-2nd District Publishes CalPERS Decision on Oxnard Finance Chief's Pension-

A California appellate court published its September decision denying the former City of Oxnard finance chief's request to use his $875,000 wrongful termination settlement to increase his CalPERS retirement pension.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal granted published status to its Sept. 29 decision in Molina v. CalPERS. In that case, the appellate court affirmed a decision by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) to bar Phillip Molina from using his $875,000 settlement to help calculate his retirement pension.

Molina is the City of Oxnard's former director of finance and administrative services, and he was terminated from his position in 1999. After suing the city for wrongful termination, Molina and the city settled the case for $875,000.

Molina requested that CalPERS factor the settlement into his retirement pension, but CalPERS refused, concluding that the $875,000 was not "earnable compensation." An administrative law judge affirmed the decision, and determined that the settlement was not "payrate" or special compensation under CalPERS. Both the Los Angeles Superior Court and the 2nd District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Molina v. CalPERS - published on October 24, 2011

The court's decision is available at this link:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B222370.PDF
 

December 20, 2011

-Diabetic Condition Not Severe Enough to be a "Disability"-

A federal appeals court ruled that a diabetic postal worker could not sue his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act because his diabetes did not qualify as a disability.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals released a published opinion in Griffin v. USPS stating that an employee's diabetic condition was not a "disability" as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), because it did not substantially impair his lifestyle. The court issued the opinion on Oct. 19.

Rommel Griffin, the plaintiff, had sued his employer for allegedly discriminating against him because of his disability in violation of the ADA. The 5th Circuit concluded that Griffin did not prove that he actually had a disability.

The court cited a prior case entitled Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, for the general rule that the question of whether a person's diabetes actually qualifies as a disability hinges upon the degree of the disability. Citing the fact that Griffin could largely control his diabetes simply by avoiding overeating and sugary foods, the court ruled that Griffin's diabetes was not a "disability" as defined by the ADA.

Griffin v. USPS - filed October 19, 2011

The court's decision is available at this link:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/10/10-30854-CV0.wpd.pdf
 

December 20, 2011

-California Court: Handful of Sexual Harassment Instances is Insufficient-

The occasional isolated insult is insufficient to establish a claim for a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim, a California appellate court ruled on Oct. 18.

The 4th District Court of Appeal issued a new ruling describing the standard for a hostile work environment sexual harassment suit, in Brennan v. Townsend & O'Leary Enterprises.

The plaintiff, Stephanie Crowley Brennan, worked at an advertising agency for approximately 15 years when she resigned due to a disagreement over her complaints of sexual harassment. She sued the agency for hostile work environment sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and won a $250,000 jury verdict.

The ad agency filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court granted. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant and the 4th District Court of Appeal affirmed.

The appellate court recited prior California case law stating that in order to pursue a sexual harassment claim, the harassment must be so pervasive that it altered the conditions of employment and created an abusive work environment. In order to show "pervasive" harassment, the plaintiff must prove "a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a generalized nature."

The court determined that Brennan's suit only featured a handful of instances where she or other workers were allegedly harassed, which included an email, and three events over about four years. Brennan had also alleged that the agency's owner occasionally asked her about her sex life during casual conversation.

Brennan v. Townsend & O'Leary Enterprisees - filed October 18, 2011

The court's decision is available at this link:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G042398.PDF
 

December 20, 2011

-EEOC Sues Employer for Terminating Morbidly Obese Man-

A morbidly obese man is pursuing a disability discrimination lawsuit against his employer for terminating him because of his weight, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it has filed a suit in federal court on behalf of Ronald Kratz, which contends that his employer terminated him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Kratz weighs approximately 680 pounds.

The EEOC contends that BAE Systems, Kratz's employer, terminated him because of his obesity and replaced him with a person who was not morbidly obese. The agency alleged that Kratz was qualified to perform his job, his obesity is a disability covered by the ADA, and that BAE failed to engage in any discussion with Kratz about whether reasonable accommodations were available that would have allowed him to continue at his job.

"The law prohibits an employer from firing a morbidly obese worker who can perform his essential job duties, with or without reasonable accommodation," said R.J. Ruff, district director of the agency's Houston District Office. "Mr. Kratz had a good performance rating and did not deserve to be fired."

**(Warning: This article describes an unresolved lawsuit, which is not citable in court. This article has been posted for informational purposes only.)

- filed September 27, 2011

For more information, go to the EEOC's website at this link:
http://www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/newsroom/release/9-27-11a.cfm?renderforprint=1
 

December 20, 2011

-Brown Signs Bill Protecting Job Applicants-

Gov. Edmund "Jerry" Brown signed a law protecting job applicants from the practice of having their own credit reports used against them by employers on Oct. 10.

The California governor signed Assembly Bill 22 into law on Oct. 10, which limits private employers' ability to use consumer credit reports for legitimate employment purposes.

The bill does allow employers to use consumer credit reports if the job is: - A position in the state Department of Justice.
- A managerial position.
- A law enforcement position.
- A position where there credit report is required by law.
- A job that involves regular access to specified personal information, not including credit card applications in retail stores.
- A position where the employee would be a named signatory on an employer's financial account.
- A job that requires access to confidential or proprietary information.
- A position that involves regular access to more than $10,000 in cash.

The bill is available at this website:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_22_bill_20110920_enrolled.pdf
 

December 20, 2011

-Teacher Obtains $25k Settlement With Help From the EEOC-

A teacher will receive a $25,000 settlement after suing a school district for refusing to make her an assistant principal because of her age.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it reached a settlement with Thomasville City Schools in Thomasville, N.C., on behalf of Arlene Lent, a teacher in the district.

Lent, 54, alleged that the district twice decided not to hire her for two assistant principal positions because of her age, and instead opted to select two younger and less qualified candidates. The lawsuit alleged that Lent met all of the minimum qualifications for the positions, whereas neither of the two younger candidates did. Despite the suit, Lent has continued teaching in the same school district.

The EEOC noted that the settlement also requires the school district to prevent future discriminatory acts, providing training on preventing age discrimination, and to report its hiring practices to the EEOC. Age discrimination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects employees 40 and older against age discrimination.

**(Warning: This article describes a settlement of a lawsuit, which is not citable in court. This article has been posted for informational purposes only.)

- filed October 13, 2011

For more information, go to the EEOC's website at this link:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-13-11.cfm