Badge - California Employment Lawyers Association
Badge - Orange County Bar Association
Badge - OCTLA
Badge - Consumer Attorneys of California
Badge - State Bar of California
Badge - American Association for Justice

| by

A finding of California employer retaliation has resulted in a $150 million verdict against an insurance company accused of firing a former executive for the firm as he prepared to testify in a discrimination case against them. It’s believed to be the largest verdict in Los Angeles County and the third-largest of its kind in the state. jury verdict California employment law

The Los Angeles jury issued the verdict in Rudnicki v. Farmers Insurance Exchange following less than 60 minutes of deliberations.

According to Reuters, the employment lawsuit was filed in 2017, with plaintiff alleging he was scapegoated amid allegations of gender pay disparities at the company.  He’d been employed by the firm nearly four decades, but was abruptly terminated just prior to a class action settlement, stemming from a lawsuit filed by female attorneys at the firm alleging a major gender discrimination gap in pay.

The former executive, who’d once served as the firm’s senior vice president, said the company had been concerned about what he might reveal about their gendered pay practices if he testified in that case. They reportedly blamed him for unlawful conduct and terminated him in an effort to discredit him. He alleged unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of California’s labor laws.

Lawyers for the defendant insurer insisted the plaintiff was fired because he:

  • Was making sexist, inappropriate comments to coworkers.
  • Failed to take appropriate action when female employees brought to light the underrepresentation of women in management at the firm.
  • Failed to properly handle/preserve pertinent legal documents, in accordance with company policy.

Jurors no doubt eyed critically the fact that the firing came almost immediately after he was deposed in the gender discrimination lawsuit, providing testimony that supported the plaintiffs’ allegations that the insurer’s pay practices were discriminatory against attorneys who were female. He was expected to testify to the same at trial. The case was later settled for $4 million.

Cooperating and assisting in a legal proceeding regarding discrimination is protected activity. Firing or retaliating against an employee for engaging in such proceedings is illegal, considered to be wrongful termination and retaliation. Continue Reading ›

| by

The expectation when we accept a job is that our pay will increase incrementally the more experience and value we provide to the company. But as our Orange County wage and hour lawyers can explain, pay reductions can occur – and they aren’t necessarily illegal. Orange County wage theft attorney

Whether you are an hourly or salaried employee in California, you are entitled to receive the agreed-upon, legal rate of pay for the work you’ve already done. Bosses have the discretion to reduce hourly pay and salary rates just as they can raise them. What they should not do, however, is reduce pay without giving advance notice to the employee. Employees should have the option to decline to continue working at such a rate. Just as an employee can’t force an employer to pay them a higher rate without consent, an employer can’t force an employee to work for a rate to which they didn’t agree. Once the work is complete, the employer must pay the last agreed-upon rate.

Further, that agreed upon rate can’t in any case be lower than the California minimum wage. As of Jan. 1, 2022, the minimum wage for companies with 25 or fewer employees is $14/hr, and $15/hr for companies with 26 or more employees.

When Would a Company Reduce Worker Pay?

Ideally, worker pay would only go up. However, the reality of business sometimes is that employers must reduce expenses in order to stay in business. Or sometimes, employees aren’t meeting expectations, and it’s costing the company money.

The two main reasons companies reduce pay:

  • The business is having revenue issues and is faced with the decision to either cut employee pay or shut down. Many employees will prefer to be paid at lower rates than lose their jobs, but it’s important that employers provide notice of the change so employees can make an informed choice for themselves.
  • A significant job change, namely demotions, warrants reduced pay. When a worker is demoted, the previous rate of hourly pay or salary may be above the reasonable rate for the new position.

All this said, a company cannot refuse to pay you the agreed-upon rate for hours you’ve already worked. Continue Reading ›

| by

Employer retaliation in violation of federal law (punishing of an employee for engaging in legally protected activity) can take many forms – demotion, discipline, salary reduction, a job or shift reassignment. Sometimes it’s more subtle than that. And then other times, it’s a driveway full of oily pennies. Los Angeles employment lawyer

An employer in Georgia is facing a federal lawsuit for workplace retaliation for doing just that. The U.S. Department of Labor alleges the incident began with a former employee complaining to its offices about not receiving his final paycheck – an act that violates federal law.

