That was all. I was so shocked that I couldn't reply. He wanted me to sign the termination papers but my aunt told me not to sign anything.

He told me to bring my uniform back and call Rosa at HR in Los Angeles to determine how many hours I worked. Instead I went to the labor board and they said I don't have to call HR. Besides, it is long distance. The labor board tole me that my boss was supposed to have my check ready when I was terminated. The labor board said they would take care of it--that was May 5, 2008.

I think Rick fired me because he is bringing in new staff from his last restaurant job, such as the boy who said I kicked him (he was recently hired). I worked at this company for three years and I don't deserve this treatment. The soldiers even wrote me letters saying how hard I worked??"I kept the letters. I am owed more than $2,500: two weeks work and one year's vacation pay.

Meanwhile, I am trying to find work. I have missed a mortgage payment and now I am afraid that I might lose my house. I don't have medical insurance and have high blood pressure; getting fired has made me desperate. My aunt and I wrote to the labor commission and the governor, saying that I was wrongfully terminated and that they treated me like a criminal. Why did they fire me in the parking lot? I am so upset."