Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Fired Black Editor Sues People Magazine for Discrimination

December 19, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Discriminatory practices in the workplace can impact the lowest paid minimum wage workers to high paid executives. There have been cases of discrimination in every industry, from manufacturing to law firms. Earlier this year, a black editor of People Magazine filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination. According to the complaint, the editor was the only black senior employee and alleged that her former boss left her out of magazines, dismissed stories centering around black victims and even disparaged her way of speaking, telling her that, “You’re not at Essence anymore.”

According to reports, the plaintiff has a degree in English and a Master’s in Journalism. In addition to her educational accomplishments, she also held an adjunct position at New York University. The complaint alleges that throughout her successful career, no other editors had a problem with her or her work. People Magazine and senior level editors systematically discriminated her for the way she spoke and communicated, and related it to her race. The lawsuit also alleges that the magazine had a discriminatory editorial policy. According to the complaint, the magazine is entirely run by white people and focuses exclusively on white celebrities and individuals.

The editor was fired last May during what the company called a “reduction in force,” though the plaintiff alleges that the termination was directly tied to her race. She is seeking financial damages against People Magazine as well as its parent company, Time Inc., as well as her supervisor and the former executive of the magazine. While many employment law and discrimination cases will settle out of court, the attorney for the plaintiff is hoping for a trial by jury to send a message to other media companies that they cannot discriminate against employees or when making decisions about which people to feature in their stories or articles.

Unpaid Interns and Volunteers Covered by FEHA in 2015

December 18, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California law will now give unpaid interns and volunteers a number of the same legal protections as regular employees. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on race, religion, national origin, ancestry, disabilities, sex, gender, age sexual orientation, or gender expression. Assembly Bill 1443 will expand the protections against discrimination and harassment to unpaid interns and volunteers. The law will go into effect January 1, 2015. The new law will also require employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of volunteers and unpaid interns.

If you are an unpaid intern or volunteer, you should know your rights under California law. The new protections require employers to expand their policies that prohibit discrimination and harassment. Employers should also make necessary changes to handbooks, policies, and guidelines to ensure that interns and volunteers are protected against unlawful actions. Employers are also responsible for informing interns and volunteers about these protections and offer procedures for reporting harassment and discrimination.

Employers are responsible for ensuring that workers are protected against harassment and discrimination. Extending this protection to unpaid interns and volunteers means that employers with 50 or more employees must provide at least two hours of training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees. These training sessions must take place to reiterate issues and processes every two years. To better protect employees and to prevent liabilities, many employers are providing this training to both supervisors as well as all members of the staff. Additional protections could include providing training to volunteers and interns so that they know their rights in the workplace.

Joint Liability for Businesses and Contract Vendors in 2015

December 15, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

One of the reasons that using third-party vendors and other staffing companies is attractive to businesses, is that they were able to shift legal responsibilities elsewhere. Needing manpower didn’t require concern for worker protections, including workers’ compensation, proper training, or other benefits. Businesses were able to quickly and efficiently get staffed without worrying about employment and labor laws. Things are about to change in California. The contractor model has been under scrutiny for years and many courts agree with the criticism. In 2015, businesses and contract vendors will be held jointly liable for any employment law violations.

In June of 2014, the Ninth Circuit rejected an independent contractor agreement that made Georgia the venue, finding that the contract was in fact an employee under California law. Later in the summer, the California Supreme Court opened the door for more plaintiffs to gain class action certification in contractor misclassification disputes. Another Ninth Circuit decision overturned a lower decision, and reclassified hundreds of delivery drivers as employees. All of these decisions and regulatory shifts have made it clear that the contractor-model is under scrutiny and businesses may no longer be able to shield behind misclassification.

The difference between an employee and a contractor primarily turns on the duties and amount of responsibility given to the individual worker. Many contractual arrangements require workers to sign away their rights as an employee, even though they should have rights to benefits and other protections. A new California law, effective in 2015, will force contract vendors and businesses to start ensuring collaborations and compliance, as both will be held liable in the event of any wage and hour or other violations. The new regulation is critical to protect workers’ rights in an era where third-party contracting companies benefit companies, while exploiting workers without adequate benefits and pay.

