racial 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.

Rampant Racism, Sexism in Fitness Industry Led to $11.25 Million Employment Law Verdict

June 1, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

A former professional body builder and personal trainer manager won her $11.25 million employment lawsuit after a jury agreed that she had been the target of rampant racism and sexism. While the case is out of New York City, NY, our Los Angeles employment lawyers recognize that such problems are pervasive throughout the fitness industry.

It’s no secret that the racial and gender diversity in many elite health clubs becomes slimmer the higher up the ladder you go. Although harmful stereotypes of the “Black athletic archetype” are deeply rooted in the U.S., it’s also given rise to the racist presumption that the only “acceptable” place for these displays is on a sports playing field. (Even then, we were well into the 20th Century before most sporting events were open to Black competitors.)

Private gyms started to gain popularity in the 1970s and 1980s – largely in the suburbs. But even if technically open to all people, those of color were underrepresented thanks to systemic redlining; they simply weren’t living in the areas where the gyms were opening. We started to see some expansion of diversity with the introduction of more ethnic fitness programs, such as Zumba, Yoga, Tae Bo, and Hip Hop dancing. But those programs still skew heavily white in many areas – both in terms of membership and employment.

California Racial Discrimination Alleged by Black Doctor at Large Healthcare System

May 21, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

The implicit bias and racial disparities in health care are well-documented. In America, Black people are likely to get sicker and die earlier than other racial groups – largely because they receive lower quality (and quantity) health care than white counterparts. But according to a recent California racial discrimination employment lawsuit, the patients aren’t the only ones treated disparately.

According to recent court filings, the case in question involves an internationally renowned eye doctor for children – the first and only Black doctor to chair a department in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation area of Sutter Health, one of the largest hospital systems in California. A longtime employee, he alleges that racism in the workplace resulted in his being the subject of repeated derogatory comments, as well as reductions in salary and demotions.

He referred to the racism he suffered as “they type that hits you in the back of the head when you don’t see it coming.” Continue Reading ›

Federal Employment Discrimination Lawsuit May Require Proof of Disparate Treatment of “Similarly Situated” Co-Worker

February 3, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

When it comes to establishing discrimination and/or wrongful termination, it’s worth noting that some unique challenges can arise when trying to establish the adverse employment action was discriminatory. As our Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, some legal arguments require plaintiffs to identify a “similarly situated” individual – someone with the same or similar job – who is outside the protected class, engaged in the same conduct, yet was treated more favorably than the plaintiff.

If the plaintiff is a manager, they may need to find evidence of other managers being given more favorable treatment. If they’re drivers, they may need to show evidence other drivers (not supervisors) were treated better. If they’re teachers, they may need to show other teachers (not principals or secretaries) being treated more favorably.

This was underscored in a recent federal employment lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and wrongful termination of a UPS supervisor.

Federal Racial Discrimination/Wrongful Termination Employment Lawsuit After Drug Test

After 20 years of employment, an on-road supervisor who is Black was fired after testing positive for cocaine in a random drug test. He filed an employment lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and wrongful termination, citing violations of both state and federal law. He indicated his direct supervisor told him that his superior had “racist tendencies” and had made racist comments about Black people to other employees.

The federal district trial court in New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The case, Langley v. UPS, then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appellate court also affirmed the ruling in favor of the employer. In its explanation, the court detailed the factual background: Continue Reading ›

Addressing Intersectional Discrimination in California Employment Lawsuits

December 21, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Discrimination against employees on the basis of race or gender is illegal under both California and federal law. And yet, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports those are two of the top three most common types of employment discrimination claims filed. Racial discrimination on-the-job accounts for about 33 percent of all employment lawsuits, while gender discrimination accounts for 32 percent of claims.

As our Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, where workplace discrimination exists, it’s fairly common for there to be more than one protected status on which it’s based. When different types of unfair treatment at work overlap each other, it’s referred to as intersectional discrimination. It’s common because discrimination is rarely about a single person, but rather an entire workplace culture that clings to the familiar and eschews any type of “otherness” – actual or perceived.

A recent example of intersectional discrimination at work was laid out in a federal employment lawsuit against a Los Angeles food company.

It’s Not Only Direct Targets of California Workplace Sexual Harassment Who Can Sue

June 1, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

One does not necessarily need to be a direct target of California workplace sexual harassment or racial discrimination to file a legal claim for damages. Retaliation against bystanders for brining such offenses to light can have a devastating impact on one’s career. Employers have been known to respond to bystander reports of harassment and discrimination by giving whistleblowers less desirable shifts or duties, shutting them out from key professional opportunities/accounts/clients, or outright firing them.

Fortunately, as our Riverside sexual harassment attorneys can explain, there are legal remedies for those who speak out to protect those most vulnerable in the workforce. One such case recently ended with a $460 million damage award to two plaintiffs in Los Angeles who alleged they were forced out of their jobs at the local electricity company after blowing the whistle on rampant sexual harassment and tolerance of racial epithets.

The Los Angeles Times reported the damage award included $440 million in punitive damages alone. Plaintiff attorney’s had only asked the court for a quarter of that amount. That’s on top of tens of millions in compensatory damages paid. Punitive damages, for those who may not know, are paid to penalize the defendant for especially egregious conduct. Compensatory damages, meanwhile, are intended to cover a plaintiff’s actual losses (loss of wages, loss of benefits, loss of career advancement opportunities, emotional distress, etc.).

