Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

California Wage and Hour Lawsuit Will Test SCOTUS Ruling on Arbitration Transfers

August 30, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling specifying that federal courts could not make up procedural rules that favored arbitration by requiring plaintiffs to prove they were prejudiced (adversely impacted) by a defendant’s decision to compel arbitration after participating in litigation. In other words, as our Los Angeles employment lawyers can explain, companies being sued by a former worker for some employment-related wrongdoing cannot participate in litigation for several months and then turn around and try to move the case to arbitration. In the 9-0 ruling of Morgan v. Sundance, the SCOTUS held that an employer that delays the right to compel arbitration essentially forgoes it.

Now, a California employment lawsuit will be the first test that in a federal appeals court – specifically, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Armstrong v. Michaels Stores.

In Morgan v. Sundance, the justices overturned a ruling allowing a fast food franchise owner to push an employee’s wage and hour lawsuit into arbitration, despite having participated in litigation for eight months. Now, in the case of Armstrong v. Michaels, the Ninth Circuit is slated to decide whether a federal judge in San Francisco erroneously sent a California wage and hour lawsuit against her craft store employer into arbitration after both parties had engaged in 10 months of litigation.

Our Los Angeles employment lawyers know this case is being carefully watched because it is the first federal appeals court to consider the extent to which the Sundance decision limits companies’ ability to move lawsuits out of open court and into the private arbitration process.

The plaintiff argues that the Sundance ruling substantially alters the legal landscape in cases like these, directly impacting the circumstances under which companies effectively waive their right to arbitrate. The company had the ability to force arbitration early on in the case, but chose not to. The company then participated for nearly a year in litigation before flipping the script and demanding arbitration. She said the company’s delay did prejudice her by causing her to incur costs she otherwise would not have. Further, sending the case to arbitration at this juncture, she said, would force her to relitigate several issues on which she’d already been successful in court. (This, she opined, may have been the main reason the company was pushing for arbitration only now.) Continue Reading ›

California Employment Lawyer Take on Company Vacation Policies

August 22, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Summer is the season for vacations. But as a Los Angeles employment lawyer, I see many mistakes employers make with regard to vacation policies. I’m referring not just to poorly-planned or problematic policies, but ones that may potentially run afoul of the law.

As the California Department of Industrial Relations points out, there is no law that requires employers to provide workers with vacation time – paid or unpaid. However, if the employer does have a vacation police, agreement, or practice to provide paid vacation, then there are certain restrictions that apply with regard to how the employer must implement it. (One might wonder, then, why employers provide it at all – and it comes down to the fact that it’s an expectation that many prospective employees have. Companies would have a tough time recruiting good workers if they offered no vacation time at all. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 90 percent of full-time employees in private industry receive some amount of paid vacation.)

As employees are cashing in this summer on their pre-scheduled vacation time, here are some things they – and their employers – should keep in mind.

Los Angeles Employment Lawyers Help Wage Theft Clients Secure Justice

August 15, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Wage theft is a growing problem throughout the United States, and Southern California is no exception. Our Los Angeles employment lawyers are committed to helping clients recover damages when their employer fails to pay them fair wages under the law.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, more than $3 billion in wages was recovered for U.S. workers between 2017 and 2020. And those are only the cases we hear about and wherein recovery efforts were successful. Wage theft compounds the income disparity gap we are seeing broaden across the country. While the number of people with household weekly earnings below the poverty line rose to more than 65 million (a 28 percent increase just in 2020 alone), CEO pay rose by 20 percent that same year. Wage theft robs workers of their fairly earned pay.

Unfortunately, even when companies are ordered by the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement to pay, many do not. For example, in San Diego County, the state agency has awarded millions of dollars to workers who were cheated out of fair wages over a period of a decade. But without adequate enforcement, only a fraction of those employers are actually compelled to pay anything. In the opinion of our Los Angeles employment lawyers, the law extends far too many loopholes, giving companies the ability to sidestep their legal responsibilities.

But this may not solely be the fault of the state’s labor division enforcement agency. Some opine that we need stronger anti-wage theft enforcement handed won by state lawmakers. While the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement is required to hold a hearing within 120 days of a complaint of wage theft being filed, the actual wait in many cities closer to 1,000 days – or nearly 3 years.

For low-income families, this amounts to an extreme hardship. Consider this real-life scenario: Continue Reading ›

California Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Gamer Settled for $100 Million

August 7, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

A California gender discrimination lawsuit against a prominent gaming company has been approved for settlement at $100 million, to be split (after legal costs) among 1,000 employees (current and former) employed by the firm in 2018. The deal was approved by the court following allegations of widespread sexism and gender-based harassment. It follows a previous $10 million proposed settlement in 2019 that the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing rejected as inadequate. (The agency estimated the company could easily owe female employees upwards of $400 million for misconduct.)

Plaintiffs in the case described a “toxic” on-the-job culture at Riot Games, a $1.6 billion tech firm with rampant “bro culture,” rife with harassment, sexism, and discrimination. In August 2018, gaming news site Kotaku published an expose detailing how problematic the company culture had become.

