Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

AIDS Discrimination in the Workplace

November 24, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

In addition to personal health consequences, those who have contracted HIV or AIDS may face additional challenges in the workplace including discrimination. Under federal law, discrimination against individuals who have been diagnosed with AIDS is illegal. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination based on disability and courts have found that even asymptomatic HIV is protected under this law. Workplace discrimination against HIV/AIDS applicants and employees may take the form of failure to hire, demotion, or termination of employment.

Those with AIDS may also face complications related to finding healthcare, a barrier which is addressed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). HIPAA gives AIDS patients with group coverage new protections against discrimination. It makes health care coverage more accessible to small businesses and their employees. After termination, HIV/AIDS patients are entitled to Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA), health insurance after their own employment is terminated. For most employees who must cease employment for health related reasons, COBRA benefits extend from 18 to 36 months.

Workers with AIDS may encounter discrimination at any stage of employment. From hiring to seeking paid leave and medical care, through termination or job loss. Those who have suffered from discrimination in the form of adverse employment action, health care denial, or under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), have the right to take action against an unlawful employer. The FMLA allows employees to take leave for serious medical conditions or to care for a loved one who suffers from HIV/AIDS. Those who are eligible are entitled to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave during any 12-month period.

Jury Awards $186 Million in Pregnancy Discrimination Case

November 21, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Pregnancy discrimination is considered an ongoing threat to workers in California and nationwide. Though the EEOC has recently issued new guidelines to minimize discrimination in the workplace, additional legal action is often necessary to hold illegally acting companies responsible. A San Diego jury has also spoken out, awarding $186 million to a store manager who was fired after she was told that pregnant women can’t do the job. The manager’s employment was also terminated after she gave birth to her child. According to Reuters, the 43-year-old plaintiff will be awarded $873,000 in compensatory damages and $185 million in punitive damages. The groundbreaking verdict is considered the largest verdict ever awarded to an individual in an employment law case.

The manager at AutoZone was hired in 2000 as a customer representative and promoted in 2001 as parts sales manager, and in 2004 promoted to store manager. She became pregnant in 2005. After she told her employer that she was pregnant, it was suggested that she give up her management duties. She was then demoted to a parts sales manager in 2006 and suffered a pay cut. The new position required her to work long hours, repeat work duties for no reason, and endure abuse from her boss. After filing a lawsuit with the state, she was fired from her position at AutoZone. In addition to pregnancy discrimination, the lawsuit also alleged wrongful termination, gender discrimination, and retaliation.

A former district manager testified that the vice president of AutoZone scolded him for hiring too many women. At trial the district manager testified that the vice president asked him, “What are we running a boutique here?” He then proceeded to demand the manger to, “Get rid of those women.” According to court records, the plaintiff was told to quit, demoted, and then fired after being told that a pregnant woman wasn’t capable of managing the store. The jury ruled that the harassment was “severe and pervasive” and unanimously decided that she suffered illegal discrimination and harassment.

EEOC Settles Genetic Discrimination Case in CA

November 18, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) prevents employers from discriminating against employees or potential employees based on their genetic or family medical history. In a recent case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a class action for $187,000 with a California seed and fertilizer operation for refusing to hire applicants after reviewing medical histories and the medical histories of the applicant’s family members. According to the EEOC, the class action (EEOC v. All Star Seed) was filed in September of 2013 against All Star Seed Inc. and its subsidiaries.

A job applicant filed a complaint with the EEOC in November 2012 after he was denied a position as a dispatcher for the company. According to court documents, the company rejected his application after he reported for being hospitalized for atrial fibrillation, even though the condition had no connection to job duties related to the position. The applicant also reported that the company inquired about the medical history of his relatives and he reported that at least one of his family members had the same medical condition.

Employees in California and nationwide are protected under state and federal laws to prevent discrimination in the workplace. GINA makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against applicants and employees based on genetic information. Genetic information may be accessible through medical documentation and family history. The law prohibits employers from requesting medical histories from applicants or from seeking out or purchasing the information from other sources.

