What Happens When an Employer Discriminates Based on Jury Duty Service?

Labor Code § 230 allows an employee to bring a separate proceeding for a cause of action if an employer discriminates against the employee for jury duty service, provided the employee has given reasonable notice to the employer.

Analysis: Rights and Remedies Under Labor Code § 230(a)

Labor Code section 230(a) states, “an employer shall not discharge or discriminate against an employee for taking time off to serve on a jury, if the employee gives reasonable notice.” An employee discharged or discriminated against for jury service is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits.

This was clarified in People v. Kwee, where the appellate court ruled that Labor Code section 230(a) does not apply to time off when not serving on a jury. The appellate court stated that Labor Code section 230 provides for a separate proceeding to determine if a juror has been discriminated against on account of jury service.

Case Examples: How Courts Apply Labor Code § 230(a)

In Cox v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, the plaintiff was terminated shortly after serving on jury duty. While the employer claimed poor performance, the court allowed the claim for wrongful termination due to jury service to proceed.

The court identified the elements needed to prove discharge for performing jury duty, including:

• The employer discharged or discriminated against the employee.
• The adverse employment action was substantially motivated by the employee’s jury service.
• The employee gave reasonable notice of the jury service.

The court determined it would be up to a jury to decide if the termination was substantially motivated by jury duty, given the facts presented.

In Rodriguez v. U.S. Bank National Association, the plaintiff was terminated on the same day she completed her jury duty. She claimed that her jury service was the reason for her termination. However, the court held that temporal proximity alone between jury service and termination was insufficient to raise a triable issue under California law. The court found that the employer had submitted ample evidence of her poor performance prior to her termination.

Proving Reasonable Notice in Jury Duty Discrimination Cases

Reasonable notice is not clearly defined in Labor Code section 230(a), leaving the determination to the courts. In Cox v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, the plaintiff’s notice was disputed by the employer. The court determined that it would be up to a jury to decide whether reasonable notice had been given.

Remedies for Violations of Labor Code § 230

When an employer violates Labor Code § 230(a) by discharging or discriminating against an employee for jury service, the employee may pursue reinstatement and reimbursement of lost wages. As demonstrated in cases like Cox and Rodriguez, courts will carefully evaluate the evidence to determine if the employee’s jury service was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment action.

At TONG LAW, our experienced employment law attorneys can guide you through your rights and remedies under Labor Code § 230(a).