Some of the anecdotes detailed:

Female employees were described as “too punchy,” “not gamer enough,” “too emotional,” “too aggressive,” “too ambitious” or having “too much ego” to be leaders at the company.
Supervisors would ask female employees if it was tough to work there while “being so cute.”
Supervisors would comment in public meetings about how the husbands and kids of female employees must really miss them while they were at work.
The idea of a female worker fell flat during a meeting. A male colleague, skeptical of her claim of sexism, agreed to present the same idea in the same manner to the same group at another meeting a few days later. The reception this time around was that this idea was “amazing.”
Women alleged they worked jobs above their title and pay grade, believing they were being groomed for a promotion, only to have a male employee suddenly brought in to replace them.
Constant, unsolicited exposure to images of male genitalia displayed by male supervisors.
A female worker was accidentally CC’d on an internal group e-mail in which a male co-worker indicated he’d like to sleep with her and then never call her again.

Los Angeles Employment Lawyer Reminder: Minimum Wage Up to $15.50 in 2023

August 1, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

A fair share of California employment lawsuits stem from employers’ failure to pay fair wages – including minimum wage. As a Los Angeles employment lawyer, I can affirm that failure to pay the state’s minimum wage ends up costing employers far more in the long-run. This is why it’s important to point out that California’s minimum wage rates are about to increase.

As recently confirmed by the California Department of Finance, the state is increasing the minimum wage for all employers by 3.5 percent to 10 percent to keep pace with inflation. that means statewide, minimum wage is going to increase from $15 hourly for employers with 26-or-more employees (which was set January 1st, 2022) to $15.50 hourly, which will become effective January 1st, 2023.

It’s important to note that this is applicable to all employers regardless of size. That’s a notable deviation from previous California minimum wage increases, which had been separated by employers with 26 or more employees and those with 25 or fewer. That means this increase will be particularly impactful for smaller businesses, whose minimum wage was set to $14 hourly at the start of this year. They, just like larger companies, are going to be expected to increase the minimum wages to $15.50. For them, this is a 10 percent wage increase.

It should be noted, however, that with this increase in the state minimum wage also comes a corresponding raise in the minimum salary that is required for a work to be qualified as “exempt” under so-called “white collar exemptions.” (These are especially impactful when it comes time to paying time-and-a-half for overtime. Salaried employees are exempt from this, but as a Los Angeles employment attorney, I have seen far too many cases of employees being wrongly classified as exempt.) In order to be exempt, the employee must:

Perform specified duties in a particular manner.
Be paid a monthly salary that is no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment.
As of Jan. 1, 2023, to qualify for a white collar exemption requires the employee to earn an annual salary of $64,480 (or $1,240 weekly).
Employee spends more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt duties.
Salary of exempt employees is guaranteed, and cannot be reduced for quality or quantity of work.

The proof burden for establishing that employee should be classified as exempt is on the employer, as established in the 1999 ruling of Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. Continue Reading ›

Fired After Cancer Diagnosis? California Employment Lawsuit May be Next Step

July 26, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Cancer is a condition protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law which offers certain protections against employer discrimination. If you’re fired after being diagnosed with cancer in Los Angeles, our employment lawyers are available to help answer your questions and determine your next step.

Recently, a case of cancer discrimination was reported on by the Fresno Bee, which describes how a land acquisition and development firm is being sued by a former employee who says he was fired from the firm after a cancer diagnosis. The worker alleges he was discriminated against on the basis of his medical condition when he applied for a post at one of the company’s subsidiaries. Soon thereafter, he was fired from the job he held prior to receiving his diagnosis. Now, he alleges disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, wrongful termination, violation of state labor laws, and violation of his rights under the California Family Rights Act.

Plaintiff reportedly started working for the company in 2017 as a maintenance lead technician. He was diagnosed with cancer in the spring of 2021, at which time he began undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. His condition required that he be under the constant supervision of his doctors. Accommodations were initially made for him to take a leave of absence to undergo treatment. During that leave, he applied for a managerial position, for which he believed he was qualified and would have required less physically intensive work. Despite landing a phone interview for the role, his employer never actually called on the day of the interview. Plaintiff speculated this was because of his medical condition.

Per FMLA, plaintiff was eligible for medical leave until end of October 2021, but prior to that, his doctor extended his medical leave through the end of the year. The following month, his employer terminated him, effective mid-October. When he sought a meeting with his supervisors, he was told that he had to be fired, but that if circumstances changed, he *might* be able to be rehired.

The employer is seeking to have the matter resolved via arbitration. Continue Reading ›

Employment Lawyers Want SCOTUS to be Hands-Off With California Labor Law

July 25, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling last month limiting the California state worker protections law. Now, a group of lawyers say the SCOTUS got it wrong, and are imploring the court to hold a rehearing. They are characterizing the ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana as a “gross misinterpretation.”