McDonald’s Franchise Owner Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination

November 16, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The American Disabilities Act protects individuals who suffer from physical or mental disabilities against discrimination. According to reports from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , the owner of a McDonald’s franchise in Oakhurst and the affiliated property management company illegally discriminated against an employee because of his cerebral palsy. EEOC reports indicate the worker suffered unlawful demotion and was forced to quit. In response, the EEOC has filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against McDonald’s.

The EEOC is the federal agency charged with ensuring compliance with federal labor and employment laws. According to the agency, the employee had worked for a prior owner of the Oakhurst McDonald’s without facing any difficulties or discrimination since he was first hired in 2006. He was a valued employee and was even promoted from a crew member to a floor supervisor after two years of working at the location. Co-workers and former supervisors regarded him as a highly capable and a good employee.

In January 2008, Alia Corporation assumed control of the restaurant. The company owns and operates over 20 McDonalds’ franchises throughout the Central California area. Within a few months of taking over the Oakhurst location, the management company demoted the employee to janitorial duties, reduced his hours and cut his wages. The EEOC reports as a result in the significant loss of wages, the employee was forced to quit less than six months after the Alia Corporation take over.

Braun Electric Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $82,500

November 15, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

When an employee suffers from sexual harassment, it can take months, even years to reach a resolution. In most cases, a company will want to settle out of court to prevent costs of litigation and public exposure. However, some companies are willing to take sexual harassment cases to a jury if they believe that they can defeat charges.

In a recent California case, Braun Electric Company agreed to pay $82,500 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. agency charged with ensuring compliance with federal labor and discrimination laws.

Braun Electric provides industrial electrical services for the oil and gas industry throughout the California San Joaquin Valley. According to reports and the EEOC, a manager at the Belridge location subjected female workers to repeated instances of harassment, which created an illegal hostile work environment. Employees allege that the harassment took place since 2010. The manager made inappropriate sexual remarks and explicit propositions on a continual basis. Even though the employees reported the misconduct, upper management failed to adequately address the harassment reports and supervisors failed to property document and report the incidents that they had also witnessed. According to the lawsuit, one female employment was forced to quit as a result of repeated sexual harassment and the ongoing hostile work environment.

EEOC Sues Honeywell Over Wellness Testing

November 14, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Wellness tracking programs are increasingly under scrutiny by employee rights advocates, health care professionals and other policy makers. In yet another case that challenges the legality of the employee wellness program, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Honeywell International to stop the company from penalizing employees who refuse to undergo medical testing under the purported corporate wellness program. This is the third such case filed by the EEOC since August, but Honeywell is the largest corporation targeted so far.

Advocates for wellness programs say they can boost employee morale, ensure healthy habits among employees and reduce overall medical costs. While companies may have incentive to track the health of employees, critics point out they are invasive and could violate medical privacy laws. Despite the potential abuse of corporate wellness programs, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) actually promotes and encourages employee wellness tracking. Honeywell has been charged with penalizing employees up to $4,000 each through surcharges and other lost contributions for failing to participate. The employees can incur such losses if they or their spouses refuse to comply with the biometric testing.

Under the Honeywell corporate wellness tracking system, employees must undergo screening for blood-sugar levels, nicotine, waist circumference, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure. According to the lawsuit, the testing was to occur the last week of October this year. The EEOC is the law agency that enforces federal labor laws and instances of discrimination. According to the EEOC, Honeywell’s employee testing program is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The agency filed the lawsuit asking for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to stop the company from imposing penalties.

Weight Discrimination in the Workplace—Should There Be Legal Protection?

November 12, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Protected classes under California state and federal law are always evolving. Minorities, women, those with disabilities and members of the gay and lesbian workforce were not always given legal authority in the face of discrimination. A new class has emerged raising a new question—should the obese be established as a protected class? According to a recent publication in the Washington Post, the overweight—specifically women who are overweight—are more likely to earn less and suffer adverse employment action, including lower pay. A new study shows that the reality of weight discrimination in the workplace may demand additional protection, especially for women.

