EMPLOYMENT LIABILITY UPDATES 
written by Jason A. Geller

Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi 125 S.Ct. 1536 (2005). 
April 12, 2005 [Issue 139] 

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") authorizes recovery in disparate impact cases comparable to Title VII. 

ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (Cal.App.4th Dist., February 14, 2005) 05 C.D.O.S. 1336. April 7, 2005 [Issue 138] 

Trial court properly enjoined former healthcare staffing company employee from soliciting employees based on admitted use of confidential information and trade secrets. 

McRae v. Department of Corrections (March 18, 2005) 05 C.D.O.S. 2327. March 31, 2005 [Issue 137] 

The California Court Of Appeals Clarifies The Applicable Standard For What Constitutes An “Adverse Employment Action” in Retaliation Cases. 

Krell v. Gray (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., Feb. 16, 2005) 05 C.D.O.S. 1401. March 31, 2005 [Issue 136] 

The Court May Enjoin Activities Constituting Unlawful Harassment, Even Though the Injunction May Be a Prior Restraint On Speech.

Moran v. Murtaugh, Miller, Meyer & Nelson, LLP (01/31/2005) 05 C.D.O.S. 964.
March 15, 2005 [Issue 135]

An Employer Who Conducts Its Own Background Check Of An Employee Must Deliver The Results Of The Check To The Employee Within A Reasonable Time.

Starving Students, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (January 24, 2005) 5 C.D.O.S. 676. March 3, 2005 [Issue 133] 

Employers Who Fail To Secure Workers' Compensation Insurance From A Carrier Authorized To Issue Such Insurance In California Are Subject To Mandatory Penalties of Up To $100,000, Regardless Of Fault.

Employers are required to post a new notice of employees’ rights under USERRA. February 18, 2005 [Issue 132] 

Federal Law 

Al-Safin v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. 05 C.D.O.S. 435 (January 14, 2005, 9th Cir.) February 18, 2005 [Issue 131] 

An arbitration agreement that allowed the employer to alter the rules and procedures of the arbitration was “unconscionable” and unenforceable.  

The EEOC obtains a jury verdict of nearly $1 million on behalf of a farmworker in the Fresno, California area. 
January 27, 2005 [Issue 130] 

Federal Law 

Multi-step grievance procedure in agreement between union and employer satisfies the employee’s right to due process, even though it vests the union with the exclusive authority to decide whether to request arbitration of a grievance. January 26, 2005 [Issue 129] 

Jones v. Omnitrans (4th App. Dist., Dec. 23, 2004) No. E035295, 2004 WL 2966496 

Cal-OSHA Provisions Are Admissible In Negligence Actions Against Non-Employer Third Parties To Prove The Applicable Standard Of Care For Injuries Occurring After 1998. January 12, 2005  
[Issue 128] 

Elsner v. Uveges 04 C.D.O.S. 11146 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Dec. 20, 2004)  

Temporary Agency's Arbitration Agreement Does Not Apply to Job Applicants Who Were Not Hired. January 11, 2005 [Issue 127] 

Balandran v. Labor Ready, Inc., 04 C.D.O.S. 11152 (2nd App. Dist.; Dec. 17, 2004) 

Employer who reneges on job offer after offeree quits his old job in reliance thereon may be liable for "lost future wages," even if former employment was at-will, as long as the lost wages are not speculative or remote, and are supported by substantial evidence. January 7, 2005 [Issue 126] 

Toscano v. Green Music 04 C.D.O.S. 10585 (4th App. Dist.; Dec. 2, 2004) 

DLSE Opinion Letter May Qualify as Improper Administrative Regulation. January 7, 2005 [Issue 125] 

Westside Concrete Co., Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, et al. 04 C.D.O.S. 10077 (2004) 

The burden-shifting analysis under "McDonnell Douglas" is not applicable when plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination. January 7, 2005 [Issue 124] 

Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc. 389 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2004) 

An employee is not entitled to family medical leave for a “serious health condition” because her work shift created stress. December 16, 2004 [Issue 123] 

Lonicki v. Sutter Health Hospital 04 C.D.O.S. 10914 (December 13, 2004, Cal.App.3 Dist.) 