The attorneys represent the plaintiff in that case, a worker who sued her former employer through the Private Attorneys General Act, a statute that allows employees in California to pursue litigation against their employers on behalf of the state. The company had been late issuing her last paycheck after she quit her job, which she asserted was a violation of the state’s labor law. However, plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were bound by arbitration agreements. Thus, the employer defense argued, a PAGA claim would have been invalid. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the employer.

Lawyers for the plaintiff believe this was absolutely the wrong call, and want the court to grant a rehearing on the matter. However, as our Los Angeles employment lawyers can explain, such hearings are pretty rare. The majority of justices must agree in order to hold one, so it doesn’t happen often. On the other hand, what makes this case fairly unusual is that the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held since its founding that it lacks the authority and jurisdiction to issue rulings on matters of state law.

California law with respect to PAGA is pretty straightforward. Attorneys for the plaintiff in Moriana argue that the Court engaged in deliberations on the case without fully grasping what PAGA is and how it works.

The Court had held that PAGA was superseded by federal law that compels private disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The court also said that such claims could be divided into two: One by the individual, and another on behalf of other workers. The Court held that even if a worker could pursue a claim on behalf of other workers, that claim could be nullified if the employer had the right to force them into arbitration. Therefore, with one part of a PAGA claim invalid, the whole thing becomes null and void.

This concept of dividing a PAGA claim in two was a decision the Court apparently reached after oral argument. Neither side was able to respond to this until after the ruling was published. Lawyers for the plaintiff say the ruling represents a “completely new analysis,” with the splitting of PAGA not being a concept on which either party briefed the Court, argued on, or asked about. They say this action is the latest in a string of actions between the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court and the progressive laws and policies of the State of California. Continue Reading ›

Overturning of Roe v. Wade: What Workers Need to Know

July 13, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

By now, everyone not living under a rock knows that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the federally-protected right to abortion that was afforded with the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade. In the most recent case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court held that states are now free to pass laws that outlaw abortions.

As Los Angeles employment attorneys, we have been weighing the potential impact this might have on people in the workplace. The ripple effect isn’t yet clear, as this is a legal situation with a lot of uncertainty in the days ahead. Much of it may come down to the state where the worker is employed. (it’s generally the state where the employee works, not necessarily where the employer is based, that decides what state laws apply.) California state law protects the right to an abortion, and recent legislation also protects those in the state from essentially “aiding and abetting” abortion from individuals who cross state lines to obtain one.

But that doesn’t mean there may not be some impact to California workplaces as result of Roe being overturned. Some examples may include:

Gig Employers Want California Worker Classification Law Declared Unconstitutional

July 12, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Lawyers for two large “gig” employers want California’s worker classification law declared unconstitutional by a federal appellate court, which they are lobbying to block its enforcement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is slated to hear arguments from attorneys for Uber and Postmates that that the state law that determines who is an “employee” and who is an “independent contractor” is irrational, treats similarly-situated workers and professions unfairly, and is discriminatory toward some tech-based employers like Uber, while exempting errand-based apps that use similar driver-courier models.

As our Los Angeles employment lawyers can explain, the law being targeted is A.B. 5. It is the provision under which a worker is considered an employee unless the hiring entity can prove it was an independent contractor relationship through the ABC test – a three-factor analysis that examines the control over which the hiring entity had over the worker. The California employee classification rule impacts thousands of workers in the so-called “gig economy.” Although they enjoy flexibility, they lack certain employer-covered legal protections, such as unemployment benefits, overtime, paid meal breaks, and workers’ compensation.

It’s unlikely that the Ninth Circuit’s final ruling will be the last word. Whatever the ultimate decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That might be a smart gamble for the company’s especially, given the solidly conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. The consensus by many California employment law attorneys is that deep-pocketed companies are essentially playing the long-game of establishing a virtual monopoly on taxiing services. Doing so gives them greater power to lobby for laws (including employment laws) that bend to their favor.

That’s why this case is one that states beyond California’s borders are watching closely. Its history is one that extends back a few years. Continue Reading ›

California Supreme Court Allows Employee to Sue Staffing Agency Client After Settling With Staffing Agency

July 5, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Our Los Angeles employment lawyers have been following the case of Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, which involves a dispute by a nurse against both a staffing agency (which hired her) and the staffing agency’s client (a medical center where she worked). The interesting thing about this case is that while the nurse had settled an employment class action lawsuit against the staffing agency, she continued pursuing a case against the medical center.

The medical center argued that this was not allowed because the prior class action settlement freed the staffing agency “and its agents” from future liability. However, the California Supreme Court has just ruled that the nurse may continue with her second class action lawsuit against the staffing agency’s client.

That ruling is noteworthy because it does not allow companies to sidle away from responsibility for labor law violations just by using a staffing agency.

According to court records, the plaintiff was employed by a nurse staffing agency who arranged for her to work at a hospital in Riverside. Wage and hour law violations at the hospital were what ultimately led to litigation. Continue Reading ›