L.A. age discrimination lawsuit

L.A. Court Awards $31 Million in Age Discrimination Lawsuit

July 9, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

A 58-year-old Ontario, Calif., woman who has already been awarded $3 million in compensatory damages is now entitled to $28 million more after a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court determined she faced repeated and pervasive age discrimination from her former employer. The jury decided defendants acted with malice against plaintiff and landed on the figure of $28 million during the punitive stage of the lawsuit. Comments against the plaintiff during her employment with the company allegedly included “We need younger workers here,” “Dumb female,” and “You are outdated.” The remarks reportedly were made by her supervisor and his boss. According to Associated Press, in addition to discrimination, plaintiff accused her former employer of harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

Plaintiff worked for the company and its subsidiaries in various positions from 1978 until she said she was forced to quit from job stress in 2014. About seven months before she left the company, plaintiff got a new boss, and things really changed for her at work. She alleged her new boss regularly threatened her job and put extremely intense pressure on her. Although the parent company was located in Washington, plaintiff worked at plants in Orange, San Dimas, and Glendora. Attorney for plaintiff suggested the settlement should be more than double what she was ultimately awarded, arguing that age discrimination was part of a bigger picture. He claimed an entire department at the company was driven out and replaced by younger, cheaper employees. Plaintiff said she was replaced by a 20-year-old after she left. Continue Reading ›

Young Employees Are Great; Age Discrimination is Not

June 4, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

Employers often want to position their companies as a place that the next generation of workers will thrive and feel welcome. However, it’s crucial that in doing so, they are not committing age discrimination.

An Orlando-based national restaurant chain learned this lesson the hard way after settling an age discrimination lawsuit brought on by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $2.85 million. According to a Newsweek report, about 135 applicants alleged they were asked their age during interviews and that interviewers made age-related comments. They claimed they were then denied employment because of their ages.

Managers at Seasons 52, part of the Darden family of restaurants, allegedly made comments to applicants age 40 or older that they were “Looking for someone younger,” or that “Seasons 52 girls are younger and fresh.” The lawsuit covered 35 restaurants across the nation, including California. In addition to pointed questions about age, EEOC claimed the chain also hired people 40 and older at a significantly lower rate than younger applicants, even for back-of-house positions.

Google Age Discrimination Lawsuit Approved as “Collective Action”

November 5, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

The California age discrimination lawsuit against tech-giant Google may soon grow exponentially. A federal judge in San Jose recently approved the case’s collective action status. That means certain software engineers over the age of 40 rejected for Google jobs following an in-person interview over the last two years are now able to join the lawsuit. That could mean thousands of additional plaintiffs will be eligible to join the action.

In an artful, 17-page opinion, Judge Beth Labson Freeman posed the question, “How does age factor into one’s Googleyness?” At the heart of the case, plaintiffs seek to expose Google’s hiring practice and larger corporate culture as one that puts a prime value on youth, and considers age a detriment (as opposed to an asset with the benefit of experience).

The age discrimination lawsuit was filed by two former job applicants who were both over 50 when they were turned down for positions at the firm. One woman, a programmer, was brought in for in-person interviews on four separate occasions, and rejected each time. The second plaintiff was interviewed by phone, but was not brought in for an in-person interview. Freeman imposed a limitation on the class of people to those who had an in-person interview. That still means thousands may potentially join this action. Continue Reading ›