Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Worker Gets Another Shot at Employer Retaliation Lawsuit

March 5, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A worker alleging his employer violated federal civil rights law by retaliating against him for filing a racial discrimination complaint will get another shot at taking his claim to court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a trial court’s dismissal of his original complaint.

According to court records, plaintiff is an African American man who first started working for the company, a machinery manufacturing firm based in Texas, in 1991. He started his job as a “helper,” but was eventually promoted to machinist. During his tenure at the company, he was laid off three times due to staff reductions, but each time was hired back. Eventually, he racked up a full decade of seniority. By all accounts, he performed his job in a manner his employer deemed satisfactory, he regularly received raises on merit and he’d never been disciplined – until May 2009, when he was 55-years-old. Continue Reading ›

Study: Discrimination to Blame for Higher Work Injury Rates of Minorities

March 2, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Minority workers face the highest rates of on-the-job injury, and researchers with the University of Southern California opine that’s in large part due to workplace discrimination.

The study looked at injury rates among workers of different races. What they discovered was that Latino immigrant and African American men had far and away the greatest risk of injury. The risk was even higher when researchers accounted for education and other demographic characteristics.

Although the study authors didn’t delve too deeply into the reasons why, the lead researcher opined it had largely to do with “disparities in economic opportunities for minorities.” In other words: Racial discrimination. Workers who are black or Latino immigrant are often turned down or not considered for higher-paying roles, and therefore are pigeon-holed into jobs that are more dangerous, substantially increasing their risk of workplace injury and disability. Continue Reading ›

Religious Discrimination Alleged by Airport Contractor

February 28, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A company that contracts to provide passenger wheelchair assistance at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City is being accused of religious discrimination. The charge comes from the New York City Human Rights Commission, which says the company, which offers services to 32 airlines and employs some 250 workers at Terminal 4, violated worker rights by not allowing them breaks during which to pray during daily prayers or to eat after fasting for Ramadan.

According to USA Today, supervisors reportedly harassed workers who follow Islam via a radio system whenever the employees requested prayer time breaks. Those messages were reportedly spiteful and included statements like, “We don’t care about Ramadan” and assertions that workers would be given breaks at company-designated times, not worker-designated times.

If the allegations are proven, they would carry a maximum civil penalty of $250,000, on top of compensatory damages that might be paid to workers. The deputy commissioner of the city’s law enforcement bureau that religious discrimination will not be tolerated and that employees of every faith have the right to ask for religious accommodations. Further, no worker should be harassed or otherwise discriminated against for asking to have a break during which to adhere to observance of their faith. Continue Reading ›

California Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Alleges Charity Organization Failed to Act

February 26, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A sexual harassment lawsuit has been filed against a national charity employment organization and one of its affiliates, alleging the two companies failed to protect the female janitorial staff from being routinely targeted for sexual harassment by a night shift supervisor.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five workers who worked nights, most of whom were employed by the charity organization’s contractor, which hired the workers through a federal contract to employ those with disabilities. The workers in this program suffered from severe physical, mental or psychological impairments, and were working through this federally-funded program to help them become financially independent. They were assigned to clean a federal building in Oakland, CA each evening.

The supervisor is accused of inappropriate touching and leering. He is alleged to have asked intrusive questions about the women’s sex lives and made propositions to them. He once groped his genitals in front of the female janitors – and others – so often that federal building employees reportedly gave him a crude nickname. This fact alone shows that the behavior was known – or should have been known – by higher-ups. Despite this and repeated reports, the company didn’t take any effective action to help protect these vulnerable workers, according to the complaint. Continue Reading ›

$51.5 Million Age Discrimination Verdict Against Lockheed Martin

February 25, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A former employee of Lockheed Martin has just prevailed in his federal age discrimination lawsuit – to the tune of $51.5 million. It’s believed to be the largest-ever age discrimination verdict for an individual plaintiff.

The 66-year-old plaintiff asserted that he was laid off five years ago for alleged staff cutbacks when in fact, his lawyers argued, the cuts were specifically instituted to slash older workers from the payrolls. The goal was to replace those older (i.e., costlier) workers and replace them with younger workers willing to work for lower salaries.

This kind of argument is based on an alleged pretextual claim. That is, the employer stated the adverse employment action (i.e., demotion, firing, lay-off, loss of benefits, refusal to hire, etc.) was due to one thing when in fact it was due to illegal discrimination. In this case, that alleged discrimination was on the grounds of the workers’ ages. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits age discrimination of workers over the age of 40. Continue Reading ›

Controversial Sick Leave Rules Debated

February 23, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

In 2015, California passed a new Paid Sick Leave law, effective July 2015, that required anyone who worked for an employer for at least 30 days in a year in California (after satisfying a 90-day employment period) is allowed to take sick leave. The law is applicable to all workers – including part-time and temporary employees – with some specific exceptions, including those who provide in-home support services, those with collective bargaining agreements, certain persons employed by air carriers and retired annuitants working for the government.

