Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc. – Requiring Guards to Remain On-Call No Violation of Rest Break Law

February 9, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The California Court of Appeal reversed a $90 million class action judgment in a case of alleged rest period violations under state law, finding the requirement of security guards to remain on-call during rest breaks was not improper.

In weighing Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., the appellate court for the second appellate district, division one, held the requirement to remain on-call did not constitute as “performing work” under California Labor Code 226.7. The law states no employer shall require any worker to work during any meal or rest break. Employers who fail to provide a rest period or meal break to workers in accordance with the Industrial Welfare Commission’s order have to pay the worker an additional hour of pay at the worker’s regular rate for each rest period or meal break not provided.

The ruling is a disappointing one for California workers, but it does help us to better define the kinds of cases worth pursuing.

McNaughton v. Charleston Charter School – Winning a Wrongful Termination Case

February 7, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A charter school teacher in South Carolina recently won her wrongful termination claim, which had been appealed by the school all the way to the state supreme court.

The case of McNaughton v. Charleston Charter School is relevant to workers here in California because just like here, South Carolina is an at-will employment state.

In both states, it’s generally held an employer doesn’t need a good or just cause to fire a worker. However, the exception to this rule is wrongful termination. A firing is wrongful if it was motivated at least in part by some impermissible reason, which could include physical or mental disability, use of the Family Medical Leave Act, pregnancy, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or race.

EEOC Sues Restaurant for Discrimination Against Male Applicants

February 5, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

While sexual harassment claims are often filed by women who suffer discrimination or retaliation by male superiors, a recent federal case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a reminder that discrimination and harassment can go both ways. According to a statement from the EEOC, a well-known restaurant chain is being sued for discriminating against male applicants for bartender and server positions. According to the complaint, the restaurant in its Park City, Utah locations only hired women for its summer positions. The federal lawsuit was filed in late January by the EEOC, seeking an injunction that would stop the restaurant from depriving men of employment as a result of their gender.

In taking legal action against the restaurant, the EEOC is sending a message to all restaurants and service industry employers that they must put an end to all wrongful and illegal employment practices. The EEOC is seeking to compensate two workers who were denied jobs during the summer of 2013 because they were male. An attorney representing the plaintiffs stated publicly that this is a cautionary tale to other employers who favor female employees when hiring.

According to the complaint, the company went out of its way to advertise for temporary positions during the summer of 2013, indicating it showed exclusive preference for female applicants. The company even stated specifically that it was not hiring men.

Paramount Pictures Sued for FCRA Violations

February 2, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Employees who turn in an application to an employer may not realize they have significant rights under federal law – even if they are not hired. Employers who decide to use consumer background checks, including criminal history or credit reports, to make a hiring decision must follow a very strict set of rules to do so.

First of all, they must inform you of their intent and get your permission. Your authorization for access to this information must be clear and separate from any other consent forms. In the event that an employer is not going to hire you because of what is turned up in reports, you must be given notice and time to rectify any mistakes.

These are only a few of the requirements set forth by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and an increasing number of employers are being held liable for violations. According to recent reports, Paramount Pictures is the most recent big offender in a string of class action lawsuits related to FCRA violations in the hiring process. The motion picture production company has been accused of failing to inform candidates of its intent to delve into their consumer, credit, and criminal histories. The class action alleges that there were very strict policies and practices that were not followed by the company.

California Home Healthcare Workers and the Fight for Overtime

January 30, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

With a growing elderly population, more families are turning to home health care services to help with the aid and medical needs of their loved ones. Many of these health service employees work for agencies responsible for salary and hourly wages, including overtime.

For employees, it is important to remember the laws about wages and overtime to ensure just compensation. Sadly, a California judge’s recent decision may limit the right to overtime for home health care workers. According to reports, California will not pay overtime to home health aides who care for the state’s elderly and disabled after judge overturned a federal regulation that requires overtime. The decision is a significant setback for home healthcare workers as well as the unions that back them.

Unions, workers and other advocacy groups fought aggressively in favor of the regulation and lobbied Governor Jerry Brown to include the funding package in the California budget. By refusing overtime and other benefits to home healthcare workers, the state is now positioned to save $183.6 million in the next six months and another $314.2 million in the fiscal year beginning in July. While the California budget and bottom-line may benefit, workers and their families will not be entitled to the compensation they should have access to under federal law.