Employer's appeal of award of wages was properly dismissed for failure to post bond. December 16, 2004 [Issue 122] 

Williams v. FreedomCard, Inc. 04 C.D.O.S. 9668 (2004 Cal.App.2 Dist.)  

Amendment to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) imposing personal liability on non-supervisory personnel for sexual harassment does not apply retroactively. December 7, 2004 [Issue 121] 

McClung v. Employment Development Department (2004) 34 Cal.4th 467. 

An Employee Who Is Hired To Perform A One-day Assignment Is Not Entitled To “Waiting Time” Penalties Under The Labor Code. December 1, 2004 [Issue 120] 

Smith v. Superior Court (L’Oreal) (2004) 04 C.D.O.S. 9303 

The Federal Government Publishes Final Regulations Governing Requirements for Providing Employees With COBRA Notices. December 1, 2004 [Issue 119]  

California Mandates That Certain Employers Provide Supervisors With at Least Two Hours of Sexual Harassment Training. 
December 1, 2004 [Issue 118] 

Assembly Bill 1825 

Carter v. California Department of Veterans Affairs 04 C.D.O.S. 7511 (August 17, 2004, Cal.App. 4th Dist.) September 9, 2004  
[Issue 117] 

The Amendment To The California Fair Employment and Housing Act Did Not Impose Retroactive Liability On Employer For Sexual Harassment By Non-Employee. 

Governor Schwarzenegger Reforms Labor Code Section 2698 (The "Sue Your Boss" Law) September 9, 2004 [Issue 116] 

Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. 04 C.D.O.S. 5887 (June 30, 2004, Cal.App.4 Dist.) August 19, 2004 [Issue 115] 

The Court Of Appeal Holds That There Is No Claim Against A Private Employer For Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy Based On Employee's Exercise Of Free Speech Rights. 

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (June 14, 2004) 124 S.Ct. 2342, 4 C.D.O.S. 5110  August 19, 2004 [Issue 114] 

An Employee's Claims For "Constructive" Discharge May Be Barred If The Employee Fails To Take Advantage Of The Employer's Internal Preventative Procedures. 

Waste Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (Peralta) 04 C.D.O.S. 4719 (June 1, 2004, Cal.App.4 Dist.) August 19, 2004 [Issue 113] 

An Employee's Accidental Death Cannot Be Attributed To The Parent Corporation Based On Control Over The Budget Of The Subsidiary Employer.  Plancarte v. Guardsmark, LLC (2004) 04 C.D.O.S. 4108. 
August 19, 2004 [Issue 112] 

Defending An Employee In A Lawsuit Does Not Amount To Ratification Of The Employee's Wrongful Conduct.  

The Department Of Labor Brings Wages And Hours Into The 21st Century: Important Changes To The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. June 17, 2004 [Issue 111] 

Martinez v. Master Protection Corp. 04 C.D.O.S. 3744 (April 29, 2004, Cal.App.2 Dist.) May 13, 2004 [Issue 110] 

Employment Arbitration Agreement Found To Be "Unconscionable" And The Trial Court Lacked Authority To Appoint An Arbitrator After The Parties' Chosen Arbitrator Refused To Conduct The Arbitration.  

Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 212 
May 13, 2004 [Issue 109] 

An Employee Who Pursues An Administrative Remedy To Recover Overtime Compensation Is Not Entitled To Attorneys' Fees Incurred In Pursuing The Administrative Claim. 

Salazar v. Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (2004) 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 630 
April 23, 2004 [Issue 108] 

2004 Amendment To FEHA That Makes Employers Liable For Harassment By Non-Employees Applies Retroactively. 

Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Company 04 C.D.O.S. 2442 (March 23, 2004, 9th Cir.) March 26, 2004 [Issue 107] 

An Employer May Violate The Americans With Disabilities Act By Refusing To Re-Hire A Recovered Drug Addict. 

Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Massie 04 C.D.O.S. 2227 (March 11, 2004, Cal.App.4 Dist.) March 26, 2004 [Issue 106] 

The Federal Arbitration Act Prevents The Labor Commissioner From Pursuing Remedies That Are Employee-Specific Where The Employee Has Entered Into An Enforceable Arbitration Agreement With The Employer.  

Leever v. City of Carson 04 C.D.O.S. 1937 (March 4, 2004, 9th Cir.) 
March 26, 2004 [Issue 105] 

Agreements To Waive Overtime Pay Must Take Into Account Some Approximation Of Overtime Hours Employee Works To Be Valid. 

Chapman v. Enos 04 C.D.O.S. 2132 (March 10, 2004, Cal.App.1st Dist.) March 18, 2004 [Issue 104] 

A “Supervisor” Within The Meaning Of FEHA Can Be One Who Directs The Daily Job Duties Of The Plaintiff. 

Laura Mathieu v. Norrell Corporation, et al. 2004 WL 309175 (February 19, 2004, Cal.App.2 Dist.) March 18, 2004 [Issue 103] 

A Temporary Staffing Agency Is Held Liable For Retaliation Arising Out Of Conduct By An Employee Of Its Client.  

General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline (February 24, 2004) 2004 WL 329956 (U.S.) March 9, 2004 [Issue 102] 

Discrimination against relatively younger employees who are over the age of 40 is outside the protection of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  

Blitz v. Fluor Enterprises (January 26, 2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 185 
March 3, 2004 [Issue 101] 

A Verbal Agreement To Provide "Long-term Employment" May Defeat "At-will" Language In An Employment Contract. 

Childress, et al. v. Darby Lumber, Inc. et al. 04 C.D.O.S. 1095 (9th Cir. February 6, 2004) February 26, 2004 [Issue 100] 

The The Ninth Circuit Holds That Employees Are Entitled To Wages And Attorneys' Fees For A Violation Of The WARN Act. 

Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. 2004 WL 225039 (Cal. Ct. App; February 6, 2004); February 26, 2004 [Issue 99] 

The California Court of Appeal Refuses To Enforce An Arbitration Agreement Based On An Illegal Cost-Sharing Term And "Unconscionability". 

Brigham v. Eugene Water & Electric Board (U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit, February 3, 2004) 2004 WL 193856; February 20, 2004 
[Issue 98] 

The Ninth Circuit Holds That It Was Reasonable Under The Fair Labor Standards Act For An Employer To Treat A Portion Of "On-Call" Time As Compensable Under The Terms Of An Agreement With Its Employees. 

Kotla v. The Regents of the University of California (January 28, 2004) 2004 WL 163753; February 6, 2004 [Issue 97] 

Expert Witness Testimony That Certain Facts Were "Indicators" Of Retaliatory Discharge Was Improper. 

Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (9th Cir. January 6, 2004) 2004 WL 26580; January 21, 2004 [Issue 96] 

Employer Did Not Discriminate Against Employee Who Was Discharged For Refusing To Remove Anti-Gay Biblical Passages From His Workplace Cubicle. 

Mulder v. Pilot Air Freight (January 5, 2004) 04 C.D.O.S. 84; January 19, 2004 [Issue 94] 

The California Supreme Court Held That The Litigation Privilege Under Civil Code Section 47(b) Protects Employers And Their Employees From Liability Arising Out Of Reporting Suspected Criminal Activity. 

Hillstrom v. Best Western TLC Hotel (1st Cir. Court of Appeal, December 31, 2003) 2003 WL 23095252; January 14, 2004 [Issue 93] 

To Establish A Willful Violation Of The FMLA, A Plaintiff Must Prove That The Employer Either Knew Or Showed Reckless Disregard As To Whether Its Conduct Was Prohibited. 

