Category: employment law

Posted on

The Far-Reaching Implications of Gender Identity Discrimination and Harassment

LGBTQIA+ people have the right to a workplace free from gender discrimination.

The social tapestry is intricately woven with various threads of identity, each deserving respect and validation. Gender identity, in particular, has been at the forefront of many societal debates and struggles for rights and recognition. Nevertheless, gender identity discrimination and harassment continue to fabricate a corrosive environment that not only strips individuals of their dignity but also inflicts long-lasting damage that echoes through their personal and professional lives.

In this extensive analysis, we will dissect the multifaceted consequences of gender identity discrimination and harassment. Our journey will delve deep into the physical, emotional, and social repercussions, as well as the legal landscape providing protection and recourse for victims. By illuminating these issues, we aim to instigate meaningful change and fortify the supportive scaffolding that individuals in the gender-diverse community need.

Defining the Harm: Understanding Gender Identity Discrimination

Gender identity discrimination occurs when an individual is treated unfavorably because of their gender identity or because they do not conform to traditional gender stereotypes. This form of discrimination can manifest in various settings—be it the workplace, educational institutions, healthcare environments, or within our communities. It chips away at the foundation of an individual’s identity and can result in profound, systemic harm that transcends mere instances of prejudice.

As we unpack the layers of discrimination, the far-reaching implications will become evident. First, we will explore how the psychological and emotional toll can lead to severe mental health issues. Then, we will investigate the professional ramifications that stifle career growth and economic stability. Social repercussions will also be illuminated, outlining the devastating effects on personal relationships and community integration. Finally, we will navigate the maze of laws and legal precedents that serve as both a shield and a weapon in the fight against gender identity discrimination and harassment.

The Invisible Wounds of Gender Identity Discrimination

Mental Health and Well-Being

The mental health of individuals subjected to gender identity discrimination is significantly at risk. Research consistently shows that transgender and gender non-conforming individuals face an increased prevalence of mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety disorders, and even higher rates of suicide attempts. The perpetual stress of potential exposure to discrimination and harassment is a heavy anvil on the psyche, often leading to a diminished sense of self-worth.

Increased Risk of Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Thoughts

The numbers paint a grim picture. A survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality revealed that 40% of transgender adults have reported attempting suicide. These alarming figures depict the gravity of the situation and the desperate need for societal change to provide a nurturing environment that fosters mental well-being. Disparities in healthcare access and the lack of support resources further compound these risks, leaving many to grapple with their emotional turmoil in isolation.

Physical Health Implications

Gender identity discrimination can also manifest in physical health challenges. The chronic stress associated with discrimination can lead to an array of health issues, such as cardiovascular problems, compromised immune systems, and even a shortened life expectancy. The cumulative impact of discrimination on both mental and physical health underlines the urgent need to address these systemic issues and provide comprehensive care to those affected.

The Professional Stalemate: Employment and Career Prospects Hindered

Difficulties in Finding and Maintaining Employment

One of the most tangible consequences of gender identity discrimination is the difficulty in securing and keeping a job. Studies have shown that transgender individuals are disproportionately affected by unemployment and underemployment. Discriminatory hiring practices and hostile work environments force many to navigate a professional landscape fraught with barriers that others take for granted.

Job Satisfaction and Career Advancement Opportunities

Job satisfaction and career advancement opportunities are often curtailed, even for those who manage to enter the workforce. Hostile or discriminatory work environments can erode an individual’s professional confidence and stifle their ability to grow and thrive. Limited job options and lower pay scales are remnants of a society still grappling with inclusivity and equal opportunity in the workplace.

Economic Hardships

The financial toll of gender identity discrimination is not to be underestimated. From losing one’s job to being unfairly compensated or not being offered promotions, the economic well-being of individuals is directly impacted. As a result, many face hardships in meeting their basic needs, which further exacerbates the stress and mental health struggles that are already prevalent within this community.

The Societal Divide: Social Isolation and Alienation

Isolation and Alienation from Community

The aftereffects of discrimination do not stop at the office door. Individuals often experience profound isolation and alienation from their communities, especially when those environments are not supportive. This alienation can lead to a breakdown in social structures and supports, leaving individuals to navigate their identities in a hostile or ignorant social fabric.

