Employer Obligations

HAVE YOU MADE A REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT FROM OCCURRING IN THE WORK PLACE?

Every employer has a legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring in the workplace. Some common steps employers take to fulfill this duty include adopting policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment and providing training to employees. California requires employers to establish affirmative programs to prevent discrimination and harassment, including prompt and remedial internal procedures and monitoring of the workplace. Please see below for information about what is required of an employer in regards to sexual harassment prevention.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT PREVENTION BY EMPLOYER

Employers must help ensure a workplace free from sexual harassment by posting in the workplace a poster made available by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and distributing to employees information on sexual harassment.

PROVIDING BROCHURES

An employer may either distribute a brochure that may be obtained from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing or develop an equivalent document, which must meet the following requirements:

The illegality of sexual harassment
The definition of sexual harassment under state and federal laws
A description of sexual harassment (utilizing examples)
The internal complaint process of the employer available to the employee
The legal remedies and complaint process available through the Department and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission
Directions on how to contact the Department and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission
The protection against retaliation for opposing the practices prohibited by law or for filing a complaint with, or otherwise participating in investigative activities conducted by the Department or the Commission

TRAINING AND EDUCATION TO EMPLOYEES

Further, employers with 50 or more employees must provide at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees who are employed as of July 1, 2005 and to all new supervisory employees within six months of assuming a supervisory position. Thereafter, covered employers must provide sexual harassment training and education to each supervisory employee once every two years.

WE CAN HELP

The employment law matters are often complex and fact specific. At Mostafavi Law Group, APC, we treat your situation uniquely, and will tailor our representation to your situation and needs with commitment and zealous advocacy to maximize the recovery for you.

TAKE AN ACTION TODAY TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS

Contact us today by calling (310)473-1111, send us a fax at (310)473-2222 or email us at admin@mostafavilaw.com. We are here to help

Latest Blog

Prejudice is not required for waiver of arbitration

No prejudice is required in determining whether a party to an arbitration agreement has waived its right to compel the arbitration and stay the action in the court. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (US 21–328 5/23/22) Arbitration Petitioner Robyn Morgan worked as an hourly employee at a Taco Bell franchise owned by respondent Sundance. When applying for […]

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)

As part of the federal CARES Act, the new Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program helps unemployed Californians who are business owners, self-employed, independent contractors, have limited work history, and others not usually eligible for regular state UI benefits who are out of business or services are significantly reduced as a direct result of the pandemic. The […]

GrubHub, DoorDash, Postmates and Uber Eats were sued in for sticking restaurants with “devil’s choice”

NEW YORK (Reuters) – GrubHub, DoorDash, Postmates and Uber Eats were sued on Monday for allegedly exploiting their dominance in restaurant meal deliveries to impose fees that consumers ultimately bear through higher menu prices, including during the coronavirus pandemic. In a proposed class action filed in Manhattan federal court, three consumers said the defendants violated […]

The California Supreme Court will decide on the faith of the gig economy

The California Supreme Court in CASTELLANOS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Case: S279622) is presented with the question that does Business and Professions Code section 7451, which was enacted by Proposition 22 (the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act”), conflict with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution and therefore require that Proposition 22, by […]

Rest and meal premiums are considered wages

The California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (SC S258966 5/23/22), held that meal breaks are considered wages for the purpose of waiting penalty statute if the employee is not paid when the employment ends with the employer. The Naranjo Court, held that the extra pay for missed breaks constitutes “wages” that must be reported on […]