Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

What is a “Protected Class” in Los Angeles Employment Discrimination Lawsuit?

February 20, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

In order to be successful in claiming employment discrimination in California, employees must first assert they are part of a protected class that received unfair treatment. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explains that to discriminate means to treat someone less favorably and disparately, with federal protections extending to individuals on the basis of gender, religion, color, race, national origin, disability or age (over 40). In California, unlawful practices spelled out by the Fair Employment and Housing Act 12940 outlines protections for these classes, but also for:

Genetic information
Marital status
Gender identity/gender expression
Sexual orientation
Military or veteran status

Part of the reason California’s additional protected classes matter is they go farther than federal law, giving unfairly-treated employees more options to pursue action.

As Los Angeles employment discrimination attorneys can explain, “protected classes” aren’t merely limited to minorities. But employment discrimination is often subtle – and doesn’t necessarily need to actually be a part of a protected class in order to be protected. Discrimination based on the perception of belonging or association with others in these classes can be actionable in California employment discrimination cases too.

Perceived Protected Class Employment Discrimination Continue Reading ›

How Do I File an Employment Discrimination Lawsuit in California?

February 17, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Employment discrimination can be subtle, but it is described as unequal treatment or attitudes toward one group of employees or against another resulting in unfair, adverse impacts to a protected class of employees or prospective employees. Among the most common questions our Riverside employment discrimination attorneys receive is, “How do I file an employment discrimination lawsuit in California?” One of the first things we need to determine is whether you belong to a protected class, and if so, whether they suffered disparate and negative treatment as at least partially a result of being in that class.

The California Fair Employment Practices Act marks its 60th anniversary in 2019. The law prohibits discrimination against employees and/or applicants on the basis of one’s actual or perceived belonging or association with one of the following protected classes:

Gender (this provision also bars sexual harassment);

Race and Color
Ethnicity
Marital Status
National Origin or Ancestry
Religious Creed
Pregnancy, Childbirth or Related Conditions (including lactation)
Disability
Age (pertains to individuals over the age of 40)

Once our Riverside employment discrimination attorneys examine the facts of the case to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to file a claim, we’ll give you a detailed rundown of your legal options. Unlike other types of civil claims, the process of filing an employment discrimination claim doesn’t always go straight to court. Continue Reading ›

California Law Enforcement Officers Say LGBT Discrimination Rampant

February 15, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

The Los Angeles Police Department was one of the first in the nation actively hiring LGBT law enforcement officers in the late 90s. Yet a recent report by USA Today detailed the ways in which law enforcement officers in California who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender were allegedly discriminated against for their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

In one case, plaintiff, a gay black man, said his fellow officers at the state highway patrol said that not only was the harassment demeaning (tying hangers in the shape of penises around the area of his locker, lobbing homophobic slurs at him, carving his name off an award plaque), it put his life at risk. When he called for backup during tense vehicle impoundments, high-speed stolen car pursuits or investigations into hit-and-run accidents, his fellow officers wouldn’t even respond. This led to a workplace environment that was not only hostile, but dangerous. And it’s been going on for years. Even as a cadet at the state highway patrol, a fellow cadet put a gun to his head, saying he knew he was a homosexual and threatening to pull the trigger.

Plaintiff filed one complaint after another internally. Supervisors, he alleges, did nothing. So three years ago, he sued the California State Highway Patrol for LGBT workplace discrimination. He cited 20 years of discrimination and harassment. His was one in a wave of lawsuits asserting anti-gay discrimination by law enforcement agents. Many of them describe workplace environments that were abusive and hostile. Some said they were subjected cruel taunts – on top of limitations on career opportunities. Their work standards were starkly different compared to other officers. They were passed over for key promotions. They were denied protection on-the-job. All of it, our LGBT discrimination attorneys understand, came down to their sexual orientation. Continue Reading ›

“Historic” Transgender Employee Rights Case Finds Employer Discriminated

February 13, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Transgender worker rights have come under attack in recent years, with President Donald Trump’s recent ban on transgender military members upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and a memo issued last year by the Department of Health and Human Services urging key agencies to adopt definitions of gender that are uniform, explicit, unchangeable and determined by the genitals with which a person was born.