Pregnant? Workplace Rights When You’re Expecting

December 12, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Whether you were an employee and planned to get pregnant, have an unexpected pregnancy, or you are pregnant and looking for a job, it is important to know your rights. Despite state and federal laws that protect women against discrimination and other forms of adverse employment action, many women still suffer pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. So what are your rights? When should you take legal action against an employer? How can you protect your reputation and career in the face of discrimination? Here’s the short list of “what to expect when you’re expecting” in the workplace:

Freedom against discriminatory hiring practices: If you are pregnant and seeking employment, remember it is illegal for employers to ask about your pregnancy status or to deny you employment because of a pregnancy. While the facts of every case must be examined, you should consult with an experienced advocate if you suspect that you were denied employment because of a pregnancy.

Reasonable accommodations: Under the EEOC guidelines, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant women. This may mean a change of actual duties, or for example, to provide a chair if you are otherwise required to stand for long hours. If your previous duties required heavy lifting, employers should do their best to find other suitable job duties.

Discrimination Has Health Impact on Older Chinese-Americans

December 9, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Discrimination can take many forms—in employment and hiring, housing, or in day-to-day business interactions. While some forms, including employment discrimination, are illegal, other forms are commonplace and may not be chargeable under state or federal law. Not only does discrimination put individuals at a disadvantage, but new research shows that it also can create significant health problems for those who are targets. According to a Reuters report, one in five older Chinese Americans in Chicago has experienced discrimination. The stresses has compounded into negative health consequences, according to a new study.

One of the reasons that Chinese Americans suffer so deeply is that they have a cultural preference for tolerance. Rather than standing up for themselves and fighting back against discrimination, they may prefer compliance. According to researchers, failing to take action, or enduring ongoing discrimination can impact self-esteem, increase psychological distress, and lead to social isolation. In time, this can lead to health risks and lower health status. A professor at Rush University Medical Center and the director of the study points out that many older U.S. Chinese Americans still suffer from considerable discrimination and respond passively.

To come to these results, researchers analyzed data from 3,159 Chinese adults over the age of 60. The participants reported their experiences of discrimination—defined as times when they were prevented from doing something or meant to feel inferior because of race. The individuals interviewed described both the instances of discrimination, as well as their personal response to the incident. According to data, 21 percent of respondents experienced racial discrimination. Eight percent suffered discrimination in the workplace and the most common form, happened in public. Those with a higher socioeconomic status and in poorer health were more likely to have suffered from some form of discrimination.

2015 California Laws and Employee Protections

December 6, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Every year, California businesses need to learn and adjust to new employment and labor laws and regulations. As the end of 2014 draws near, corporations and small-businesses alike will be shifting gears to implement new policies in accordance with California laws slated to go into effect in 2015. In addition to employers learning their new obligations, employees should consider their rights and take legal action in the event of a violation. Not surprisingly, the regulations cover a variety of issues including wage and hour law, discrimination, and leave of absences. The following is a brief summary of many of the laws that will take effect in 2015:

Expanded Coverage for Emergency Duty: Under current California law, employees are protected from discharge or discipline when they take time off to perform emergency volunteer service. The new law expands its definition from “emergency rescue personnel,” to include all individuals who perform services for government agencies.

Expanded Definition of Protected Individuals: Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), new law will cover employees as well as unpaid interns and volunteers, employees receiving public assistance, and driver’s licensed persons who are otherwise undocumented.

Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Zillow

December 3, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Companies that are liable for one employment law violation are often liable for many. Failure to protect employee rights or illegal policies will often result in multiple lawsuits and class actions. In a recent sweep of litigation, Zillow has been sued for sexual harassment and age discrimination. In the most recent lawsuit, an employee filed a lawsuit alleging that employees engaged in illegal age discrimination. According to the complaint, the 41-year-old was targeted by a sales manager who asked if she was “too old to close.” He also joked that she should “try to keep up.”

Office cultures that promote discrimination or unequal treatment can create a hostile work environment. For victims of discrimination, this can mean ongoing and repetitive abuses. In this case, the complaint alleges that the plaintiff was a victim of a “pervasive culture of retaliation and harassment.” The lawsuit was filed by the same firm that represented other in employees in three other cases, including a sexual harassment case. Though the company has challenged the allegations, it also claims to be taking the case seriously and will initiate an internal investigation.

