race discrimination

Supreme Court Rules Against Race-Conscious Admissions in Harvard and UNC

July 20, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

In the landmark decision of Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., the Supreme Court has ruled against the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC). Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the 6-3 majority, declared that these programs were unconstitutional due to their negative use of race and involvement of racial stereotyping. Here, our Anaheim employment lawyers provides a legal analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision, highlighting its impact on both public and private institutions and discussing its potential implications in the employment arena.

The Application of the Ruling to UNC and Harvard:

The Supreme Court’s ruling applies to both UNC, a public institution, and Harvard, a private institution. UNC was subject to the ruling due to its status as a state-owned entity, as public institutions are bound by constitutional restrictions. In the case of Harvard, the Court determined that despite being a private institution, it accepted federal funding and agreed to be treated similarly to a state actor in matters related to admissions. This decision sets a precedent that private institutions receiving federal funding can be subject to constitutional scrutiny, including in matters involving affirmative action.

Racial Discrimination Must Be “But For” Cause in Section 1981 Civil Rights Law Claims

January 19, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

One of the most significant changes in federal racial discrimination cases came with the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owed Media, et al. News of this precedent was largely eclipsed by the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S., but the impact will be significant in future racial discrimination employment lawsuits.

For those who may not be familiar, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act bars race discrimination that is intentional in all forms of contracting. That includes employment. The conflict among lower courts in deciding these cases was whether a plaintiff needed to prove that race discrimination was just one motivating factor among several for the adverse employment action, or whether plaintiff needed to show that race was the “but for” cause. With a “but for” standard, plaintiffs need to prove the adverse outcome wouldn’t have happened “but for” the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2019 and issued their decision in March 2020. They held that plaintiffs in Section 1981 cases must meet the “but for” causation standard. Continue Reading ›

Prop. 16 Failure Means California’s Affirmative Action Ban Remains

December 7, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

For nearly a quarter century, California has banned affirmative action programs that allow consideration of gender or race in public employment, contracting and university admissions. In the most recent election, California voters decided overwhelmingly to reject a ballot initiative that would have reversed this. Only one of the state’s 58 counties voted to approve Prop. 16, which was ultimately defeated by a margin of more than 2 million votes statewide.

As our Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, that means that for now, California will continue to be just one of 10 states that bar gender- and race-based programming benefitting those well-documented to be at a disadvantage in these arenas. Continue Reading ›

Biden’s ‘Racial Equity Plan’ Would Bolster Workplace Discrimination, Harassment Laws

August 7, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Recently, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden unveiled a broad plan to confront systemic racism and promote racial equity. The former vice president’s Racial Equity Plan is part of a larger Build Back Better economic proposal. This newest element – support of the BE HEARD Act – addresses workplace inequalities that are known to disproportionately impact minorities.

BE HEARD (Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination in the Workplace), or H.R. 2148 has drawn praise from social justice advocates – yet earned the sharp ire of corporate interest groups. Essentially, it would (among other things) prohibit workplace harassment and discrimination under federal law – regardless of how many employees a company has – and require harassment training. It would further seek to address sexual harassment of tipped employees (a well-established problem) by requiring the cash wages paid to these workers be steadily increased until they meet the minimum wage for other workers.

As staunch regulatory critic Hans Bader wrote in the National Review, “(Under this plan), even the tiniest of employers would be saddled with unlimited legal liability for discrimination or harassment committed by an employee.” He added the law would alter the definition of sexual harassment in a way that would make small businesses vulnerable to liability for “trivial actions of their workers.”

As a longtime Los Angeles employment lawyer experienced in handling cases of racial discrimination and sexual harassment, I would note first that it’s a misconception that California employment lawsuits are or have ever been easy to win. Part of what this new law would do is establish a new liability standard for workplace harassment that “fulfills the Congressional intent” (as meticulously laid out in prior legislative action and case law) of providing broad protection from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth, a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth and sex stereotype), national origin, age, disability, genetic information and uniformed service status. Note the recognition of sexual orientation and gender identity – statuses that have protection in California, but not nationally. Continue Reading ›

Racial Discrimination Alleged by Black Worker at Facebook

July 20, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A Black employee for Facebook, represented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has alleged in a complaint he experienced racial discrimination at the firm, being denied promotions and pay raises and receiving unfair evaluations, despite “excellent” work performance. Meanwhile, two job applicants say they were denied the opportunity to work for the company – despite being qualified – because of their skin color.

According to the Associated Press, the employee was employed as an operations program manager at the social media firm. Facebook said it is committed to investigating allegations of racism. The AP reports that like many Silicon Valley companies, Black workers are underrepresented, accounting for less than 4 percent of the total number of Facebook employees and only 1.5 percent of the company’s technical workers.

