wrongful termination

McNaughton v. Charleston Charter School – Winning a Wrongful Termination Case

February 7, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A charter school teacher in South Carolina recently won her wrongful termination claim, which had been appealed by the school all the way to the state supreme court.

The case of McNaughton v. Charleston Charter School is relevant to workers here in California because just like here, South Carolina is an at-will employment state.

In both states, it’s generally held an employer doesn’t need a good or just cause to fire a worker. However, the exception to this rule is wrongful termination. A firing is wrongful if it was motivated at least in part by some impermissible reason, which could include physical or mental disability, use of the Family Medical Leave Act, pregnancy, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or race.

Fired Black Editor Sues People Magazine for Discrimination

December 19, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Discriminatory practices in the workplace can impact the lowest paid minimum wage workers to high paid executives. There have been cases of discrimination in every industry, from manufacturing to law firms. Earlier this year, a black editor of People Magazine filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination. According to the complaint, the editor was the only black senior employee and alleged that her former boss left her out of magazines, dismissed stories centering around black victims and even disparaged her way of speaking, telling her that, “You’re not at Essence anymore.”

According to reports, the plaintiff has a degree in English and a Master’s in Journalism. In addition to her educational accomplishments, she also held an adjunct position at New York University. The complaint alleges that throughout her successful career, no other editors had a problem with her or her work. People Magazine and senior level editors systematically discriminated her for the way she spoke and communicated, and related it to her race. The lawsuit also alleges that the magazine had a discriminatory editorial policy. According to the complaint, the magazine is entirely run by white people and focuses exclusively on white celebrities and individuals.

The editor was fired last May during what the company called a “reduction in force,” though the plaintiff alleges that the termination was directly tied to her race. She is seeking financial damages against People Magazine as well as its parent company, Time Inc., as well as her supervisor and the former executive of the magazine. While many employment law and discrimination cases will settle out of court, the attorney for the plaintiff is hoping for a trial by jury to send a message to other media companies that they cannot discriminate against employees or when making decisions about which people to feature in their stories or articles.

Unpaid Interns and Volunteers Covered by FEHA in 2015

December 18, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California law will now give unpaid interns and volunteers a number of the same legal protections as regular employees. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on race, religion, national origin, ancestry, disabilities, sex, gender, age sexual orientation, or gender expression. Assembly Bill 1443 will expand the protections against discrimination and harassment to unpaid interns and volunteers. The law will go into effect January 1, 2015. The new law will also require employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of volunteers and unpaid interns.

If you are an unpaid intern or volunteer, you should know your rights under California law. The new protections require employers to expand their policies that prohibit discrimination and harassment. Employers should also make necessary changes to handbooks, policies, and guidelines to ensure that interns and volunteers are protected against unlawful actions. Employers are also responsible for informing interns and volunteers about these protections and offer procedures for reporting harassment and discrimination.

Employers are responsible for ensuring that workers are protected against harassment and discrimination. Extending this protection to unpaid interns and volunteers means that employers with 50 or more employees must provide at least two hours of training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees. These training sessions must take place to reiterate issues and processes every two years. To better protect employees and to prevent liabilities, many employers are providing this training to both supervisors as well as all members of the staff. Additional protections could include providing training to volunteers and interns so that they know their rights in the workplace.

Joint Liability for Businesses and Contract Vendors in 2015

December 15, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

One of the reasons that using third-party vendors and other staffing companies is attractive to businesses, is that they were able to shift legal responsibilities elsewhere. Needing manpower didn’t require concern for worker protections, including workers’ compensation, proper training, or other benefits. Businesses were able to quickly and efficiently get staffed without worrying about employment and labor laws. Things are about to change in California. The contractor model has been under scrutiny for years and many courts agree with the criticism. In 2015, businesses and contract vendors will be held jointly liable for any employment law violations.

