employment attorney

Sony Employee Rights After Privacy Hack

December 21, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The Sony privacy hack has drawn international attention and calls into question internet security for companies and employees. For employees who were victim to the security breach, legal questions remain. What are their rights? Can employees take legal action against an employer for a security breach? Thousands of employees suffered from the security breach when their social security numbers, birthdays, salaries, and even medical records were leaked online. In addition to the sheer loss of privacy, these employees are left vulnerable to identity theft and extortion. What next?

Employees at Sony are likely to be successful if they file a lawsuit under California law and could even recover millions of dollars for their losses. California has some of the strictest protections regarding employee information disclosure in the country. The workers would have significant rights and opportunities to recover compensation from the company. Under state law, residents are protected against having their information disclosed by any company or other institution. Even though Sony did not intentionally disclose data, it may not have met its burden in protecting the data from exposure and disclosure by third-parties.

According to reports, hundreds of Sony employees had their medical information disseminated, including complaints about unpaid insurance claims and lists of the medical procedures they had performed. Under California’s civil code, individuals have the right to bring an action against any entity that negligently released confidential information. In addition to the immediate $1000 claims, they can also collect on direct damages for the breach of privacy. To defend itself against these allegations, Sony would have to prove that it met its burden in protecting workers’ data, though this has been hotly disputed since the data hack.

EEOC: Testing Applicants for Carpel Tunnel is Illegal

November 30, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

With an increasing number of Americans making a living at their computers, carpal tunnel syndrome had been a rising diagnosis—as well as a concern for employers. In addition to workers’ compensation claims that have been tied to the repetitive stress disorder, employers have lost work time and productivity because of the condition. According to a recent lawsuit filing by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), companies are prohibited from screening employees for carpal tunnel during the hiring process. The lawsuit was filed against a manufacturing company that allegedly used physical test and health histories to identify those who had a history of carpal tunnel syndrome.

According to the complaint, the company asked its applicants whether or not they had a history of carpal tunnel syndrome. In addition to inquiring, the company went so far as to conduct a nerve text, even though medical authorities do not support the use of these tests or medical records to determine whether an individual has or is susceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome. After conducting medical inquiries and subjecting applicants to testing, the company refused to hire the plaintiff and another fifty or more applicants because of a history of carpal tunnel or the alleged potential to develop it in the future.

The EEOC alleges that the testing and adverse employment action is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and filed a lawsuit against the manufacturing company. After failing to reach a pre-litigation settlement, the EEOC filed the suit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The EEOC is seeking to end the discriminatory hiring practices, as well as collect back pay and additional damages for those who were denied employment as a result of the medical inquiries and testing.

EEOC Sues Honeywell Over Wellness Testing

November 14, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Wellness tracking programs are increasingly under scrutiny by employee rights advocates, health care professionals and other policy makers. In yet another case that challenges the legality of the employee wellness program, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Honeywell International to stop the company from penalizing employees who refuse to undergo medical testing under the purported corporate wellness program. This is the third such case filed by the EEOC since August, but Honeywell is the largest corporation targeted so far.

Advocates for wellness programs say they can boost employee morale, ensure healthy habits among employees and reduce overall medical costs. While companies may have incentive to track the health of employees, critics point out they are invasive and could violate medical privacy laws. Despite the potential abuse of corporate wellness programs, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) actually promotes and encourages employee wellness tracking. Honeywell has been charged with penalizing employees up to $4,000 each through surcharges and other lost contributions for failing to participate. The employees can incur such losses if they or their spouses refuse to comply with the biometric testing.

Under the Honeywell corporate wellness tracking system, employees must undergo screening for blood-sugar levels, nicotine, waist circumference, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure. According to the lawsuit, the testing was to occur the last week of October this year. The EEOC is the law agency that enforces federal labor laws and instances of discrimination. According to the EEOC, Honeywell’s employee testing program is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The agency filed the lawsuit asking for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to stop the company from imposing penalties.

