Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Drivers Win $1 Million in Wage and Hour Class Action

January 13, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Nationwide, there has been a rise in wage and hour claims related to mis-classification. In a recent success story for employees in California, a trial court awarded truck drivers nearly $1 million in damages plus attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and additional enhancements in the class action. The defendant employer, Oakland Port Services Corp (AB Trucking) had previously appealed a trial court decision on the grounds that federal law preempted California’s meal and rest break requirements. The appellate court disagreed and reaffirmed the trial court decision.

Two drivers for the defendant company filed a class action lawsuit against Oakland Port Services Corp after the company denied wages for weekend work. The employer improperly misclassified the drivers as “unpaid trainees” and failed to provide state mandated meal and rest breaks.

The trial court had previously certified a class of drivers to performed work for the company out of its Oakland facility. In May of 2013, the trial court awarded the drivers a total of $964,557, including $487,810.50 in attorneys’ fees, $42,106.16 in litigation expenses, as well as $20,000 in class representative awards.

Still No Sexual Harassment Training for Congress?

January 11, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

State and federal legislators commonly intervene to protect the rights of employees. While managers and business owners are required to stay abreast of sexual harassment training, it appears that California lawmakers are not. Despite the ongoing threat of sexual harassment in the workplace, and the repeated number of sexual harassment claims in state and federal politics, members of Congress are still not required to undergo sexual harassment training. According to an investigation by California radio station KPCC, House members, unlike most people who are in positions of power, are not required to undergo sexual harassment training.

The loophole opens the floodgate for not only, sexual harassment claims, but the potential for liability. One California lawmaker sees the lack of sexual harassment training for House members as an embarrassment and is trying to change the rules to protect staffers. Political figures, including members of Congress, are not strangers to sexual harassment charges. According to reports, more than a dozen women have filed complaints regarding the conduct of Bob Finer, former Congressman from San Diego. The representative retired from Congress in 2012 and won his race for San Diego mayor. Despite this political success, he faced numerous accusations of sexual harassment, alleging that he repeated touched, grabbed, and groped women while serving in Congress. Following the allegations, the San Diego mayor resigned and pleaded guilty to battery and false imprisonment.

This is one of many stories coming out of Congress related to sexual harassment. To initiate change on behalf of citizens and staffers, San Mateo Congresswoman spearheaded a bill to fund $500,000 of sexual harassment training for Congress members. Despite the initiative, the money was swiped from the compromise bill. Now she is seeking the House Rules Committee to take action to prevent future instances of employment law violations and abuse. Though training is mandatory for employees and managers throughout California, Congress members have not been held to the same standards. For those in favor of the bill, stopping sexual harassment could mean a step as easy as mandatory sexual harassment training.

49ers Team and CEO Sued for Age Discrimination

January 8, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The NFL is one of many sports organizations that has been the recent target of lawsuits related to employment claims. In a recent development, the San Francisco 49ers and its CEO, Jed York, have been named in an employment discrimination lawsuit. According to the complaint, two former employees have alleged the organization terminated employment due to their age. The lawsuit alleges that the organization and CEO are in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).

According to the lawsuit, two employees were fired in 2011 with the simple reasoning that the organization was “taking a different direction.” The employees have filed the lawsuit years after the termination and after exhausting other administrative remedies with the EEOC and Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The employers were given a right-to-sue letter and the litigation has been appropriately filed within the statute of limitations. The complaint alleges that Jed York wanted to hire younger tech workers, seeking to turn the organization into the “start-up” company of the NFL. The complaint alleges that disparaging comments were made about older workers, including that they “want to go play golf six days a week.”

The lawsuit claims there were widespread firings related to the initiative. Group termination of “legacy” employees ensued, even as the organization attempted to spread it over days, weeks, and months to give the appearance it was not happening to a group of employees. Under the OWBPA, legal procedures must be followed when a group of older workers are terminated. According to the complaint, the 49ers did not follow mandatory processes or procedures when terminating the older employees.

California Judges Sue Over Pensions

January 5, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

In addition to wage and hour claims that involve violations over the course of employment, former employees may have rights to recover for lost pensions.

In a recent case, a group of judges has filed a lawsuit over California’s pension system, known as Calpers, as well as the state of California for doubling contribution requirements. According to Courthouse News, the current state pay grade entitles the six California Superior Judges to more than $181,000 per year. A lawsuit filed on December 23, 2014 alleges the pension contributions should be lowered by $13,000 a year.

