Discrimination/False Threats at my work.

[Green_Hornet]

Hey your welcome for your listening pleasure a little something extra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwXMkfeH95k

 

[CdwJava]

Do you have a contract that specifies the minimum amount of hours you get? If not, then the employer is often free to limit hours as they see fit for whatever reason they see fit. If they are dumb enough to state that they are retaliating against you for something that is not inherently unlawful or against company policy, then you might consider a complaint to whatever higher powers there might be at the company or consulting an attorney.

It should be noted that LC 96(k) simply states that the Labor Commissioner will receive complaints for allegations involving "Claims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." The section does not state that having hours reduced or being on the outs for a dating relationship are prima facie unlawful. Note that there have been many successful terminations based upon such conduct ... provided that the conduct can be tied to a change of workplace conditions (such as other relationships at work being adversely effected by the new outside relationship, etc.).

And, of course, 98.6 may not be in play yet because he has not been discharged, and there does not appear to be an overt pronouncement concerning a "demotion" or other prohibited action. These rules are in place in many government facilities and with very good reason ... how common they are in private enterprise, I couldn't say for sure.

- Carl

 

[Green_Hornet]

Once again the legitimate common sense reasons are not the issue. If the administrative agency has a no cause finding. The employee is entitled to file in court.

98.7. (d) (1) If the Labor Commissioner determines no violation has
occurred, he or she shall notify the complainant and respondent and
shall dismiss the complaint. The Labor Commissioner may direct the
complainant to pay reasonable attorney's fees associated with any
hearing held by the Labor Commissioner if the Labor Commissioner
finds the complaint was frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, and was
brought in bad faith. The complainant may, after notification of the
Labor Commissioner's determination to dismiss a complaint, bring an
action in an appropriate court, which shall have jurisdiction to
determine whether a violation occurred, and if so, to restrain the
violation and order all appropriate relief to remedy the violation.
Appropriate relief includes, but is not limited to, rehiring or
reinstatement of the complainant, reimbursement of lost wages and
interest thereon, and other compensation or equitable relief as is
appropriate under the circumstances of the case.....

Poster contact an attorney prior to handing any thing over to the labor commissioner.

 

[Green_Hornet]

One other thing in the more recent Guardsmark,L.L.C v. NLRB, 2007 WL 283455 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the employer, Guardsmark, a company providing security guard services, distributed a handbook to all employees, including an anti-fraternization rule providing that "You must not fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." A labor union at one of Guardsmark's offices filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB's General Counsel then issued a complaint, alleging that this rule violated section 8(a)(1) It wound up at D.C appeals court. Which ruled favorably for the boards decision. The current board is conservative,yet they still found the policy,an unfair labor practice. This stands to reason and CA has stronger laws regarding employees rights to organize. So there are several ways to skin the cat here. Although the posters complaint has nothing to do with organizing the rule it self could violate employees organizing rights under federal,and state law for obvious reasons.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

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.

In the regular course of review I found this... well... I think you're both right in a way and hopefully this puts an end to this dispute and hopefully we are no worse for wear.

An employer can prohibit conflicts of interest that affect the ability to perform on the job and this would seem common sense. Any good sized company would have a policy handbook and make work requirements clear and the employee chooses to accept them when they take the job. It seems the company doesn't prohibit dating unless it affects the workplace, as suggested by the supervisory relationship in the handbook.

That said, cbg is right about the "discrimination" part. Unless you have a specific "right to work" there is generally no protection against an employer who decides that he wants to sever the work relationship because your voice and choice of clothing is irritating to him. Typically the employer can terminate an employee for even no reason since, generally, this country runs on "at will employment." Unless the "discrimination" is protected by law, e.g. as in a "protected class" such as race, religion, etc. then the "discrimination" is not per se illegal - and I'm not sure that is the appropriate word to use here. You may have a right to date your girlfriend but it doesn't mean that Joe, the owner of Stop & Drop & Mop, has to keep you employed until he has a good reason to fire you. If the store has 12 employees and 10 unhappy employees will quit unless the two of you go, what's the owner to do? Unless there is some legal protection (e.g. racial discrimination), it only seems logical that the employer can settle differences by terminating the 2 and keeping the 10 in order to keep the store operational. There is no way to make everyone happy, unfortunately.

But most important and practically - where is the burden of proof? It's on the employee to show that the conduct of the employer was illegal/in violation of a right or protection, not on the employer to show that the conduct was lawful. As Hornet points out and I'm sure cbg would agree, of course an employer can't do anything illegal and you may have some protections under the law. But the bottom line here is that you have to prove that your rights were violated and you need to first show that you had a protected right somewhere - by federal law, state law or company policy. If you've got a union, sure you can speak to them but they can't help you unless there is a right to work or law that protects you - which may include a process that must be followed.

The practical is really all that matters: There is the money you may have to put up to fight a termination. Someone needs to show me a law or right that has clearly been violated before I'd even think of working on contingency.

I think SeniorJudge had an amusing comment here about California being the state where people think they have a cornucopia of rights that protects them against almost anything - including not being in a happy work environment. Opinions may vary. Try to work it out and hopefully, if you and your girlfriend just avoid conflict, nobody will care over time.