But Los Angeles transgender discrimination attorneys took note of a recent bright spot.

Jurors in Iowa ruled in a transgender discrimination civil lawsuit that the warden of a prison discriminated against a transgender employee by denying him access to men’s locker rooms and bathrooms. The jury also determined the executive branch of the state discriminated by refusing to cover benefits for the worker’s gender reassignment surgery. Plaintiff was awarded $120,000 in damages for emotional distress.

The former nurse was the first to file a lawsuit following a state civil rights law that passed in 2007 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Continue Reading ›

Judges Increasingly Side With Medical Marijuana Patient Employees in Wrongful Termination Disputes

February 6, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Medical marijuana worker protections aren’t guaranteed in California – but they are growing nationally, and workplaces should take note. California became the first state to permit use of the drug for medicinal purposes and 33 states plus Washington D.C. have followed suit, with 10 (including California, plus D.C.) have permitted use of the drug recreationally. However, as Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, none of that guarantees a worker’s job will be safe if they use marijuana – even if it’s done recreationally and off-the-job.

Companies need to start paying close attention to these cases, as there is an increased likelihood California employees with medical marijuana cards will enjoy increasing workplace protections. This amid a 2018 Pew Research Center Poll finding 62 percent of Americans favor legalization of marijuana, double the number who answered in the affirmative in 2000.

It used to be that courts largely rejected California wrongful termination lawsuits relating to medical marijuana use by employees. But then two years ago, a state court in Rhode Island ruled that a manufacturing company was not allowed to refuse hiring of a paid intern who used medical marijuana in accordance with state law just because she would test positive for the drug. Continue Reading ›

Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation: California Labor Law Breach is Disability Discrimination

February 4, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A health care worker was recently awarded more than $1 million for California disability employment discrimination after she alleged a work injury led to her firing after her employer refused her reasonable accommodation.

Our Riverside disability employment discrimination attorneys have dealt with many cases of disability discrimination stemming from an employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation, as outlined by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. What this law means is if you have a physical or mental disability – work related or otherwise – your employer (or any employer with more than four employees) must provide reasonable accommodations for you to apply for or perform the essential function of your job, “unless it would cause an undue hardship.”

What is an “Undue Hardship” in California Employment Litigation?

As outlined in the the 2105 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in US EEOC v. Placer ARC, in order for an accommodation to be an “undue hardship,” an accommodation needs to be proven by the defense to be unduly disruptive, substantial and extensive. It need not necessarily break the company financially, but it would a defendant employer would need to show it was enough to impact the basic operational flexibility. Continue Reading ›

Former Insurance Agents Sue for Employer Age Discrimination in California

February 3, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Age discrimination permeates workplaces across California within all industries and income brackets, with one study revealing reports of on-the-job ageism rising 44 percent in the last two decades. Riverside age discrimination attorneys know it’s only likely to get worse as the population ages. People are working well into their 70s and even 80s, unlike generations past, which means there is greater competition for jobs. By 2022, Generation Z will be hitting the workforce, setting the stage for even fiercer competition.

In yet another recent California age discrimination claim, 18 plaintiffs allege they were targeted for their age, wrongly accused of “not meeting goals,” forced to give up client bases (which were then handed to younger insurance agents) and then either wrongfully terminated or forced to resign. One insurance agent was reportedly told he could work until he retired, but that he’d be forced to give up his client base – after 35 years of service as an agent for the same company. Plaintiffs are also alleging they were wrongfully characterized as independent contractors, despite the fact that the company controlled nearly every aspect of their daily work (a significant factor in the determination of whether someone is or is not an independent contractor).