Strained Personal Relationships

The fabric of our lives is intricately woven with the threads of personal relationships. Yet, gender identity discrimination can lead to significant strains on these relationships. Be it within the family unit, amongst peers, or in romantic partnerships, the presence of discrimination can create discord, misunderstandings, and in severe cases, lead to the dissolution of these vital social bonds.

Reduced Quality of Life

The sum of these social consequences is a diminished quality of life. As individuals experience discrimination and societal rejection, the very activities and interactions that typically bring joy and fulfillment may become a source of stress and dissatisfaction. This undeniably lower quality of life further underscores the importance of creating a more inclusive and supportive social environment for all individuals, regardless of gender identity.

Navigating the Legal Terrain: Protections and Remedies

Laws and Protections Against Gender Identity Discrimination

In recognition of the pervasive discriminatory practices faced by transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, many jurisdictions have enacted laws specifically designed to protect their rights. These laws forbid discrimination on the basis of gender identity and, in some cases, require that individuals be afforded accommodations that allow them to express their gender identity.

Legal Recourse and Remedies for Victims

When discrimination and harassment occur, it’s crucial for victims to know their legal rights and the avenues available for recourse. Legal action can range from filing complaints with government agencies to pursuing civil litigation against the perpetrators. Not only does this provide an opportunity for justice, but it also sends a clear signal that such behaviors will not be tolerated.

Foster Inclusion: Addressing and Preventing Gender Identity Discrimination

Education and Awareness

A critical element in preventing discrimination is education and awareness. By providing knowledge on gender identity and the challenges faced by the gender diverse community, we can dispel ignorance and cultivate greater empathy and understanding. Educational initiatives in schools, workplaces, and within the community at large can help to normalize discussions around gender diversity and promote inclusivity.

Inclusive Policies and Practices

Organizations and institutions must take proactive steps to foster an inclusive environment. This includes developing and enforcing policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination and harassment based on gender identity, as well as providing training to employees on respectful and affirming practices. In addition, creating support networks and resources for individuals to seek guidance and redress is crucial in legitimizing the commitments made through policy.

Support Networks and Resources for Victims

For those who have experienced discrimination, support networks and resources can be a lifeline. Organizations such as the National Center for Transgender Equality and GLSEN provide a community and the resources necessary to navigate the challenges of discrimination. Access to legal counsel and other support services is key in empowering individuals to stand up against discrimination and seek remedies for the harm they’ve endured.

In conclusion, the consequences of gender identity discrimination and harassment are not just personal—they are societal, systemic, and wholly impactful. It is a call to action for all of us to stand in solidarity with the gender-diverse community, to champion their rights, and to ensure that discrimination and harassment have no place in our shared future. Let this be the catalyst for change, igniting a collective effort to create a world where every individual can live authentically and without fear of recrimination. For now, the ball is in our court to take the knowledge and insights from this discourse and transform them into actionable steps towards a more inclusive, equitable society.

Posted on

Unspoken Rides: Addressing the Pervasive Harassment and Discrimination in America’s Auto Dealerships

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a pervasive issue in auto dealerships throughout America.

The American auto dealership industry, boasting a backbone of shiny cars and robust sales pitches, hides an alarming and corrosive problem under its hood – sexual harassment. Despite being a cornerstone of America’s retail economy, auto dealerships have become notorious battlegrounds for gender respect and workplace equality.

In this probing examination, we will delve deep into the personal stories that shed light on the struggle many female employees face, survey the bleak statistics that run rampant across the industry, and provide concrete steps and resources for those affected by such improper conduct in their workplaces.

Personal Narratives of Harassment

Personal accounts bring the shocking reality of workplace harassment out of the shadows. In a Utah auto dealership, a former employee recounts days filled with anxiety and fear as her supervisor would casually assault female staff members, dealing out demeaning acts like smacks on the buttocks as casually as if he were giving out office memos.

The situation in Texas paints an equally grim picture, with managers at South Austin Nissan openly and relentlessly parading their predatory behavior. Women working there faced an ongoing onslaught of unwanted touching, lewd comments dissecting their appearance, and invasive inquiries into their private lives.

Moving west to San Francisco, the narrative continues with former employees, all women, who weathered unwelcome sexual advances, offensive remarks, and physical contact—all undermining not only their sense of security but their professional worth.

