age discrimination

New California Laws Affect Younger Workers

October 12, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

While California has a very broad economy, it is still very much an agricultural state that employs a lot of farm workers. According to a recent news article from the Lompoc Record, a new law designed to increase pesticide restrictions may actually have a major effect on employability of young farm workers.

Many farm workers are under the age of 18, as they have been for hundreds of years. While the working age in California is normally 18, there are exceptions for agricultural workers. While the law does not prohibit farms from hiring people under the age of 18 to work in the fields with adults, the law does say that underage workers are not allowed to perform early-entry work anymore. On a farm, early-entry work means going into the fields immediately after pesticides have been sprayed. The workers are required to wear protective gear, but, until this new federal law went into effect, both underage and adult workers could do early-entry work. Following the new law, underage workers are prohibited from performing early-entry work. Continue Reading ›

Former San Francisco Investigator Sues Prosecutor’s Office for Age Discrimination

August 25, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Age discrimination by employers is a serious problem in the state of California and across the nation. As the population is aging and people are working much later in life, the problem will only get worse if things do not change.

According to a recent news article from KRON 4, a former investigator with the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office is suing for age discrimination following her termination. Employee had been working for the prosecutor’s office since the summer of 1985. She claimed in her complaint she received numerous positive performance reviews and had been promoted five times before being fired. Continue Reading ›

Los Angeles Workers Sue McDonald’s for Age Discrimination

June 30, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

According to a recent feature from the Los Angeles Daily News, seven former employees a McDonald’s restaurant located in the Northridge neighborhood of Los Angeles are suing the company for age discrimination in relation to their employment.

The plaintiffs, six women and one man, alleged in their complaint they were all fired by McDonald’s because they were over the age of 40. Specifically, they are alleging counts of age discrimination, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit is filed in the Superior Court in Los Angeles, and plaintiffs have not specified an exact amount of damages.

Plaintiffs claim their troubles started while they were all working at the restaurant. They stated they were all hard working employees with no reason for disciplinary action including termination. They further claim they were all fired suddenly as part of scheme to replace them with younger workers. Continue Reading ›

Adams v. CDM Media USA – Age Discrimination Lawsuit to Proceed

March 12, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The Hawaii Supreme Court has reversed a summary judgment favoring a company accused of age discrimination in hiring, finding the company failed to meet the necessary burden to prove it should prevail as a matter of law.

The 59-year-old plaintiff who had decades of experience in sales was turned down for a sales position, while jobs were offered to candidates who were between 20 and 35 years her junior. Trial court initially ruled plaintiff failed to prove the reasons cited by defendant company were a pretext for the actual, discriminatory reason it chose not to hire her.

Although that decision was affirmed by the appellate court, the state supreme court in its review of Adams v. CDM Media USA, Inc. reversed, noting the company failed to satisfy its burden to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for declining to hire plaintiff – particularly when it hired candidates with far less experience.

Age Discrimination May Manifest in Subtle Ways

March 6, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Most employers are aware of the fact that legally, they can’t specifically recruit workers under the age of 30 or fire a worker simply because he or she hit the 55-year mark. But usually, age discrimination comes in much more subtle ways.

One such example is job advertisements that request applications from “recent graduates.” According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has increasingly taken an aggressive stance on issues like this, here would be a situation where a seemingly neutral employment policy resulted in a disproportionate negative effect on older applicants.

It’s illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of age, as well as gender, race, color, religion, national origin or disability.

California Home Healthcare Workers and the Fight for Overtime

January 30, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

With a growing elderly population, more families are turning to home health care services to help with the aid and medical needs of their loved ones. Many of these health service employees work for agencies responsible for salary and hourly wages, including overtime.

For employees, it is important to remember the laws about wages and overtime to ensure just compensation. Sadly, a California judge’s recent decision may limit the right to overtime for home health care workers. According to reports, California will not pay overtime to home health aides who care for the state’s elderly and disabled after judge overturned a federal regulation that requires overtime. The decision is a significant setback for home healthcare workers as well as the unions that back them.

Unions, workers and other advocacy groups fought aggressively in favor of the regulation and lobbied Governor Jerry Brown to include the funding package in the California budget. By refusing overtime and other benefits to home healthcare workers, the state is now positioned to save $183.6 million in the next six months and another $314.2 million in the fiscal year beginning in July. While the California budget and bottom-line may benefit, workers and their families will not be entitled to the compensation they should have access to under federal law.

