A Brief Synopsis With Regards To Employment At Will California
California Women's Rights Attorney Says Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 Will Finally Get Women Equal Pay
Author: R. Sebastian Gibson
As a result of the first bill signed by President Obama, women finally have a much greater chance of receiving pay that is equal to what men receive for the same work from an employer. However, it is still likely to require the filing of numerous lawsuits before employers come to grips with the fact that they can no longer get away with paying less money to women.
On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the first bill signed into law by the President paving the way for these lawsuits to require that equal pay be given to women, by way of seeking back pay awards for the difference they were paid and what men were paid for the same work.
If you have been discriminated against in your employment in California by receiving less pay for the same work performed by persons of the other gender, even though the statute of limitations has been extended by this Act, you still need to speak with a women's rights lawyer or an employment attorney as soon as possible.
If you are a woman and you've been receiving less pay than men are receiving for the same work from the same employer, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.
Prior to the Act becoming law, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, women were required to file suit within 180 days after first being paid unfairly, even if the discrimination of being paid less than male workers in the same jobs continued.
And if a woman failed to discover that male workers were being paid more for the same work, a woman still could not hold her employer accountable if she didn't learn of the unfairness and take action within 180 days of first being paid the lesser rate.
Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 signed into law by President Obama, the statute of limitations of 180 days starts with each discriminatory paycheck, rather than when the employer starts to discriminate. So long as a woman in CA files her claim within 180 days of receiving any discriminatory paycheck, not just the first one, she is considered timely in bringing her claim.
An important aspect of the Act is that the effective date of the Act is retroactively set at May 28, 2007, which will allow it to apply to all compensation discrimination claims that have been filed on or after that date.
Women can sue for back pay awards for up to two years before she files her employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair Pay Act of 2009 does not change the two-year back pay limit.
The Fair Pay Act is a major victory for women in California who have long been discriminated against in the pay they receive for the same work that men perform and are paid substantially more in many places. It has been determined that women have been earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This Act will likely go a long way in addressing that unfairness, although it will likely require a good many lawsuits to hammer this home to employers who discriminate against women in their pay guidelines.
With the signing of this Act into law, initial victories in CA against an employer will likely lead to settlement of other lawsuits for co-employees who have been discriminated against in the same manner by the same employer.
Those who would say that the Act will lead to the employment of less women in such positions by employers fearful of such lawsuits simply don't understand the anti-discrimination laws in this country and the greater risk employers would be taking if they adopted such a discriminatory stance in their hiring practices.
Even with the retroactive effect of the Act, employers in California may be slow to increase the salaries and hourly rates of their women employees until lawsuits begin to fly. Employers who have previously gotten away with discriminating against women in CA may only react in more numbers when they begin to feel the full weight of the law themselves or see large judgements against other employers who have discriminated against women.
Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have been discriminated in your pay from an employer in California based on your being a woman, compared with the pay received by men for the same work
The votes in favor of the bill in the Senate included every Democratic senator except Senator Edward Kennedy who was absent because of his health, and all four Republican women senators. Every Republican male senator except Arlen Spector voted against it. If that won't come back to haunt the Republicans in the next election, it is hard to imagine what else they will do to alienate themselves more from the women's vote.
Under the Act, an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits or other compensation is paid.
Tags: 2009, act, attorney, attorneys, bill, ca, california, civil, constitutional, discrimination, employees, employers, employment, fair, law, lawsuits, lawyer, lawyers, litigation, pay, rights, statute of limitations, women, women’s
March 1st, 2011 at 5:00 am
I am not an attorney, but I do live in Southern California. You should bring a doctors note requesting that you have to be put on matertity leave. But, employers as far as I have seen, can and will find other reason to fire you, especially if its a small business and not be able to hire temps, until you get back.
March 1st, 2011 at 9:49 am
It seems that you are asking if Alabama can extradite you from California for the probation violation, and the answer would be yes they can but they will not because extradition is very expensive and time consuming, however they will issue a warrant and if you ever return to Alabama and come into contact with a law enforcement officer the warrant will show on NCIC and you will be arrested, most warrants for minor infractions have a geographical limit on them and law enforcement will not arrest you if you are outside of those limits.~
March 1st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Which is better? Employment at will or Right to work?
My state, Ohio, is employment at will. That means employers are allowed to dance on their employees heads. The trade off is employees can unionize.
In right to work states employees are not allowed to unionize in the same way however they may have rights that workers in employment at will states don’t have.
I’ve heard one conservative complain of California that its quite difficult to fire someone there. I’ve heard that in other right to work states employers may engage in head dancing at their leisure and only unions are repressed.
Do you know more about these systems? Which do you think is better and why?
March 1st, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Actually, those are two different concepts. Many right-to-work states are also employment at will.
Employment at will means that, absent an employment contract or a collective bargaining agreement, an employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason not specifically prohibited by law. By the same token, the employee can quit any time for any reason. It’s the way almost all states operate. It has nothing to do with unions, because, as I mentioned before, the presence of a collective bargaining agreement takes employment at will out of the equation.
Right-to-work means that if you are working at a place that has a union, you can’t be required to join the union as a condition of employment. If you don’t like the union, you can quit the union without losing your job. In a non RTW state, you have to pay for the union whether or not you think it’s benefiting you.
Workers can unionize in any state, per federal law.
March 1st, 2011 at 5:55 pm
What more is there to ‘at will’ employers in California?
I am aware of the vague language in the policy about the employee OR employer can terminate employment at any time without advanced notice or with any explanation.
There are so many labor laws and human resource laws in California that I’m suspicious that this is not all forthcoming. Is it really that simple? Can I really terminate my employment without an explanation and have no issues? (Leaving out that I am not looking for a reference.)
March 1st, 2011 at 6:25 pm
What does California Law says about this?
You’re a w2 contractor working for a client through a “Vendor A”
Vendor B comes along and says i can give you much better rate wage for the same client company. You agree to go with vendor B, breaking-off contract with Vendor A.
Contract: at-will-employment California, you agree not to seek employment directly with the client – does not specify that you cannot change vendors.
What is the worst that can happen, Should ‘Vendor A’ find-out about Vendor B
where can i find more information about it?
non-compete clause in CA is not valid
March 1st, 2011 at 6:44 pm
there could be a non-competition clause in your contract. and breaking your contract already is a way that Vendor A can stop you from working for / with Vendor B.
March 1st, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Yes, you are free to leave at any time. The most relevant law pertaining to this issue is the 13th amendment to the Constitution which prohibits slavery.
The only time you could really have any issues would be if you were contractually obligated to work for a certain period of time and you had already been paid for your work. A common example would be if your employer agreed to pay off your student loans provided you work there for 2 years. If you leave before these two years are up you may have to pay back a portion of the money. Other than that, you’re free to leave.
March 1st, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Maternity Leave and At-Will Employment?
I work for a firm with only 2 people so I already know my employer is not covered under the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act). Still, can I take maternity leave? When during pregnancy do I ask for a maternity leave and how many weeks in the state of California? My contract is also an AT-WILL employment which means they can terminate me or I can quit for any reason, but is it under California state law that pregnancy is an exception and still be able to keep my job or can they still fire if they wanted to? Thank you.
March 1st, 2011 at 8:09 pm
if someone has a probation violation in Alabama for marijuana possesion, but is now in california, will califo?
I would like to know more about the extradition laws. Alabama is abusing its legal system by holding people in the court appointed programs for extra money. This process denies the individual from regaining basic privileges like a drivers license. This also makes it impossible to gain employment. Yet people with multiple dui’s lose their license for less than 90 days. Marijuana possession even at home revokes ones license for 6 months!!