Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Common Mistakes That Lead to Employment Lawsuits Against Small Businesses

February 4, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination aren’t solely the problem of large corporations. It’s true that the federal discrimination lawsuits against Fortune 500 companies tend to make splashier headlines, especially when they conclude in multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. But small businesses can be just as susceptible to these issues.

Many small business owners are unprepared when these lawsuits are filed. The fact is that the bulk of litigation filed against businesses of all sizes involves employment disputes. About 40 percent of those are filed against smaller employers, with somewhere between 15 and 100 employees.

Employment lawsuits can more deeply affect a smaller employer, so it’s important for them not only to be insured, but also to be proactive in preventing disputes in the first place. That means knowing the law (including all the new employment laws that were passed in California recently), being sure there are clear policies and procedures in place to address problems and making certain those avenues for resolution are communicated to staff and supervisors. Continue Reading ›

Courts Weighing Rights of Workers Who Use Legal CBD

February 2, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Employers in California have a fair amount of discretion when it comes to whether to hire or fire someone for use of illegal substances. But what of legal substances?

Our Orange County employment lawyers know the question has gotten thornier as more states have legalized marijuana and since hemp-dervived CBD (the non-intoxicating cannabis compound) was legalized at the federal level with the 2018 Farm Bill.

As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law, employers will likely retain the right to fire employees who test positive for the drug in routine screenings (so long as the screening process isn’t applied in a way that is discriminatory to any protected group). That’s not to say employers are wise to continue with such a policy, given the growing public acceptance for recreational and medicinal use of the drug. Strict no tolerance policies could result in companies losing valuable talent for no good reason. But they’d still technically be within their right to do it. They are also within their rights to prohibit marijuana on their premises, even if an employee uses the drug for medicinal purposes.

The rights of employees who use CBD (cannabidiol) products is a bit murkier. We’re just now beginning to see courts weigh in on worker rights where CBD is concerned. Continue Reading ›

California Launches Sexual Harassment Complaint Tracking System

January 31, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

As of this month, all state departments in California are required to track all claims of sexual harassment. Now, they will be able to do so using a single streamlined system managed by the California Department of Human Resources.

The system was proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018 following an investigation by The Sacramento Bee revealing the state spent $25 million over the course of three years to settle sexual harassment lawsuits against state employees. In many cases, offenders kept their jobs, despite repeated complaints and even as victims were forced to resign and be subject to no rehire clauses if they settled their civil cases. (No rehire clauses are now outlawed thanks to the passage of AB 749 last fall.)

The data tracker went live on Jan. 1, 2020 and cost $1.5 million to launch. Before this, the state had no uniform way of tracking allegations of sexual harassment across its 150+ departments. Continue Reading ›

Significant Worker Union Bill Headed for Likely Approval in U.S. House

January 29, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

It’s being touted as one of the most consequential bills that would bolster employees’ ability to organize that the U.S. has seen in 80 years. The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, H.R. 2474, is slated to go before the U.S. House of Representatives next week, where it’s likely to pass. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to gain much traction in the Senate, but it does signal an increasing push toward progressive labor legislation.

If enacted, the PRO Act would alter decades-old federal labor laws to shift more power to workers. This would extend to situations involving:

Employer-employee disputes;
Penalties for companies proven to have broken labor laws (including retaliation against workers attempting to unionize);
Collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of workers who currently don’t have them.

Right-to-work laws, which is exist in 27 states, would also be weakened under the PRO Act. Continue Reading ›

California Appeals Court Reinstates Gay Officer’s Harassment Lawsuit

January 28, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

For 20 years, a Bay Area officer for the California Highway Patrol said he was harassed and even endangered by his co-workers because of his homosexuality. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that as if enduring constant taunts and vandalism at numerous substations wasn’t enough, the openly gay officer reported that on a daily basis, he was denied backup from his colleagues while handling dangerous calls. He was the only officer consistently denied backup. When he won offer of the year, the picture of the previous year’s winner remained prominently in the lobby, until the following year when someone else won. No one else had been denied that honor. He began to suffer anxiety, stress, headaches and stomach issues. He became suicidal. He filed for workers’ compensation, and was eventually granted disability retirement, effectively ending his employment with the agency.

In 2016, he filed his second administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Housing and Employment, alleging sexual orientation discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent harassment, retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A request for summary judgment in favor of the defense was granted on the basis of a missed filing deadline.

Now, a California appellate court has reinstated his case, finding merit with plaintiff’s claim for exception under the doctrines of equitable tolling, continuing violation and constructive discharge.

