August 2004
WIN AT WORK MONTHLY
A Community Service of
SESSIONS & KIMBALL LLP, Employee Rights Attorneys
|
Win at Work |
Employee Rights Update |
ILLEGAL QUESTIONS OF AGE AND EDUCATION |
GOOD LAW UNDER ATTACK |
|
It’s well known that discrimination in the workplace is against the law, but discriminatory practices are also prohibited in the hiring process. Many questions simply can’t be asked. Although an employer can make employment subject to verification of legal age requirements or require proof of age if the applicant is hired, it cannot ask your birth date or age unless the job has minimum age requirements or is subject to state or federal minimum age statutes. Employers can’t list age limitations in a newspaper advertisement which might bar workers of particular age groups. Questions about academic, vocational, or professional education and public and private schools attended are legal. Questions concerning specific dates of attendance or graduation, who paid for educational expenses while in school, and whether school loans are still owed are illegal because they can be used to obtain information about your age. These questions themselves may show bias. Employers, beware. Employees, be aware. |
This November, Californians will vote on Proposition 64, deciding whether to revise California’s Unfair Business Competition Statute, Business and Professions Code § 17200. The statute as it currently exists allows a wronged employee to bring a claim against the former employer for unfair business practices. Section 17200 is powerful because it provides for a longer statute of limitation than the Labor Code, fills in the loopholes found in other laws, authorizes injunctive relief, and allows for what amounts to mini-class actions. Most importantly, it also allows for private citizens to pursue claims for civil damages in the same way that a district attorney might pursue money damages. This provision of the law makes it very costly for employers to violate the law, and is why section 17200 is under attack. The revisions under Proposition 64 would eliminate many rights currently available to employees, making it profitable for employers to violate the law. Michael S. Ahmad, Attorney |
Update on our attorneys: Patrick Mortimer resolved a case in litigation in the six-figure range after a long battle. Don Sessions received many congratulatory e-mails for his public opposition of a moral issue in several newspapers and on ABC.
Look for our answers to employees’ questions in the "Life and Work Q & A" column of the Orange County Register’s "Business Monday" magazine. The Win at Work portion of Win at Work Monthly is from our ongoing syndicated column, which appears in the Los Angeles Times’ "Career Builder Magazine" and elsewhere. Win at Work Monthly is intended for general information and should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. Readers in need of legal advice should promptly retain the services of an attorney. © 2005 by Sessions & Kimball LLP.
Copyright © 2007 Sessions & Kimball LLP
The information provided on this website is not to be construed as legal advice, but is general information about employee rights. Visiting this website does not make us your attorney. The only way we can become your attorney is if you and our firm sign a retainer agreement. The information in this website is based upon California law, and the law of other states may be different.