Six California Superior Court Judges who were elected in 2012 claim that a new pension reform law that when into effect in 2013, raised contributions to 15 percent of their salary from 8 percent. The new law was signed by Governor Jerry Brown. According to the judges, the original 8 percent contribution agreement was set when they were elected, and the contributions cannot be adjusted. Representatives from the California Public Employees Retirement System (Calpers), have stated publicly that the lawsuit is too recent to comment on. The agency is considered America’s biggest public pension fund and manages assets upwards of $300 billion.

Muslim Prison Guard Files Discrimination Lawsuit

January 2, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Employment discrimination can take many forms, ranging from failure to hire, termination and other adverse employment actions, as well as harassment and hostile work environment. Minorities, women, and disabled persons are among protected classes as they are often the targets of discriminatory acts. As the West continues to wage a war against terrorism and extremism, many innocent Muslims have become the target of harassment and discrimination too.

In a recent case, a Northern California prison guard has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was harassed because of his race and religion. The case was filed on December 31st in federal court against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDRC). According to the complaint, the plaintiff is from Sudan and is a practicing Muslim. Representing him are employment lawyers who are collaborating alongside the Council on American-Islam Relations.

According to the complaint, co-workers routinely referred to the plaintiff as a “terrorist” and made derogatory comments about Islam and his Sudanese accent. The Muslim guard has alleged the harassment was in retaliation for an earlier complaint he filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with similar complaints against his co-workers. That complaint was filed confidentially in 2010. The 56-year-old guard has been a correctional officer in Sacramento for over 12 years.

Soccer Team Owner Accused of Sexual Harassment

December 31, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

A Seattle soccer team owner has been sued for sexual harassment and members of the team have questioned whether he was properly screened and background checked. Twenty-two players quit the Seattle Impact FC team after only one season game. Players stood alongside the dance team known as “Ladies with Impact,” who also resigned to protest the assault of two dancers. According to reports, the coach, also a former college soccer player, had a history of sexual assault and misconduct in his two-decade career as a high-school coach. In addition to lawsuits filed against the coach, questions remain if other entities are liable for failure to background check the owner.

According to the Seattle Times, the coach had fired his staff and other office workers who were embittered by his management style. He accused the women who filed the lawsuit of being ‘dirt poor’ and trying to extort money through litigation. A 22-year-old dancer filed the lawsuit after the coach allegedly asked her to come over to his home. She accuses him of an assault that occurred during this encounter. The dancer was not only concerned about the professional complications of the assault, but has also been forced into counseling and takes medication to manage the stress associated with the event.

The coach has not been criminally charged for the offense, but the local law enforcement authorities are investigating. Members of the team, the association, and local fans have continued to protest his ongoing presence as the owner and coach of the team. The case has also raised questions about whether the Major Arena Soccer League (MASL) went through a proper screening process to vet the coach. The newly formed professional circuit has boasted top indoor talent, but has had other legal problems related to sexual harassment. Reports indicate that another coach of a team in Texas was sued in 2010 by a female intern at his New York consulting firm. According to the complaint, the coach sent inappropriate emails, texts and notes. The case was settled out of court for $50,000.

Pepperdine and Coach Sued for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

December 30, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California laws protect individuals from sexual orientation discrimination. In a recent case, a lawsuit has been filed against Pepperdine University and one of its basketball coaches, alleging harassment related to sexual orientation. According to reports, two players filed the suit against the school and the coach after they suffered harassment related to their lesbian relationship. One of the students suffered such severe harassment that she went into a deep depression and suicide attempt. The coach and academic coordinators allegedly became obsessed with the couple’s relationship and claimed that “lesbianism is not tolerated” on the team.

In addition to the violation of privacy rights, the lawsuit also alleges that that school is in violation of the federal Education Amendments Act of 197 which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded programs and activities. The women were pulled aside and repeatedly questioned about their relationship, about their sleeping arrangements, sexual orientation, and sexual preferences. Both women repeatedly asked the coach to stop “prying” into their personal lives. In another discussion with the team the coach warned the players that they were prohibited from dating. The coach even blamed a team loss on a mid-season break-up between the players.