The incident made headlines when the girlfriend of the former auto repair shop employee posted a video on her Instagram of the oil-slicked, coppery mess in their driveway. In total, there were 91,500 pennies dumped in the driveway, the employee’s final paycheck sitting on top, addressed with a handwritten expletive.

The DOL filed its federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging the act was employer retaliation for a complaint the former employee made to federal authorities in January 2021 to report he hadn’t received his final paycheck for $915. His last day worked had been in November 2020. The pennies were dumped on the former employee’s driveway in March 2021. Continue Reading ›

| by

One would think that as workplaces become more progressive and inclusive that pregnancy-based discrimination would increasingly become an issue of the past. Unfortunately, pregnancy discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in California workplaces have continued to rise the past five years. pregnancy discrimination Orange County

The U.S. Department of labor reports 85 percent of women will become mothers while working.

According to analysis by Bloomberg Law, the number of federal pregnancy discrimination lawsuits has been climbing since 2016, with a sharp uptick in 2020 and 2021, the latter potentially setting a new record – despite declining birth rates. As our Orange County pregnancy discrimination lawyers know, there are a few explanations for this. Among them:

  • Economic instability has always created vulnerability for pregnant workers. Employees who need parental leave and make use of employer-supplied health insurance benefits are inevitably going to cost employers more, at least in the short term.
  • When the economy is in flux, it can be tougher to find a new job after you’ve lost you’re old one. If you’re one of those who have lost their job unfairly – and are having a difficult time landing a new one – you may be more motivated to take legal action against your employer, partly because the economic damage suffered is more significant – especially if you now have an additional dependent.
  • In the earliest days of the pandemic, there was heightened concern that pregnant women might be at higher risk of infection and/or having severe reactions. Some adverse employment actions may have been taken with good intentions, but that doesn’t necessarily make them legal. Pregnant women were often among the first laid off at the start of COVID-related shutdowns.
  • When the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission restarted issuing Notices of Right to Sue back in August of 2020, there was a backlog that had to be processed fairly quickly. Individuals have 90 days to sue from the time they receive that green light. That could account for some of the uptick in 2020 cases.

Do I Have the Right to Sue for California Pregnancy Discrimination? 

Pregnancy discrimination cases can arise from failure to hire, demotion, failure to reinstate after pregnancy/childbirth leave, termination, failure to accommodate (including lactation) and more. Discrimination based on pregnancy is often attributed to inaccurate stereotypes, including misguided notions that pregnant women won’t perform their duties as well and mothers won’t fully commit to their jobs because they have kids. Potential employers continue to illegally ask female applicants if they have children or intend to. They may tell wrongly current workers they can’t accommodate them in pregnancy because of the physical nature of the job.

There are both federal and state protections against pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. Continue Reading ›

| by

The California Supreme Court is slated to decide a case expected to settle a long-running debate on whether waiting time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest break violations. Orange County employment lawyer

Employers, employees and labor law attorneys should be closely watching the case of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. Petition for review of the case came after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the original trial court judgment.

The state high court is being asked to resolve two primary questions:

  • Does a violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (requiring premium wage payment for meal and rest period violations) give rise to additional claims for paystub penalties and waiting time penalties when companies pay an employee regular wages for breaks?
  • What interest rate applies for unpaid premium wages under the law?

As our Orange County wage and hour lawyers can explain, it has to do with what additional penalties are owed when employers fail to meet their legal pay obligations to workers deprived of meal and rest breaks, as afforded under the law.

How This California Employment Law Case Arose

This is a class action lawsuit filed by the primary plaintiff on behalf of himself and other current/former employees of a private security company (government contractor) who alleged that violations of meal break and rest break laws entitled them also to derivative remedies under laws pertaining to wait time penalties and pay stub penalties. Continue Reading ›

| by

A new year on the horizon, there are numerous new California employment laws for workplaces to ensure they follow. These range from expanded family leave to heightened workplace safety rules to minimum wage boosts.

Minimum Wage Increases

For starters, on the very first day of the year, Jan. 1st, the required minimum wage rate in California will be kicked up to $15 hourly among businesses with 26 or more employees. Those with fewer workers will be required to pay at least $14 hourly.Los Angeles employment lawyer

Dozens of California jurisdictions, however, have their own minimum wage requirements. For instance, minimum wage in Los Angeles was already at $15 hourly as of 2021, applicable to anyone who works at least two hours (including remotely) within a one-week period in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles. In Sonoma, the rate is $16 hourly for large employers. In Los Altos, the minimum wage is increasing next year from $15.65 hourly to $16.40 hourly. In Menlo Park, it’s going up to $15.65 at the start of the year. The employee’s employment status, where they live or where the business is headquartered doesn’t determine whether the minimum wage applies.