McDonald’s Faces Suit for “Rampant” Racial and Sexual Discrimination

January 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

McDonald’s is facing some of its most egregious accusations of racial and sexual discrimination and harassment, which could result in a significant settlement or verdict for 10 former employees. The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against the company in January of 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs were subjected to “rampant racial and sexual harassment.” Alleged offenders were high-ranking supervisors and managers who have been accused of demeaning the workers, nine of whom are African American, and one who is Hispanic. Of all the plaintiffs, seven are women.

According to the court documents, supervisors were demeaning, claiming that there were “too many black people in the store.” African-American workers said their supervisors called them derogatory names like “ghetto” or “bitch,” and the Hispanic worker said that she was repeatedly called a “dirty Mexican.”

In addition to the hostile work environment created by the aggressive and ongoing name-calling, the employees were disciplined more heavily than while employees who violated the same rules. The employees were also inappropriately touched on their buttocks and legs. Supervisors also sent the female employees nude and other sexually explicit photographs and in several instances, tried to solicit sexual favors from their employees.

Saks Claims Right to Discriminate Against Transgendered Employees

January 23, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Transgendered employees are a protected class under California state laws and federal law. The Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hold it is illegal for employers to discriminate against transgendered employees. In a recent turn of legal events, Saks & Co. administrators in a federal motion asserted the company has the right to discriminate against employees for being transgendered.

According to the filing, Saks asked for the dismissal of a former employee’s discrimination lawsuit because transsexuals are not protected under Title VII.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bans employment discrimination based on race, religion and gender. According to reports, a transgendered woman alleges she was instructed to separate her work and home life and to begin behaving in a more masculine manner at work. The lawsuit alleges that she was ultimately terminated in retaliation for speaking up about a hostile work environment. Saks attorneys filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas, denying all legal claims. The defense team also alleges that though the discrimination is tied to gender, the discrimination is related to his status as a transsexual. In essence, the defense attorneys are arguing adverse employment action based on plaintiff’s status as a transsexual is grounds for a discrimination action.

Catholic High School Liable for Gender Discrimination

January 21, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The American Civil Liberties Union has succeeded in taking on a gender discrimination case against a Catholic school in Indiana. According to court documents, a teacher was discriminated against after she sought in vitro fertilization treatment to get pregnant.

After working at the school for more than seven years as a language arts and literature teacher, the Catholic school informed her that her contract would not be renewed because the act made her a “grave and moral sinner” through the eyes of the religious employer. This is one of many cases that pit civil liberties against religious rights.

The ACLU has worked aggressively to put an end to discrimination in the name of religious beliefs. In this case, a federal lawsuit was filed against the school and the local Catholic authorities for sex discrimination in the workplace. The legal team highlighted the reality that no man had ever been fired for his involvement with fertility treatments. In defense, attorneys on behalf of the school argued that the organization should be exempted from federal anti-discrimination laws because the decision was based on “sincerely-held religious beliefs.”

Rise in FCRA Lawsuits: Employer Liability in Background Checking

January 19, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Employers are being more heavily scrutinized for taking potentially illegal action when background checking employees either prior to hire or during the course of employment. A class action lawsuit was filed in a Missouri federal court alleging Michaels, a craft store chain, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in its hiring process. According to the complaint, the store violated the law because it failed to properly disclose to candidates that a credit report could be requested and reviewed during the application process.

The FCRA governs how credit reports, criminal background checks, traffic reports and other consumer records can be used during the hiring process. Employers do have the right to access these records. However, they must follow a very strict set of guidelines to ensure compliance with the law. Even though the majority of job applicants may be unaware of their rights under the law, employers should be in full compliance when requesting information on a job candidate.

Michaels is far from the only alleged offender. Whole Foods, Publix and Dollar General are all facing lawsuits over purported FCRA violations.

Venture Capital Partner Files Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

January 15, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Discrimination and retaliation can impact lower-rung employees as well as high-paid executives. A recent case demonstrates that even employees at the upper end of the pay scale can suffer because of discrimination in the workplace.

According to Reuters, a former partner filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against a Silicon Valley venture firm. The case is unique because the partner waited five years before filing her claim.

In June of 2007, the partner informed the firm she would resign due to job dissatisfaction. Court records indicate that the resignation came seven months after she ended an affair with another partner. According to the complaint, the plaintiff suffered from discrimination and retaliation from the partner after she called off the relationship. The venture firm has denied the allegations of discrimination and retaliation and challenges the assertion that it did not take proper steps to prevent or put an end to the misconduct.