Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Employer Fired HIV-Positive Worker, Fined $125K for Disability Discrimination

April 2, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

In the 1980s, a diagnosis of HIV or AIDS was a death sentence. It was also essentially a license to discriminate, and employers did so frequently.

Although it has since become illegal to do so and the stigma surrounding the condition has waned, discrimination against HIV-positive workers continues. Some of it based in the misguided belief that the condition is associated with immoral behaviors or identities of which certain people may disapprove (i.e., drug use, sex work, homosexuality or infidelity). Other times, discrimination is perpetuated by a misunderstanding of how the disease is transmitted and who could be placed at risk.

In the U.S., taking adverse employment action against a worker because the worker is HIV-positive is a form of disability discrimination, and it’s illegal.

Spratt v. DirecTV – Cable Company Accused of Wage-and-Hour Abuses

March 31, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A California lawsuit accuses a large cable company of forcing hourly workers in California to toil through designated brake times, among other wage-and-hour violations, according to the latest lawsuit filed against the firm.

In Spratt v. DirecTV Enterprises LLC, filed within the Los Angeles Superior Court, a former maintenance worker alleges the company improperly imposed an “alternative” work week schedule that consisted of four, 10-hour days. It also allegedly failed to pay overtime and other required pay to more than 100 workers employed with the firm in California, starting in early 2011.

Plaintiff worked for more than a decade, starting in 2002.

McMaster v. Eastern Armored Servs. – Motor Carrier Act Exemption to Overtime

March 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

One of the ways companies frequently attempt to skirt overtime wage laws is to wrongly classify workers as exempt. They may fudge the definition of the job, or in some cases, simply look for any available legal loophole and stretch it to fit the situation.

The recent case of McMaster v. Eastern Armored Servs., Inc. is one in which an employer avoided paying overtime based on the Motor Carrier Act exemption. Employer was able to cite this act, at least for a time, because the worker’s duties were split, as were the type of vehicles she drove.

Let’s start by explaining that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires almost all employers to pay overtime wages to hourly workers. Professional motor carriers are generally exempt from this mandate, but a recent Congressional act waives the exemption for motor carrier workers who, either in whole or in part, operate vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds. The worker in this case argued she fell within the exception to the exemption – and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit sided with her, ordering the company to pay back wages for the all the overtime she was previously denied.

Walz v. Ameriprise Fin. Inc. – Mental Illness Discrimination Allegation

March 21, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A federal appeals court has affirmed a judgment in favor of a company accused of disability discrimination, finding because employee never informed her bosses of the nature of her disability and never requested accommodations, she could not prove the reason for her termination was the disability.

Walz v. Ameriprise Fin. Inc. is an interesting case insofar as it deals with mental illness as a disability – which it most certainly can be. However, there remains an intense stigma around such conditions, so that makes it more understandable that a worker would not disclose this condition to employers.

But as this case shows, failure to do so could leave the worker legally unprotected in the event of an adverse employment action. This particular case originated in a federal court in Minnesota, and was most recently weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. – Failure to Prevent Harassment Alleged by Spa Worker

March 18, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A California appellate court reversed a $285,000 verdict in favor of a former spa worker who alleged her employer failed to take reasonable steps necessary to protect her from the sexual harassment and gender discrimination of two customers.

The issue was that although jurors ruled defendant was not liable for sexual harassment or gender discrimination, it nonetheless found defendant liable on plaintiff’s claim for failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the actions. (Jurors did not find defendant liable for failure to prevent racial harassment, which plaintiff had also alleged.)

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, ruled in Dickson v. Burk Williams, Inc. that when a jury finds that the sexual harassment that occurred wasn’t sufficiently pervasive or severe enough to result in liability, there can’t also be a finding that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Arlington v. Miller’s Trucking – Oral Wage Agreement Weighed

March 15, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Verbal employment agreements – including those pertaining to wages – are legal and valid. However, they can be tough to prove, which is why it’s always better to get those facts in writing.

Failure to do so may result in an a greater uphill battle in court, though they may not be impossible to prove with enough circumstantial evidence.

The recent case of Arlington v. Miller’s Trucking, Inc., before the Montana Supreme Court, a truck driver sued his former employer claiming he was owed wages in accordance with a verbal employment agreement, and further he was not properly paid overtime. Although a hearing officer with the state labor department issued findings favoring the employer and the district court affirmed, the state supreme court reversed in part, sending portions of the case back to the lower courts for further consideration.

Flood v. Bank of Am. Corp. – Bisexuality Discrimination Lawsuit Revived

March 13, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Although sexual identity is not explicitly protected on the federal level for public employees, California law does provide protection, as do some local-level policies.

LGBT employees have the right to enjoy a harassment-free, discrimination-free work environment.

In the recent case of Flood v. Bank of Am. Corp., before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, an employee asserted she received disparate treatment because of her bisexuality. She stopped reporting to work for this reason, and was subsequently fired. She sued under a state human rights law (this occurred in Maine), and the bank was granted summary judgment by the district court. However, the federal appeals court reversed on the portions of her claim pertaining to hostile work environment and wrongful termination, finding a reasonable jury could find the bank’s reason for firing the worker was pretextual and was actually due to her bisexuality. That means the plaintiff now gets a crack at a trial.

Adams v. CDM Media USA – Age Discrimination Lawsuit to Proceed

March 12, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The Hawaii Supreme Court has reversed a summary judgment favoring a company accused of age discrimination in hiring, finding the company failed to meet the necessary burden to prove it should prevail as a matter of law.

The 59-year-old plaintiff who had decades of experience in sales was turned down for a sales position, while jobs were offered to candidates who were between 20 and 35 years her junior. Trial court initially ruled plaintiff failed to prove the reasons cited by defendant company were a pretext for the actual, discriminatory reason it chose not to hire her.

Although that decision was affirmed by the appellate court, the state supreme court in its review of Adams v. CDM Media USA, Inc. reversed, noting the company failed to satisfy its burden to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for declining to hire plaintiff – particularly when it hired candidates with far less experience.

$415M Wage-Fixing Settlement Nearing for California Tech Firms

March 9, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A U.S. District judge in northern California has not objected to a $415 million settlement, following allegations several large technology firms conspired in a wage-fixing scheme that held salaries down for many workers.

Previously, that same judge had rejected a $325 million proposed settlement, saying it was far too low. The settlement still has to be approved, but that seems more likely now with the higher sum.

Plaintiffs had asserted Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Google Inc. together made an agreement that they would not poach employees form the other. The problem with an agreement like this is that, especially when you’re dealing with the major players in a given industry, such action can significantly limit job mobility. As a result, it means employees have little bargaining power when it comes to their salaries.

Age Discrimination May Manifest in Subtle Ways

March 6, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Most employers are aware of the fact that legally, they can’t specifically recruit workers under the age of 30 or fire a worker simply because he or she hit the 55-year mark. But usually, age discrimination comes in much more subtle ways.

One such example is job advertisements that request applications from “recent graduates.” According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has increasingly taken an aggressive stance on issues like this, here would be a situation where a seemingly neutral employment policy resulted in a disproportionate negative effect on older applicants.

It’s illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of age, as well as gender, race, color, religion, national origin or disability.