Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP

  • Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Our Work
  • Blog
  • Contact

The Top Five Wins for Workers’ Rights in 2014

Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin

The Employee Matters marks the end of 2014 with a“Top Five” list.  Interest in “Top Ten” or “Top Five” lists is so immense that psychologists have even coined the term the “Top Ten Effect,” to describe the “bump” that items on such a list receive in terms of sales.  A list of the top developments in employment law may not cause a run on any stores, but policy makers and working people should take note (drum roll please) as we now count down the list of five developments that will change the landscape of employee rights as we enter the new year.

No. 5:  New California Law Says Proof of Sexual Desire is Not Required to Win Sexual Harassment Claim

The California Legislature deserves recognition for a new law that strengthens protection against sexual harassment on the job. For years, employers have tried to defend against sexual harassment claims by arguing that the harassment, although boorish, was not illegal because it was not based upon sexual desire.  This “defense” goes something like this — The boss who “joked” with his female subordinate about hopping over to a motel for the night wasn’t actually attracted to her, so that couldn’t be sexual harassment.  Or as the employer claimed in one infamous case, the ironworkers who hazed a new guy on the crew with threats of sexual violence couldn’t have perpetrated sexual harassment since they were all straight.  Earlier this year, the California legislature took away this excuse when it amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act to specifically provide that “sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.”  These few short words will provide powerful protection for victims of workplace sexual harassment.  As important, the change reminds employers and the courts that sexual harassment is about abuse of power, not sex.

No. 4:  California Supreme Court Guarantees that Undocumented Workers are Protected Against Discrimination

The California Supreme Court took aim at the hypocrisy of employers who hire and exploit undocumented workers. It has often been noted that low wage workers, regardless of their immigration status, are frequent victims of workplace violations. Undocumented workers, fearful that any complaint regarding a violation of these rights might result in their deportation, are a particularly vulnerable group.  This year, in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Company, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer who discriminates or retaliates against an undocumented worker can be held liable. While the case limits the damages available to these employees, it does provide that employers who violate the workplace rights of undocumented employees will be held accountable for their actions.

No. 3:  Public Awareness and Outrage are Building against Wage Theft as Employee Rights are Vindicated in High Profile Cases

While the phrase “wage theft” has been around for years to describe employers who fail to pay overtime or other wages earned by their employees, a number of cases in 2014 have raised public awareness and built public outrage regarding the all-too-common practice of employers forcing employees to work without pay.  Studies suggest that employers are ripping their workers off to the tune of more than $50 billion annually.

The year began with a high profile wage-theft story from an unlikely quarter with the filing of a class action lawsuit against the Oakland Raiders by one of their cheerleaders, Oakland Raiderette Lacy T. The lawsuit sparked similar lawsuits at four other NFL franchises and, as important, a national conversation about wage theft.   In March, seven class action lawsuits were filed across the country against MacDonald’s on behalf of workers in the fast food franchise restaurants alleging its franchises did not pay employees for all hours worked and forced them to work through breaks. Challenges to wage theft kept rolling throughout the year.  In November, employees of Yank Sing, a high end San Francisco dim sum restaurant recovered a landmark settlement through the California Labor Commissioner — $4 million in back pay and benefits for “blatant” wage theft. These high profile lawsuits have increased public awareness of wage theft and their examples serve as a deterrent to future wage theft.

No. 2:  National Labor Relations Board Opens the Door for Retail Workers to Organize by Department

The federal administrative agency that oversees labor-management relations also took steps to level the playing field for workers in 2014.  In July, the NLRB issued a decision that makes it far easier for unions to get a foothold in large retailers, including Walmart.  In a case involving Macy’s department store, the NLRB ruled that the United Food and Commercial Workers could organize a subgroup of 41 cosmetic workers at a 150-employee store.  Before this change, unions faced huge challenges because they were required to win storewide votes.  As of 2013, only 4.6% of workers in the retail industry were members of unions, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.   That’s down from more than 6% in 2003.  The UFCW is campaigning to organize retail workers at stores like Bloomingdales, Macy’s, Target and, of course, Walmart.

No. 1:  Increases in Minimum Wage for Workers 

Without question, the movement that gained the most momentum this year for workers was the campaign to increase the minimum wage.    President Obama called upon Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour, and signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for new federal contract workers.  Unfortunately, the gridlocked Congress did not act to increase the minimum wage that applies to all workers around the nation. However,  eleven states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia did raise their minimum wage.