A Statistical Glimpse into the Workplace

Behind these personal stories lies a staggering trail of data:

  • According to the National Women’s Law Center, a harrowing 65% of women in dealership roles have dealt with sexual harassment at their job.
  • An EEOC study alerts us to over 60 official sexual harassment charges filed in the span of eight years, a period where the true scope of the issue likely exceeds recorded figures due to unreported incidents.
  • An Auto News survey tragically indicates that the immense majority—7 out of every 10 women in the dealership industry—experienced a form of sexual harassment.
  • From an occupational health psychology perspective, the non-physical damages are substantial too, resulting in a workplace rife with dissatisfaction, distress, and high turnover rates.

This data paints a sobering picture: the car sales floor, rather than being a place of negotiation and commerce, is often an arena of gender-based violation and abuse.

Stepping Stones to Change

These harrowing accounts and disheartening figures cannot fade into mere statistics. Change is imperative. To catalyze this transformation, advocacy must be a community affair – everyone is a stakeholder in making dealerships safe environments that uphold gender respect and equality. Here’s what can be done:

  • Workplace Policies – Dealerships must institute clear, robust, and non-negotiable policies against harassment, with transparent channels for reporting and addressing complaints.
  • Training Programs – Regular and compulsory training sessions can educate all employees on what constitutes sexual harassment and how to prevent it.
  • Peer Support – Fostering a culture where colleagues support one another and victims don’t feel isolated or helpless.

Legal Recourse and Support Systems

Empower yourself with knowledge and support:

  • EEOC Guidance – Connect with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for advice and action against employment discrimination.
  • Legal Expertise – A specialized workplace discrimination or harassment attorney can offer legal counsel and potentially represent your case.
  • Law Enforcement – If you’ve been physically harassed or assaulted, contact the local police.
  • Support from Nonprofits – Organizations like the National Women’s Law Center offer legal resources to women facing discrimination and harassment.
  • Community Networks – Join support groups where shared experiences and solidarity can foster recovery and collective action.

Conclusion: Toward a Respectful Workspace

Making our workplaces safe sanctuaries of productivity and respect demands courage, persistence, and unity. If you or someone you know is enduring sexual harassment within an auto dealership or any workplace, remember that silence benefits only the perpetrators. It’s time to revamp the industry not just from a business standpoint but from a foundational perspective that respects and values all employees equally.

Make Dealerships Safe: Advocate for Gender Respect and Equality

Now is the time for action, for support, and for change. Stand up for a harassment-free workplace, and navigate the road ahead with the dignity and equality every person deserves.

Posted on

Happy Labor Day!

Happy Labor Day

Labor Day is just around the corner, which means it’s time to break out the grill, gather your loved ones, and have a blast. But do you ever stop to think about the history behind this awesome holiday? If you’re curious and want to impress your friends and family with some fun facts, check out this quick rundown of Labor Day.

Labor Day is an epic celebration of the achievements of American workers, observed every year on the first Monday in September. The roots of this holiday go back to the late 1800s when labor activists worked tirelessly to establish a federal holiday recognizing the incredible contributions that workers make to America’s strength, prosperity, and well-being.

But before it was a nationwide holiday, Labor Day was recognized by individual states and passionate labor activists. The movement to secure state legislation began with municipal ordinances in 1885 and 1886. New York was the first state to introduce a bill, but Oregon was the first to pass a law recognizing Labor Day on February 21, 1887. And the momentum only grew from there – by the end of the decade, more than half of all states had adopted the holiday. It wasn’t until 1894 that Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September a legal holiday.

The question of who founded Labor Day is a hotly debated one. Some believe it was Peter J. McGuire, a co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, who suggested the idea of a “general holiday for the laboring classes” back in 1882. But others argue that it was actually machinist Matthew Maguire who proposed the holiday while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York. Recent research seems to support Maguire’s claim, and the Paterson Morning Call even declared him the “undisputed author of Labor Day as a holiday.” Regardless of who came up with the idea, both McGuire and Maguire attended the country’s first Labor Day parade in New York City in 1882 – a historic moment that would pave the way for generations of hardworking Americans to celebrate their contributions to this great nation.

Posted on

Liability Under FCA Depends On Whether Defendants Believe They Lied

If you have information about violations of The False Claims Act contact an attorney for information about Whistleblower protection and rewards.

