3 Cheers for Cheerleaders

Cheers for Cheerleaders: California has added labor code 2754 that now makes "cheerleaders" of a California based "professional sports team" an employee (and no longer an independent contractor). As an employee, cheerleaders have more rights and protections under labor code, unemployment insurance code, and FEHA. For more information, contact Campano Law Group at 661-945-5300 or via email at acampano@campanolaw.com

Workers' Compensation available regardless of immigration status

Workers' Compensation/Employment Update: California Labor Codes 3733 and 4756 ensure that an injured employee can get workers' compensation benefits regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Also, these codes are to apply retroactively. For more information, contact Campano Law Group at 661-945-5300.

Interview with Attorney Campano about California Prop #8

For Employers, to avoid a disability discrimination claim, these are questions not to ask person who is applying for work:

1. Do you have any particular disabilities?

2. Have you ever been treated for any of the following diseases or conditions?
3. Are you now receiving or have you ever received workers' compensation?”
4. What prescription medications are you taking?
5. Have you ever had a job-related injury or medical condition?
6. Have you ever left a job because of any physical or mental limitations?
7. Have you ever been hospitalized?
8. Have you ever taken medical leave?

Unemployment law update

Unemployment law update: Beginning July 1, 2015, people who wish to challenge an unemployment hearing decision have 30 days to appeal. It used to be 20 days.

How to comply with California's new paid sick leave.

Is there a way to comply with California’s new paid sick leave without violating this new law? Yes. (I probably would not ask the question if the answer was going to be no.)

One of the drawbacks (bad things for employers) with this new law is that the employer has to keep track of the hours worked by the employee and have the amount of accrued paid sick leave put on the paystub or some other writing to the employee. This can be too time consuming and confusing depending on a variety of things, such as the number of employees you have and when the employees started working for your company. For example, the more employees you have means more keeping track of hours worked and sick leave earned. And, when an employee started working for you affects the 90 day work requirement before paid sick leave can be earned.

The new law, however, does give an employer a chance to avoid these headaches in at least one way: by the employer offering paid sick leave (3 days or 24 hours) each year without the employee having to earn it every 30 hours as the new law requires. This way, the employer can be able to avoid having to keep track each pay period for sick leave earned and having to give the employee notice each pay period of how much paid sick leave has been earned because in theory in the employer has already complied with the new law and ensures its employees they have 3 days or 24 hours of paid sick leave available to them.

If you, as the employer, would like more information or assistance with putting together a policy to suit this new law, contact Attorney Angelo Campano at Campano Law Group at 661-945-5300 or by email: acampano@campanolaw.com.

An Employee refusing to sign a disciplinary memo can be fired and denied unemployment benefits.

            In many jobs, employers have written warnings or notices they give to employees who are believed to have violated a work rule. Typically, these warnings/notices have a place at the bottom where the employee is supposed to sign his/her name. Generally, it is so the employee cannot later on say they never knew of the warning/notice. Sometimes, the employee refuses to sign the warning/notice because it might be looked at like an admission of fault. In a recent case, one employee refused to sign his name, and was fired for not signing the warning/notice. The employee filed for unemployment benefits and was initially given benefits. The employer appealed that decision and the Appellate Court sided with the employer. The Appellate Court found the employee committed misconduct for not signing the warning.

            In Paratransit, Inc. v. Craig Medeiros, the fired employee filed for unemployment benefits. In California, an employee can be refused unemployment benefits if the unemployment judge finds the employee committed “misconduct”. In this case, the fired employee was granted unemployment benefits by the unemployment judge. The employer appealed, the case made its way to the Appellate Court, where the employer prevailed. The Appellate Court found the discipline notice/warning was a standard policy at work and signing the warning was required as part of the job. Further, the Appellate Court found that just below the signature line, it read “employee signature as to receipt”. The Appellate Court found, in this instance, that the employee signing the notice/warning was just to give the employee notice of the violation, not that the employee admitted fault.

            In the Paratransit, Inc. v. Craig Medeiros, the Appellate Court seemed to support the employer and find the employer’s actions reasonable. According to the Appellate Court, the discipline notice/warning was a part of the job, and the notice/warning made it clear that the employee signing his name was not an admission of fault. The Appellate Court found misconduct by the employee because the employee refused to comply with the employer’s reasonable work rules/policy of signing the warning/notice. With a finding of misconduct, the employee was denied unemployment benefits.

http://www.campanolaw.com/
acampano@campanolaw.com