employment attorney

Employee Lawsuits Abound at Beverly Hills PD

July 12, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Three years ago, the Beverly Hills Police Department hired its first-ever female police chief. While her appointment was lauded, her tenure has been marred by a series of civil lawsuits against the department – namely by at least 20 employees alleging misconduct specifically by her.

The California employment discrimination claims assert professional misconduct and discrimination against employees on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity and more.

In the most recent claim, jurors awarded a department employee $250,000, finding the chief targeted the worker for racist and homophobic harassment. This reportedly began when the chief learned plaintiff was a lesbian. The chief’s response – which she did not deny – was, “Ew! Gross!” Although the chief later admitted this comment, she insisted it was not intended to be discriminatory.

In another incident involving the same plaintiff, the chief reportedly told plaintiff that if she hoped to attend an upcoming holiday party, she was expected to “dress Mexican.” Continue Reading ›

Witnesses Can Be Key in California Workplace Harassment Cases

July 5, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Civil claims based on California employment law can be difficult to prove, particularly when they involve a case of alleged harassment, which often boils down to “he-said-she-said.” But whether we’re talking about harassment, wrongful termination or retaliation, plaintiffs will generally bear the proof burden. This is why for so many cases, witness statements prove critical.

One of the reasons witnesses are so essential is that they are, if not wholly unbiased, at least gaining less from the lawsuit than either of the involved parties. This is important in jury trials and even settlement negotiations, when it’s unclear who really has the stronger case.

For instance, plaintiff could argue that he was fired for making safety violations and that the performance-related reasons the company gave for the termination were nothing more than pretext. However, absent some solid proof, your Los Angeles employment attorney is going to need more than your word alone to prove this.

Similarly a restaurant manager’s sexual harassment of a young female waitress may be difficult to prove on her word alone. However, if co-workers attest to seeing it, that helps to substantially bolster the case. Continue Reading ›

Cannabis & Your Company: Lawmakers Increasingly Offering Worker Protections

June 15, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Nevada recently became the first state to ban employment discrimination of job applicants who use cannabis. Although other states have been inching toward this kind of measures, and employers have been adopting marijuana-friendly practices internally, Nevada is the first to adopt this into state law.

Los Angeles employment discrimination attorneys at The Nassiri Law Group (who also have extensive experience in California cannabis law) recognize that perhaps this isn’t all that surprising given Nevada’s long-time reputation as a libertarian-leaning state. It’s not clear whether others will follow, but it could set a strong precedence in other states where the drug is legal both for medicine and recreation.

Vice.com reports the new law, which comes three years after the state legalized cannabis, will take effect in 2020 and prohibits companies from declining to hire potential employees who test positive for the drug. Continue Reading ›

Report: More EEOC Workplace Discrimination Cases Closed Before Investigation

June 14, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Most employment lawsuits based on federal discrimination laws must first go through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, better known as EEOC. With few exceptions, these cases involve the protected statuses as set forth in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC launches an investigation and then gives Notice of Right to Sue when the investigation is closed, which allows permission to file your federal or state employment discrimination lawsuit withing 90 days. You can request the right to sue sooner or, if you’re filing an age discrimination claim, you don’t have to wait.

The idea was to resolve some of these matters without litigation, but also in a way that ensured maximum public good when an employer was caught unfairly treating workers. The EEOC doesn’t pursue government sanctions in every case (increasingly less so), but oftentimes information gleaned from that investigation can be helpful to your personal claim.

But apparently, the EEOC isn’t even doing much of that. In fact, an investigative co-report by the Center for Public Integrity and Vox. The report indicated an increasing number of workplace discrimination cases are being closed before they are ever even investigated. Continue Reading ›

Recognizing the Types of California Workplace Discrimination

May 29, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Although many people have heard the phrase, “workplace discrimination,” not everyone recognizes exactly what it is – and what it is not. It goes beyond simply having a boss or colleagues who are unpleasant or mean.

Employment discrimination occurs when either a job applicants or employee is not treated fairly because of his or her disability, gender, age, religion, national origin, skin color/race. It can also involve retaliation against an employee who attempts to assert his or her rights under these laws.

Employer discrimination is illegal under laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and it applies to any aspect of employment. That means it’s not just hiring and firing, but can apply to situations involving transfer/shift reassignment, disparate wages, demotion, promotion, benefits, reducing one’s hours or clipping one’s pay.

So for example, a company that systematically only offers white workers certain opportunities that lead to promotion, employees of color may have grounds to take action. Employers who consistently give younger workers the choice assignments, clients or travel opportunities may find themselves justly facing an age discrimination claim by an older employee. Continue Reading ›

California Supreme Court: Payroll Company Not Liable in Employee Wage-Hour Dispute

April 4, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Payroll processing companies can’t be held liable for the errors that employees of other firms claim resulted in their being shortchanged, the California Supreme Court ruled recently, reversing an appellate court’s decision.

