Discrimination/False Threats at my work.

[Avalanch3]

My jurisdiction is: California

I work at a retail store, and currently have a girlfriend who works at the same store as me. The managers have threatened to fire us for having a relationship, and have been discriminating against us by giving us lower hours.

For the amount of lower hours, I know it is not my performance because I am one of the top salesmen of the store. I am also the top salesman for credit cards as well, which bases the amount of hours employees get.

At work, we have a completely professional relationship when working in the store, and we do not cause any problems whatsoever. We do not even work at the same time, so I never see her at work. Only time I would ever see her is if she is ever working while I am in there off hours, which is barely never.

I have read the rules for employment (handbook) for the store, and no where does it say that employees cannot have a relationship with another employee. But, it says an employee cannot have a relationship with a manager, but my girlfriend is not a manager. Is there any case against them for discrimination and making false threats?

The managers are very unprofessional about it as well, they crack jokes concerning our relationship and harass my girlfriend about it throughout most shifts.

Also, a "key-holder" who isn't even a manager threatened to fire, but he does not have any power to do so. Is there anything to go against FALSE threats as well?

 

[Green_Hornet]

No the employer can not discriminate against you or anyone else for dating a co-worker.

 

[jacksgal]

Yes but not all discrimnation is illegal

 

[cbg]

Discrimination is illegal when it is based on a characteristic protected by law. Dating a co-worker is NOT protected by law.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Discrimination is illegal when it is based on a characteristic protected by law. Dating a co-worker is NOT protected by law.

Sorry but your wrong.

 

[Avalanch3]

Is there any legal recourse against false threats or this type of discrimination? I can prove both as well.

 

[Green_Hornet]

False threats no, in your post you claimed the employee making the threats was not in a position to invoke discipline. Fired or retaliated against for dating a co-worker there is legal recourse. Contact an attorney that deals with employment law. Despite cbg's claim an employer can not fire you for dating a co-worker.

Their are very rare legitimate reason for no fratinization policys,only mediocre employers still cling to it. For the few rare common sence exceptions,there is no need to make an across the board policy, dictating to employees who they can marry, date or otherwise socialize with.

 

[Avalanch3]

I see, and I will contact an attorney to see what they say.

Also, even the managers that could fire me also put out threats.

 

[cbg]

Suppose you put your money where your mouth is and show us the law, either statutory or case law, that is binding on the poster's employer and makes dating an employee a protected characteristic.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Suppose you put your money where your mouth is and show us the law, either statutory or case law, that is binding on the poster's employer and makes dating an employee a protected characteristic.

Sorry, but this is so obvious no citation is needed in the 21st century. Nevertheless California Labor Code Section 96(k) provides that it is unlawful for an employer to discharge any employee for "lawful conduct occurring during non-working hours away from the employer's premises." Section 98.6 provides a remedy for any employee who is discharged or "in any manner discriminated against" because he engaged in activity set forth in 96(k), i.e. lawful conduct occurring during non-working time away from the employers premises. As far as case to interpret this code section is Grinzi v San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 CA4th 72 which held that the term "lawful conduct" was limited to any conduct which was lawful under the Labor Code or the Constitution. Dating is lawfull in all 50 states. Suppose you loose the attitude take my word for it the next time.

 

[cbg]

I wouldn't take your word for it if you said the sky was blue.

An employer still has the right to prohibit conflicts of interest within the workplace.

 

[Green_Hornet]

I wouldn't take your word for it if you said the sky was blue.

An employer still has the right to prohibit conflicts of interest within the workplace.

Not if it violates California Labor Code Section 96(k) now lets get back to your wrong.

 

[cbg]

http://finduslaw.com/california_employment_law/employment_discrimination

 

[Green_Hornet]

At-will employment is precluded in Oregon,and Washington under this public policy exceptions manifested in a constitutional provision, statute or administrative rule,as well.

So depending on the circumstances,and the remedies it is worth a call to an attorney. The trend is to remove this Victorian yoke from employees backs, employer insisting on an anti-fraternization policy are 20 to 30 years behind the times in labor management relations. Modern employers have scraped it,along with their, "Irish need not apply signs" long ago.
cbg if you do not know the answer do not guess, your answer does not apply any where on the west coast.

 

[Green_Hornet]

http://finduslaw.com/california_employment_law/employment_discrimination

That link has absolutely no relevance to the posters question, if your using a flow chart it is OK to think outside the box.

 

[Avalanch3]

Well, I have not been discharged (yet), would there still be a case?

 

[Green_Hornet]

Well, I have not been discharged (yet), would there still be a case?

It depends on the damages you incurred under the reduction in hours. The case may not be worth the cost of litigation, contact an attorney for those questions. The statute states " California Labor Code Section 96(k) ...unlawful for an employer to discharge any employee for "lawful conduct occurring during non-working hours away from the employer's premises." Section 98.6 provides a remedy for any employee who is discharged or "in any manner discriminated against" because he engaged in activity set forth in 96(k)"

 

[Green_Hornet]

Don't wait for the ax to fall before you contact an attorney, you may have to start documenting facts prior to any adverse action such as being fired.

 

[Avalanch3]

Will it be hard trying to prove my case? What would be the best way to prove this?

 

[Green_Hornet]

It would be hard contact an attorney now, this board cant answer questions without an intake and an attorney reviewing it. If you find an attorney interested he will schedule a consultation. Do not forget to tell him your girlfriend has received a reduction in hours as well as similar harassment. That will buttress your case, if there are any others in the same boat tell them as well. Class action suites defiantly get lawyers attention. Litigation can be an expensive undertaking, you may well have a great case that is prohibited by the recovery. Once again only an attorney can answer these questions. You definitely are not getting the correct answer from cbg that has to be clear by now.