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) offers protection for workers over the age of 40 from workplace discrimination based on age. Despite this, officials with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission referred to the problem of age discrimination as an “open secret,” and has vowed to target the issue aggressively this year and perhaps beyond. Continue Reading ›

California Age Discrimination Lawsuit Against IBM Alleges Employee Fired for Warning Company’s Acts Were Illegal

January 31, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Allegations of California age discrimination at tech companies are continuing to pile up. One of those on the receiving end of this litigation is IBM, which has noted in a March 2018 ProPublica investigation, had eliminated more than 200,000 of its employees over the age of 40 – roughly 60 percent of its estimated total U.S. job cuts – just in the five years preceding. Los Angeles age discrimination attorneys at Nassiri Law Group noted recently that same investigation was cited in a Jan. 17, 2019 employer retaliation affidavit filed by a former executive as evidence in a pending class action lawsuit. The executive alleging she was ordered by her employer not to comply with the request of a federal agency to turn over the names of employees over 50 who had been laid off by the company.

Further, the then-vice president and senior executive at the company’s Nevada branch, she warned superiors that the company was vulnerable to age discrimination claims because of its layoff practices. She now alleges she was fired in 2017 as a result of giving these warnings. A company spokeswoman denied this in a statement issued to a ProPublica reporter following up, saying the executive’s termination was entirely unrelated to age discrimination allegations, and that the 39-year veteran of the company, age 62, was terminated for “gross misconduct.” The former employee indicated in court records that she’d received decades of excellent reviews and insisted the misconduct charge was unfounded.

As noted in the 2018 story, the company reportedly (as indicated in at least one internal company record) intended to attain the “correct seniority mix.” Former employees – including this one – allege these practices flouted federal and California age discrimination laws. Continue Reading ›

California Employment Litigation Law Firm Facing Gender Bias Lawsuit of Its Own

January 30, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A California employment litigation law firm is battling allegations of gender discrimination, with plaintiffs in two lawsuits alleging the firm discriminates against female law firm partners in wages, promotions and opportunities. There are currently two cases pending – at least one plaintiff a party to both, one in state court the other in federal. The employment lawsuit filed in federal court is bound by arbitration, as an appellate panel recently ruled. However, the California state court claim is not subject to arbitration and reportedly asserts a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act. As Los Angeles gender discrimination lawyers can explain, PAGA, amended in 2016, allows employees to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state for labor code violations as outlined in in California Labor Code Division 2, Part 13, Sections 2698-2699.6.

Defendant in this case argues the state lawsuit should be tossed because it “rehashes many of the claims made against defendant” by plaintiff in the earlier lawsuit” – namely retaliation after filing a complaint of discriminatory practices and policies that adversely affected female employees.

One plaintiff alleges that shortly after a former colleague’s discrimination lawsuit was filed in January 2018, her former employer, a defense-side labor and employment law firm, hired an investigator to conduct what she alleges was a “sham investigation” regarding a connection she had with one of her clients. The true purpose of that investigation, she asserts, was to find grounds to discredit and/or terminate her before she joined the first plaintiff’s lawsuit or else filed her own. Continue Reading ›

Hotel Employers Under More Scrutiny for California Sexual Harassment Amid #MeToo

January 28, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A California hotel housekeeper is suing her former employer, alleging Irvine sexual harassment that went unchecked for years, culminating in attack by a drunk male guest while she cleaned a bathroom in the lobby. Bloomberg reported that as he grabbed her, the man allegedly offered her $50. When she reported the attack to supervisors immediately after, he allegedly laughed and cracked a joke, saying the guest should have offered her $100. Irvine sexual harassment attorneys know that such a crude response not only shocks the conscience, it will be used as evidence the employer failed to protect this worker – allegedly for years.

At the time, plaintiff had worked at that hotel location for some 18 years, according to Bloomberg. During that time, she alleges male customers frequently urinated in front of her and made inappropriate comments or advances. It was a regular occurrence, she would later indicate in her sexual harassment lawsuit, for all the female housekeepers, one she and her co-workers had been complaining about for years. Most recently, she’d asked her bosses repeatedly for a sign that would block guests from entering bathrooms while she cleaned. She was eventually given an 8×10 sign to stick on the door, though it didn’t block customers from entering. (The hotel reportedly did have signs that blocked guests from entering these areas in the past, but allegedly discontinued because they were “old-fashioned.”)

It was around this time the sexual assault occurred. Plaintiff said her employer did nothing in response – there was no investigation and no additional protection provided. She’s now suing for Irvine sexual harassment, seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Continue Reading ›