Perry v. Jaguar of Troy (6th Cir., December 30, 2003) 2003 Fed App. 0459P; January 6, 2004 [Issue 92] 

An Employee Does Not Prevail On A Claim Under The FMLA Where He Cannot Prove A "Chronic Serious Health Condition." 

ALERT: Important New Laws Impacting California Employers In 2004; January 5, 2004 [Issue 91] 

As Californians rang in the new year last week, a host of extremely important new laws affecting the workplace and the relationship between employers, their employees (and even their customers and clients), went in to effect. The most important new laws are summarized below. Many of these laws will require revisions to employee handbooks and human resources practices and procedures as well as the posting of new mandatory posters and pamphlets. 

Thompson v. Impaxx, Inc. (C.A.2 December 8, 2003) 03 CDOS 10534; December 23, 2003 [Issue 90] 

Unenforceable Covenant Against Solicitation Of Employer's Customers Supports Wrongful Termination Claim. 

Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (December 2, 2003) 03 CDOS 10290; December 17, 2003 [Issue 89] 

City Employee Is Not Required To Exhaust Both State And Municipal Administrative Remedies Before Suing His Employer For Discrimination Under FEHA. 

Perez v. County of Santa Clara (CA6 August, 25, 2003) 03 C.D.O.S. 7771; September 22, 2003 [Issue 86] 

Defendant Employers In FEHA Actions May Recover Ordinary Costs Of Litigation Even If Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Was Not Frivolous, Groundless Or Unreasonable. 

USS-Posco Industries v. Edwards (1st Dist., August 18, 2003) 03 C.D.O.S. 7474; September 19, 2003 [Issue 85] 

Employer May Seek Restraining Order On Behalf Of Employee Who Was Not Specifically The Target Of Harasser.  

Holly D. v. California Institute of Technology (9th Cir., August 18, 2003) 03 D.J.D.A.R. 9217; September 4, 2003 [Issue 84] 

Employer Is Entitled To Summary Judgment Where It Shows That It Exercised “Reasonable Care” To Prevent Harassment. 

Bell v. Clackamas County (9th Cir., August 20, 2003) 03 C.D.O.S. 7495; August 28, 2003 [Issue 83] 

Employee Proves Retaliation Claim Based On Timing Of Protected Activity And Evidence Of Employer's Irritation With Employee's Complaints Of Discrimination 

Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Riley (9th Cir., August 11, 2003); August 20, 2003 [Issue 82] 

An Employee Who Operates A Competing Business During His Employment Breaches The Duty of Loyalty To The Employer. 

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor (9th Cir. July 22, 2003) 03 C.D.O.S. 6431 ; August 15, 2003 [Issue 81] 

Under California Law, A Management/Employee Arbitration Agreement Can Be Procedurally Unconscionable Despite An Opt-Out Clause. 

Manatt v. Bank of America 03 C.D.O.S. 6613 (9th Cir., July 28, 2003); August 7, 2003 [Issue 80] 

The Ninth Circuit Holds That A Claim For Hostile Work Environment Under 42 U.S.C. §1981 Failed As The Claim Was Based On A Few Isolated Incidents Occurring Over A Brief Period. 

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa (June 9, 2003) WL 21310219; July 18, 2003 [Issue 79] 

The U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Direct Evidence of Discrimination Is Not Required To Prove A Mixed-Motive Discrimination Case Under Title VII. 

Intel Corporation v. Hamidi (June 30, 2003) 2003 DJDAR 7181; July 15, 2003 [Issue 78] 

The California Supreme Court Holds That Intel May Not Prevent A Former Employee From Sending E-mails To Current Employees. 

Carter v. California Department of Veterans’ Affairs (4th Dist. June 4, 2003) 03 C.D.O.S. 4750; June 16, 2003 [Issue 77] 

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) does not impose liability on employer for sexual harassment committed against employee by client or customer. 