In a case that originated in Los Angeles Superior Court, employees filed a third-party claim for damages against the payroll company contracted by the worker’s employer. Defendant payroll company attorneys argued California’s Labor Code doesn’t allow employers to assign duty for accuracy in wage statements to third parties. Bloomberg reported in December an estimated there are 1,100 payroll process service companies statewide.

Los Angeles employment lawyers had been watching the case closely, knowing that if the high court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor, it would have meant those firms could be subject to liability in California wage-and-hour employment litigation. Continue Reading ›

Will a Los Angeles Employment Lawyer Take My Discrimination Case?

March 28, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

You may be unsure about whether a Los Angeles employment lawyer will be willing to take your discrimination case. It’s important to understand what constitutes discrimination (not all unfair treatment will qualify) and whether you have or could acquire the evidence necessary to establish a case. If you do have evidence you were treated unfairly in employment or hiring on the basis of being part of a class that is protected by anti-discrimination laws, then a Los Angeles employment attorney will probably want to speak to you.

Employment lawyers do offer free initial consultations, so it is usually worth your time to reach out, explain your situation and arrange a meeting. A few things to keep in mind before you arrive.

Understanding Employment Discrimination

Facebook Vows to Block Discriminatory Employment Advertisements

March 15, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

It is illegal – in California and across the U.S., per the EEOC – to discriminate against a job applicant based on their race, color, religion, gender (including gender identity, sexual orientation and pregnancy) national origin, age (over 40), disability or genetic information. Yet one of the most frequently-used forums to lure new hires has essentially been facilitating just that, according to critics and a few employment lawsuits filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Communication Workers of America.

Social media giant Facebook has faced years of criticism that it allowed companies advertising job listings to use key categories allowing employers to cherry-pick who their ads would be shown to based on age group, gender and race. The New York Times now reports Facebook has agreed it will stop doing this.

It’s not just prospective employees that have been complaining either. Those advertising credit and housing have also been allowed to screen their ads so that they would only show to a certain subset of social media users. (Housing and credit are also regulated by federal anti-discrimination laws that bar selection of applicants on such bases.) Continue Reading ›

California Employee Seating Lawsuit Not Limited to Cashiers

March 9, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A number of California employment lawsuits have been won in recent years by cashiers at retail locations seeking a place to sit at work. The door was first opened in 2010 when a pair of California Court of Appeal rulings allowed cashier plaintiffs to seek remedy when employers failed to provide reasonable seating.

In 2016, the California Supreme Court held in Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. that when tasks performed at a given location reasonably permit seating AND providing a seat wouldn’t interfere with the performance of any other tasks that might require standing, “a seat is called for.” Furthermore, if an employer argues no suitable seat is available, the burden is on the employer to prove unavailability.

As our Los Angeles labor and employment attorneys can explain, this provision is most often applied to cashiers, tellers and others who frequently work in stationary locations, but it’s not necessarily limited to the retail or banking sector or solely to cashiers. Continue Reading ›

California Courts Nix Non-Solicitation Clauses in Employment Agreements

March 6, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Non-solicitation clauses in California employment agreements have been deemed illegal in California per two recent court decisions. This includes out-of-state employers with California employees. Orange County employment attorneys are encouraging companies to review their employment agreements and consider removing non-solicitation clauses that may be in conflict with state law.

Non-solicitation agreements are provisions in employment contracts (sometimes standalone contracts) wherein an employee agrees he or she will not try to solicit customers or clients of the employer for his or her personal benefit or for that of a competitor if/when he/she leaves the firm. Non-solicitation agreements can also encompass an employee’s agreement not to solicit other employees to leave once he/she quits.

Restrictive Covenants in California Labor Code

California has some of the strongest worker rights provisions in the country. For instance, California Business and Professions Code section 16600 states that all employment contracts that would keep anybody from engaging in a lawful profession, business or trade is void.

Courts in California have long held that it is against public policy to restrict former employees’ right to work for competitors. Further, state courts have soundly rejected the argument put forth by the inevitable disclosure doctrine, which asserts employees who immediately go work for a competitor is going to inevitably disclose or use trade secrets of the former employer. In the 2008 case of Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the California Supreme Court ruled previous workers are entitled to solicit the clients of former employers – assuming they don’t do so using their former employer’s trade secrets or confidential information while doing so.

This ruling marked a shift from the 1985 ruling by a California Court of Appeal in Loral Corp. v. Moyes, in which justices declined to void as unenforceable an employee agreement restriction indicating the employee was not allowed now or in the future to damage, interfere, impair or disrupt the business of the former employer by interfering with or “raiding” its employees, business relationships, agents, representatives, customers, vendors, etc. The clause created an express exception for being employed by or engaging with a competing business. The court didn’t expressly allow employment contracts with non-solicitation agreements, but rather ruled the one in question wasn’t an obvious, unenforceable restriction on fair trade. Continue Reading ›