Determining, however, how much paid sick leave one is entitled to is a bit trickier. Different employers offer different plans, but in general, state officials have explained, the law requires companies to allow workers to use at least 24 hours or three days of paid sick leave per year. Some employers have adopted policies that involve an accrual of sick leave, which can be limited to a total of 48 hours or six days of accrued leave.

Elsewhere in the country, sick leave policies are still severely lacking. Recently in Minnesota, a new sick leave law in Minneapolis has come under fire recently, with a county district judge deciding the city ordinance won’t affect companies that are based outside of the city. Of course, the fear is this will ultimately hurt the city because it may prompt businesses to relocate their headquarters outside of the city proper in order to deny workers a reasonable sick leave policy. Continue Reading ›

Wrongful Termination Plaintiffs Must Prove Firing Was Pretextual

February 21, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

In the context of employment law, a pretext is basically a false reason given for an adverse employment action, such as a demotion, loss of benefits or wrongful termination. For example, perhaps your employer tells you that you are being fired due to budget cuts, but in reality, you’re being let go in retaliation because you recently filed a complaint of sexual harassment or asked for a disability accommodation.

So how do we prove the employer’s actions were discriminatory? The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the 1973 case of McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green in which the court held that after plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of proof then shifts to the employer to show that there was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. It’s then up to the plaintiff to show reasons why the true reason for the action was pretextual. This kind of evidence is critical because in most cases, employers don’t explicitly state their discriminatory motivations.

Some of the ways we can prove pretext are:

False or implausible business justification. Essentially, if the reason given leaves you shaking your head and thinking, “That makes no sense,” it’s probably evidence of pretext.
Changing reasons. First, it was because you had too many absences. But then later, it was because you were allegedly caught stealing. These kinds of starkly different justifications may be evidence of pretext.
Comparative evidence. Other similarly situated employees who weren’t in your protected class were treated more favorably.
Questionable timing. If you file a complaint for sexual harassment and are fired in short order, that timing calls into question the action. Some courts have found that pretext on this basis may exist even after weeks have elapsed between the protected activity and adverse employment action.

ADA Requires Workers Be Able to Perform Essential Job Functions

February 18, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

The Americans With Disabilities Act requires that workers or applicants not be discriminated against on the basis of a disability, so long as the worker is able to perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable modifications. This is not a blanket requirement that companies accept all workers with disabilities. The caveat that workers must be able to perform essential functions is crucial.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pointed out in a recent opinion, “The reality is there are some jobs that a person with disabilities are simply unable to perform.” That was deemed to be the case for plaintiff in this instance.

According to court records, plaintiff worked for a telecommunications firm in Tennessee at a call center, where her job as a customer service representative involved answering incoming calls and helping customers with billing and technical support problems. In order to answer those calls, plaintiff had to be physically present at her workstation and logged into the computer. She worked eight-hour shifts, and rotated every six months. During these shifts, customer service representatives had to remain at their work stations, except to use the restroom, to take a half-hour lunch and two pre-scheduled 15-minute breaks. There was no requirement for a per-day minimum, but most representatives generally took on 40 to 50 calls per shift. Continue Reading ›

EEOC: LGBT Discrimination Charges on the Uptick

February 15, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Over the last four years, the number of gender-based discrimination charges filed by individuals for violation of LGBT rights has increased substantially. That’s according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which just released a new report on the issue.

The data shows that in fiscal year 2016, the EEOC received nearly 1,770 claims of discrimination from LGBT persons, and resolved nearly 1,650 – which are record high numbers in both categories.

Those figures are part of a larger year-end litigation and enforcement data release from last year. Herein, the agency breaks down all the different types of claims it receives and how those claims were resolved. The agency received more than 91,500 charges of workplace discrimination last year – which is the second annual increase in the number of charges. A total of 97,443 claims were resolved (some of those had been filed prior to fiscal year 2016), and a total of $482 million collected for victims of workplace discrimination in both the private and government sectors. Continue Reading ›

HIV Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by Feds in NYC

February 12, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A complaint of HIV discrimination lodged by a man in Brooklyn, N.Y. who alleged he was denied an opportunity at a city job because of his HIV-positive status, recently received a credible boost when the U.S. attorney in Manhattan took up the cause. The federal government is now suing New York City for discrimination.

Ultimately, HIV discrimination is a form of disability discrimination, which is forbidden under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stigma surrounding HIV and its association with the LGBT community has been difficult to overcome, and as this case shows, it clearly hasn’t been eliminated. We are 30 years into the HIV/ AIDS epidemic and employers are still making hiring/ firing decisions based on misinformation of what it means to live and work with it.

According to The New York Post, plaintiff said he applied for a job as a New York Police Department technician. That was in 2013, and he was given an offer of conditional employment. He then went through a series of background checks and medical tests. It was at that time that he revealed he was HIV-positive, meaning he has been diagnosed with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. At that point, the police department requested additional blood testing. Soon thereafter, plaintiff was told he was medically disqualified from the job because he had HIV low CD4 count. For those who may be unfamiliar, the CD4 cell count is a means of measuring the health of a person who has the HIV virus. If a person has a high count, they are considered fairly healthy. However, a person with a low CD4 count is not considered healthy. Continue Reading ›