Badge - California Employment Lawyers Association
Badge - Orange County Bar Association
Badge - OCTLA
Badge - Consumer Attorneys of California
Badge - State Bar of California
Badge - American Association for Justice

| by

FMLA, or the Family and Medical Leave Act, is a federal statute that guarantees certain employees up to 12 work-weeks worth of unpaid leave annually, without fear of losing their job. The law requires that workers covered by the law maintain worker health benefits during this time, and is intended to help workers balance their family and work responsibilities by granting them the ability to take a reasonable amount of unpaid leave for certain medical and family reasons. It also seeks to help the legitimate interests of employers and promote equal opportunity for men and women. It can be used in a number of different circumstances, including the birth of a child or to care for an immediate family member or spouse who is suffering a serious health condition.sad

In the recent case of Chumbley v. Board of Education for Peoria District 150, a school district employee has filed an FMLA lawsuit in federal court in Illinois, alleging he was fired because he went on FMLA leave act. As the Society for Human Resource Management reports, the district fired him while he was on leave, with administrators insisting it was because two unrelated performance-related issues were discovered during that time. However, a remark made by plaintiff’s supervisor regarding his FMLA leave supports his claim that the termination was in large part due to the fact that he took this protected leave.

According to court records, plaintiff was hired in 2005 as a director of research, testing and assessment. The position was to last three years, after which time it would be renewed automatically every year, unless the district gave notice that it wouldn’t be renewed by April of the contract year. In March 2010, the district informed plaintiff that it intended to reassign him to a teaching post, but then re-hired him as a director position as an employee-at-will. Continue Reading ›

| by

Sexual harassment claims against the former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes ultimately cost the executive his job and resulted in a $20 million settlement with former anchor Gretchen Carlson. The allegations embroiled the company in controversy, as Greta Van Susteren, one of the longest-serving hosts, quit abruptly. Later, star Megyn Kelly, who would also come forward with claims of sexual harassment against Ailes, announced she was leaving for NBC. Kelly said she didn’t come forward sooner with her claims of harassment because to do so would have been, “Career suicide.” sad

Now, it seems that these type of incidents were part of a larger pattern, perhaps even a corporate culture, as more allegations against other executives and hosts have been revealed. Most recently, The New York Times reported, was the revelation that 21st Century Fox, which is the parent company of Fox News, quietly settled a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by an employee against prime-time star Bill O’Reilly.

The claim was made by a female Fox broadcaster who first began working for the company in the 1990s. She worked for a time on the Fox & Friends weekend edition show, and she had a regular segment on The O’Reilly Factor. She alleges O’Reilly tried to initiate a sexual relationship with her back in 2011. However, she declined his advance, resulting in his retaliation, according to the lawsuit. Additionally, a long-time Fox News executive, now co-president of the company after Ailes’ ouster, is also accused of retaliation in the case.  Continue Reading ›

| by

California has some of the best state-level worker protection laws in the country. It’s something Andrew Pudzer always opposed in his adopted state, where the Midwest lawyer moved and succeeded in building up a once-failing fast-food chain.cook

Pudzer, President Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of the U.S. Labor Department, was an outspoken critic of the tight workplace regulations in California. These included mandatory rest breaks, which he asserted were unfair particularly in the restaurant industry as he complained it meant businesses were understaffed just as the rush of customers were coming in. He argued that the laws passed to protect hourly workers resulted in a “nanny state,” which he said flew in the face of capitalism.

But Pudzer’s company displayed time and again exactly why laws are needed to protect our workers. Ultimately, his business ended up paying out millions of dollars for class action lawsuits that alleged wage-and-hour theft and other workers’ rights laws. He is CEO of a restaurant group that franchises, licenses and operates several fast-food chains, including Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. Continue Reading ›

| by

Observance of some religious tenants are more visible than others, but none are legally allowed to be used as a basis upon which to deny employment or career advancement. But that’s exactly what is alleged to have happened to a Sikh doctor who alleges a medical organization denied him employment due to his religious appearance.doctor

Plaintiff is a licensed and board-certified physician practicing neurology in Kentucky. He is an observant Sikh who keeps the religiously-mandated beard and turban. He says the hiring process was initiated in 2014. A recruiter praised the doctor’s credentials and experience in a series of telephone interviews. However, after the doctor submitted photographs of himself, along with information about Sikhism, all future interviews were abruptly canceled. The job then was left vacant for an extended time.

In a federal religious discrimination lawsuit filed on his behalf by The Sikh Coalition, plaintiff asserts it was very clear to him he was denied a job at defendant medical group because of both his ethnic background and religious appearance.  Continue Reading ›

| by

During a recent Senate confirmation hearing to the post of Health and Human Services Secretary, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), stated he did not believe companies were allowed to terminate women from their jobs for their reproductive choices. Specifically, he indicated that the right to use birth control was not something that affected women’s employment status.pregnant

In fact, as our gender discrimination attorneys know, this is far from true.