McManus v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (May 23, 2003) 03 C.D.O.S. 4339; June 9, 2003 [Issue 76] 

Unconscionable Fee Allocation Provision In Arbitration Agreement Does Not Render Entire Agreement Unenforceable 

Ostad v. Oregon Health Science University (9th Cir. 4/28/03) 03 C.D.O.S. 3538; June 2, 2003 [Issue 75] 

The Ninth Circuit holds that a plaintiff must prove that the "protected activity" was a "substantial" or "significant" factor in the employer's decision to terminate. 

Mackey v. Department of Corrections (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 945; May 5, 2003 [Issue 74] 

The California Supreme Court will decide whether a supervisor who promotes his lover instead of other workers may be held liable for sex discrimination. 

Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells (4/22/03) 538 U.S. _.; April 29, 2003 [Issue 73] 

The United States Supreme Court defines who is an “employee” for purposes of determining coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. 2002 C.D.O.S. 12114 (Cal.Sup.Ct. Dec. 19, 2002); March 20, 2003 [Issue 72] 

A California court may not enjoin a party subject to its jurisdiction from commencing litigation over an agreement not to compete in another state. 

Cucuzza v. City of Santa Clara (December 23, 2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1031; March 11, 2003 [Issue 71] 

The California Court of Appeal Applies Recent Case Law On The Continuing Violations Doctrine To Grant Employer’s Motion For Summary Judgment. 

Change In California Law Extends Statute Of Limitations For Personal Injury Actions And Notice Required For Summary Judgment Motion; February 20, 2003 [Issue 70] 

Senate Bill 688, Senate President pro Tempore John Burton: Amendments to California Code of Civil Procedure. 

The California Legislature Passes Bill Entitling Employees To Six Weeks of Wage Replacement Benefits During Family Care Leave; November 26, 2002 [Issue 69] 

Senate Bill 1661, Representative Kuehl. Disability Compensation: Paid Family Care Leave. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps (9th Circuit Court of Appeal, September 3, 2002) 02 C.D.O.S. 8033; October 18, 2002 [Issue 68] 

The Ninth Circuit overrules Duffield and allows the arbitration of Title VII claims. 

Herberg v. California Institute of the Arts (2nd Dist. August 13, 2002) 02 C.D.O.S. 7400; October 14, 2002 [Issue 67] 

A single 24-hour display of a lewd drawing of the plaintiff did not constitute “hostile work environment” sexual harassment. 

Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 02 C.D.O.S. 6577 (9th Cir., July 23, 2002); September 3, 2002 [Issue 66] 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal finds that an arbitration agreement is unenforceable as procedurally “unconscionable” and one-sided. 

Walrath v. Sprinkel 02 C.D.O.S. 6015 (July 2, 2002) First Appellate District, Division 2; August 19, 2002 [Issue 64] 

Individuals May Be Personally Liable for Retaliation Under the Fair Employment & Housing Act. 

Jefferson v. California Department of Youth Authority 02 C.D.O.S. 5945 (July 1, 2002) California Supreme Court; August 13, 2002 [Issue 63] 

A Compromise and Release Signed in a Workers’ Compensation Proceeding May Bar a Subsequent Civil Action Alleging Similar Claims or Injuries 

Risam v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 412, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 267; August 9, 2002 [Issue 62] 

Failure to Exhaust All Avenues of Judicial Review of Administrative Finding Bars Subsequent Civil Action Alleging Claims Deemed Meritless  

Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2nd Dist. July 10, 2002) 02 C.D.O.S. 6182; August 5, 2002 [Issue 61] 

Employees Have A Fundamental Right, Rooted In Public Policy, To Discuss With Other Employees Their Wages, Bonuses And Other Compensation Issues 

Mercuro v. Superior Court 116 Cal.Rptr 2nd 671 (February 13, 2002); May 20, 2002 [Issue 58] 

The California Court of Appeal holds that the procedural requirements for arbitration agreements under Armendariz apply to statutory claims other than violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. 

Edward Almada v. Allstate Insurance Co.; May 20, 2002 [Issue 57] 

Unambiguous at-will statement in employment agreements and employee manuals preclude plaintiffs from establishing the existence of a promise not to terminate but for good cause. 