Liability Under FCA Depends On Whether Defendants Believe They Lied

United States et al. ex rel. Schutte et al. v. Supervalu Inc. et al., 2023 WL 3742577 (2023)

The False Claims Act imposes liability on anyone who “knowingly” submits a “false” claim to the Government. 31 U. S. C. §3729(a). In some cases, that rule is straightforward: If a law authorized payment of $100 for “each” medical test, and a doctor knows that he did five tests but submits a claim for ten, then he has knowingly submitted a false claim. But sometimes, the rule is less clear. If a law authorized payment for only “customary” medical tests, some doctors might be confused when it came time for billing. And, while some doctors might honestly mistake what that term means, others might correctly understand whatever “customary” meant in this context—and submit claims that were inaccurate anyway. The cases before the Supreme Court involved a legal standard similar to that latter example: In certain circumstances, pharmacies are required to bill Medicare and Medicaid for their “usual and customary” drug prices. And, critically, these cases involved defendants who may have correctly understood the relevant standard and submitted inaccurate claims anyway. The question presented is thus whether the defendants could have the scienter required by the FCA if they correctly understood that standard and thought that their claims were inaccurate.

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held that the answer is yes: What matters for an FCA case is whether the defendant knew the claim was false. Thus, if defendants correctly interpreted the relevant phrase and believed their claims were false, then they could have known their claims were false.

Posted on

Employees Lose Labor Claim for Not Performing Labor Within Usual Course of Business

Your workplace should be free of discrimination and harassment. Contact the attorneys of Helmer Friedman LLP for information.

Employees Lose Labor Code § 2810.3 Claim Where They Were Not Performing Labor Within The “Usual Course Of Business” Of The “Client Employer”

Morales-Garcia v. Better Produce, Inc., 2023 WL 3749314 (9th Cir. 2023)

In 2014, California enacted Labor Code § 2810.3 to protect workers whose labor has been outsourced to a labor provider. Under the statute, the outsourcing entity, known as a “client employer,” is liable for the laborers’ wages if the laborers’ work is within the outsourcers’ “usual course of business.”

In the present case, the plaintiffs are agricultural workers hired by strawberry growers (“the Growers”) to pick the fruit that was then turned over to the defendants – Red Blossom Sales, Inc. and Better Produce, Inc. (“the Marketers”) for distribution. The Marketers cooled and sold the berries principally to large retail grocery chains. The Marketers conducted their cooling and distribution operations on premises that were close to but separate from the farms.

As happens quite frequently with agricultural workers (and, hence, the need for Labor Code § 2810.3) the Growers stopped paying the plaintiffs and later filed for bankruptcy. The plaintiffs sued the Growers and the Marketers as joint employers under California and federal law. The plaintiffs also sued the Marketers as client employers under California Labor Code § 2810.3. The district court ruled for the Marketers on all theories. The plaintiffs appealed only with respect to the Marketers’ liability under § 2810.3.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, explaining that because the plaintiffs were not performing labor within the Marketers’ “usual course of business” – which is defined as “the regular and customary work of a business, performed within or upon the premises or worksite of the client employer Labor Code § 2810.3(a)(6) – the Marketers were not liable as client employers under California Labor Code § 2810.3.

Posted on

Arbitration Denied Employer Failed To Authenticate Employee’s Signature On Agreement

Forced arbitration, Sexual harassment and discrimination lawyers. Non-compete agreements something akin to indentured servitude.

Arbitration Denied Where Employer Failed To Authenticate Employee’s Signature On Arbitration Agreement

In Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic, 72 Cal.App.5th 158 (2021), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny arbitration due to the employer’s failure to satisfy its burden of proving that the employee signed the employer’s arbitration agreement. The employer provided the trial court with an arbitration agreement that appeared to be signed by a representative of the employer and an employee, along with a declaration from a human resources official indicating that the plaintiff had signed the arbitration agreement (but lacking any foundational facts such as that the official witnessed the plaintiff signing the agreement). The plaintiff, however, filed a declaration in support of her opposition, stating that: (1) she reviewed the arbitration agreement attached to the official’s declaration but does “not remember these documents at all”; (2) before this case, no one had ever told her about an arbitration agreement or explained what it was; and (3) if she had known about the arbitration agreement and had been told about its provisions, she would not have signed it. In affirming, the Court of Appeal stated: “By not providing any specific details about the circumstances surrounding the contract’s execution, the defendant’s declarant offered little more than a bare statement that the plaintiff entered into the contract without offering any facts to support that assertion. This left a critical gap in the evidence supporting the defendant’s petition.” (cleaned up).

