Orange County Employment attorney

When Can I Sue for Wrongful Termination in California?

April 25, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Wrongful termination in California is a situation wherein a worker is laid off or fired for a reason that violates state or federal law or public policy.

As our Orange County employment attorneys can explain, most wrongful terminations stem from firing that resulted from:

Violation of an implied contract.
Whistleblower activities.
Violations of public policy.
Exercising rights under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Filing a workers’ compensation claim or reporting a work injury.
WARN Act violations (involving mass layoffs).
Retaliation for workers exercising rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or state employee leave laws.

Workers who successfully bring a wrongful termination lawsuit may be entitled to collect lost wages and benefits, back pay, compensation for emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages (the last specifically awarded for gross misconduct by an employer).

How Do I Know if My Firing Was an Exception to California’s At-Will Employment Law?

When we say that wrongful termination lawsuits stem from illegitimate reasons, we’re specifically referring to unlawful reasons. The reality is that as an at-will employment state, an employer can legally fire you for no reason at all. Just the same way an employee can quit for any reason at all.

However, if you get fired for reasons that have something to do with your race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, color, sexual orientation, gender identity, age (if over 40), disability, marital status, pregnancy (or related condition), medical condition, being a member of the military or a victim of domestic violence/stalking, etc. – that is what amounts to a wrongful termination under federal and/or state laws. (Cities may have their own additional categories that are protected under law.)

Similarly, one can sue for wrongful termination if the termination occurred in violation of an implied contract. Employers create implied contracts by doing things like issuing employee handbooks that list specific causes for termination or telling an employee they won’t be fired unless they engage in certain behavior.

Another exception to at-will employment is when termination is in violation of public policy. The best example of this would be an employee who refuses to follow an employer’s order to break the law and is fired for it. That individual would have a case for public policy wrongful termination. Similarly, companies can’t fire workers for telling police the employer broke the law or for reporting unsafe working conditions to an agency like OSHA.

Workers can’t be fired in retaliation for reporting or cooperating with a case involving harassment, discrimination, criminal wrongdoing, wage and hour violations, or safety violations. Continue Reading ›

COVID-19 Raises California Wage and Hour Law Questions

April 5, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a host of questions for employees and employers about what the wage and hour rules are for things like paid sick leave, reporting time pay, predictive scheduling and reimbursement for reasonable business expenditures.

The pandemic has left the California and U.S. economies in a free fall, with California’s Employment Development Department receiving almost 2 million unemployment insurance claims within just three weeks. As noted by the San Jose Mercury News, the Great Recession in 2008 resulted in a total of 2.2 million unemployment claims. It’s unclear how long these unemployment claims will last, and small businesses have been hit particularly hard.

Our California wage and hour lawyers in Orange County know, these unprecedented times have many asking whether the same wage and hour rules apply. Continue Reading ›

California Courts Nix Non-Solicitation Clauses in Employment Agreements

March 6, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Non-solicitation clauses in California employment agreements have been deemed illegal in California per two recent court decisions. This includes out-of-state employers with California employees. Orange County employment attorneys are encouraging companies to review their employment agreements and consider removing non-solicitation clauses that may be in conflict with state law.

Non-solicitation agreements are provisions in employment contracts (sometimes standalone contracts) wherein an employee agrees he or she will not try to solicit customers or clients of the employer for his or her personal benefit or for that of a competitor if/when he/she leaves the firm. Non-solicitation agreements can also encompass an employee’s agreement not to solicit other employees to leave once he/she quits.

Restrictive Covenants in California Labor Code

California has some of the strongest worker rights provisions in the country. For instance, California Business and Professions Code section 16600 states that all employment contracts that would keep anybody from engaging in a lawful profession, business or trade is void.

Courts in California have long held that it is against public policy to restrict former employees’ right to work for competitors. Further, state courts have soundly rejected the argument put forth by the inevitable disclosure doctrine, which asserts employees who immediately go work for a competitor is going to inevitably disclose or use trade secrets of the former employer. In the 2008 case of Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the California Supreme Court ruled previous workers are entitled to solicit the clients of former employers – assuming they don’t do so using their former employer’s trade secrets or confidential information while doing so.

This ruling marked a shift from the 1985 ruling by a California Court of Appeal in Loral Corp. v. Moyes, in which justices declined to void as unenforceable an employee agreement restriction indicating the employee was not allowed now or in the future to damage, interfere, impair or disrupt the business of the former employer by interfering with or “raiding” its employees, business relationships, agents, representatives, customers, vendors, etc. The clause created an express exception for being employed by or engaging with a competing business. The court didn’t expressly allow employment contracts with non-solicitation agreements, but rather ruled the one in question wasn’t an obvious, unenforceable restriction on fair trade. Continue Reading ›

California Cashiers Stand to Collect $65M For Employer’s Refusal of Seat

September 28, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

Their employer wouldn’t let them sit down. So the employees stood up to them – in court.

Walmart Inc. has agreed to pay $65 million to approximately 100,000 California cashiers – current and former – who allege the company broke the law in denying them a place to sit during work hours. Specifically at issue was Wage Order 7-2001 § 14(A), which specifically states all workers must be provided with suitable seats when the nature of their work reasonably allows it. The provision further states that if workers aren’t engaged in active duties of their employment and the nature of the work generally requires standing, the company is required to provide seats in reasonable proximity to the work space that workers can access whenever it doesn’t interfere with their work duties.