The company, which plans to appeal, acknowledged that the two reported that supervisors were engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct toward female employees. Plaintiffs alleged that the company had fostered a fraternity-like culture, where sexual harassment and racial harassment were not only the norm, but actively protected. Reported incidents were allegedly disregarded. Continue Reading ›

More California Racial Discrimination Lawsuits Against Tesla on the Horizon

February 16, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

In California, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Workers targeted by discrimination ore harassment on these bases may have grounds to pursue a civil lawsuit for damages against their employer.

Racial discrimination is not a new problem in this country, but it’s been gaining greater awareness in recent years, with companies of all sizes facing repercussions for race-based harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

Tesla is among the larger companies to face California racial discrimination lawsuits from former employees. You may recall that last year, a federal jury awarded $137 million a Black former employee of the car company, finding the company had ignored the severe racist abuse he endured for years from co-workers.

Now, the company says that it’s bracing for a civil complaint filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which disclosed the notice of litigation in its annual regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Continue Reading ›

Understanding the Ministerial Exception in California Employment Lawsuits

February 7, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Both federal and state anti-discrimination laws cover most employers in California. These laws prevent employers from firing or taking other adverse action against workers on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity, pregnancy, nationality, disability, etc. However, as our Riverside employment lawyers can explain, religious institutions – including schools – are often protected by something known as the ministerial exception. What sometimes throws people is that:

One does not need to be an actual minister – or even administrator – for the exception to be applicable.
The ministerial exception may protect religious institutions from claims of employment discrimination that aren’t solely about religious discrimination.

The California Supreme Court in the past has expressed empathy for employees at religious institutes (mostly schools) unable to sue for employment discrimination under the law when they’d otherwise be able to, but for the ministerial exception. It remains a significant barrier to some claims.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claim by a California Catholic high school principal, who the court found qualified as a minister under the ministerial exception. Continue Reading ›

California Employee Race Discrimination Alleged in 1st Hairstyle Lawsuit

December 6, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

In a case believed to be the first brought under the California CROWN Act, a Black job applicant alleges he was racially discriminated against by an employer on the basis of his hair.

As our Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, the CROWN Act stands for Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for natural Hair. It prohibits the use of grooming policies that disproportionately impact Black individuals. Examples include requirements banning locks and afros. Specifically, it amends provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Education Code to expand how discrimination on the basis of race is defined to expressly include unfair treatment on the basis of traits historically associated with race. That includes certain hair textures, as well as hairstyles used to protect Black hair, such as braids, Afros, twists and locks.

California was the first state to pass the CROWN Act, which went into effect in January 2020, but at least 12 others have followed. The San Diego Union Times reports this is the first CROWN Act lawsuit filed in California since the statue was passed.

Company Calls Alleged CROWN Act Violation a “Miscommunication”

At issue in this case is a Black job applicant who’d recently moved to Southern California from Florida to further his audiovisual field career. He’d been working at an Orlando branch of the Illinois-based event management firm for four years when he was furloughed in the spring of 2020 due to the pandemic. When he was invited to return to work, a strong recommendation from his boss gave him confidence he’d be able to maintain his same position as a tech supervisor, only in San Diego instead of Orlando. He was told the transition should be “no problem.”

His interview went well, up until the end, when dress code was discussed. He’d expected that having client-facing duties, he’d be required to remove his ear gauges and trim his facial hair. He was not expecting to be told he’d have to cut his hair. Plaintiff, whose hair was in locks, was told he’d have to cut it so that it was off the ears, eyes, and shoulders. He was told he would not be allowed to simply tie it back, away from his face.

Stunned, plaintiff told them it was “a deal-breaker.” Continue Reading ›

California Companies Using Contract Labor Should Take Tesla Discrimination Verdict As a Warning

November 22, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

In recent years, many firms have turned to contract labor as a means to reduce certain overhead costs associated with hiring full-time employees. But as our Los Angeles employment discrimination attorneys can explain, companies that rely heavily on contract labor will want to take particular note of the recent $137 million racial discrimination verdict against Tesla. The verdict (which could be increased or decreased, depending on what happens during the appeal) was noteworthy not only for the sheer size of it, but the fact that Tesla – not the contracting firm that was the direct employer of the plaintiff – is the one cutting the check.

One of the main benefits companies gleaned from having contract laborers (as opposed to direct employees) was that employment law requirements could be shifted onto the contractor. But this verdict underscores the fact that the contracting firm can also be held accountable, so it’s best if all companies adhere to lawful employment practices.

In the Tesla case, a Black elevator operator employed by a staffing agency (third party) reportedly faced substantial and persistent racist treatment while working at Tesla. The workers who allegedly subjected him to ongoing disparagement were also hired and paid by another firm. In fact, most of the workers on site were directly employed by this third-party firm.

In determining liability, the court looked at who controlled the workers and which firm directed the work occurring on site. What the courts held was that Tesla was a joint employer, and that it was jointly and severally liable for the verdict. As our employment attorneys in Los Angeles can explain, joint and several liability occurs when there is a legal responsibility that is shared by two or more parties in a lawsuit. Someone who is wronged may sue any or all of those parties, and one may be ordered to pay the total amount of damages. Continue Reading ›