Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

New California Employment Laws Effective in 2021

December 30, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A number of new California employment laws will go into effect in January 2021. Employers should keep abreast of their responsibilities, while workers should maintain an understanding of their rights. Here, our Los Angeles employment attorneys break down some of the most impactful new measures pertaining to employee leave, pay, discrimination and classification.

AB 2399 – Paid Family Leave for Active Military Duty. This bill, signed in September and effective Jan. 1, 2020, extends the definition of Paid Family Leave under the state’s Unemployment Insurance Code to include coverage for active military members and their families. Previously, the state’s Paid Family Leave Program provides wage replacement benefits for workers who need to take time off to care for a seriously ill immediate family member or to bond with a new child right after birth or adoption. Now, the law allows for a qualifying exigency related to the active duty or call to active duty of one’s spouse, domestic partner, child or parent in the U.S. Armed Forces. Continue Reading ›

Ninth Circuit Reinstates FMLA, Disability Discrimination Claim

December 21, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Going up against a large employer when you’ve been discriminated against can be daunting, especially when your condition arises from a work-related injury. An experienced Los Angeles employment lawyer can help guide you through the process of seeking justice and fair compensation.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which has jurisdiction over California) reinstated an FMLA and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a Nevada woman against a large box chain retailer employer.

The case of Hazelett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. began with a work injury. Plaintiff worked as an order-filler at one of the store’s distribution centers near her home when she injured her foot on-the-job. She filed for workers’ compensation and later, a leave of absence. During her work-related disability, the store offered her a temporary alternate duty assignment. The form for that assignment indicated that if she refused that assignment, her disability benefits could be suspended or denied due to noncompliance. However, the reassignment they offered was a far distance from her home and required her to work into the wee hours of the morning. Meanwhile, her work injury was such that she could not drive. No public transportation would be available to take her home after her shift, unless she paid for a taxi, which she couldn’t afford. She called out sick each day she was absent, thinking they were excused, as they were all related to her workers’ compensation injury. Yet on the day she filed for leave under the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act, she was fired for excessive absences.

(FMLA is a federal law allowing up to 12 weeks of protected, unpaid leave in a 12-month period for the birth of a child/placement of adoption, care of a spouse/child/parent who has a serious health condition or a serious health condition rendering employee unable to perform the essential functions of his/her job.)

Rancho Cucamonga Sexual Harassment Case Settled Against Restaurant for $1.25 Million

December 12, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Female employees for a taco chain in the Rancho Cucamonga area will be awarded $1.25 million in an EEOC settlement for allegations of years-long sexual harassment and retaliation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s lawsuit alleged that a general manager and shift leader who both worked at several stores in Rancho Cucamonga subjected young female workers to sexual harassment daily. Their behavior included vulgar comments, unwelcome physical contact and propositions for sex.

Our Rancho Cucamonga sexual harassment lawyers understand the behavior was so prevalent that other male workers felt welcome to join in and perpetuate it on their own. The EEOC alleged that when the female workers complained, supervisors failed to take appropriate action. Instead, workers felt they had no choice but to quit if they wanted to escape their hostile work environment. 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 ›

California Racial Discrimination Complaint Filed Against Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

December 2, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A former employee of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), the $80 billion philanthropic company Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg launched with his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, has filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination. The worker, who is Black, worked for the company for two years, beginning in the fall of 2018.

The complaint alleges that while CZI speaks a big game of diversity and valuing employees of all backgrounds, Black workers are paid less, valued less, marginalized and denied opportunities within the firm. While non-Black employees are encouraged and supported in their advancement efforts, Black employees are slapped with an “aggressive” label and shut down. When Black workers expressed these concerns to superiors, the company responded defensively rather than accepting responsibility and trying to address the problems, the complaint alleges.

CZI is the company into which the Zuckerbergs have funneled 99 percent of their Facebook stock, to be used for charitable causes. In June, shortly after the death of George Floyd, Zuckerberg posted that CZI has given more than $40 million annually for a number of years to organizations committed to addressing racial injustice. Continue Reading ›

Los Angeles Employment Law FAQ for Holiday Workers

November 25, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

As we enter into the holiday season (no matter how different it may look this year than in year’s past), our Los Angeles employment lawyers decided this was a good time to review employer obligations for holiday pay, hours, time off requests and more.

