If you find you're working the job of two people after surviving a layoff, you are not alone. More than a third of workers surviving layoffs report they are doing the job of two people: http://tinyurl.com/n7h24v
At least in California, this could mean that employers are not properly paying the remaining employees who were not laid-off. If you are a salaried employee, and are not paid for your overtime work, your employer may only require you to do work that is "exempt" from the overtime rules. Salaried employee are typically (1) involved in work that requires a professional degree (e.g., doctors, lawyers); or (2) spend more than half their day managing other employees or (3) spend more than half their day creating company policy.
When layoffs occur, and salaried employees are required to do the work of subordinate employees who were fired, the salaried employees may no longer be exempt from overtime because they are being forced to do non-exempt work. These cases are known as "mis-classification" cases, meaning that the employer has mis-classified the employee as salaried, in order to avoid payment of overtime.
As layoffs continue, more of these mis-classification cases will likely be filed.
Disclaimer: Nothing on this page is intended as legal advice; nor does the reading of this page create an attorney-client relationship. If you have a legal claim, or need to defend a claim, you are advised to seek an attorney immediately.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Court Overturns Grant of Summary Judgment in Pregnancy Discrimination Claim
A California appeals court overturned a lower court's grant of summary judgment in a pregnancy discrimination claim: The case is Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B198888A.DOC
Dewandra Johnson became pregnant and was taken off work by her doctor for one week. The day after she came back to work she was fired. At trial, she gathered declarations from other witnesses who were fired after disclosing to the company that they were pregnant.
The company claimed that Johnson was fired for time card fraud -- by claiming money for work on a day that she did not work. Plaintiff challenged the reasons for her termination, claiming that she was never disciplined for poor work performance, and that she did work on the day she claimed in her time sheets.
Plaintiff also presented declarations from other past employees who became pregnant and were fired shortly afterwards.
The trial court ignored these declarations, and granted the employer summary judgment, meaning that plaintiff's case was thrown out before she could get a trial.
The appeals court overturned that decision, and handed employees an important victory. In this case, the court ruled, there was enough evidence, given the timing of the termination, the evidence of other women also being fired, and plaintiff's evidence disputing the time card issue, for the case to go to trial and be decided by a jury.
From an employee's perspective there are other lessons to draw from this case. If an employer wants to fire you, they will find a way to do it. "Time card fraud" is a recurring reason used by employers to fire employees. And, even if you think you have a strong claim, and a good lawyer, you never know whether you will get a good judge.
Ms. Johnson was fired in August, 2005. The case will now go back to the trial level for a jury trial -- almost four years later.
Disclaimer: Nothing on this page is intended as legal advice; nor does the reading of this page create an attorney-client relationship. If you have a legal claim, or need to defend a claim, you are advised to seek an attorney immediately.
Dewandra Johnson became pregnant and was taken off work by her doctor for one week. The day after she came back to work she was fired. At trial, she gathered declarations from other witnesses who were fired after disclosing to the company that they were pregnant.
The company claimed that Johnson was fired for time card fraud -- by claiming money for work on a day that she did not work. Plaintiff challenged the reasons for her termination, claiming that she was never disciplined for poor work performance, and that she did work on the day she claimed in her time sheets.
Plaintiff also presented declarations from other past employees who became pregnant and were fired shortly afterwards.
The trial court ignored these declarations, and granted the employer summary judgment, meaning that plaintiff's case was thrown out before she could get a trial.
The appeals court overturned that decision, and handed employees an important victory. In this case, the court ruled, there was enough evidence, given the timing of the termination, the evidence of other women also being fired, and plaintiff's evidence disputing the time card issue, for the case to go to trial and be decided by a jury.
From an employee's perspective there are other lessons to draw from this case. If an employer wants to fire you, they will find a way to do it. "Time card fraud" is a recurring reason used by employers to fire employees. And, even if you think you have a strong claim, and a good lawyer, you never know whether you will get a good judge.
Ms. Johnson was fired in August, 2005. The case will now go back to the trial level for a jury trial -- almost four years later.
Disclaimer: Nothing on this page is intended as legal advice; nor does the reading of this page create an attorney-client relationship. If you have a legal claim, or need to defend a claim, you are advised to seek an attorney immediately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