In Brown v. Walmart Inc., before the U.S. District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division, it took nine years for a resolution that in the end, will not require the company to admit it did anything wrong. Still, it will have to pay the cashiers to whom it denied seating their share of the employment lawsuit settlement. Continue Reading ›

Construction Company Mandates Bible Study Attendance for Workers

September 5, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

A construction worker in Oregon has filed an employment lawsuit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation after he was fired for refusing to attend a mandatory weekly Christian Bible study.

The 34-year-old Native American said he expressed to his boss/ the business owner discomfort about going to the Bible study and even indicated it was probably illegal, but was told it was a condition of employment for which he would be paid. Although he still wasn’t comfortable with it, as a convicted felony, he badly needed the job and didn’t want to lose it. So he attended the once-weekly hour-long session, conducted by a Christian pastor. He did this for several months, but then finally said he could no longer stomach it and stopped going. He was fired soon thereafter.

In filing his religious discrimination employment lawsuit, plaintiff’s attorney said the case is clear-cut: A non-religious employer can’t require employees to go to a Bible study – paid or otherwise. It can be offered as a voluntary option, but it can’t be mandated as a condition of employment and employers can’t retaliate against workers who choose not to go. The attorney representing defendant business owner, meanwhile, asserts the requirement was not unlawful for at-will employees who were paid to go and it was considered part of their job. Further, defense attorney insists plaintiff wasn’t fired, but rather was an on-call employee who simply found other work while he was still on-call for the defendant. Continue Reading ›

Twitter Takes On Gender Bias Employment Lawsuit in California

February 7, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

Much has been written about the lack of gender diversity in Silicon Valley. The problem has even birthed a few California employment lawsuits, with varied results. Most notable among those was the case of Ellen Pao, a junior partner, against her former employer and powerhouse venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Pao lost her her bid for compensation spring, after jurors found there was not enough evidence of gender discrimination.

Now in the latest legal action against a technology giant, Twitter is accused of gender discrimination by a former engineer. Tina Huang claims she was forced out of the firm because she is a woman. She has the testimony of a former colleague to help back her claims.

However, Twitter has come out swinging, alleging that former colleague of Huang’s likely violated an employment contract by helping his friend land a job at the venture capital firm where he’d begun working. The company plans to file a motion to dismiss, claiming the allegations have no basis in truth. Continue Reading ›

California Employment Lawsuit Over Lyft Drivers Settled

February 5, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

A California employment lawsuit against ride-sharing service Lyft was settled with an interesting compromise.

Workers involved in the class-action lawsuit asserted they were in fact employees, entitled to all the legal protections that entails. However, the mobile app argued the drivers were independent contractors, meaning they wouldn’t be entitled to minimum wage, workers’ compensation, overtime and other benefits.

Now, Reuters reports the company has agreed to expand certain worker protections and it’s paying $12.25 million to the drivers who are party to the lawsuit. However, it has not agreed to label the drivers employees. For the business, this eliminates a significant threat to its business model, but it could still leave drivers in a vulnerable place. Continue Reading ›

Allen v. Chicago – Overtime Pay for Smartphone Use After-Hours

August 10, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Many workers in this digital age are familiar with the pings and rings of their smartphones, alerting them to work-related issues after work hours. Most assume it’s simply a part of the job, and few file for overtime compensation related to these expected duties.

But that may change, depending on the potential precedent set by a case slated for bench trial this month. Allen v. Chicago, before the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is one of the first of its kind to proceed to the trial phase. That’s because most similar cases are settled out-of-court before going to trial.

This class action employment lawsuit was filed by a police sergeant on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals who worked at the Chicago Police Department. Continue Reading ›

Wages v. Stuart Mgmt. – 8th Circuit Weighs Pregnancy Discrimination Claim

August 4, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

In California, employers must provide up to four months of disability leave for workers who are disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth or some related medical condition. This time doesn’t have to be taken all at once, nor does it apply solely to full-time workers.

A woman need not be totally incapacitated or bedridden to be deemed disabled by pregnancy, but she must be unable to perform one or more essential job functions without undue risk to her or the child. Any periodic absences prior to childbirth can be subtracted from that four-month time frame.

The law also bars harassment on the basis of pregnancy and requires companies to provide reasonable accommodates for pregnant workers as necessary. Some of these protections went into effect in California as late as 2012. Many other states lack this kind of broad worker protection, but many employees continue to fight for their rights for working women in the course of their pregnancy.

In the recent case of Wages v. Stuart Mgt., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit weighed one such pregnancy discrimination case. Plaintiff alleged employer violated her rights under the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Continue Reading ›

Nikmanesh v. Wal-Mart – Pharmacists File California Labor Lawsuit

February 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A California labor lawsuit has been filed by a former Wal-Mart pharmacist on behalf of all pharmacists working for the retailer, alleging missed breaks and unpaid overtime.

Plaintiff in Nikmanesh v. Wal-Mart worked for the company for more than a decade, from 2003 through 2014. He alleges that in addition to a failure to ensure pharmacists received legally-mandated rest breaks, the company refused to compensate him and others for class time spent studying and completing immunization training programs. The training programs, he asserted, was related directly to his responsibilities as a pharmacist.

The complaint asserts the company implemented and utilized a company-wide policy of denying overtime compensation or any compensation whatsoever for certain work-related tasks. The lawsuit seeks class action status for all pharmacists who worked for the company within the last four years.