Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Championing Justice for Disability and Age Discrimination – A Recent Case at Nassir Law Group

May 17, 2025 | by Nassiri Law

At Nassir Law Group, we are passionate about defending employees who face discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination. Our Irvine-based firm is committed to upholding California’s robust employment laws to protect workers’ rights across Orange County and beyond. Recently, we took on a compelling case involving a long-term employee who was unjustly terminated after seeking accommodations for serious medical conditions, highlighting the critical need for legal advocacy. Below, we share insights from this case, drawn from a claims letter we sent on behalf of our client, while safeguarding their privacy. To learn how we can support you, visit our employment law services page or call us at (949) 375-4734.

A Loyal Employee Denied Accommodation and Forced into Retirement

Our client, a dedicated employee with over 20 years of service at a major California petroleum company, faced severe health challenges in 2021, including diagnoses of gastrointestinal cancer, polycystic kidney disease, and end-stage renal dialysis. These conditions qualified as disabilities under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In February 2021, our client began protected medical leave, which the employer approved until May 2022. Upon being cleared to return to work with minor restrictions—no lifting over 25 pounds and dialysis three days a week—our client repeatedly sought to resume their role on the Train Crew or be reassigned to another suitable position.

Standing Up Against Unlawful Termination Based on Past Convictions

May 17, 2025 | by Nassiri Law

At Nassir Law Group, located in Newport Beach, California, we are dedicated to protecting employees from unjust treatment and ensuring their rights are upheld under California’s employment laws. Our Irvine-based firm recently took on a compelling case involving an employee who was wrongfully terminated based on a past conviction, despite years of exemplary performance. This case highlights the importance of challenging discriminatory practices and holding employers accountable. Below, we share insights from this case, drawn from a claims letter we sent on behalf of our client, while protecting their privacy. To learn how we can assist you, visit our employment law services page or call us at (949) 375-4734.

A Dedicated Employee Wrongfully Terminated

Our client, a skilled professional in the transit industry, began working for a California transit company in November 2022 as a Utility Maintenance Fueler. Despite a background check revealing their inclusion on the sex offender registry due to an incident from 2010—when they were just 22 years old—the employer hired them, recognizing their qualifications and potential. Over the next two years, our client excelled, earning promotions to Service Advisor and then Maintenance Shift Supervisor by August 2024, with their salary increasing from $32,240 to $85,000 annually. Their performance was stellar, with no disciplinary issues and widespread respect among colleagues.

Fighting Disability Discrimination and Retaliation – A Recent Case at Nassir Law Group

May 16, 2025 | by Nassiri Law

At Nassir Law Group, we are steadfast in our commitment to defending employees who face discrimination, retaliation, or unfair treatment in the workplace. Based in Irvine, our firm leverages California’s robust employment laws to protect workers’ rights across Orange County and beyond. Recently, we took on a significant case involving an employee who was wrongfully terminated after taking protected medical leave and disclosing a disability—a situation that highlights the critical need for legal advocacy. Below, we share insights from this case, drawn from a detailed claims letter we sent on behalf of our client, while preserving their privacy. To learn how we can help you, visit our employment law services page.

A Loyal Employee Faced with Unfair Termination

Our client, a seasoned healthcare professional with 24 years of industry experience, was employed as a manager at a prominent California hospital. In August 2024, they courageously disclosed to their supervisor that they were struggling with depression, a recognized disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). They also informed their employer of an upcoming need for knee surgery. In late October 2024, our client took protected medical leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to care for a family member with a serious medical condition, with a planned return date of November 6, 2024.

Protected Bereavement Leave in California and California Government Code 12945.7

May 16, 2025 | by Nassiri Law

At Nassir Law Group, we are committed to championing the rights of employees facing unfair treatment in the workplace. Based in Irvine, our firm is dedicated to ensuring that workers across Orange County and California are protected under the state’s robust employment laws. Recently, we took on a compelling case involving an employee who was wrongfully terminated after taking bereavement leave—a case that underscores the importance of knowing your rights and holding employers accountable. Below, we share insights from this case, drawing from a formal demand letter we sent on behalf of our client, while safeguarding their privacy. For more on how we can assist, visit our employment law services page.

A Heartbreaking Loss Followed by Unjust Termination

Our client, a dedicated management trainee at a California retail company, suffered a profound loss when their mother passed away in October 2024. Under California Government Code § 12945.7, employees are entitled to up to five days of protected bereavement leave. Our client promptly notified their employer and requested time off to grieve and handle arrangements. Initially, the employer seemed supportive, advising our client to take as much time as needed. However, when our client confirmed their plan to return to work the following week, they received a shocking email stating that the company had “decided to make a change,” effectively terminating their employment without any warning or explanation.

Protecting Your Employment Rights: California Law and the Sex Offender Registry At Nassiri Law Group

May 6, 2025 | by Nassiri Law

At Nassiri Law Group, we’ve seen a

growing number of clients facing unfair treatment in the workplace due to

their status on the sex offender registry. Whether it’s a job offer

Understanding Constructive Discharge and the Mixed-Motive Defense: A Case Review

August 3, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

At Nassiri Law Group, we are committed to representing employees who have faced discrimination and have been wrongfully terminated. We understand the complexities of employment law and strive to ensure that our clients’ rights are protected. In this blog post, we delve deeper into the intricacies of employment law, focusing on the concept of constructive discharge and the mixed-motive defense, through a recent case review.

What is Constructive Discharge?

Constructive discharge is a term that many may not be familiar with, but it plays a significant role in employment law. It occurs when an employer creates a work environment that is so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. This can include situations where an employee is subjected to workplace harassment, employment discrimination, or other forms of adverse treatment.

