A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% believe the Supreme Court is doing a good or…

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% believe the Supreme Court is doing a good or an excellent job. At the same time, 30% rate its performance as poor. That’s the highest-ever poor rating. It’s also the first time ever that the poor ratings have topped the positive assessments.

Luckily, in California we are not beholden to The United State Supreme Court’s narrow views on what constitutes a supervisor for the purpose of sexual harassment and race harassment. Nor do we have to accept the artificially high standard the United States Supreme Court has given for retaliation in employment discrimination.

Both the United States Court and the California Supreme Court need to stop muddling constructions of  statutes governing employment law. While both courts claim they are not activist courts they are sure doing a lot of legislation. The Harris decision by the California Supreme Court utterly creates new law when the California version of Title VII does not have a rational basis for a mixed-motive method of winning the new form of discrimination case the Harris case enacted.

These days it is more important than ever that employees find an employment lawyer who understands all of the hyper-technical nuances the Supreme Courts are putting on discrimination laws. Employees also need an employment lawyer with experience in the appellate courts where devious, unethical employers will beg that trial wins be overturned for disputable reasons. You might think this sounds dramatic, but it is the truth.  Moralistic employers are usually not the ones being sued in employment lawsuits.

In the last year, I have personally won three appeals I wrote myself, and had a case in the California Supreme Court. My firm has been involved in several other appeals. In addition, one of my associates is going to be filing an appeal this week on a case in which the employee was forced to quit because he had to pay the employer’s expenses thus driving his rate down to below minimum wage.