The previous post addressed the DFEH-EEOC causes of action. In California the Labor Commissioner has a division dedicated to investigating employment that arise from 40 statutes of the CA Labor Code. The petitioner in the DFEH matter just filed with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement-Retaliation Complaint Investigation Unit regarding a series of adverse actions by the former employer prior to termination.
The aggrieved in this matter expressed safety concerns about the employer mandated experimental “COVID-19” gene therapy vaccines. The employer responded by denying his religious exemption. Within a few weeks the aggrieved was suspended for over 90 days. During the suspension wages, sick leave and vacation pay were denied. The aggrieved addressed the safety issues. He submitted a safer alternative for vaccination, Off-Label Use of Vitamin D. The former employer responded with more retaliatory conduct.
The first CA Labor Code statutes violated is CA Labor Code 6310, “ Protects employees who(1) complain about safety of health conditions or practices…” The statute goes up to Section(4).
The second cause of action is item (19) CA Labor Code 245-249. This statute deals with the denial of sick leave. The aggrieved requested to use sick leave after he passed 90 days probation and during the suspension period.
The third cause of action is CA Labor Code 98.6 . Here is a link to the statute. CA Labor Code 98.6 The statute is a favorite of Plaintiffs Labor Lawyers in CA. During the pay period when the suspension commenced the aggrieved reported to employer in order to return company assets. The required minimum pay was withheld for over 90 days. The aggrieved was not paid within the timeline required in the CA Labor Code. The penalties can go up to $10,000 per violation.
The fourth cause of action is CA Labor Code 6311. CA Labor Code 6311 This statute addresses the rights of employees refusing to perform dangerous tasks at work. The aggrieved believed the employer mandated EUA “COVID-19” vaccines presented an imminent hazard as defined by CAL-OSHA. Imminent Hazard Complaint At this employer the aggrieved monitored the operation of Autonomous Vehicles on public roads. The reported adverse effects from the “COVID-19" inoculation include but are not limited to seizures, blindness, blurred vision, loss of coordination, paralysis, cardiac events, strokes, hypoxia, tinnitus, hearing loss and breathing issues. The website, www.openvaers.com , has a great search engine for research. The aggrieved filed a complaint with CAL-OSHA.
During the filing process there were two other statutes that could apply in these types of matters. They will be addressed in a separate post. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO FILE WITH THE DLSE RETALIATION INVESTIGATIONS UNIT IS 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF LAST ADVERSE ACTION!!! Your other alternatives in the Civil Court System are Small Claims or Superior Court. The later will require a lot more costs, effort and time.
Here is link to the DLSE Retaliation Investigation Unit. CA DLSE Retaliation Unit