Many discrimination cases will also include allegations of retaliation, in the event that the employee suffered adverse employment action, including demotion, lost pay, or termination of employment. In the recent age discrimination case, the plaintiff has also filed a claim for wrongful termination. According to the complaint, the 41-year-old was fired after she took time off to recover from injuries she sustained in a car accident. Managers made her stand and perform regular sales calls duties, even though she requested to take breaks as a result of her injuries. After she took her complaints to the human resources department, she needed additional hospitalization to deal with the injuries that were exacerbated by ongoing work duties.

LinkedIn and the Rise of “Big Data” Discrimination Cases

December 1, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The use of social networking websites, contact sharing, and data collection on the internet, unscrupulous companies should be aware of the potential liabilities that come with using big data. LinkedIn, the well-known professional social networking site, is facing a federal class action lawsuit for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the complaint, the company sold information about user’s employment history to potential employers without consent. This kind of information has the potential to be extremely damaging to employees, resulting in adverse employment action, including failure to hire, demotion, or termination of employment.

Under the FCRA, employers must follow strict guidelines about how they use employee credit, employment and insurance history. These protections are in place to ensure that employees are not wrongfully targeted or discriminated against during the application process. Employers must follow strict requirements related to consent to access data. They must also supply notices to applicants before they take any adverse action against an employee, including failure to hire, demotion, failure to promote, or termination of employment. Employees who lose opportunities as a result of their employment, credit, or other history must be given notice and the opportunity to contest the information provided by a reporting agency.

According to the lawsuit filed against LinkedIn, the company violated the FCRA by selling “profiles” on millions of users without verifying that the information would be used for legal purposes. There is some speculation that the case will turn on whether the company qualifies as a Consumer Reporting Agency and is held to the standards of the FCRA. Regardless, employees should be aware of the information that could be used against them, whether online and available to the public, or provided by third-party reporting agencies. Employers who use information illegally, including medical documents, credit card history, or credit reports, criminal records, as well as other personal information can be held liable.

EEOC: Testing Applicants for Carpel Tunnel is Illegal

November 30, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

With an increasing number of Americans making a living at their computers, carpal tunnel syndrome had been a rising diagnosis—as well as a concern for employers. In addition to workers’ compensation claims that have been tied to the repetitive stress disorder, employers have lost work time and productivity because of the condition. According to a recent lawsuit filing by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), companies are prohibited from screening employees for carpal tunnel during the hiring process. The lawsuit was filed against a manufacturing company that allegedly used physical test and health histories to identify those who had a history of carpal tunnel syndrome.

According to the complaint, the company asked its applicants whether or not they had a history of carpal tunnel syndrome. In addition to inquiring, the company went so far as to conduct a nerve text, even though medical authorities do not support the use of these tests or medical records to determine whether an individual has or is susceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome. After conducting medical inquiries and subjecting applicants to testing, the company refused to hire the plaintiff and another fifty or more applicants because of a history of carpal tunnel or the alleged potential to develop it in the future.

The EEOC alleges that the testing and adverse employment action is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and filed a lawsuit against the manufacturing company. After failing to reach a pre-litigation settlement, the EEOC filed the suit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The EEOC is seeking to end the discriminatory hiring practices, as well as collect back pay and additional damages for those who were denied employment as a result of the medical inquiries and testing.

Settlement in Foreign-Born Worker Discrimination Lawsuit

November 27, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Worker discrimination comes in many forms, including adverse employment action, disparate treatment, and other illegal and unlawful employer activities. In a recent case, the Justice Department has announced that it reached a settlement with a San Francisco bakery involving discrimination against foreign-born workers. According to the compliant, the bakery was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by improperly rejecting a worker’s valid work authorization documents. The case was investigated by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.

In accordance with the settlement agreement, the baker will pay $26,000 in back pay and additional compensation to the employee who suffered damages as a result of the discrimination. In addition to the financial compensation owed to the individual employee, the company has agreed to modify its hiring practices and has agreed to external monitoring of those practices for the next two years. Immigrants and other non-native workers may face a number of challenges in the workplace, but every worker in the U.S. has rights and can take legal action—even without citizenship. Employers are prohibited from making assumption about the validity of employment documents based on stereotypes and unfounded assumptions.

Employers who want to insulate themselves against civil rights violations can inquire about how to review and accept I-9 documentation to prevent discrimination investigations and penalties. The Immigration and Nationality Act protects foreign workers from discrimination in the workplace. These laws prevent employers from placing additional burdens on applicants who are authorized to work because of their national origin or citizenship status. The law also protects workers from discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin in hiring, firing, or recruitment of employees.