Posted on June 15th, 2021
Find below a complete transcript of this video.
What’s up fellow entrepreneurs today. I want to talk about a labor law suit that was filed against the state of California EDD by one of its own employees.
So the same bad laws that California has codified has now come back to haunt a large government agency, but first as always, I’m a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer. So please seek out competent legal advice for your particular question or problem.
Let’s first talk about, the EDD and what it does. So the EDD is the employment development department of California, and is one of the largest state departments in California. They are responsible for many things, including administrating the state’s unemployment insurance, administrating the state disability programs, it audits and collects payroll taxes. It maintains employment records.
It connects job seekers with employers administered federally funded workforce development programs, and it publishes a labor market information.
So as you can see it lots of employees. So this particular plaintiff was working for the EDD as an office assistant. She was hired as part of a program to help disabled people find employment and during her employment employee had back surgery, connected to her disability and requested that the EDD accommodate her with a very specific and very expensive chair.
Now this chair was expensive, but it was also recommended by her doctor. So the EDD refused to accommodate the employee with that specific chair, but was willing to purchase a cheaper alternative. The employee rejected the alternative chair and filed a discrimination complaint with the EOC because the employees said the alternative chair caused her pain.
Now the EDD then agreed to purchase the more expensive chair and the employer returned working four hours a day. Now on our return, the employee also requested that the EDD change her duties, because of her disability.
Initially the EDD changed her duties, but later required her to continue performing the job she was hired to do, which essentially was answering phones. Then the employee filed a retaliation claim stating that they EDD was retaliating against her for filing the initial claim about the chair.
The EOC, the department she complained to later ruled in favor of the employee in the initial discrimination claim related to the chair thereafter, the employee took additional medical leave and eventually did not return to work after a medical leave expired.
What happened to the retaliation claim you ask?
Well, they EDD settled with the employee for $2.1 million. Now, of course, it’s the California taxpayer. That is footing the bill and not the EDD. So what are your thoughts? I only read an article and did not read all of the documents in the case.
I don’t want to comment too much on whether I think that employer, that EDD was correct in both the discrimination claim or the retaliation claim.
My criticism is about the settlement amount. There isn’t anything in the facts that I think necessitates creating a multimillionaire using taxpayer dollars.
Even if you assume that the EDD was wrong on both claims, how does that necessitate a mil multi-million dollar settlement? I didn’t read any indication that anything that was done caused further physical damage or prevented the employee from fighting other work or anything like that.
So why does the dollar amount bother me? Well it’s because it creates a market for these types of claims and it also creates a market value for them. So think about the small business in the same situation. An employee with a preexisting condition wants a chair that the business can’t afford.
She’s not willing to accept a less expensive alternative. She files a discrimination claim because only the chair she wants we’ll do the small business, then concedes and buys the chair. The employee now can’t do the job she was hired to do, and because the business can’t accommodate her, they now are being sued for retaliation.
Do you think any small business in California can afford to settle for 2.1 million? Of course not likely nowhere near that. So certainly the facts matter but these large settlements eventually create a market value that small businesses can’t afford and hardworking business owners lose their businesses and hardworking employees then lose their jobs when a business has to close because of these absurd settlements and judgements.
I think I’ll go back and read the, the, the actual case and the complaint just to see what really happened and then give my opinion on that. But from all accounts, there wasn’t anything permanent.
And so the fact that you know, somebody can then be you know, receive a multi-million dollar settlement for preexisting conditions just seems absurd to me. So that’s all for this week folks.
And so until next time be productive.
