Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

$60K Settlement in Age Discrimination Lawsuit

September 3, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Two years after an initial complaint alleging age discrimination, a state records office has agreed to settle with a former applicant for $60,000. Plaintiff alleged the records office in Pennsylvania refused to hire him because he was 55 when he sought an appeals officer position.

The complaint was filed with assistance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after the attorney, formerly employed by the Human Relations Commission for nearly two decades, sought a spot with the state records division.

In the midst of the interview, the director openly expressed concern that plaintiff would soon be retiring. A woman who had just turned 40 was later hired for the post, according to PennLive.com. Continue Reading ›

Sessions’ DOJ: Law Doesn’t Protect Gay Employees

August 30, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Under the direction of new U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice has filed papers in court arguing federal civil rights law doesn’t provide civil rights protections against discrimination for employees on the basis of sexual orientation. This is in stark contrast to the directives of President Barack Obama’s administration.

The move was an unusual one, wherein the department asserted its authority in a federal case pending in New York. It involves a basically private dispute between a worker in New York and his employer over the issue of gay rights and LGBTQ discrimination.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Justice Department wrote that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of religion, gender, national origin, race and color, does not, as a matter of law, protect those based on sexual orientation. The DOJ wrote that this is an issue that has “been settled for decades,” and that any effort to amend or alter the scope of Title VII needs to be directed to members of Congress, rather than the courts. Continue Reading ›

3rd Circuit COA: Dancer Not Required to Arbitrate Wage and Hour Claim

August 26, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

An exotic dancer wishing to pursue a class action wage-and-hour lawsuit against her former employer will not be compelled to arbitrate her claim – despite previously signing an arbitration agreement prior to employment.

According to the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the arbitration clause plaintiff signed is not applicable to a proposed class action that asserts the strip club employer misclassified dancers as independent contractors rather than employees. In a unanimous ruling, justices determined the agreement was only applicable for claims that arose under her employment agreement – not statutory claims such as a wage-and-hour lawsuit.

Misclassification of workers is a serious and ongoing problem, leading to workers being underpaid and denied many important benefits of employment. Misclassification involves the practice of labeling workers as independent contractors, as opposed to employees. The benefit for employers with this, as noted by the National Conference of State Legislatures, is they avoid paying unemployment and other taxes on workers, and also from covering them on workers’ compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. Continue Reading ›

Federal Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $3.2 Million

August 22, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A photo and electronics distributor headquartered in New York has agreed to pay $3.2 million to settle a federal employment discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Labor Department, alleging discrimination against warehouse staffers.

Through the settlement, some 1,300 workers – current, former and would-be – will be entitled to collect back wages and other benefits. The settlement comes after four years in court, after regulators began investigating numerous claims of employee discrimination on the basis of race and gender.

Specifically, as NBC-4 New York reports, the company was accused of discriminating against certain workers during hiring and promotions. Certain workers were also required to use segregated restrooms and were subject to harassment and racially offensive comments, which management reportedly ignored. Continue Reading ›

Racial Discrimination Alleged by Top Banking Executive

August 18, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A top-level banking executive for Goldman Sachs is suing the company, as well as one of its managing directors, for what she says was racial discrimination and religious discrimination to prevent her from landing a major client.

The lawsuit, filed by the company’s vice president, who is both black and Jewish, alleges the managing director’s prejudices against her specifically blocked this deal, but that she also faced a myriad of discriminatory comments focused on her her skin color and her religion. Specifically, she says comments were made questioning “how Jewish” she is, given the fact that she is African American.

CNBC reports the company has denied the allegations, underscored its commitment to diversity and intends to vigorously fight the claim. Continue Reading ›

How Federal Truck Regulations Can Make the Roads of California Less Safe

August 15, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Conflicts between state and federal law have long been a problem for employers. This is more than a mere inconvenience: at times, it can remove safety rules which protect workers and prevent employers from incurring liability. A new law moving through Congress would remove safety protects in the most dangerous industry for American workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, truck drivers recorded more fatal injuries in 2015 than any other occupation.