Posted on

Arbitration Denied Where Employer Failed To Authenticate Employee’s Electronic Signature

Equal Pay and Anti-Retaliation Protection Act protects from retaliation.

Arbitration Denied Where Employer Failed To Authenticate Employee’s Electronic Signature On Arbitration Agreement

In Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC, 64 Cal.App.5th 541 (2021), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny arbitration due to the employer’s failure to satisfy its burden of proving that the employee signed an arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal cited both conflicting evidence as to whether the agreement was electronically executed by the employee and the fact that there were no employee-specific usernames or passwords required for the execution of the agreement.

Posted on

Consumer Privacy Protections for Employers Under the California Consumer Privacy Act

Employees right to data privacy.

Consumer Privacy Protections for Employers Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, as Amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CCPA)

 

When the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) originally took effect in 2020, it exempted employees from most of its provisions. This year, the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) finally extends major consumer privacy rights under the CCPA to employees and job applicants of covered employers. In addition to requiring covered employers to provide privacy notices at the time employee personal information is collected, the CPRA grants employees several new rights, including the rights to request what personal information their employers have collected and/or disclosed and to request that their employers delete their personal information, with some exceptions.

Covered employers do not need to – and in some instances may not – delete certain data, including where a business’s legal obligations require its retention, such as under California Labor Code Sections 1198.5(c) (retention of personnel files) and 226(a) (retention of payroll records). Among its other provisions, the CPRA also allows employees to opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information and to limit the use of “sensitive” personal information, a new category of data under the CCPA that includes an employee’s social security number, driver’s license, and financial information, as well as race, ethnicity, and religion. The CPRA includes an anti-discrimination provision, which prohibits retaliation for the exercise of rights under the Act.

Though its provisions are wide sweeping, the CCPA focuses on larger companies and those engaged in the sale of data. It covers only companies doing business in California that fall within one of 3 categories: (i) businesses having annual gross revenues that exceed $25 million; (ii) those that annually buy, receive, share, or sell personal information of more than 100,000 consumers or households in California; or (iii) companies that derive at least 50 percent of their annual revenue from selling or sharing personal information of residents of California.

Posted on

Lawsuit alleges Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Discriminated and Retaliated Against Down Syndrome Student Athlete

Hocking College football sensation sues for discrimination, harassment and assault.

An athlete with Down syndrome made history. Then the abuse began, the suit says.

Caden Cox ran out to the 13-yard line with 3:22 left in the third quarter as his Hocking College Hawks battled the Sussex County Community College Skylanders on Sept. 11, 2021.

With Cox ready, the center snapped the football to the holder, who caught it and put it on the turf. Wearing No. 21, Cox trotted forward, pulled back his right leg, and swept it forward, lifting the ball through the uprights.

The extra point was good.

With that, Cox made history as the first known player with Down syndrome to score during a college football game. The feat earned him a spot in the history books and a 5½-minute segment on ESPN.

People talked to me and said, ‘Wow, it was an awesome kick

“People talked to me and said, ‘Wow, it was an awesome kick,’” he told a reporter at the time.

Less than two years later, Cox is suing his alma mater, alleging that the very thing that made his kick historic also made him a target for discrimination. In a lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio, Cox alleges that college officials in Nelsonville, Ohio, discriminated against him because he has Down syndrome and then retaliated against him when he reported it to administrators. In one incident, a supervisor at the college’s student center threatened him with a knife and was later convicted in the incident.

President Betty Young declined to comment on Cox’s allegations but, in a statement to The Washington Post, said that she’s “happy Hocking College could provide opportunities for Caden to receive a college education and to participate in college athletics.”

“We remain committed to provide such to all our students,” she added.

Cox alleges that the discrimination started soon after June 2021 when the college hired Matthew Kmosko, a former professional soccer player, as a soccer coach and a supervisor at the college’s student center. In the latter role, Kmosko oversaw Cox, who worked at the center as a student-employee. As Cox’s boss, Kmosko consistently used “derogatory slurs” about people with Down syndrome and repeatedly berated him in front of his co-workers, the suit alleges.