In June of 2014, the Ninth Circuit rejected an independent contractor agreement that made Georgia the venue, finding that the contract was in fact an employee under California law. Later in the summer, the California Supreme Court opened the door for more plaintiffs to gain class action certification in contractor misclassification disputes. Another Ninth Circuit decision overturned a lower decision, and reclassified hundreds of delivery drivers as employees. All of these decisions and regulatory shifts have made it clear that the contractor-model is under scrutiny and businesses may no longer be able to shield behind misclassification.

The difference between an employee and a contractor primarily turns on the duties and amount of responsibility given to the individual worker. Many contractual arrangements require workers to sign away their rights as an employee, even though they should have rights to benefits and other protections. A new California law, effective in 2015, will force contract vendors and businesses to start ensuring collaborations and compliance, as both will be held liable in the event of any wage and hour or other violations. The new regulation is critical to protect workers’ rights in an era where third-party contracting companies benefit companies, while exploiting workers without adequate benefits and pay.

2015 California Laws and Employee Protections

December 6, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Every year, California businesses need to learn and adjust to new employment and labor laws and regulations. As the end of 2014 draws near, corporations and small-businesses alike will be shifting gears to implement new policies in accordance with California laws slated to go into effect in 2015. In addition to employers learning their new obligations, employees should consider their rights and take legal action in the event of a violation. Not surprisingly, the regulations cover a variety of issues including wage and hour law, discrimination, and leave of absences. The following is a brief summary of many of the laws that will take effect in 2015:

Expanded Coverage for Emergency Duty: Under current California law, employees are protected from discharge or discipline when they take time off to perform emergency volunteer service. The new law expands its definition from “emergency rescue personnel,” to include all individuals who perform services for government agencies.

Expanded Definition of Protected Individuals: Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), new law will cover employees as well as unpaid interns and volunteers, employees receiving public assistance, and driver’s licensed persons who are otherwise undocumented.

LinkedIn and the Rise of “Big Data” Discrimination Cases

December 1, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The use of social networking websites, contact sharing, and data collection on the internet, unscrupulous companies should be aware of the potential liabilities that come with using big data. LinkedIn, the well-known professional social networking site, is facing a federal class action lawsuit for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the complaint, the company sold information about user’s employment history to potential employers without consent. This kind of information has the potential to be extremely damaging to employees, resulting in adverse employment action, including failure to hire, demotion, or termination of employment.

Under the FCRA, employers must follow strict guidelines about how they use employee credit, employment and insurance history. These protections are in place to ensure that employees are not wrongfully targeted or discriminated against during the application process. Employers must follow strict requirements related to consent to access data. They must also supply notices to applicants before they take any adverse action against an employee, including failure to hire, demotion, failure to promote, or termination of employment. Employees who lose opportunities as a result of their employment, credit, or other history must be given notice and the opportunity to contest the information provided by a reporting agency.

According to the lawsuit filed against LinkedIn, the company violated the FCRA by selling “profiles” on millions of users without verifying that the information would be used for legal purposes. There is some speculation that the case will turn on whether the company qualifies as a Consumer Reporting Agency and is held to the standards of the FCRA. Regardless, employees should be aware of the information that could be used against them, whether online and available to the public, or provided by third-party reporting agencies. Employers who use information illegally, including medical documents, credit card history, or credit reports, criminal records, as well as other personal information can be held liable.

Settlement in Foreign-Born Worker Discrimination Lawsuit

November 27, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Worker discrimination comes in many forms, including adverse employment action, disparate treatment, and other illegal and unlawful employer activities. In a recent case, the Justice Department has announced that it reached a settlement with a San Francisco bakery involving discrimination against foreign-born workers. According to the compliant, the bakery was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by improperly rejecting a worker’s valid work authorization documents. The case was investigated by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.

In accordance with the settlement agreement, the baker will pay $26,000 in back pay and additional compensation to the employee who suffered damages as a result of the discrimination. In addition to the financial compensation owed to the individual employee, the company has agreed to modify its hiring practices and has agreed to external monitoring of those practices for the next two years. Immigrants and other non-native workers may face a number of challenges in the workplace, but every worker in the U.S. has rights and can take legal action—even without citizenship. Employers are prohibited from making assumption about the validity of employment documents based on stereotypes and unfounded assumptions.