Walia v. Aetna, Inc., et al. 17 Cal. Rptr. 2nd 541 (November 21, 2001).; May 10, 2002 [Issue 55] 

California Court of Appeal affirms jury verdict against employer for terminating employee after she refused to sign illegal non-compete agreement. 

Scamihorn v. General Truck Drivers, Office, Food and Warehouse Union, Local 952 and Albertson’s, Inc.; May 10, 2002 [Issue 54] 

The Ninth Circuit holds that an employee who takes leave to provide emotional support to a family member may be protected under the Family Medical Leave Act. 

Bergene v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist. 272 F.3d 1136 C.A.9 (Ariz.), 2001.; March 7, 2002 [Issue 53] 

Comments by supervisors may defeat summary judgment on retaliation and constructive discharge claims. 

Douglas v. California Dept. of Youth Authority 271 F.3d 812 C.A.9 (Cal.) 2001; February 22, 2002 [Issue 52] 

The Ninth Circuit revives “stale” or expired claims under the ADA on the grounds of the “continuing violations doctrine.” 

Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (September 17, 2001) 01 C.D.O.S. 8181; October 30, 2001 [Issue 49] 

Certain requirements for the enforceability of arbitration agreements under Armendariz do not apply where plaintiff brings non-statutory claims. 

Flannery v. Prentice, 26 Cal.4th 572 (August 13, 2001).; October 26, 2001 [Issue 48] 

In the absence of an enforceable fee agreement to the contrary, attorneys’ fee awards under FEHA belong to the attorney 

A Summary of Employer Obligations To Employees Called To Active Duty In The Uniformed Services.; October 22, 2001 [Issue 47]  

Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (August 23, 2001) 2001 DJDAR 9059; October 10, 2001 [Issue 46] 

California Supreme Court clarifies “continuing violation doctrine” as basis for holding employer liable for acts occurring more than one year before employee files discrimination charge 

Wittkopf v. County of Los Angeles (2nd Dist. July 25, 2001) 01 C.D.O.S. 6288; August 29, 2001 [Issue 45] 

The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, holds that year 2000 amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act concerning disability discrimination apply retroactively; the case directly contradicts holding of Colmenares (which has been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court). 

Soltani v. Western & Southern Life Insurance Co., 01 C.D.O.S. 6694 (9th Cir. 2001); August 24, 2001 [Issue 44] 

Applying California law, the Ninth Circuit applies the unconscionability principles of Armendariz to employment contracts generally.  

Lenk v. Total-Western, Inc. (5th App. Dist. June 4, 2001) 01 C.D.O.S. 4702; July 23, 2001 [Issue 42] 

Plaintiff’s undisclosed subjective belief of the terms of an employment contract does not jeopardize at-will status. 

Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2nd Dist. May 31, 2001) 01 C.D.O.S. 4465; July 19, 2001 [Issue 41] 

Significant amendments to the law prohibiting disability discrimination are not retroactive. 

Kohler v. Inter-tel Technologies (9th Cir. April 11, 2001) 01 C.D.O.S. 2890; July 17, 2001 [Issue 40] 

Employers may have affirmative defense to state law sexual harassment claim which was previously available only under federal law.  

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (March 21, 2001) 121 S.Ct. 1302 Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000); June 13, 2001 [Issue 39] 

Pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate employment claims should be enforceable if they are fair to the employee and if the employee’s agreement was knowing and voluntary.  

Doris Rowe v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. (9th Cir. April 4, 2001) 01 C.D.O.S. 2730; April 30, 2001 [Issue 38] 

Even if an employer fails to notify an employee that a medical leave is protected by the FMLA, the employee still receives FMLA protection but the undesignated leave does not count toward the employee’s twelve-week limit. 

Esberg v. Union Oil Company of California (February 27, 2001) O1 C.D.O.S. 1664; April 16, 2001 [Issue 37] 

California’s Fair Employment And Housing Act does not prohibit age discrimination with respect to compensation or the “terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”