A Wage Order is supposed to be placed in a conspicuous spot in every job site, clearly showing both the federal and state minimum wages. Both employers and employees would do well to double check whether any more stringent minimum wage rules apply in their city or county jurisdiction. Where there is a conflict between local, state, or federal minimum wages, employers must pay the rate that is most beneficial to employees.

Note: You cannot waive your right to minimum wages. They are required by law. Continue Reading ›

| by

A California wage lawsuit has yielded an increase in pay for California’s guest farmworkers and U.S. farmworkers in 2022. Los Angeles employment attorney

The wage increase is based on the USDA’s annual survey findings on farm labor, which are used to ascertain the rate of pay for seasonal, temporary agricultural workers in farms across California and the U.S. through the H-2A program. The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or agents who meet specific regulatory criteria to bring foreign nationals to the U.S. to fulfill seasonal agricultural jobs. Here in California, there are tens of thousands who work in these positions.

Wages for farmworkers are based on the USDA’s yearly analysis of farmworker pay across various regions of the U.S. However as our Orange County wage and hour employment attorneys can explain, this latest wage increase was frozen by former President Donald Trump, who sought to help farmers recover from lost profits and fallow fields following the early 2020 shutdowns of the COVID pandemic. The action would have locked in federal minimum wages for H-2 visa farmworkers, with the intention of saving growers roughly $1.6 billion over the course of a decade. Trump’s freeze was lauded by top agricultural companies, who said the move was critical in keeping their farms running and grocery stores stocked in a situation that otherwise would have significantly disrupted food supply chains.

On the worker side, though, the action was broadly derided. For one thing, growers were boasting significantly higher profit margins. For example, farmers of plants and livestock in Fresno County alone indicated a record year for gross total production, valued at nearly $8 billion. Furthermore, farmworkers were officially designated during the pandemic as essential workers – meaning they risked their lives to work. Farmworkers already are among the lowest paid workers in the U.S.

California alone has over 3,000 certified H-2A slots, accounting for more than 10 percent of these positions nationally. Employers typically offer these workers the absolute bare minimum wage. Those are the workers that are going to benefit from this wage adjustment, which on average nationally is expected to go up 6 percent next year compared to this year’s rates.

Companies that work with H-2A employees are required to pay the state’s minimum wage, but that can’t be lower than the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), which is the average wages for crop/livestock workers in a given region. H-2A workers in California earned $14.77 last year. Next year, they’ll be earning $17.51. Continue Reading ›

| by

Fairness and equality are cornerstone ideals in America, but not every employer embodies or enforces them. However, does unfair treatment alone mean you can take legal action against your employer? Los Angeles employment lawyer

As our Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, the viability of a California employment lawsuit depends on a myriad of factors, including:

  • The exact nature of the adverse action and how substantially you were impacted.
  • Whether the motivation for the adverse action was – in whole or in part – a protected characteristic or activity.
  • The strength of the evidence you have of the employer’s unlawful motivation for the adverse action. (This includes whether others similarly situated were treated the same way or differently.)
  • When these adverse actions were taken.

This is not to say you need to have every single detail in order for your initial consultation with an employment attorney, but it’s a good idea to have basic answers so that your attorney knows where to start.

What Are Protected Characteristics and Actions? 

The simple fact of being slighted at work isn’t necessarily cause for litigation. In general, it must involve certain characteristics or actions that are protected by law.

  • Examples of protected statuses include: Religion, Race, Age (over 40), Disability, Sex, Gender/Gender Identity, Marital Status, Ancestry, Veteran Status, Military Status, Medical Condition, Genetic Information, Color, or Pregnancy/Any Related Condition.
  • Examples of protected activities include: Serving on a jury, Taking necessary family leave, Attending court and/or seeking care as a victim of a crime, Sharing your salary/wage information with others, Participating in a workplace complaint, Taking time off to fulfill first responder duties, Exercising lactation rights, and Whistleblowing.

These aren’t necessarily exhaustive lists; it’s best to consult with an attorney if you aren’t sure whether your unfair treatment was unlawful.

Is All Unfair Workplace Treatment Unlawful?

