Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

California Gender Discrimination Lawsuits Must be Severed, Re-Filed Individually

October 28, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A federal judge in California has ruled that plaintiffs in a gender discrimination lawsuit against Walmart Inc. must file their cases individually, rather than altogether in class action litigation. The decision wasn’t especially surprising, given a similar ruling made by a federal court in Florida earlier this year. Although this will create challenges for the individual plaintiffs, it could ultimately mean higher damage awards for some of the individuals.

This case, Renati v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., involved of a group of 18 women who had originally been part of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Dukes et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which certified a class of 1.5 million workers (more than any other in history), all asserting that the retail giant was in violation of Title VII for disparate pay and benefits to female workers compared to their male counterparts. Women alleged that not only were they paid less than men, they were also overlooked for promotions and raises that were handed over to men less-qualified. One plaintiff was reportedly told that a certain position she sought was “a guy’s job.”

However, the SCOTUS reversed itself on the class certification issue in 2011, finding that while all the women shared the same cause of action predicated on gender discrimination claims, there was no common practice, policy or set of facts applicable to all plaintiffs. There was simply too much variation from case-to-case. Therefore, cases would have to be filed either individually or in smaller groups. Continue Reading ›

Pour Decisions: Yes, You Can Be Fired for Being Drunk at Work

October 26, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A federal court in Pennsylvania recently ruled that a nuclear power plant did not violate public policy by firing an employee who tested positive for alcohol at work. The plaintiff in Bennett v. Talen Energy Corp. argued that he was not given an opportunity to participate in the Employee Assistance Program, which offers help with personal problems (including substance abuse), even though that option had been given to other employees after their first violation.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled firstly that in that state (just as in California), employers have virtually unfettered right to terminate workers without cause because it’s an “at-will” employment state. However, barring a claim of discrimination or some whistleblower activity, the only cause of action plaintiff would have had here would be violation of public policy. Plaintiff argued the firing violated the public policy that encourages workers to get help for alcohol and substance abuse problems. The court, however, found that public policy exceptions to at-will employment in a situation like this would be extremely limited, and this case didn’t fit any of the previous case law exceptions. In other words, there is no rule or regulation the company violated by firing the employee for being drunk at work, even if it was a first offense.

This is in line with previous court decisions in similar cases. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that while alcoholism and drug addiction can be considered disabilities under the American Disabilities Act, that doesn’t mean the employee can’t be fired for being drunk at work. What the ADA requires is that workers be given time off for treatment. What it does not mandate is that employers tolerate workers under the influence of alcohol or drugs on-the-job or that they allow workers to use on-the-clock. Continue Reading ›

California Bans “No-Rehire” Clauses in Settlements for Workers Who Sue Their Employers

October 24, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

“No-rehire” clauses have long been boilerplate verbiage in employment lawsuit settlements. If you sue your employer for harassment or wage-and-hour violations or discrimination, you might well get compensation for your trouble – but you may still be out of a job. In California, that era is coming to an end.

Starting Jan. 1, 2020, AB 749 will go into effect, stipulating that with only limited exception, all no-rehire provisions in employment settlement agreements will be considered void as a matter of law.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed the bill seeking to end this common practice, by which both sides agree to part ways, with the understanding the employee’s subsequent application won’t be considered or if by chance the worker is hired again, that employment can be automatically terminated. Continue Reading ›

Mythbusting: California Wrongful Termination

October 22, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Filing a California employment lawsuit is a big decision – one that can be rewarding in more ways than one. However, it’s important to understand that not all termination of employment actions are illegal just because they seemed unfair.

As our Orange County employment attorneys can explain, these claims must stem specifically from violations of:

Federal anti-discrimination laws
State anti-discrimination laws
Labor laws (including whistleblower protections)
Employment contracts
Retaliation (for claims of things like discrimination, harassment or workers’ compensation)
WARN Act violations (mass layoff cases)

In other words, unfair doesn’t always mean wrongful, at least legally speaking. Continue Reading ›

College Football Players Accuse NCAA of Minimum Wage Law Violations

October 19, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A class action lawsuit on behalf of college football players alleges violations of minimum wage laws. Filed by a former university player who went on to play for the NFL and now the CFL, accuses the NCAA and many Division I schools of refusing to pay student athletes as they should.

The action – the latest in a string of wage and hour lawsuits against the NCAA by its athletes – follows a recent decision by the league to allow players to profit from their own name, likeness and image, the plaintiff says, isn’t enough. That decision came shortly after California passed a law allowing college athletes to sign endorsement deals. That could end up being a huge break for amateur players, but the reality is, those kind of offers are only going to be available to a select few players. Other students employed by the universities or the NCAA are paid – those who sell the popcorn, those who tear the tickets – why not the players on the field? For most of the players, these games aren’t hobbies – they’re the start of a career. Both training and games are taken on at no small physical risk and personal sacrifice.