Allegations of racial discrimination have been leveled before at the company. Although CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared last month that, “Black lives matter,” previous employees say the tech firm hasn’t made racial diversity a priority. Continue Reading ›

BLM Spurs Companies to Disavow Racial Discrimination, Critics Note Lacking Diversity

June 25, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month sparked a global outcry over policing practices and a notable shift in the conversation over the Black Lives Matter movement. It also set off an avalanche of response from corporate America, which rushed to express solidarity with the black community, some promising billions of dollars collectively to advance the causes of racial equality and justice. Public reaction to this has been mixed, in part because it’s unprecedented; companies have been largely silent on this issue before now, despite the fact that it’s not a new one (as those of us in Los Angeles well know). But the other skepticism stems from the fact that many firms don’t appear to be as vigilant on equity and diversity within their own ranks.

Social justice advocates point out that racial disparities go far beyond policing and are calling on these companies to closely examine their hiring and promotion practices for possible racial bias.

As our Los Angeles racial discrimination lawyers can explain, lots of companies have committed to diversity in years past, some on their own and some because a court ordered them to do so. But in many corporations, there remains significant unchecked structural bias for people of color and also women. Continue Reading ›

Pay Secrecy in California: Understanding Your Employee Rights

June 17, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A prominent, national law firm is facing a growing number of lawsuits pertaining to its secretive compensation system that former attorneys say hides systematic pay discrimination against women. Some of those include claims, filed in 2018, included plaintiffs who worked for the firm in California, as the ABA Journal reported.

In that case, the lawsuit alleges there was an enforced “code of silence” with regard to pay and productivity wherein partners kept compensation information confidential. That left female attorneys out in the cold, unable to discover or attempt to equalize their pay. Guidelines at the firm were reportedly changed to discourage – but not outright forbid – discussions of pay among partners and employees.

Recently, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the law firm’s motion to dismiss these lawsuit, though the court did dismiss several of the pregnancy discrimination claims. Continue Reading ›

California Staffing Agency Liability for Workplace Discrimination

April 15, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

California staffing agencies can be held liable for workplace discrimination. However, in a recent decision of Duckworth et al. v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services Inc., a state appellate court ruled the staffing agency was not liable for alleged racial discrimination of two black employees who weren’t promoted. The court held that because the two workers were “leased” to the company they worked for – and that company had the authority over employment actions – the staffing agency was effectively off-the-hook.

As our Los Angeles racial discrimination attorneys can explain, this, like many similar cases comes down to the degree of control each firm had in employment-related decisions. As an increasing number of companies turn to staffing agencies to fill certain positions, the question of who the actual employer is becomes pertinent when determining who is responsible for employment-related discrimination claims. The question will be which entity retains substantial control and are in fact employers in all but name. Continue Reading ›

Spotlight on Racial Discrimination in the Fashion Industry

February 26, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A number of civil rights and employment lawsuits filed over the last handful of years have accused fashion industry powerhouses of discriminating against workers on the basis of race. Among them, two employees at high-end retail shops in California say they were treated poorly by management because of their race, and that black shoppers who weren’t celebrities were identified by code so that employees could monitor them more closely than other shoppers. Those cases, against Versace and Moschino, were later settled out-of-court.

There have also been numerous recent incidents of reported racial insensitivity within the industry, including:

Backlash following the release of several Gucci products, including an “Indy full turban,” a blackface jumper and a hoodie with strings tied like a noose.
An H&M “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” advertisement featuring a black child.
Prada’s release of key chain figurines that resembled the offensive “Little Sambo” children’s book character of the late 19th Century. The New York City Commission on Human Rights sided with a civil rights attorney in a complaint over the figures, and the company reached a settlement and plans to begin diversity training.

Many think pieces have been published regarding rampant racism within the fashion industry. Although some companies are making an effort to diversify the models, people who work in the industry say the effort has to go beyond that to really mean something and address the racial undercurrents that are reflected in from the runway to the retailers. Continue Reading ›

California Workplace Discrimination & Harassment 101 – What You Need to Know

December 11, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

As an employee in California, you have rights under both state and federal law that protect you from harassment and discrimination based on your belonging to a protected classification. For example, if you are a woman paid substantially less than male colleagues doing the same work, that’s a form of gender discrimination on the basis of sex – a protected class.

In fielding hundreds of inquiries over the years from California workers whose rights are being violated on-the-job, our Los Angeles employment attorneys want to ensure as many people as possible understand what exactly harassment, discrimination and retaliation is and how to best address it.

What is Workplace Discrimination?

Discrimination is adverse treatment by an employer against workers who fall into a protected class. California employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of:

Race
Color
National origin
Religion
Gender (including pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions)
Disability
Age
Citizenship status
Genetic information
Marital status
Sexual orientation
Gender identity/expression
AIDS/HIV
Military/veteran status
Status as a victim of domestic violence, stalking or assault

This is much more extensive than the federal law, and some cities in California have their own rules that extend protections even further. Continue Reading ›