No, not all unfair workplace treatment in California is against the law. California is an at-will state when it comes to employment law. That means your employer can fire you for almost any reason without consequences. However, the exceptions arise when those adverse actions are taken as a result of some protected status or action.

So for example, if you are fired because of your age, but you are under the age of 40, your age is not a protected characteristic under the law. It’s not fair, but it’s not illegal. Continue Reading ›

| by

In a case believed to be the first brought under the California CROWN Act, a Black job applicant alleges he was racially discriminated against by an employer on the basis of his hair. Los Angeles racial discrimination employment attorney

As our Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, the CROWN Act stands for Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for natural Hair. It prohibits the use of grooming policies that disproportionately impact Black individuals. Examples include requirements banning locks and afros. Specifically, it amends provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Education Code to expand how discrimination on the basis of race is defined to expressly include unfair treatment on  the basis of traits historically associated with race. That includes certain hair textures, as well as hairstyles used to protect Black hair, such as braids, Afros, twists and locks.

California was the first state to pass the CROWN Act, which went into effect in January 2020, but at least 12 others have followed. The San Diego Union Times reports this is the first CROWN Act lawsuit filed in California since the statue was passed.

Company Calls Alleged CROWN Act Violation a “Miscommunication”

At issue in this case is a Black job applicant who’d recently moved to Southern California from Florida to further his audiovisual field career. He’d been working at an Orlando branch of the Illinois-based event management firm for four years when he was furloughed in the spring of 2020 due to the pandemic. When he was invited to return to work, a strong recommendation from his boss gave him confidence he’d be able to maintain his same position as a tech supervisor, only in San Diego instead of Orlando. He was told the transition should be “no problem.”

His interview went well, up until the end, when dress code was discussed. He’d expected that having client-facing duties, he’d be required to remove his ear gauges and trim his facial hair. He was not expecting to be told he’d have to cut his hair. Plaintiff, whose hair was in locks, was told he’d have to cut it so that it was off the ears, eyes, and shoulders. He was told he would not be allowed to simply tie it back, away from his face.

Stunned, plaintiff told them it was “a deal-breaker.” Continue Reading ›

| by

A longtime employee of Sea World in San Diego alleges she was not only wrongfully terminated, but that she provided more than four decades of unpaid overtime with the company’s full knowledge. As experienced Los Angeles employment lawyers, we recognize that even with full proof of these facts, plaintiff may not be able to collect compensation for unpaid overtime beyond what she was shortchanged in the last three – possibly four – years. That’s not to say evidence of it can’t be submitted to the court to illustrate a long and intentional pattern. However, the California statute of limitations on employment claims is generally just three years. In some cases, you may have even less time to take action. wage and hour law statute of limitations California

“Wage and hour” is the shorthand we use for legal actions pertaining to an employer’s responsibility to fairly compensate workers for wages, meal breaks, rest breaks, reimbursement of expenses, proper recordkeeping and other basic benefits outlined in California statute.

Per Code of Civil Procedure 338 CCP, the statute of limitations for wage and hour lawsuits is three (3) years from the date when the most recent violation occurred. That said, you may be able to “reach back” possibly as far back as four (4) years for things like unpaid wages, interest and other kinds of valuable penalties imposed by law. This extended reach back provision is applicable when you include a claim under the state’s Unfair Competition law, as outlined in the state’s Business & Professions Code, section 17208.

An attorney will be able to tell you exactly how much time you have left to pursue a California wage and hour claim, but it’s usually better not to delay if possible.

Note: Claims of California employment discrimination were only recently extended to the three-year window. Previously, the window of time was even narrower (one year from termination – or the end of alleged discriminatory conduct). AB 9, which went into effect in January 2020, extended the amount of time employees had to file charges of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing to three years. The new law allows is six times longer than requirements under federal law. Specifically, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires that anti-discrimination claims be filed within 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place. This is extended to 300 days if a state/local agency enforces a law prohibiting employment discrimination on the same basis. (There are slightly different rules for age discrimination, which is not extended if it is only local – not state – law that bars age discrimination.)  Continue Reading ›

Contact Information
Newport Beach Office
4695 MacArthur Ct 11th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Local: (949) 375-4734
Los Angeles Office
11400 W Olympic Blvd #200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Local: (949) 375-4734
Riverside Office
11801 Pierce St #200
Riverside, CA 92505
Local: (949) 375-4734

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Nassiri Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design