Price is a conservative politician, and as such, he has been vocal and active in his anti-abortion stance. And in 2015, he voted for a resolution that would have eliminated protections for women in the District of Columbia from being fired due to their reproductive health choices. That resolution indicated at the top that it opposed the vote by the D.C. Council in favor of the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act, the purpose of which is to shield women from discrimination at work on the basis of the decisions they make in favor of their reproductive health. However, a the recent confirmation hearing, he insisted that the measure he voted for in D.C. would not have meant that employers could discriminate against workers based on their reproductive choices. In a back-and-forth with Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Price stated he did not think employers ought to be able to or are currently allowed to discriminate against someone based on their health status or the medications (including birth control) that they use.  Continue Reading ›

| by

Federal law prohibits age discrimination by employers. It protects people who are 40 and older from facing rejection from employment or the denial of certain employment-related benefits solely on the basis of their age.gavel

But recently, a federal appeals court considered whether it’s ageism to discriminate against people over-50 compared with those who are between 40 and 50? It’s a question that hadn’t before been raised in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit until Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC.

According to court records, the complaint centers on alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The workers who are named plaintiffs in the claim all worked for the defendant, which supplied materials to the auto industry. In 2008, when the industry started to tank, defendant engaged in numerous reductions in its workforce. The company ultimately fired about 100 salaried employees at some 40 locations/ divisions. The individual directors had a great deal of individual latitude in deciding who should stay and who should go. The company didn’t train directors in how to implement the reductions in force, and there were no written guidelines or policies. Plaintiffs in question were each let go and each was over the age of 50. Continue Reading ›

| by

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that of the thousands of complaints of sexual harassment it receives every year, 17 percent are filed by men. Meanwhile, more than half of women in the workplace report enduring some form of sexual harassment. Although there is no denying that sexual harassment is unacceptable no matter the victim or offender’s gender, instances involving men are beginning to garner more media attention. Although men are less likely to endure sexual harassment, they sometimes have an even steeper uphill battle in getting their employer to take it seriously because certain stereotypes would suggest males welcome this kind of attention. The fact is, they do not and the law makes no distinction. police

Recently, a county sheriff’s officer in Michigan filed a federal employment lawsuit alleging his female boss sexually harassed him and that his male supervisors laughed it off. In one case, an undersheriff told him to, “Take one for the team.” Instead, he took it to court.

Rather than suing his alleged harasser, though, he is taking on his employer for reportedly failing to act on his plea for help. According to court records, his boss reportedly taunted him for more than a year with comments that were sexually-charged an inappropriate. She advanced on him with unwanted behavior of a sexual nature. In one instance, he alleges she offered to give him oral sex. In another instance, she suggested to him getting his wife intoxicated and engaging them both in a sexual act. She also allegedly gave his work partners phony assignments so she would have opportunities to be alone with him. She also reportedly texted his personal cell phone and made it a point to drive by his home.  Continue Reading ›

| by

National origin discrimination is not something that tends to get as much media play as, say, sexual harassment or disability discrimination. But in terms of employment law cases, it accounts for more than 1 in 10 of those filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (as of 2015). That figure is even higher in states like California (16.6 percent) where populations are more diverse. It comprises more than 18 percent of EEOC complaints generated in new Mexico.worker

The prohibition on national origin discrimination is spelled out in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law applicable to all companies with 15 or more employees. It extends to all employees – and applicants – for jobs in the U.S.

National origin discrimination isn’t always obvious, but given its increasing pervasiveness, the EEOC updated its enforcement guidelines, which supersedes the previous compliance manual. These guidelines are meant to serve not only as a road map for the EEOC, but also as a clear warning to companies and a notice to workers of what is acceptable and what is not. Continue Reading ›

| by

A teacher who is gay has filed an employment lawsuit against his former employer, a Roman Catholic high school, which he alleges terminated his employment because he announced his wedding to another man.professional

The LGBT employment discrimination lawsuit alleges the Charlotte Catholic High School in North Carolina ran afoul of federal employment law in firing him from his substitute teaching position three years ago, following his revelation of his wedding to another man in a Facebook post. The statute doesn’t reference any state law, but it does come amid a bigger fight over a law in that state that limits protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

According to the Associated Press, plaintiff taught full-time English and drama at the school for more than 10 years and even earned the “Teacher of the Year” title back in 2012. Afterward, he transitioned into a less demanding role as a regular substitute teacher, and usually worked more than 12 weeks in a year. Then, in the fall of 2014, he posted details of his upcoming wedding to another man. Several weeks later, seemingly without warning, he was informed by the school’s assistant principal that he was no longer welcome back to continue teaching.  Continue Reading ›

| by

Workers hired to clean up asbestos are dealing with one of the most dangerous substances in the world. Asbestos exposure is known to cause latent diseases such as lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma. These conditions can be aggressive and, in the case of mesothelioma, is terminal. The substance was used in so many building and construction materials in the last century, and its removal in renovation and demolition requires specially-trained crews who must be meticulous in their safety precautions.asbestos

Now, prosecutors are alleging that a group of these workers was denied proper wages and benefits. The case is emerging from the Boston, Mass. area, where many of the older buildings are riddled with these cancerous fibers. The region is going through a construction and renovation boom, and that means asbestos removal and demolition contractors are very busy right now. But the U.S. Justice Department asserts that is no excuse for cutting corners when it comes to workers’ wages.

Asbestos abatement jobs in the state totaled nearly 26,000 last year, which was a 65 percent uptick just over what it was five years ago. This boom will continue so long as renovations and demolitions of older structures continue.  Continue Reading ›

Contact Information
Newport Beach Office
4695 MacArthur Ct 11th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Local: (949) 375-4734
Los Angeles Office
11400 W Olympic Blvd #200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Local: (949) 375-4734
Riverside Office
11801 Pierce St #200
Riverside, CA 92505
Local: (949) 375-4734

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Nassiri Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design