Employers who want to insulate themselves against civil rights violations can inquire about how to review and accept I-9 documentation to prevent discrimination investigations and penalties. The Immigration and Nationality Act protects foreign workers from discrimination in the workplace. These laws prevent employers from placing additional burdens on applicants who are authorized to work because of their national origin or citizenship status. The law also protects workers from discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin in hiring, firing, or recruitment of employees.

EEOC Settles Genetic Discrimination Case in CA

November 18, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) prevents employers from discriminating against employees or potential employees based on their genetic or family medical history. In a recent case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a class action for $187,000 with a California seed and fertilizer operation for refusing to hire applicants after reviewing medical histories and the medical histories of the applicant’s family members. According to the EEOC, the class action (EEOC v. All Star Seed) was filed in September of 2013 against All Star Seed Inc. and its subsidiaries.

A job applicant filed a complaint with the EEOC in November 2012 after he was denied a position as a dispatcher for the company. According to court documents, the company rejected his application after he reported for being hospitalized for atrial fibrillation, even though the condition had no connection to job duties related to the position. The applicant also reported that the company inquired about the medical history of his relatives and he reported that at least one of his family members had the same medical condition.

Employees in California and nationwide are protected under state and federal laws to prevent discrimination in the workplace. GINA makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against applicants and employees based on genetic information. Genetic information may be accessible through medical documentation and family history. The law prohibits employers from requesting medical histories from applicants or from seeking out or purchasing the information from other sources.

Warner Brothers Class-Action: Rights of Unpaid Interns

August 6, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Nationwide, unpaid internship arrangements have been scrutinized for low wages and potential violations of state and federal labor laws. While some claim that the legal scrutiny of unpaid internships is putting programs and opportunities at risk, other worker rights advocacy groups see the internships as a way to squeeze cheap labor out of inexperienced and vulnerable unemployed. In a recent case, Warner Brothers is facing a class action led by a former unpaid intern who was living in a homeless shelter when he started his position.

According to a Newsweek investigation, the plaintiff was required to get drinks for two different vice presidents. The Warner Brothers executives also required that the intern take lunch orders and pick up dry-cleaning. He knew that the job duties had nothing to do with radio promotions, but he did it anyway, hoping to make a name for himself. Our Orange County employment law attorneys are dedicated to protecting the rights of American workers, including unpaid interns in California. In addition to providing sounds counsel and support to our clients, we are also committed to staying abreast of employment law issues and legal trends that impact the national workforce.

The Department of Labor guidelines require that unpaid internships must be to the benefit of the intern rather than to the employer. Employers who agree to provide training at no cost, must not derive any immediate advantage from the labor performed. The guidelines go on to state that in some cases, operations may be impeded or slowed by training capacities. The intern at Warner Brothers often worked 12 hour shifts, showing up early and leaving late, just to maintain his job. For eight months, he worked without compensation and then he was fired.

Mozilla CEO’s Termination: What Does CA Employment Law Say?

May 6, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Brendan Eich was named the CEO of Mozilla, a company he had been involved with since its conception. Shortly after he took the position, however, he was forced to resign. The reason for this was public outcry over a political donation that he made six years ago. In 2008, Eich had donated $1,000 to support California’s Proposition 8, which would have banned same sex marriage in the state. Although the proposition was approved by a majority of voters in the state, a federal district court invalidated it.

The forced resignation has sparked a lot of controversy, with some saying that it was right to force Eich to step down because of beliefs considered “bigoted” while others arguing that it is wrong for someone to be terminated because of his political beliefs. While this is a question that can be debated in the public sphere, the reality is that California Labor Laws have already settled the question. The law protects employees from being fired for donating money to a political campaign, and if you are terminated because of a donation you made, you can contact an Orange County employment lawyer for help taking legal action against your employer for the labor law violation.

Protection for Political Advocacy