EEOC Files Lawsuit Over Mandatory Arbitration Clause

October 11, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

New hires are often required to sign contracts and some employers will include a mandatory arbitration clause in these agreements. A recent case highlights some of the legal issues that may come arise when an employee is forced to sign a contract with a mandatory arbitration clause. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Doherty Enterprises, Inc., a company that owns and operates over 140 franchise restaurants in multiple states. According to the lawsuit, the company violated employee rights to file discrimination cases with the EEOC. The lawsuit, (EEOC v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc.) was filed in the U.S. District Court of Florida.

Under the employee contract, mandatory arbitration agreements were conditions of employment, requiring that any claims, including those involving discrimination or retaliation, be submitted and resolved through binding arbitration. In effect, the contract interfered and conflicted with employee rights to file discrimination charges, according to the EEOC lawsuit. Our Orange County employment law attorneys are dedicated to protecting the rights of our employee-clients throughout Southern California. We are also committed to raising awareness of the legal issues and complications that impact the rights of workers.

Employment related disputes may arise before an employee is hired, during the course of employment or after termination. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from patterns or practices that conflict with the rights protected under the law. Section 707 also gives the EEOC the ability to seek immediate relief and does not require the same administrative processes as issues involving discrimination allegations.

CA Discrimination Watchdog Group Ends “English Only” Claims Policy

September 26, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Non-English speaking Americans and immigrants may face a host of difficulties when seeking jobs, obtaining employment, or when filing complaints or claims related to discrimination. According to local reports, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing has finally ended a policy that prohibited non-English speakers from filing claims. The prior policy has been blamed for chilling state-employee discrimination claims, leaving workers vulnerable and unable to seek recourse. The department director made an announcement earlier this month with other department consultants who are responsible for investigating discrimination in housing, disability, and in the workplace.

Two years ago, the department had implemented an English-only computer system that required any claimant (even those without English speaking abilities or without knowledge of discrimination law), to build their own case online and in English. The automated system produced a host of issues and challenges when sorting through allegations, making it more difficult and complicated for legitimate claims to succeed. Our Orange County employment discrimination attorneys are dedicated to investigating allegations of discrimination and helping employees recover the compensation they are entitled to.

The new program will still be paperless, however, claimants will have the option of working with a consultant. According to previous complaints, there wasn’t sufficient time to investigate claims and the system created disparities for non-English speakers. With budget cuts and a shrinking staff, the agency was required to find loopholes to manage the volume of claims. Unfortunately, the automated “Houdini” system cut corners that created significant hurdles for claimants. The system automated many functions that were time-intensive and quickly determined that some claims did not require action.

Settlement vs. Trial Verdict in Employment Disputes

August 31, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

It can take months, years, even decades for an employment lawsuit to come to fruition and get resolved. There are many different reasons. In some cases, an employee will put up with misconduct or violations until they are terminated. Some cases require intensive investigations and an extended discovery process. Other cases will go through rounds of attempted negotiations and settlements before finally getting to a trial and eventually, a jury verdict. Defendants may wonder what is the best course of action for their case? Should they accept a settlement offer? Is it worth it to fight a case through trial and jury verdict?

Every case is unique and should be reviewed by an experienced employment law attorney. Our Orange County employment law attorneys will take the time to review allegations of misconduct or unlawful labor practices and determine the best legal course of action. In general, here are some benefits to settlement versus litigation.

Quicker resolution. A settlement usually means a quicker resolution. If parties can reach a settlement agreement before going to court, they will likely spend less time and money on the case. For employees, the benefit of settlement is immediate compensation and the ability to move forward after a dispute.

American Apparel CEO Fired After Nine Sexual Harassment Lawsuits

July 10, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The CEO of international retailer American Apparel has long been the subject of controversy. While he has been a champion of U.S. manufacturing to support immigrant works, he has also been the target of at least nine sexual harassment lawsuits. Allegations range from pressuring models into sexual activities to walking around his Los Angeles office in his underwear. Finally the board of American Apparel made the decision to force out the 45-year-old entrepreneur.