The following are frequently asked questions pertaining to holiday work:

Is my employer required to give me time off for the holidays if I ask? Not in California. The only exception is a religious holiday accommodation (more on that later). Any time that you work on the weekend or a holiday will be treated the same as if you were working any other day. As noted by the California Department of Industrial Relations, your employer is under no obligation to give you paid holidays (though depending on the type of business, many do as an employment perk). Furthermore, your employer is not required to close its business on any holiday (though many do for select holidays, like Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s Eve and/or New Year’s Day). Continue Reading ›

Court: California Retail Workers Must Be Paid for Bag Check Wait Times After Shifts

November 22, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

After nearly a decade of legal battles, employees for Apple received a ruling in their favor when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that California’s minimum wage law entitles them to be paid for the time they spend waiting to be searched and being searched when they leave the retail store.

Our Los Angeles employment attorneys recognize this case could have far-reaching implications for employees in retail and other industries.

The class action case, Frliken et. al. v. Apple Inc., covers retail workers for Apple Inc. and was first filed in 2009. Key to the appellate court’s decision was the fact that Apple has a policy that requires employees who carry bags to work to undergo package and bag searches by supervisors or security staff at the end of each shift as a loss prevention method. Such actions are legal (so long as they aren’t applied in a way that is discriminatory) but employees can’t be expected to wait for and undergo these searches on their own time/at their own expense, the court ruled. Continue Reading ›

Most Americans Believe LGBTQ Workers Should Be Federally Protected

November 15, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Issues pertaining to the legal workplace protections of LGBTQ workers are going to be entering the domain of the U.S. Supreme Court in the next several years. The good news is that most Americans believe LGBTQ workplace should be unlawful. However, at the time the annual GLAAD 2020 Acceptance Acceleration study was conducted earlier this year, most respondents didn’t realize it was still legal at the federal level.

The good news is a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has turned the tide decisively in the favor of LGBTQ rights. However, with a new conservative-leaning bend to the SCOTUS, it’s unclear what we can expect in future LGBTQ discrimination challenges.

Californians live in one of 23 states that have their own non-discrimination protections (under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act). But residents and workers in 27 other states lacked such protections formally.

As longtime advocates and allies for LGBTQ rights in the workplace, our Los Angeles employment lawyers think perhaps part of the dissonance between the majority of Americans who agree these rights are important yet didn’t know they existed (yet) is the notion that the SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality was somehow the finish line. In reality, we’ve still got farther to go. Continue Reading ›

Study: Workers who Report Sexual Harassment Likely Targets of Retaliation

November 8, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A new comprehensive analysis conducted by the National Women’s Law Center and the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund shines a light on several difficult truths about workplace sexual harassment. Key among those: More than 7 in 10 survivors of workplace sexual harassment (nearly three-quarters) suffer some type of retaliation. This aligns with EEOC sexual harassment claims data indicating 72 percent of employees reporting sexual harassment also report retaliation.

As our Los Angeles sexual harassment attorneys can explain, retaliation can include:

Denial of promotions.
Transfer to a less desirable location or assignment with more burdensome tasks.
Receiving harsher treatment from supervisors.
Wrongful termination.
Civil litigation for defamation.

Of those who reported sexual harassment and were retaliated against, more than one-third were terminated. One-fifth had their work or behavior heavily scrutinized or were given bad performance reviews.

The report, called “Coming Forward,” looked at more than 3,300 online requests for legal services nearly three years into the #MeToo movement. It reveals that even as awareness of sexual harassment at work has increased, many victims are still at a distinct disadvantage. Continue Reading ›

California Employment Lawsuit Filed by Man With TBI Alleges Discrimination, Wrongful Termination

November 2, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A California employment lawsuit filed against the retailer Target alleges the company discriminated and retaliated against an employee with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) before wrongly firing him.

According to the local CBS News affiliate in Los Angeles, plaintiff suffered from a brain injury, which he reportedly disclosed during the interview process. Despite this, his employer failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations. Instead, his supervisor constantly criticized his slow speed in comparison to other workers. He also alleges he was not properly trained with regard to job duties and expectations. He was reportedly harassed by his supervisor, and said the company failed to take action and later retaliated by firing him for being “full of excuses of why you are a slow performer.”

The worker is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Continue Reading ›