Prohibited Practices

HAS YOUR EMPLOYER FOLLOWED THESE FEHA REQUIREMENTS?

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) create certain requirements that employers must follow. If your employer has violated or failed to comply with what is required of them, then you may have a FEHA action against your employer.

Prohibits discrimination in all aspects of employment including hiring, termination and terms and conditions.
Prohibits harassment of employees or applicants and requires employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring.
Requires that all employers provide information to each of their employees describing the forms of sexual harassment, its illegality, the internal and external complaint processes and legal remedies.
Requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees or job applicants with disabilities in order to enable them to perform the essential functions of the job.
Requires employers to provide leaves of up to four months to employees disabled because of pregnancy or childbirth.
Requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations requested by an employee, with the advice of her health care provider, related to her pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
Requires employers of 50 or more persons in a 75 mile radius to allow eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks leave in a 12-month period for the birth of a child, the placement of a child for adoption or foster care, for an employee’s own serious health condition, or to care for a parent, spouse, or child with a serious health condition. (Employers are required to post a notice informing employees of their family and medical leave rights.)
Requires employment agencies to serve all applicants equally; to refuse discriminatory job orders; to refrain from prohibited pre-employment inquiries or advertising.
Prohibits discrimination by unions in membership or employment referrals.
Prohibits retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint with the Department, participated in a Department investigation or opposed any activity prohibited by the Act.

WE CAN HELP

To determine if you have been a victim of prohibited employment practices in violation of FEHA, you should contact an employment attorney immediately to protect your legal rights under both State and Federal laws.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 […]