49ers Team and CEO Sued for Age Discrimination

January 8, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The NFL is one of many sports organizations that has been the recent target of lawsuits related to employment claims. In a recent development, the San Francisco 49ers and its CEO, Jed York, have been named in an employment discrimination lawsuit. According to the complaint, two former employees have alleged the organization terminated employment due to their age. The lawsuit alleges that the organization and CEO are in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).

According to the lawsuit, two employees were fired in 2011 with the simple reasoning that the organization was “taking a different direction.” The employees have filed the lawsuit years after the termination and after exhausting other administrative remedies with the EEOC and Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The employers were given a right-to-sue letter and the litigation has been appropriately filed within the statute of limitations. The complaint alleges that Jed York wanted to hire younger tech workers, seeking to turn the organization into the “start-up” company of the NFL. The complaint alleges that disparaging comments were made about older workers, including that they “want to go play golf six days a week.”

The lawsuit claims there were widespread firings related to the initiative. Group termination of “legacy” employees ensued, even as the organization attempted to spread it over days, weeks, and months to give the appearance it was not happening to a group of employees. Under the OWBPA, legal procedures must be followed when a group of older workers are terminated. According to the complaint, the 49ers did not follow mandatory processes or procedures when terminating the older employees.

Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Zillow

December 3, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Companies that are liable for one employment law violation are often liable for many. Failure to protect employee rights or illegal policies will often result in multiple lawsuits and class actions. In a recent sweep of litigation, Zillow has been sued for sexual harassment and age discrimination. In the most recent lawsuit, an employee filed a lawsuit alleging that employees engaged in illegal age discrimination. According to the complaint, the 41-year-old was targeted by a sales manager who asked if she was “too old to close.” He also joked that she should “try to keep up.”

Office cultures that promote discrimination or unequal treatment can create a hostile work environment. For victims of discrimination, this can mean ongoing and repetitive abuses. In this case, the complaint alleges that the plaintiff was a victim of a “pervasive culture of retaliation and harassment.” The lawsuit was filed by the same firm that represented other in employees in three other cases, including a sexual harassment case. Though the company has challenged the allegations, it also claims to be taking the case seriously and will initiate an internal investigation.

Many discrimination cases will also include allegations of retaliation, in the event that the employee suffered adverse employment action, including demotion, lost pay, or termination of employment. In the recent age discrimination case, the plaintiff has also filed a claim for wrongful termination. According to the complaint, the 41-year-old was fired after she took time off to recover from injuries she sustained in a car accident. Managers made her stand and perform regular sales calls duties, even though she requested to take breaks as a result of her injuries. After she took her complaints to the human resources department, she needed additional hospitalization to deal with the injuries that were exacerbated by ongoing work duties.

Tramp v. Associated Underwriters, Inc.: On Age Discrimination Employment Termination

November 3, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Tramp v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., an appeal heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, involved claims of wrongful termination due to age discrimination.

Employer hired worker in 2000. Seven years later, employer was operating at a loss. Due to economic issues, employer underwent a reduction-in-force (RIF) and terminated seven of its employees. The workers terminated were chosen based upon the quality of their work. According to court records, employee retained her job, but the company president was still concerned about the quality of her work.

The following year, things had not gotten better, and the office manager suggested the company terminate the firm’s health insurance plan. The president did not agree. However, the insurance plan premiums greatly increased and employer sought quotes from competitors. The company provided demographic information on the employees when submitting applications for quotes.

One of the quotes was lower than all others and employer learned that it was because the names of employee and another worker who were both over the age of 65 had been accidentally omitted from the application. When the quote was adjusted, it was much higher. Continue Reading ›

Acevedo-Perez v. United States: On the Statute of Limitations in Employment Discrimination Cases

October 31, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Acevedo-Perez v. United States, a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, involves an employee who was terminated from his employment with federal government. Employee alleged that his termination was wrongful and based upon discrimination as to his age and national origin.

Employee was assigned to an office in San Juan in 2005. The Washington, DC office was short-handed and asked for volunteers who would accept a lateral transfer to that office. One other employee in office in which employee worked volunteered for reassignment. Employee’s supervisor need to fill an additional transfer request and issued a letter informing employee that he was also being transferred. Employee accepted the transfer in September 2005.

Employee requested, and was granted, two extensions on the time he was scheduled to transfer, based upon family issues. He made a third request to delay the transfer, but it was denied, so employee decided to retire instead of being transferred. Continue Reading ›