As of January 1, 2015, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia will have minimum wages that exceed the paltry $7.25 per hour that workers earn under the federal minimum wage.  The highest minimum wage in the nation is in the District of Columbia, where the minimum wage is $9.50 an hour.  And, by January 1st, six other states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) will have legally mandated minimum wages of at least $9.00 an hour. While significantly more work remains to be done in this area, increases in the minimum wages are a meaningful development for millions of low-wage workers in this country.

So, as the year 2014 comes to a close, let’s toast these advancements for workers and rededicate ourselves to improving the working lives of all employees in the new year.

This post, authored by Sharon Vinick, originally appeared in the CELA VOICE, a project of the California Employment Lawyers Association.

Related Posts:

  • If working from home is affecting your mental health, it's time to ask for accommodation
  • California Corrections Department to pay $2.3 million to decorated special agents for claims of unrelenting gender bias
  • Rape Survivor’s Lawsuit Leads to New Rules for Preventing Sexual Assault for Major School District
  • LVBH wins appellate victory for courageous #MeToo survivor

More Posts

  • LVBH client settles lawsuit against San Rafael City Schools

    LVBH client settles lawsuit against San Rafael City Schools

  • LVBH clients featured in Berkeleyside article

    LVBH clients featured in Berkeleyside article

  • Wendy Musell interviewed on pay disparities

    Wendy Musell interviewed on pay disparities

  • LVBH honored with Distinguished Service Award by the Alameda County Bar Association

    LVBH honored with Distinguished Service Award by the Alameda County Bar Association

  • Special Agent with over 25 years of experience in law enforcement sues California Department of Justice, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation at California Bureau of Investigation

    Special Agent with over 25 years of experience in law enforcement sues California Department of Justice, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation at California Bureau of Investigation

  • LVBH proudly announces Leticia Chavez as an associate of the firm

    LVBH proudly announces Leticia Chavez as an associate of the firm

  • Daily Journal turns the spotlight on LVBH

    Daily Journal turns the spotlight on LVBH

  • Hilary Hammell discusses employer vaccine mandates in KPFA Radio interview

    Hilary Hammell discusses employer vaccine mandates in KPFA Radio interview

  • LVBH wins appellate victory for courageous #MeToo survivor

    LVBH wins appellate victory for courageous #MeToo survivor

  • Hilary Hammell quoted in Aljazeera report on Tesla racism trial in San Francisco

    Hilary Hammell quoted in Aljazeera report on Tesla racism trial in San Francisco

Tags

#metoo award civil rights class action COVID defamation disability discrimination employee rights employment arbitration agreements employment law employment lawyer blog equal pay ethnicity harassment failure to prevent harassment family medical leave forced arbitration gender discrimination human resources immigrant rights mandatory arbitration medical leave retaliation minimum wage misclassification national origin harassment Oakland Raiders cheerleader lawsuit personnel file public employees race discrimination racial harassment reasonable accommodation retaliation retaliation lawsuit sacramento sexual abuse sexual assault sexual harassment Super Lawyers uc regents University of California wage and hour wage theft whistleblowers women lawyers working families wrongful termination

LVBH Logo

CONTACT US

510-318-7700
info@levyvinick.com

Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612

  • Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Our Work
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Press Releases

Copyright © 2022 Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams · website: Amanda McCoy · Log in

Disclaimer

Nothing in this website is intended in any way to form an attorney-client relationship or any other contract. It is designed solely to provide general information about the practice at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP.

Be mindful of any deadlines you have approaching that relate to your legal situation, and make sure that you meet them. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP does not assume any responsibility for advice given regarding any aspect of your case until you have a signed legal services agreement engaging the firm’s representation.

Though the firm provides free initial consultations, the firm retains complete discretion in every case to decide whether or not to provide a consultation to any person. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP makes no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about your case, and past success at the firm does not ensure future results will be the same.

Disclaimer

Nothing in this website is intended in any way to form an attorney-client relationship or any other contract. It is designed solely to provide general information about the practice at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP.

Be mindful of any deadlines you have approaching that relate to your legal situation, and make sure that you meet them. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP does not assume any responsibility for advice given regarding any aspect of your case until you have a signed legal services agreement engaging the firm’s representation.

Though the firm provides free initial consultations, the firm retains complete discretion in every case to decide whether or not to provide a consultation to any person. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP makes no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about your case, and past success at the firm does not ensure future results will be the same. The photos on this website do not reflect actual attorney-client interactions.