Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Pregnancy Discrimination a Growing Problem in U.S.

March 3, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The Chicago Public School System recently came under fire after it was alleged a number of teachers were fired on the basis of their pregnancies. A federal discrimination lawsuit has been filed.

The district staunchly denies this assertion, insisting the teachers were let go as a result of performance ratings, and that lay-off determinations were consistent with the necessity of business. The district further asserts the lawsuit has no merit because there is no pattern of discrimination when all employment decisions stemmed from non-discriminatory, legitimate reasons.

However, the U.S. government asserts otherwise, noting that in the course of three years, the district took adverse employment action against eight teachers who were either pregnant or who had just returned to work after pregnancy. The disparate treatment those individuals suffered included poor performance evaluations, where previously their records had been stellar.

Franchises Face Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits

February 28, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Wage theft is a serious problem within many varying industries.

It’s worth noting there is an overall increase in wage-and-hour lawsuits, due to a combination of factors that includes workers becoming more aware of their rights, more active state and federal regulators and advanced technology that allows employees to conduct work remotely at any time of the day or night. Some of the litigation has focused on:

Misclassification of workers as salaried employees or independent contractors (ineligible for overtime pay or certain benefits)

Nikmanesh v. Wal-Mart – Pharmacists File California Labor Lawsuit

February 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A California labor lawsuit has been filed by a former Wal-Mart pharmacist on behalf of all pharmacists working for the retailer, alleging missed breaks and unpaid overtime.

Plaintiff in Nikmanesh v. Wal-Mart worked for the company for more than a decade, from 2003 through 2014. He alleges that in addition to a failure to ensure pharmacists received legally-mandated rest breaks, the company refused to compensate him and others for class time spent studying and completing immunization training programs. The training programs, he asserted, was related directly to his responsibilities as a pharmacist.

The complaint asserts the company implemented and utilized a company-wide policy of denying overtime compensation or any compensation whatsoever for certain work-related tasks. The lawsuit seeks class action status for all pharmacists who worked for the company within the last four years.

Truckers Win Racial Discrimination Lawsuit – One of Many in the Industry

February 25, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Truckers have a tough job, working long hours, traveling long distances and navigating tough terrain with heavy machinery. The job can be made even more difficult when bosses engage in racial discrimination.

Yet time and again, we hear about trucking companies discriminating against their workers on the basis of race. They may assume that because truck drivers are isolated from others in the company, workers may not learn how pervasive the problem is. Employers may also assume that because drivers may have limited job mobility, they may be less likely to speak out.

What we are seeing in recent years, however, are a number of truck drivers who are succeeding in racial discrimination lawsuits. The most recent case involved seven truckers working for the same Denver, Colorado-based firm.

Pao California Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Venture Capital Firm Goes to Trial

February 23, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A high-profile gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit is underway in Silicon Valley, with one of the area’s oldest venture capital firms in the center of the storm.

In her complaint, Ellen Pao claims she was subjected to five years of retaliation after she refused sexual advances from several of the senior partners at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. As a former partner of the firm, she stated she and other female workers were discriminated against when it came to matters of pay and promotions. She also said she was pressured into having an affair with a senior executive, and after she ended it, the discrimination began – and continued for the better part of five years. She is seeking $16 million in compensation for back pay, future wage losses and other damages as a result of the alleged discriminatory conduct.

The case is being closely watched as it has underscored longstanding issues of sexual inequality in the field of technology. As a result, many technological firms have started releasing diversity data regarding their workforces, and have vowed to make improvements with regard to racial and gender balances.

Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries – Employment Lawsuit “Loose Ends” Prevent Summary Judgment

February 21, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Plaintiff in Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries may have an uphill battle in proving his employment retaliation case, but there were too many “loose ends” for the trial court to have declared a summary judgment in favor of the defense, a federal appellate court recently ruled.

According to the decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the case stemmed from an original charge of racial discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants in that case. But subsequently, plaintiff filed a separate action for retaliation, arguing he was being punished by his employer for filing the original claim.

While the district court again granted summary judgment to the employer, the federal appeals court reversed.

Court: California Healthcare Employers Subject to Litigation for Meal Break Waivers

February 18, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

For more than two decades, health care workers were given the option to waive a second meal break that would otherwise be required on shifts longer than eight hours under the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders, or IWC.

However, in the recent decision of Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem. Medical Center, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, has found part of the IWC orders invalid.

Specifically targeted was IWC Wage Order No. 5. The measure stated workers in the health care industry who worked shifts in excess of eight hours could voluntarily waive their right to one of their two meal periods, so long as the agreement was written and signed by both parties.

Bailey v. TitleMax – FLSA Not Undercut by Employee Underreporting Hours

February 15, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

When a company knows or should know a worker is under-reporting his or her hours, the firm can’t use the employee’s role to diminish its own responsibility under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

That was according to the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Bailey v. TitleMax. In its ruling, the federal appellate court reversed the summary judgment favoring the defendant company and remanded the case back to trial.

Had the court affirmed the earlier ruling, it would have allowed companies to wield superior bargaining power to pressure or even compel workers to under-report their hours, and then turn around and use that action as a defense if anyone complained. The Bailey ruling was an important one in furtherance of worker rights under the FLSA.

Betts v. McDonald’s Corp. – Can Chain be Liable for Franchisee Employment Actions?

February 13, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

In Betts .v McDonald’s Corp., a large restaurant chain was named as a defendant by 10 Hispanic and African American men who allege their termination by a franchisee of three Virginia-based restaurants amounts to racial discrimination.

It does seem the workers have a fair amount of proof necessary to win their case. Allegedly, supervisors of the franchise reportedly made statements flat-out saying the store was “too dark” and there were “too many black people” there on a day-to-day basis. In fact, the terminated workers were allegedly told directly they failed to fit the company’s desired profile.

These kinds of statements are going to be critical in determining whether racial discrimination was a factor in the workers’ firing. Most discrimination cases lack that kind of direct proof, so the case may be easier than others in that regard.

Court: Successor Liability for Racial Discrimination, Retaliation is Valid

February 11, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A successor company can be held liable for the discrimination and retaliation of its predecessor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed. The appellate court also found in Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. N. Star Hospitality Inc. the successor firm can be compelled to initiate the equitable remedies, as established by the trial court, which include not only payment for judgment, but the adoption of investigative processes and training to prevent future employment law violations.

The finding ensures companies can’t evade liability and responsibility for such wrongdoing by simply dissolving and reforming under a different name or new management.

Court records indicate employee in question is a black male who worked as a cook for defendant. During his time there, he was promoted to assistant kitchen manager, and was by all accounts a good worker.