The risks of Propecia are still unfolding.  For several years, men have been taking Propecia for hair loss. Merck the manufacturer of Propecia represented that a limited number of users may experience side effects including sexual dysfunction such as decreased libido, erectile dysfunction and ejaculation disorder as well as potential depression. The actual rate of sexual function may be as high as 39%. Studies in Sweden indicate that the adverse side effects often continue after discontinuation of Propecia.  This persistence and/or permanence of the sexual dysfunction, depression and cognitive impairment remained undisclosed to U.S. consumers.  Merck failed to include it on its label. 

Men who used Propecia are claiming that Merck failed to adequately warn them about its risks. Most of these cases are being litigated in New York. Recently the wife and children of a man who took Propecia filed a claim against Merck alleging that in addition to depression, Propecia caused their father and husband to have thoughts of suicide and it led to his eventual suicide.

Nearly 20,000 women have brought claims against Bayer for its failure to warn about Yaz’s association with increased risk of clotting.  Women suffered deep vein thromboses, pulmonary embolis and death.  Although Bayer has paid out approximately $1.7 billion in settlements to Yaz claimants approximately 3400 claims remain.

U.S. District Judge David Herndon expressed disappointment that Bayer has been unwilling or unable to settle out of court.  Most of the remaining cases involve catastrophic injuries to women with patent foramen ovale and/or arterial clotting.

On February 13, 2015, Judge Herndon issued a case management order that provides for all Yaz actions that were initially transferred from outside of Southern Illinois to return to their home courts. And the trials originally scheduled for May 4, 2015 have been cancelled or continued.  The Judge has scheduled a Yaz trial to begin in his courtroom on June 15, 2015.  

  On February 23, 2015 a Pennsylvania jury found Risperdal drug maker Janssen Pharmaceuticals failed to properly warn of the potential for Risperdal to cause gynecomastia, a condition in which males grow enlarged breasts.  As a boy, Austin

 Pledger, took Risperdal to assist with behavioral symptoms related to autism and later developed size 46DD breasts from taking the drug. The condition was irreversible.  The jury awarded Pledger $2.5 million.

 

 

Harassment is unfair conduct targeting an employee or a group of employees based upon a protected class. Harassment can be verbal, physical, or visual (such as posters, cartoons, or drawings). See, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §7287.6(b)(1). 

For example, if employees frequently refer to a back co-worker as “boy” or use racial slurs, then that is harassment.

An independent contractor is a person who an employer hires to complete a project. The employer does not have control over how the project is completed. In California, a person hired to do something for the benefit of another is assumed to be an employee unless the employer proves otherwise. See, Labor Code, § 3357.

For example, if a small donut shop hires a web designer to build a website for the business and agrees to pay a set amount for the project, then the web designer is an independent contractor and not an employee.

As discussed here and here, whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor involves a number of factors.

An employee is a person hired by employers to do something for the employer’s benefit or for the benefit of the employer’s customers. An employer has the right to control how the employee does their work is done by the employee. See, Labor Code, § 2750.

As discussed here, whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor involves a number of factors.

An employer cannot fire, demote, refuse to hire, or take other job actions concerning employees based on the employee’s

  • race,
  • religion,
  • color,
  • ancestry,
  • disability,
  • gender,
  • veteran status, or
  • any other protected class.

For example, if a clothing store decides to give raises only to non-Latino employees because it wants the store’s appearance to match a changing community, then that would be employment discrimination.

Another example, if a large car dealership decides to fire the one employee who refuses to work on Saturday because of his religious beliefs, then that would be employment discrimination.

See, Government Code, § 12940.

An employer faced with an allegation of discrimination resulting from disparate impact can defend against the allegation by claiming business necessity. To use this defense, the employer must prove that there was a real business purpose behind the workplace practice or policy that resulted in discrimination. There must also be no other way to achieve the same business purpose without having a discriminatory impact. This defense does not exist for employers facing claims of disparate treatment.


See, CACI 2503 and City and County of San Francisco v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 976, 989-990.

California’s law protects employees not only from so-called ultimate employment actions such as termination or demotion, but also from any adverse employment action – i.e. the entire range of employment actions that are likely to have a substantial negative impact on an employee’s job or career.

Although offensive or rude comments or even repeated social slights by an employer or co-workers may not be viewed as sufficient to negatively impact an employee’s job or career, the law is designed to have a broad reach in order to protect employees against employment discrimination.

Minor or trivial actions by employers or co-workers that, from an objective perspective, are likely to do no more than upset an employee are considered insufficient to negatively impact an employee’s job or career. The antidiscrimination laws were not designed to protect against such minor or trial actions. See, Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1053–1055.