Regulators Eyeing Algorithmic Discrimination in U.S. Workplaces

July 30, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

Across the country, at all levels of government and industry, artificial intelligence (AI) is the source of intense focus as the machine learning technology has advanced leaps and bounds in just a couple of years. AI uses specialized tech to write and learn algorithms. It’s more than just a single program, and its uses are vast, with applications in everything from writing essays to self-driving big rig trucks to criminal case sentencing. Obviously, this has MANY implications for employers and employees. One that has captured the attention of government regulators and anti-discrimination lawyers is the use of algorithms in hiring.

Creators and proponents of AI will tell you that this sort of technology used in hiring helps eliminate the pitfalls of innate human biases to actually reduce instances of employment discrimination. But as our Los Angeles employment discrimination lawyers can explain, that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Because AI technology relies on machine learning, what is put into it will dictate the results it outputs. So if the information going in is even slightly coded for biases in gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc., the results are going to perpetuate those biases – and possibly even compound them. This can be intentional, but from what we’ve seen, it’s largely unintentional. But good intentions don’t change the adverse impact.

And this issue now has a name: Algorithmic Discrimination.

Just last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance workplace algorithmic discrimination and promised to be proactive in getting ahead of the issue so that workplace policies can keep place with the technology. It’s called the Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative, and it encourages industry self-regulation for companies using AI for recruiting and hiring.

Are There Any Algorithmic Discrimination Laws?

Nursing & Pregnant Worker Rights Solidified in 2 New Federal Laws

July 25, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

Equality in the workforce would be impossible without proper acknowledgement and accommodations for employees who are pregnant or nursing. The inherent physical demands of the condition were long used an excuse to discriminate against these workers. Then in 1978, the federal government passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, making it illegal for employers with 15+ employees to discriminate against women because of pregnancy, childbirth, abortion, or any medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth. (Applicable medical conditions can include things like severe morning sickness, post-partum depression, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, pregnancy-induced hypertension, loss of a pregnancy, etc.)

Now, as our Los Angeles pregnancy discrimination lawyers want to make sure everyone’s heard about two much more recent federal protections in place for pregnant and nursing workers. These are:

The PUMP Act

Effective as of December 29, 2022, the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act expands protection for breastfeeding employees. The law requires most employers to extend reasonable breaks for breastfeeding employees to express milk for their new baby. This accommodation must be granted for one full year after the birth of the child. During these breaks, the employee will not be expected to carry out any work-related duties. However, if the worker is paid hourly and does not work while pumping, the employer is not required to pay for that time.

Furthermore, the area designated for nursing employees must be private, free of intrusion – and not a bathroom.

Although the act technically applies to all employers no matter what size. However, if the employer has fewer than 50 employees, it may file for an exemption to the requirement. To prevail, the employer would have to prove that compliance would result in undue hardship for the company – and the employer would bear the burden of proof. There are also industry-specific exceptions, such as airline and railroad industries.

PWFA

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, now part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, went into effect June 27, 2023. It’s applicable to employers with 15+ employees. It requires employers to extend reasonable accommodations in the event a pregnant employee experiences limitations as a result or related to pregnancy, childbirth, or any related medical condition. While you might be required to provide a doctor’s note, companies can only deny these requests if they can prove that granted the accommodation would result in “undue hardship.”

As recently outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Groff v. DeJoy, “undue hardship” goes beyond a de minimis burden. Employers asserting undue hardship bear the burden of proving the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs and other significant impacts in the overall context of the employer’s business.

Some examples of possible accommodations a pregnant employee might seek under the PWFA:

More breaks for resting, sitting, drinking water, eating, or using the restroom.
Hours that are flexible to allow for conditions like morning sickness or to attend doctor’s appointments.
Restrictions on heavy lifting.
Designated parking that is closer to the building.
Excuse from activities that are strenuous or compounds that are risky.

Groff v. DeJoy: Protecting Religious Accommodation Rights in the Workplace

July 20, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court recently handed down a unanimous ruling in the case of Groff v. DeJoy, clarifying the extent of an employer’s obligation to accommodate employees’ religious practices. This decision has significant implications for workers across the country, reaffirming their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs in the workplace. In this blog post, we will delve into the details of the case, analyze the Supreme Court’s interpretation, and highlight the importance of religious accommodation rights for employees.

Case Background:

The case involved Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian and former missionary who worked as a substitute mail carrier for the United States Postal Service (USPS). When the USPS made a deal with Amazon to deliver packages on Sundays, Mr. Groff faced a conflict between his faith and his job. He felt compelled to choose between fulfilling his religious obligations and adhering to his work schedule. After being disciplined for missing work due to religious reasons, Mr. Groff decided to take legal action, claiming a violation of his religious accommodation rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Supreme Court Rules Against Race-Conscious Admissions in Harvard and UNC

July 20, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

In the landmark decision of Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., the Supreme Court has ruled against the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC). Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the 6-3 majority, declared that these programs were unconstitutional due to their negative use of race and involvement of racial stereotyping. Here, our Anaheim employment lawyers provides a legal analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision, highlighting its impact on both public and private institutions and discussing its potential implications in the employment arena.

The Application of the Ruling to UNC and Harvard:

The Supreme Court’s ruling applies to both UNC, a public institution, and Harvard, a private institution. UNC was subject to the ruling due to its status as a state-owned entity, as public institutions are bound by constitutional restrictions. In the case of Harvard, the Court determined that despite being a private institution, it accepted federal funding and agreed to be treated similarly to a state actor in matters related to admissions. This decision sets a precedent that private institutions receiving federal funding can be subject to constitutional scrutiny, including in matters involving affirmative action.