Articles Posted in pregnancy discrimination

A superior court judge in Napa County has ordered a retrial in the employee pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against one of the most sought-after chefs who owns two of the most popular fine dining restaurants in the country. The defendant had been cleared last month of wrongdoing, but the victory may be short-lived. The plaintiff, who alleges pregnancy discrimination, gender discrimination and sexual harassment are rampant in the restaurant industry, will now have another chance to plead her case – in the same court with a new jury.pregnancy discrimination

As The San Francisco Chronicle reported, the trial judge agreed to plaintiff’s request for retrial, finding credence in her arguments that:

  • There wasn’t enough evidence to justify the verdict;
  • There was juror misconduct by the jury and defense counsel;
  • Some of the defense witness testimony and evidence lacked credibility.

To prevail in the case, the plaintiff needed to show it was more likely than not she was discriminated against by her employer because of her pregnancy. The judge ruled plaintiff had met that proof burden. Continue reading

A former executive who worked at Netflix alleges she was terminated from her post because her superior was angered by the fact that she was pregnant and had made known her intention to take maternity leave.

In a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, plaintiff had been part of the team that had helped launch original international content for the streaming services company. pregnancy discrimination Los Angeles

Plaintiff is a filmmaker in her 30s who alleges that once her pregnancy became known, she was removed from key projects and other executives began to shun her.

Female bus drivers who say they were discriminated against for their pregnancies by their California employer the transit authority in California, are suing the agency, saying they were:

  • Exposed to carbon monoxide fumes;
  • Not given accommodation for lactation (forcing them to drive while they were uncomfortably engorged);
  • Refused reasonable modifications and arrangements that caused them physical stress, exhaustion and unplanned, unpaid leave that left them without health insurance coverage. pregnancy discrimination

The four women say this treatment by the Northern California provider is in direct violation of the state’s fair employment housing act, which mandates reasonable accommodations for those enduring pregnancy-related disabilities – just as the companies would accommodate a worker with disabilities. The transit authority, they allege, made work life difficult for pregnant employees, and they are seeking to establish class action status.

What is Pregnancy Discrimination in California?

Continue reading

It is illegal – in California and across the U.S., per the EEOC –  to discriminate against a job applicant based on their race, color, religion, gender (including gender identity, sexual orientation and pregnancy) national origin, age (over 40), disability or genetic information. Yet one of the most frequently-used forums to lure new hires has essentially been facilitating just that, according to critics and a few employment lawsuits filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Communication Workers of America. Los Angeles employment discrimination attorney

Social media giant Facebook has faced years of criticism that it allowed companies advertising job listings to use key categories allowing employers to cherry-pick who their ads would be shown to based on age group, gender and race. The New York Times now reports Facebook has agreed it will stop doing this.

It’s not just prospective employees that have been complaining either. Those advertising credit and housing have also been allowed to screen their ads so that they would only show to a certain subset of social media users. (Housing and credit are also regulated by federal anti-discrimination laws that bar selection of applicants on such bases.) Continue reading

In order to be successful in claiming employment discrimination in California, employees must first assert they are part of a protected class that received unfair treatment. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explains that to discriminate means to treat someone less favorably and disparately, with federal protections extending to individuals on the basis of gender, religion, color, race, national origin, disability or age (over 40). In California, unlawful practices spelled out by the Fair Employment and Housing Act 12940 outlines protections for these classes, but also for:

  • Genetic information
  • Marital status
  • Gender identity/gender expression
  • Sexual orientation
  • Military or veteran statusemployment discrimination attorney Los Angeles

Part of the reason California’s additional protected classes matter is they go farther than federal law, giving unfairly-treated employees more options to pursue action.

As Los Angeles employment discrimination attorneys can explain, “protected classes” aren’t merely limited to minorities. But employment discrimination is often subtle – and doesn’t necessarily need to actually be a part of a protected class in order to be protected. Discrimination based on the perception of belonging or association with others in these classes can be actionable in California employment discrimination cases too.

Perceived Protected Class Employment Discrimination Continue reading

Riverside pregnancy discrimination attorneys at The Nassiri Law Group know that discrimination of new mothers extends even far beyond the gestation period. Breastfeeding discrimination/ caregiver discrimination – an extension of pregnancy and gender discrimination – is a serious problem in California workplaces as well as throughout the country. A report in 2016 from the Center for Worklife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of Law pointed to an 800 percent uptick in the number of breastfeeding-related discrimination lawsuits in the decade prior. Riverside pregnancy discrimination

Now, California has boosted protections for employees who are nursing, starting Jan. 1, 2019 with Assembly Bill 1976, signed by the governor in September. Existing law already requires all employers in California to provide a reasonable break time for accommodation of workers to express milk for their children. State law also mandates that companies offer a private space to do so that is somewhere other than a toilet stall that is reasonably close to one’s work area. Violations are subject to civil penalty by the state Labor Commissioner.

