employment attorney

Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries – Employment Lawsuit “Loose Ends” Prevent Summary Judgment

February 21, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Plaintiff in Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries may have an uphill battle in proving his employment retaliation case, but there were too many “loose ends” for the trial court to have declared a summary judgment in favor of the defense, a federal appellate court recently ruled.

According to the decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the case stemmed from an original charge of racial discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants in that case. But subsequently, plaintiff filed a separate action for retaliation, arguing he was being punished by his employer for filing the original claim.

While the district court again granted summary judgment to the employer, the federal appeals court reversed.

Court: California Healthcare Employers Subject to Litigation for Meal Break Waivers

February 18, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

For more than two decades, health care workers were given the option to waive a second meal break that would otherwise be required on shifts longer than eight hours under the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders, or IWC.

However, in the recent decision of Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem. Medical Center, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, has found part of the IWC orders invalid.

Specifically targeted was IWC Wage Order No. 5. The measure stated workers in the health care industry who worked shifts in excess of eight hours could voluntarily waive their right to one of their two meal periods, so long as the agreement was written and signed by both parties.

EEOC Sues Restaurant for Discrimination Against Male Applicants

February 5, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

While sexual harassment claims are often filed by women who suffer discrimination or retaliation by male superiors, a recent federal case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a reminder that discrimination and harassment can go both ways. According to a statement from the EEOC, a well-known restaurant chain is being sued for discriminating against male applicants for bartender and server positions. According to the complaint, the restaurant in its Park City, Utah locations only hired women for its summer positions. The federal lawsuit was filed in late January by the EEOC, seeking an injunction that would stop the restaurant from depriving men of employment as a result of their gender.

In taking legal action against the restaurant, the EEOC is sending a message to all restaurants and service industry employers that they must put an end to all wrongful and illegal employment practices. The EEOC is seeking to compensate two workers who were denied jobs during the summer of 2013 because they were male. An attorney representing the plaintiffs stated publicly that this is a cautionary tale to other employers who favor female employees when hiring.

According to the complaint, the company went out of its way to advertise for temporary positions during the summer of 2013, indicating it showed exclusive preference for female applicants. The company even stated specifically that it was not hiring men.

Paramount Pictures Sued for FCRA Violations

February 2, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Employees who turn in an application to an employer may not realize they have significant rights under federal law – even if they are not hired. Employers who decide to use consumer background checks, including criminal history or credit reports, to make a hiring decision must follow a very strict set of rules to do so.

First of all, they must inform you of their intent and get your permission. Your authorization for access to this information must be clear and separate from any other consent forms. In the event that an employer is not going to hire you because of what is turned up in reports, you must be given notice and time to rectify any mistakes.

These are only a few of the requirements set forth by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and an increasing number of employers are being held liable for violations. According to recent reports, Paramount Pictures is the most recent big offender in a string of class action lawsuits related to FCRA violations in the hiring process. The motion picture production company has been accused of failing to inform candidates of its intent to delve into their consumer, credit, and criminal histories. The class action alleges that there were very strict policies and practices that were not followed by the company.

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.

McDonald’s Faces Suit for “Rampant” Racial and Sexual Discrimination

January 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

McDonald’s is facing some of its most egregious accusations of racial and sexual discrimination and harassment, which could result in a significant settlement or verdict for 10 former employees. The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against the company in January of 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs were subjected to “rampant racial and sexual harassment.” Alleged offenders were high-ranking supervisors and managers who have been accused of demeaning the workers, nine of whom are African American, and one who is Hispanic. Of all the plaintiffs, seven are women.

According to the court documents, supervisors were demeaning, claiming that there were “too many black people in the store.” African-American workers said their supervisors called them derogatory names like “ghetto” or “bitch,” and the Hispanic worker said that she was repeatedly called a “dirty Mexican.”

In addition to the hostile work environment created by the aggressive and ongoing name-calling, the employees were disciplined more heavily than while employees who violated the same rules. The employees were also inappropriately touched on their buttocks and legs. Supervisors also sent the female employees nude and other sexually explicit photographs and in several instances, tried to solicit sexual favors from their employees.

Saks Claims Right to Discriminate Against Transgendered Employees

January 23, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Transgendered employees are a protected class under California state laws and federal law. The Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hold it is illegal for employers to discriminate against transgendered employees. In a recent turn of legal events, Saks & Co. administrators in a federal motion asserted the company has the right to discriminate against employees for being transgendered.

According to the filing, Saks asked for the dismissal of a former employee’s discrimination lawsuit because transsexuals are not protected under Title VII.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bans employment discrimination based on race, religion and gender. According to reports, a transgendered woman alleges she was instructed to separate her work and home life and to begin behaving in a more masculine manner at work. The lawsuit alleges that she was ultimately terminated in retaliation for speaking up about a hostile work environment. Saks attorneys filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas, denying all legal claims. The defense team also alleges that though the discrimination is tied to gender, the discrimination is related to his status as a transsexual. In essence, the defense attorneys are arguing adverse employment action based on plaintiff’s status as a transsexual is grounds for a discrimination action.

Rise in FCRA Lawsuits: Employer Liability in Background Checking

January 19, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Employers are being more heavily scrutinized for taking potentially illegal action when background checking employees either prior to hire or during the course of employment. A class action lawsuit was filed in a Missouri federal court alleging Michaels, a craft store chain, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in its hiring process. According to the complaint, the store violated the law because it failed to properly disclose to candidates that a credit report could be requested and reviewed during the application process.

The FCRA governs how credit reports, criminal background checks, traffic reports and other consumer records can be used during the hiring process. Employers do have the right to access these records. However, they must follow a very strict set of guidelines to ensure compliance with the law. Even though the majority of job applicants may be unaware of their rights under the law, employers should be in full compliance when requesting information on a job candidate.

Michaels is far from the only alleged offender. Whole Foods, Publix and Dollar General are all facing lawsuits over purported FCRA violations.

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.

New Protections for Foreign Workers in 2015

December 24, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California attracts worker from Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe and Asia. Unfortunately, many of these workers have become victims of exploitation, wage and hour violations, and other illegal activities. California lawmakers have expanded protections to foreign workers and the new laws will go into effect in 2015. Under the new laws, foreign labor contractors are forbidden from charging any fees or other costs to workers for contracting activities. New protections also prevent employers and contractors from charging foreign workers with any costs or other expenses that are not charged to American workers in a similarly situated position. It limits the housing costs that employers can charge to foreign employees to ensure that they are only charged market rates.

In addition to limiting expenses and fees, the new protections also prevent employers from requiring workers to pay any expenses prior to starting work. Employers are also prohibited from changing any terms of the contract that was originally provided to and signed by a foreign worker. Employers are able to make contractual changes if the employee is given at least 48 hours to reconsider any new modifications to the contract and must specifically consent to any changes in the contract. The new law also requires foreign labor contractors to meet additional documentation requirements. Employers and contractors must also comply with new regulations related to registration, licensing and bonding. Every employer is prohibited from using non-registered foreign labor contractors in California.

Employers who are found to be in violation of new labor laws could face strict penalties in the event of non-compliance. In addition to civil action, including a lawsuit filed by an employee, contractors and employers will also be held jointly liable for any contract and violation. The abuse of temporary foreign workers is an ongoing problem in California and throughout the United States. Third-party contractor as well as employers know that many workers are willing to come and work for low wages, even sacrificing pay for a place to work and live. This has created a host of abuses that the new California law seeks to rectify.