Court records do not yet list an attorney for Kmosko. The public defender who represented Kmosko in the criminal trial declined to comment on Cox’s allegations in the civil suit.

In July 2021, Cox’s mother, Mari, who works at the college, filed a written complaint about Kmosko’s behavior with the college’s human resources department, according to the suit.

The misbehavior not only continued but also escalated, it alleges.

In January 2022, Mari emailed another complaint about Kmosko, asking that he be replaced as her son’s supervisor, the suit says. In the message, she accused Kmosko of calling her son the r-word, taking his phone without permission, and “putting his hands on [her son] inappropriately.”

Then, on May 12, when Cox went into a men’s bathroom to change the garbage bags, Kmosko allegedly followed him, blocked the exit and screamed at Cox while preventing him from leaving. As Kmosko did, he pointed a knife at Cox’s chest, the suit states.

Cox told investigators he feared that Kmosko would stab him, according to a police report.

Surveillance cameras captured Kmosko walking into and out of the bathroom with the knife, the suit states. Shaken and scared, Cox returned to the front desk, where he said he received a call from Kmosko. He allegedly told Cox that he could see him sitting there and ordered him to “get up and do something” before hanging up.

Cox “was terrified and traumatized and called his mother immediately,” according to the suit.

In July, Kmosko, who resigned from the college, was charged with aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor, in connection with the incident, and an Athens County jury found him guilty in January of menacing, a lesser charge. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

This past October, the college sent an email to employees calling for nominations for awards at the fall graduation ceremony, the suit states, and Cox “was nominated for nearly every award” by several staff members, including his coaches. Once the votes were tallied on Nov. 11, Cox had won three honors: the Inspirational Award, the Scholar Athlete Award, and the Hocking College Trustee Award, which was to be bestowed at a graduation ceremony on Dec. 10.

On Dec. 2, lawyers representing the Cox family delivered a letter to Young, laying out their allegations of discrimination, harassment, and assault.

On Dec. 9, a day before the ceremony, Cox’s father, Kevin, who worked at the college as a football coach until he resigned in February, arrived at the school to set up for the next day’s festivities. Reviewing the ceremony program, he noticed it listed his son as having won only one award, although a QR code on posters around the school routed to a digital version showing all three.

“Retaliation is the only plausible reason for the surreptitious and punitive removal of [Cox’s] graduation awards days before the graduation ceremony was to take place,” the suit alleges.

For people with Down syndrome, a longer life, but under a cloud

After graduating, Cox completed a football-related internship at Texas A&M University, where his older brother works as a strength coach, his lawyer, Mark Weiker, told The Post. He’s back in Ohio and, in June, plans to go to orientation at an Ohio State University program for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

But a year later, the knife incident still haunts Cox, according to his lawsuit. He continues to suffer from nightmares and anxiety. When he visits Hocking’s campus, he gets especially scared when he sees a red car like the one Kmosko used to drive to school.

“The distress that [Caden] suffered and continues to suffer from as a result of the trauma he endured,” the suit states, “will affect him emotionally and psychologically for the rest of this life.”

Read more By Jonathan Edwards

Posted on

AB 2188: Protections for Off-site, Off-duty Marijuana Use

California employers cannot discrimination for legal cannabis use.

AB 2188 Protections for off-site, off-duty marijuana use beginning January 1, 2024

The legalization of recreational marijuana in 2016 led many to question the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications Inc., 42 Cal.4th 920 (2008), which held in part that, despite the legalization of medical marijuana in 1996, an employer could lawfully refuse to hire a job candidate who failed a drug test, even if it was the result of legal marijuana use. Although the passing of Proposition 64 in 2016 did not impact the holding in Ross (in fact, the law explicitly preserved its holding), societal attitudes towards marijuana have shifted significantly since the Court’s decision.

Starting on January 1, 2024, AB 2188 will amend FEHA to prohibit discrimination based upon an employee’s use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace, partially superseding Ross. The bill does not prohibit an employer’s use and reliance on pre-employment drug screenings that determine current impairment or active levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”). It also has some exceptions, including for workers in the building and construction trades and applicants and employees subject to federal background investigations or clearances.