Our Los Angeles LGBT discrimination attorneys are committed to helping those who have faced workplace harassment, hostility and discrimination due to their sexuality obtain justice. Continue Reading ›

California Ban on “No Rehire” Clauses Will Likely Lead to More Retaliation Claims

January 26, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

California may see an increase in workplace retaliation claims since Assembly Bill 749 , which bans no-rehire clauses with limited exception in employment dispute settlements, was enacted this month.

Prior to the passage of this bill, it was common practice for companies to settle discrimination or harassment claims with employees with a settlement that included a no-rehire clause. These provisions can vary in scope, but usually indicated that any future application for employment by that person wouldn’t be considered, and if the worker was hired by chance, he or she would be terminated automatically.

The California Chamber of Commerce had argued the law wasn’t necessary because there were already existing laws against overly-broad no-rehire clauses (specifically, Business and Professional Code section 16600).

The new law, codified in the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1002.5, indicates that no agreement to settle an employment dispute should contain any provision that prohibits, prevents or otherwise restricts an aggrieved person who is settling from obtaining future employment with that employer or any parent company, division, affiliate, subsidiary or contractor. Companies can include no-rehire provisions in cases where the company made a good faith determination that the person signing committed sexual harassment or sexual assault OR where there was a legitimate (i.e., non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory) reason for firing that person. There is also an exclusion for severance agreements. Continue Reading ›

California Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Alleges Firing After Cancer Diagnosis

January 24, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Even though there have been significant strides in cancer awareness, treatment and survivor rates, people with cancer still experience barriers to equal workplace opportunities. Employees too often face California disability discrimination due to misconceptions about their ability to work during and after receiving cancer treatment.

Yet another example of this was recently reported by The Fresno Bee, which detailed the story of a Tulare woman who is suing her former employer, a ranch and beef company, for allegedly firing her after she took medical leave while undergoing chemotherapy. She had worked at the company for two decades and had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

As our Los Angeles disability discrimination lawyers understand it, plaintiff is alleging a range of civil rights violations under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, breaches of the state’s Unfair Business Practices Act and wrongful termination. Continue Reading ›

U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Employment Discrimination at Church-Run Schools

January 22, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

The U.S. Supreme Court is slated to consider how federal employment discrimination laws should be applied to church-run schools.

Although our Los Angeles employment discrimination attorneys can for certain how the verdict will go, but we do know that in recent cases weighing the church-and-state relationship, the court has tended recently to side with religious groups.

The cases that the court heart last month deal with another aspect of this same divide: The role the government can or should play in the regulation of religious institutions, particularly if they are receiving taxpayer funding. Both cases were filed by teachers in California Catholic schools accused of employment discrimination. The schools insist that the teachers’ positions fall under the court-established “ministerial exception” to job discrimination. The court will be asked to consider just how broad that exception really is and how to balance the competing interests of shielding workers from discrimination and steering clear of meddling in the affairs of religious organizations. Continue Reading ›

Restaurant Server Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for Nearly $19k

January 20, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Pregnancy discrimination remains an ongoing problem in workplaces throughout the U.S. and California. Women make up half the workforce, and almost 85 percent of them will become mothers at some point during their careers. And yet, as our Los Angeles pregnancy discrimination lawyers have seen time and again, pregnancy and childbirth are treated as if they are some kind of deviation from the norm. That’s because many workplaces are constructed around the arcane idea that the ideal worker is male.

An employer commits pregnancy discrimination when taking adverse action on the basis of an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth or condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. Some pregnancy-related medical conditions may include:

Gestational diabetes
Hyperemesis gravidarum
Preeclampsia

Pregnant workers with these conditions are entitled to reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Food Service Industry Pregnancy Discrimination

Wage Theft Lawsuits Harder to File Under Trump, But California Protections Remain Strong

January 19, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

The Trump administration recently loosened labor law protections by making it more difficult for franchise employees to sue corporations for wage theft under the joint employer rule. Those who work for subcontractors and staffing agencies will have a tougher time securing legal remedy for labor law violations. The new rule issued by the Department of Labor also makes it more challenging to prove that a corporation is responsible for the labor law violations committed by franchise owners and contractors.

The new rule, which is no surprise having been on the table since last April, are enacted under the administration’s supposition that reducing corporate regulation will stimulate economic growth. It’s been praised by business groups, but worker advocates and unions sharply oppose it.

Central to this rule was the question of whether a corporation can be considered the “joint employer” of a worker for a franchise. There have been numerous cases wherein large companies have been sued for labor law violations – including wage theft – that was committed by the owner of a franchise. What this rule does is set a higher standard for “joint employer.” As our Los Angeles wage theft lawyers can explain, the new rule stipulates that companies are considered joint employers only if they:

Hire
Fire
Supervise
Set pay
Maintain employment records