According to the study, conducted by Vanderbilt University Law School, women are increasingly less likely to work in higher paying jobs and more likely to work lower paying jobs if they are heavier. The study also looked at a correlation between “personal interaction” jobs and “physical activity” jobs, the former including sales or communications positions, and the latter including home health care, food preparation or other physical positions. When comparing the data, women were likely to make less the heavier they became, even though data did not reflect the same trends among male workers. According to the analysts, men did not seem to fare any worse when they gained weight.

Though beauty or physical attractiveness have long been tied to better wages for both men and women, the reason for the disparate impact of weight on a man or woman’s income is unclear. A basic understanding of the data suggests that a woman’s appearance is simply more important on the job than a man’s. Still, the trend suggests that women are unfairly suffering from discrimination if they are overweight. Our Orange County discrimination attorneys are dedicated to protecting the rights of women and the disabled in the workforce. If you believe you have suffered from workplace discrimination, we can review your case, determine the proper course of action and help you protect your rights.

Indian Tech Workers Exploited by Brokers: Wage Theft and Abuse

November 11, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

A recent report has exposed the myriad abuses committed against Indian high-tech workers employed by American companies. According to The Guardian, brokers have “hijacked” the professional visa program, creating a system of “bondage” resulting in wage theft and other abuses against Indian workers. Many workers who have quit or tried to leave the system have even been sued by the brokerage companies. In the United States, professionals can obtain a temporary visa to work for companies who are seeking “uniquely talented employees” for specific jobs. In the tech market, labor brokers will often sponsor the visas and contract out employees to tech companies and government agencies.

The workers are specifically trained and offer special skills in building databases, testing software and other high-tech projects. Critics of this indentured service-like arrangement for high-tech workers have pointed out that workers are exploited through humiliation, intimidation and other legal threats. In some cases, Indian workers have been sued for upwards of $50,000, just for trying to leave the company. The firms are also capitalizing on workers’ hopes for achieving the American Dream and finding permanent employment in the U.S.

Workers who obtain an H-1B visa through a brokerage firm are forced to comply with illegal working conditions, and are threatened if they report abuses. Based on government and external reports, there have been thousands of documents filed that evidence intimidation, restrictions on employment contracts, and other legal loopholes that deprive workers of their rights. According to The Guardian, there has been at least $29.7 million illegally withheld from 4,400 tech workers between 2000 and 2013. The numbers are alarming considering they barely scratch the surface in identifying wage theft that may have occurred in other firms and underground financial arrangements.

Ex House Staffer Accuses GOP Candidate of Sexual Harassment

November 8, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Sexual harassment scandals in politics are some of the most notoriously covered by the media. In a recent case, California House candidate Carl DeMaio has been accused of sexual harassment by a former staffer. Making matters worse, the former policy director claims the politician attempted bribery and made repeated advances for sexual contact. The Republican candidate is openly gay and is in a tight race against Scott Peters, but has gained national support and attention for his decision to drop social issues from the party platform. Despite his growing notoriety and place as a “rising star” in the Republican party, the candidate could suffer a huge blow to his campaign as a result of the sexual harassment allegations.

According to reports, DeMaio repeatedly sexually harassed his staffer by grabbing his crotch and “masturbating in front of him” while in his office. DeMaio vehemently denies the allegations. He describes the staffer as a disgruntled ex-employee who was fired for plagiarizing documents for the website. DeMaio has also accused the staffer of breaking into the campaign office and committing property damage – a case that also drew national headlines.

In this highly-publicized dispute, sexual harassment allegations could result in a significant settlement or jury verdict if the plaintiff is successful in litigation.

Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc: On Employee Misclassification Cases

November 6, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Employers have a long history of trying to classify employees as independent contractors rather than employees. The reason for this is that the company is not required to pay Social Security for independent contractors it hires, the company does not have to provide the workers with benefits, and the company is not automatically liable for any negligent acts committed by independent contracts, as it would be with employees.

In Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., an appeal heard in the Supreme Court of Kansas, involved a number of class actions suits filed across the country by current and former delivery drivers who worked for defendant. Drivers were seeking a judicial determination that they were entitled to all costs and expenses they spent while working for defendant and repayment for all overtime wages that they were never paid. Continue Reading ›