The primary plaintiff in the case, who played for the school between 2013 and 2016, asserts that student athletes should be classified similarly to student employees, even more so than the work-study students who are hired to actually work at college games. In his statement, he insisted he wasn’t seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars for any one player, but that it seemed unfair that the NCAA – which brings in close to $1 billion annually – continues to insist the athletes be paid nothing at all. Continue Reading ›

Female Nurses Win $50,000 Equal Pay Discrimination Lawsuit

October 18, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Female nurses at a home health care company in Wyoming will receive $50,000 as part of a settlement reached in an equal pay discrimination lawsuit. The nurses alleged a male nurse at the facility with less experience was paid more than female nurses with more experience.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for enforcing workplace anti-discrimination laws, cited violations of both Title VII’s prohibition against discriminatory pay and the Equal Pay Act as basis for the lawsuit. As our Orange County gender discrimination lawyers can explain, both of these federal laws outlaw pay discrimination on the basis of sex. What’s more in this case, the company reportedly failed to take any corrective action even after receiving complaints from BOTH the female nurses AND the male counterpart who was paid more.

The home health care company, franchise of a national firm, is now closed, according to The Casper Star Tribune. Although this happened out-of-state, the federal laws at issue apply just as much here in California, and this problem is by no means limited to healthcare workers in Wyoming – even though it’s been 55 years since the Equal Pay Gap was passed. Continue Reading ›

California Outlaws Forced Arbitration in Most Employee-Employer Disputes

October 16, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Companies in California can no longer force workers as a condition of employment to sign away their right to have claims of discrimination, unfair pay or harassment resolved in a court of law as opposed to an arbitrator. There are a few exceptions, but the sweeping effect of AB-51, signed into law by Gov Gavin Newsom, will have a significant impact on the landscape of future employment litigation in California.

As our Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, mandatory employee arbitration agreements have had chilling effect when it came to worker rights and employer accountability. Not only are arbitration agreements costly for workers, they tend to end more favorably for employers, class action isn’t an option and it’s all confidential. A company could turn a blind eye to something like sexual harassment for years – and victims would never have the benefit of all the claims that came before them. And what if a worker refused to sign the arbitration agreement? They risked being fired – or never hired in the first place.

This is not to say arbitration has no place at all in resolving employer-employee disputes, but not when workers are forced to sign away their rights or risk giving up their job to someone who will. Continue Reading ›

Federal Jury Awards $5.2 Million in Employment Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

October 11, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

With a developmental disability, visual impairment and deafness, he employed for 16 years as a cart pusher at a retail giant. Now, he’s been awarded $5.2 million in an employment disability discrimination lawsuit.

As our Orange County disability discrimination attorneys understand it, the man had been receiving a number of workplace accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which allowed him to be successful in his role. One of those accommodations was a job coach, paid for by federal disability funding.

His condition had not changed. What did change, The Associated Press, was that new manager came on-board. According to the complaint in EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, within just a month of the new manager taking charge, the worker was suspended and forced to resubmit the medical paperwork that allowed him access to reasonable accommodations. Continue Reading ›

Added Protections Against Workplace Sexual Assault for California Janitors

October 7, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Female janitorial workers – particularly those working the night shift – have long been fighting for safer workplaces. Specifically, they have sought protection from the scourge of sexual assault.

In 2016, a janitors’ union representing some 25,000 workers in California expressed shock when a survey of 5,000 janitorial workers revealed the majority of its membership were either:

Victims of workplace sexual harassment and/or sexual assault (50 percent);
Witnesses of workplace sexual harassment (25 percent).

CA Appeals Court: Employer Liability Insurer Should Cover Some Wage & Hour Claims

October 5, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

For the most part, business liability insurance policies do cover the cost of defense and settlements in numerous types of employee lawsuits. It usually comes down to the exact language in the policy, but coverage is often extended for claims of sexual harassment, wrongful termination and discrimination. This is of paramount concern to employers, but it’s also relevant to employee plaintiffs in employment litigation because if the insurer doesn’t cover it, the employer will be directly responsible. If the damage award is sizable enough and the company small enough, it could mean you’ll have difficulty collecting on the damage award in your employment lawsuit.

This is especially pertinent to those filing a claim for violation of California’s wage and hour laws. Many employer liability insurers don’t carry coverage for this type of claim in California. Wage and hour claims are often explicitly cited as an exclusion or else businesses pay a premium for coverage.

However, a recent California Court of Appeal decision paved the way for more wage and hour claims to be covered by employer liability insurers. In Southern California Pizza Company, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, the appellate panel ruled that wage and hour claims against a pizza shop (for failure to reimburse for reimbursable expenses) was not barred under the business’s policy exclusion on wage and hour claims.

Why? Continue Reading ›