Other players on the team recognized that there was an intensive investigation going on. They were being questioned and asked about the relationship and warned the players to be careful. After months of living in fear and being harassed, one of the players went into a severe depression and attempted suicide. When she decided to return to the team, the coach refused to allow her back on the court without a doctor’s note from a gynecological exam. According to reports, the doctor’s notes provide evidence of good health, but have also prevented women from playing basketball at the university.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Hijab in the Workplace Lawsuit

December 27, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Muslims have become a target of discrimination in public settings as well as in the workplace. Under employment laws, discrimination could involve adverse action, including failure to hire, demotion, or termination. It could also mean disparate treatment in the workplace or failure to accommodate a protected class. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the rights of a woman to wear hijab while working at Abercrombie and Fitch. The case originated in Oklahoma in 2008 and has made its way to the highest court.

While some countries have banned full covering or headscarves in schools (France, Denmark, Germany, Turkey, Russia, and China), the United States has generally given protection for religious garb. Briefs have been submitted to the court from a host of civil rights and anti-discrimination groups to prevent a private company from prohibiting hijab in the workplace. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, private companies are prohibited from refusing to hire or discharging an employee based on a religious observance and practice. This is not the first case involving hijab that has been brought into state and federal courts.

In 2004, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a sixth grader who wanted to wear hijab in her public school. The school amended policy, paid a settlement and made the decision to allow hijab in school. Another case in Michigan involved a woman who refused to take of her face mask in court. The ACLU argued for a religious exception to courtroom attire. In 2009 the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a judge had the power to order witnesses to review covering when testifying. The ACLU has gone to court in California, Florida, Michigan and Oklahoma to fight for a woman’s right to cover her head and face in schools, courts, and in the workplace.

New Protections for Foreign Workers in 2015

December 24, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California attracts worker from Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe and Asia. Unfortunately, many of these workers have become victims of exploitation, wage and hour violations, and other illegal activities. California lawmakers have expanded protections to foreign workers and the new laws will go into effect in 2015. Under the new laws, foreign labor contractors are forbidden from charging any fees or other costs to workers for contracting activities. New protections also prevent employers and contractors from charging foreign workers with any costs or other expenses that are not charged to American workers in a similarly situated position. It limits the housing costs that employers can charge to foreign employees to ensure that they are only charged market rates.

In addition to limiting expenses and fees, the new protections also prevent employers from requiring workers to pay any expenses prior to starting work. Employers are also prohibited from changing any terms of the contract that was originally provided to and signed by a foreign worker. Employers are able to make contractual changes if the employee is given at least 48 hours to reconsider any new modifications to the contract and must specifically consent to any changes in the contract. The new law also requires foreign labor contractors to meet additional documentation requirements. Employers and contractors must also comply with new regulations related to registration, licensing and bonding. Every employer is prohibited from using non-registered foreign labor contractors in California.

Employers who are found to be in violation of new labor laws could face strict penalties in the event of non-compliance. In addition to civil action, including a lawsuit filed by an employee, contractors and employers will also be held jointly liable for any contract and violation. The abuse of temporary foreign workers is an ongoing problem in California and throughout the United States. Third-party contractor as well as employers know that many workers are willing to come and work for low wages, even sacrificing pay for a place to work and live. This has created a host of abuses that the new California law seeks to rectify.

Sony Employee Rights After Privacy Hack

December 21, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The Sony privacy hack has drawn international attention and calls into question internet security for companies and employees. For employees who were victim to the security breach, legal questions remain. What are their rights? Can employees take legal action against an employer for a security breach? Thousands of employees suffered from the security breach when their social security numbers, birthdays, salaries, and even medical records were leaked online. In addition to the sheer loss of privacy, these employees are left vulnerable to identity theft and extortion. What next?

Employees at Sony are likely to be successful if they file a lawsuit under California law and could even recover millions of dollars for their losses. California has some of the strictest protections regarding employee information disclosure in the country. The workers would have significant rights and opportunities to recover compensation from the company. Under state law, residents are protected against having their information disclosed by any company or other institution. Even though Sony did not intentionally disclose data, it may not have met its burden in protecting the data from exposure and disclosure by third-parties.

According to reports, hundreds of Sony employees had their medical information disseminated, including complaints about unpaid insurance claims and lists of the medical procedures they had performed. Under California’s civil code, individuals have the right to bring an action against any entity that negligently released confidential information. In addition to the immediate $1000 claims, they can also collect on direct damages for the breach of privacy. To defend itself against these allegations, Sony would have to prove that it met its burden in protecting workers’ data, though this has been hotly disputed since the data hack.