In a unanimous decision, the board fired the CEO after an ongoing investigation into his sexual misconduct. Our Los Angeles employment law attorneys are dedicated to protect the rights of employees who have suffered from sexual harassment in the workplace. While you may have been tolerant, put up with inappropriate behavior or advances, or even engaged in sexual activity with a superior, remember that you do have rights. Sexual harassment is a pervasive issue in businesses ranging from family operations to large corporations. Our attorneys are dedicated to protecting employees and in raising awareness to prevent sexual harassment.

According to Business Week, American Apparel shares are down to 68 cents, a record low compared to the $27 shares in 2007. Prior to termination, the CEO had $800,000 as a base salary and owned 27% of shares in the company. Analysis claim that the decision to terminate the CEO was in part because of the legal complications and liabilities as well as a failure to move the company forward in a new direction. While a board may put up with sexual harassment in the event of an upturn, a board is less likely to tolerate misconduct when the company is plummeting in value.

Teacher Tenure Track Ruled Unconstitutional in CA

July 8, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Students who filed a lawsuit against the State of California’s tenure for teachers laws succeeded in their case when a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge ruled in their favor. The lawsuit challenged the idea that tenure for teachers deprived students of a fair education. The main argument of the case, was that tenure track for public school teachers is unconstitutional. Under the new ruling, previous laws that allow tenure-track positions and that leave some teachers insulated from termination have been struck down.

Previously, teachers have been protected from adverse employment action, including termination or lay-offs, once they have achieved tenure. Some have argued that teachers are able to maintain their positions, even when their teaching skills lag behind or fail. The laws also disproportionately impacted new teachers who were the first to be let go in the event of a lay-off. Our Orange County employment law attorneys are dedicated to protecting the rights of workers throughout the state of California. We are also abreast of trending legal issues that impact the rights of employees. In addition to advocating for our clients, we are dedicated to raising awareness to prevent discrimination in the workplace.

The tenure-track job laws were challenged on the basis that the current system is unsupported by the state constitution. The judge agreed, finding that the burden required does not meet the strict scrutiny test. The laws unfairly allow ineffective tenure-track teachers to remain in their positions while dismissing “junior” level teachers who may be more engaging and effective in their positions. Plaintiffs argued that firing a teacher or professor based on the fact that they were new to the system, rather than on job performance alone, ultimately only injures the students.

California Employees Need to Know What is in Employment Contracts

July 2, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California courts generally do not enforce non-compete agreements because the agreements can be an inappropriate restraint on trade and can impact an employee’s ability to make a living after leaving a job. California is one of two states with a broad ban on non-compete agreements, along with North Dakota.

Unfortunately, on a national level, the use of non-compete agreements by employers is dramatically increasing and non-competes are showing up in all different types of jobs where they were once restricted only to a limited number of professional positions.

This trend is disturbing on many levels because it unfairly restricts the rights of people to leave an employer since they may face difficulty getting another job in the future. It is also an important reminder to employees that they need to understand employment agreements before they sign them. Before you sign any kind of employment contract and if you believe your employer is being unfair in trying to hold you to contract provisions, you need to speak with an Orange County employment law attorney.

The Fight for Paid Sick Leave for California Workers

June 24, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Paid sick leave may soon become a reality in California as the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee voted in favor of Assembly Bill 1522 on June 12. The bill is called the “Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act.” Under the proposed legislation, anyone who is employed for at least seven days over the course of a calendar year will be entitled to receive paid sick leave at a rate of an hour of leave for every 30 hours that the employee works.

The committee acted at a time when paid seek leave is getting a lot of attention in California, in part because hundreds of workers at California’s largest grocery chain have been demanding leave.

Some employees are already entitled to paid sick leave under labor contracts and collective bargaining agreements, but most employees in the state do not have a guarantee of time off from work when they are ill. As a worker, it is important you understand your employment rights and take steps to protect yourself if your employer fails to give you benefits guaranteed by law. An Orange County employment law attorney can advise you on your rights and represent you if you are treated unfairly.