Women-Only Latrine Duty May Be a Dirty Deal
Q: The office manager of my company has assigned “latrine duty” for the ladies’ restroom to some of the female employees. The assignments are on a rotating basis for one-month periods. We have a weekly outside cleaning service, but because there is only one ladies’ restroom, weekly cleaning is not adequate.
My concern is that this policy does not apply to all of the female employees nor to any of the male employees. Could this be considered discriminatory?
--C.J., Monrovia
A: Yes. Although employers are entitled to assign duties to some employees but not others, they may not do so if the intent or the effect of the assignment is to discriminate against one sex.
You may have an argument that you were discriminated against by being assigned latrine duty because no male employees were required to do this undesirable task.
I suggest that you speak to the decision maker at your company and explain your concerns. If you are unable to resolve the matter informally, you may contact the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and explain the situation to them. They will assist you in determining whether you have a claim.
--Diane J. Crumpacker
Management law attorney
Fried, Bird & Crumpacker
Forced Surrender of Commission Is Improper
Q: As the salesperson for a small interior design showroom, I was paid an hourly wage plus commission on sales.
When I joined the business, I was asked to sign an elaborate employment agreement that included terms of my sales commission. During my employment, however, the owner arbitrarily would decrease the percentage, saying that “commissions were not guaranteed.” I was even asked to refund a commission on a sale that was never returned.
After this occurred several times, I left the company with several sales outstanding. Do I have a right to the money that was withheld during my tenure? What about the sales that are outstanding?
--R.R., Los Angeles
A: Your rights depend on the specific terms of your agreement with your former employer. Unfortunately, even written agreements are often vague or give an employer the opportunity to change them at will.
However, there is a big difference between changing terms of compensation in the future and retroactively changing terms of compensation for services already performed.
Changes to compensation would be more justified by your employer if it gives you sufficient notice so that you have a chance to complete sales based on the existing commission and start new sales based on the adjusted commission rate.
You certainly have a justifiable legal argument if you were the “procuring cause” for a sale, even if it wasn’t completed and the employer changed the terms of your compensation during the course of your sales efforts.
Because an employer cannot legally make an employee liable for its losses, it would have been inappropriate for the company to ask you to refund a commission on a sale that was returned. It was even more improper for the company to request a commission refund on a sale that was never canceled.
You should review the terms of your agreement to determine specific commissions that your former employer owes you. If you were forced to quit after complaining about these practices without receiving any satisfaction, you also might be able to claim “constructive wrongful termination” (legal terminology for being wrongfully fired). A wrongful-termination claim could be quite substantial.
--Don D. Sessions
Employee rights attorney
Mission Viejo
*
If you have a question about an on-the-job situation, please mail it to Shop Talk, Los Angeles Times, P.O. Box 2008, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; dictate it to (714) 966-7873, or e-mail it to shoptalk@latimes.com. Include your initials and hometown. The Shop Talk column is designed to answer questions of general interest. It should not be construed as legal advice. Recent Shop Talk columns are available at https://www.latimes.com/shoptalk.