The new bill requires employers to make a reasonable effort to provide space to pump or breastfeed that isn’t in a bathroom – even if the space is temporary. Agricultural employers could be compliant by providing a space that is private, enclosed and shaded (including but not limited to an air-conditioned cab of truck or tractor). Employers who make a temporary space available need to show that providing a permanent space would cause undue hardship and that the temporary space is still free from intrusion, used only for lactation and meets other state specifications. Agricultural employers could be compliant by providing a space that is private, enclosed and shaded (including but not limited to an air-conditioned cab of truck or tractor). Continue reading

Los Angeles pregnancy discrimination is nothing new, it is nonetheless unsettling to learn of its continued occurrence. A recent case that has garnered attention from Forbes Magazine involves The Wonderful Company, owned by a 75-year-old self-made billionaire who also happens to be a woman. According to Forbes’ exclusive report, the company – built from the ground up by a woman who started as a single mother struggling to launch her own advertising company in the 1970s – is now a thriving business with products like bottled water, juice, oranges and nuts, valued at more than $4.2 million. Now, the company is reportedly facing a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, currently in the process of arbitration. The California wrongful termination claim comes just a few years after the same company settled a similar lawsuit five years ago. The company denies the claim. Four other employees who have not sued told Forbes the company fostered a culture hostile to employees who were pregnant and/ or parents. Los Angeles pregnancy discrimination lawyer

Plaintiff, a former marketing director who spoke to the media outlet prior to the start of arbitration, alleged she was fired two years ago while she was on maternity leave with her newborn. She had intended to take 16 weeks off from work, as allowable under the California Family Rights Act. Federal law – specifically, the Family Medical Leave Act – allows for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave (16 if a physician confirms a mother is temporarily disabled), though state law grants more. However, she alleges she was terminated 12 weeks to the day she began her pregnancy leave.

Claimant says despite excellent prior performance reviews, her bosses began to heavily scrutinize her past work while she was on leave. She also indicated that when she was up for a promotion the year before, her supervisor flat-out asked if she was pregnant – a question that is unlawful per both state and federal statutes. She said she began to fear for her future at the company as her leave date approached, saying she’d seen it occur to other employees. The company denies the claims, but the outcome of arbitration (required by the worker’s employment contract) likely will not be disclosed either way. Employment attorneys say the case appears to involve the kind of open pregnancy discrimination women faced in the 1990s, before such legal protections were firmly in place.

Rampant pregnancy discrimination in American has meant that expectant mothers in the workforce are denied pay raises or promotions, fired before they can take their maternity leave and sometimes, in physically demanding jobs, forced to work without accommodation, putting themselves and their babies’ lives at risk.Los Angeles pregnancy discrimination

In its review of thousands of pages of court and other public records involving female workers who alleged they had gone into premature labor, suffered miscarriage or, in one case, had a stillborn baby when their bosses refused their requests for assistance. Those requests often came with physician’s notes prescribing limitations on lifting, pulling and bending. The workers asked for help with things like pushing loaded carts or pulling large boxes or flipping over heavy mattresses. In a wide range of settings – grocery stores, prisons, restaurants, pharmaceutical companies, airports, hospitals and more.

Most are shocked to learn that very often, refusal to accommodate a pregnant woman is totally legal under federal law. Only a handful of states – California being one – have special provisions that offer additional protections to expectant mothers. California law holds that companies with five or more employees is bound by protections afforded to workers in the event of pregnancy, childbirth, pregnancy loss or related physical or mental conditions. These rights include accommodation and time off work, and employers can’t fire or otherwise discrimination someone for pregnancy, childbirth or related condition. Accommodations are outlined in the California Code of Regulations, and may include modification of work duties to be less strenuous, temporary transfer to less hazardous duties, longer and more frequent breaks, private lactation accommodations and more. Continue reading

Even as the issue of maternity leave for birth mothers is yet largely unsettled at many workplaces, questions pertaining to the rights of fathers, LGBTQ couples and adoptive parents has been largely left open.FMLA attorney

Of course, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 makes it clear that new parents are entitled to at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave, and this applies to fathers as well as mothers and adoptive parents. However, few families can afford for even one parent to take that amount of unpaid time off work. Many workplaces will offer birth mothers paid leave, but the question is whether it’s lawful to offer disparate levels of leave to other classifications of new parents.

A case recently taken on by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the first such federal regulator lawsuit targeting parental leave policies granting more time to new mothers than new fathers. The settlement marks a shift in how both regulators and corporations are likely to respond to such policies.  Continue reading

Right now, more mothers are joining the workforce than any time in history. In addition, there is a pregnancy discriminationgrowing trend of friendlier office policies geared toward families in general and mothers in particular. Why then are there still an alarming amount of cases where pregnant women report enduring discrimination and unfair treatment? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has collected a gradually increasing number of pregnancy discrimination claims over the years, and officials say the number is approaching a record high.

The New York Times delved into the issue recently and discovered an unsettling pattern of discrimination that still flows beneath the surface, even at large and reputable companies. Big names on the list include Walmart, Whole Foods, AT&T, and 21st Century Fox, all of which, as the article pointed out, have grand statements about being champions of women in their communications.

Women in all kinds of careers have anecdotes to share. Our employment attorneys know labor jobs can often have more blatant discrimination. Examples include refusals to allow pregnant women accommodations they need to complete their work, no leniency for breaks, refusal to adjust demands due to physical limitations, and series of micro-aggressions, like not allowing them to have water on the work floor. Continue reading