The Mercury News reports that the bill was written by Representative Jeff Denham, and would prevent states from setting their own rules for truck drivers’ work hours. Thus California would be prohibited from enforcing its own transportation safety laws, which require a thirty-minute meal break after five hours of work, and a ten-minute rest break after four hours of work. Instead, truck drivers driving through California would be subject to federal trucking regulations, which only require a thirty-minute meal break after eight hours of driving. Lobbyists claim that, while at least twenty states have set their own rest break laws, the bill is largely aimed at curbing the influence of California law in the trucking industry. It is also worth noting that Representative Denham’s campaigns have received more than $193,000 from the trucking industry since he first ran for Congress in 2010. Continue Reading ›

New Protections for Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Employees Take Effect

August 13, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

California has long been a pioneer of gender rights in the workplace. Since 2011, gender expression and gender identity have been protected classes under California’s anti-discrimination law. And on July 1, 2017, new employment protections for transgender and gender-nonconforming employees took effect in California. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing now enforces regulations which expand protections for gender identity and gender expression in the workplace. According to The National Law Review, the following provisions are now effective:

Gender identity has been expanded to include those employees who are transitioning. Activities during the transition phase are protected, such as: changes in name or pronoun usage; use of bathroom facilities; and medical procedures associated with a transition (such as hormone therapy or surgeries). Employers may not discriminate against transitioning employees for engaging in any of these activities, or other actions related to the transition.
Employers may not inquire about, or request documentation about, an employee’s gender, gender expression, or gender identity. Employers can also not request that employees provide such information unless it is on a voluntary basis for record keeping purposes.
Single-occupancy bathroom facilities under an employer’s control must be labeled with gender neutral terms (such as “unisex”, “gender neutral”, or “all gender restroom”). Employees must be allowed to use the facilities which correspond to their gender identity, not the gender assigned to them at birth.
Employees must be allowed to carry out job duties which correspond with their gender expression or gender identity – not the gender assigned to them at birth.

The Press-Enterprise also notes that employers cannot impose any standards of grooming, dress, or appearance which are inconsistent with an employee’s gender identity.

New Job Report Sheds Light on the California Job Market

August 12, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

New data indicates that the California job market – and thus, the state’s overall economy – is slowing. California employers collectively reduced fourteen hundred jobs across the state in June 2017. According to the Los Angeles Times, this is the second month in 2017 in which the state has posted job losses. April 2017 saw an even greater decrease in California’s employment market. Job growth in 2017 is significantly lower than California’s 2016 job growth.

There are many causes to these job losses. Economic consultant Chris Thornberg posits that there are jobs available, but many workers simply cannot afford to live in California. A shortage of available housing has increased California’s notoriously high home prices and rental rates even further. This is certainly true of Silicon Valley: The New York Post reports that many technology companies are expanding operations outside of the pricey area. While Silicon Valley has experienced job losses over the past five years, both Seattle and Austin are experiencing job growth in the technology sector. The Press-Enterprise even speculates on whether California is experiencing another “tech bubble”, and the state’s ability to survive a burst of such an economic bubble. The fact that many technology firms are slowly leaving the state is not a positive sign for the technology industry, not the state’s overall economy. Continue Reading ›

New 2017 California Employment Laws

August 10, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Every year new employment laws affect California employers. Businesses which are not compliant with such laws face civil liability, fines, and even regulatory sanctions (such as suspension of a business license). CBS Los Angeles reports on new 2017 employment laws which all California employers should take note of:

Increased Minimum Wage: As of January 1, 2017, businesses with twenty-five employees or more must pay workers a minimum of $10.50 per hour. GovDocs reports that this will increase in annual increments to set minimum wage at $15.00 per hour by January 1, 2023. Businesses with fewer than twenty-five employees start at a lower minimum wage of $10.00 per hour, but they, too, will experience annual increases, and be subject to the $15.00 per hour minimum wage requirement by January 1, 2023.

Overtime Laws: The California Department of Industrial Relations describes the current California overtime requirements as follows:

Any employee must be paid one and a half times his or her hourly rate for any hours worked in excess of eight per day, or forty per week. “Time and a half” also applies to the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of a workweek.
Any hours in excess of twelve per day must be compensated at twice the employee’s hourly rate. Double time also applies to any hours beyond eight worked on the seventh day of a workweek.

There are various exceptions to the overtime requirements, and employers should carefully consider these when staffing needs arise.

Equal Treatment Protects Employer in Racial Discrimination Case

August 8, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Even allegations of racial discrimination can seriously harm a business. Aside from civil liability, criminal liability, fines, and regulatory sanctions, the mere implication of racial discrimination can cause irreparable damage to a company’s reputation and goodwill in the community. Recently, a Rancho Cordova business was able to protect itself from claims of racial discrimination, simply by presenting evidence that it treated all employees equally.

Plaintiff was employed by SGS Testcom from 2005 until 2014, when he was terminated from his position as a database administrator. According to court records, SGS claims that the plaintiff engaged in a “series of actions warranting termination” between May and August of 2014. These included failure to correct an IT database issue during a weekend when he was on call, and two separate occasions of attempting to correct the same database problem during peak user loads, which resulted in system outages and hurt SGS’s reputation with its client. Continue Reading ›