Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Soul Cycle

September 28, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A mere month after giving birth, a former executive at SoulCycle was fired. Now, according to Business Insider, she’s suing for “blatant” pregnancy discrimination. She alleges in her 32-page complaint that the company’s CEO openly and vulgarly mocked parental leave prior to her taking it. She said the company “unforgivably” used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to fire her, when the actual reason was discriminatory.

At the time of her termination, plaintiff had worked for the corporation 7 years and oversaw more than 400 instructors. When she revealed her pregnancy late last year, she said, her superiors began treating her differently. She was told she’d be moved to a new position once her maternity leave was up. This new position, she says, was effectively a demotion, and there was no legitimate reason given for it. She had her child in late March. Little more than a month later, she was told her position was eliminated. She reports she wasn’t the only one. Three other women who had recently returned from maternity leave or were pregnant were also let go.

Her complaint had been filed after two instructors publicly quite their jobs over concerns about racial inclusivity. Continue Reading ›

5 Types of Wrongful Termination in California Employment Lawsuits

September 21, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Wrongful termination in California goes beyond a firing that some think was unjustified. As our Los Angeles wrongful termination attorneys can explain, it refers to an employment agreement that’s ended by the employer in violation of the worker’s legal rights. It means that the reason for one’s firing was because of discriminatory reasons, in violation of the employment contract or in retaliation for the employee exercising his or her legal rights.

It’s important to point out that California is an at-will state, so companies can fire employees for any time without cause, reason or advance notice. In order for one’s firing to be considered wrongful termination, former employees need to show it was due to reasons expressly prohibited by state or federal law.

The laws most commonly cited in wrongful termination cases include:

California Wage Theft Settlement Against LA Restaurant Companies

September 15, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Three restaurant companies based in Southern California will have to pay nearly $500,000 to settle claims that they systematically underpaid workers in violation of Los Angeles County’s minimum wage ordinance. The ordinance since 2016 has required companies in unincorporated Los Angeles County – regardless of size – to increase wages annually through each July through 2021, when it will be $15/hourly.

As our L.A. wage theft attorneys understand it, county investigators with the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs discovered the restaurant corporations underpaid nearly 100 workers going back at least three years. Although the companies were reportedly in compliance with state minimum mandatory wage laws, they did not comply with the local ordinance. A representative from one of the restaurants said it was a misunderstanding, as two of the 19 locations owned by the companies are technically located in unincorporated L.A. County, despite having mailing addresses in the incorporated municipalities. While the state minimum wage for workers was $12 or $13 hourly (depending on the size of the company), the county’s minimum wage was $14.25. When the mistake was discovered, the spokesman said the companies immediately moved to rectify it.

County investigators said whether it was an honest mistake or the motives were more insidious, employers have a responsibility to pay their employees fairly. When they do not, there are consequences. Continue Reading ›

Gender Discrimination Rampant at Pinterest, Former Exec Alleges in Lawsuit

September 10, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Pinterest, a $21 billion company that markets mostly to women on its virtual pinboards, is accused by its former chief operating officer of rampant sexism, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination. She alleges she was fired for speaking out about disparate treatment between female and male top executives.

As The New York Times reports, the former COO says in her San Francisco Superior Court lawsuit that she was excluded out of key meetings, given professional feedback that was highly gendered and she was paid less than her male peers when she was first brought on. She learned the pay disparity after the company filed to go public last year. She talked about how decisions were often made in informal discussions among male colleagues; the “meeting after the meeting.” Despite being the No. 2 executive, she said she endured a culture of constant exclusion. When she ultimately spoke up about it, she said, she was dismissed (the dispute compared to a domestic squabble), maligned (told she wasn’t working collaboratively enough) and ultimately fired.

As our Orange County gender discrimination lawyers can explain, this type of discriminatory action in the upper echelons of corporate America may look slightly different than at other levels, particularly as it can be more subtle. But one thing our employment lawyers have noted no matter the pay grade is that workers who speak out about unfair treatment may find themselves may find themselves a target of demotion, loss of benefits or firing. This in itself is an illegal act called retaliation. Continue Reading ›

L.A. Employment Lawyer Talks Ageism, COVID-19 and the Rights of Older Workers

September 4, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

One increasingly common side effect of the COVID-19 is a virulent uptick in ageism. As a longtime L.A. employment lawyer, I’ve noted an uptick in ageist attitudes in the social media sphere that is undoubtedly pervading workplaces as well.

Research published in the journal Age and Ageing found that older people were misrepresented and undervalued in the public discourse surrounding the pandemic, and that some policies that may have purported to be “protective” of older populations were in fact patronizing and possibly illegal.

The risk of serious coronavirus complications statistically increases with age, per the CDC. This may have prompted some employers to engage in age discrimination against older workers and prospective employees. Continue Reading ›

California Wage Theft, Meal Break Violations Alleged in Employment Lawsuit Against Restaurant

August 30, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A restaurant owner and reality television star is facing a class action for California wage theft and meal break violations at the West Hollywood establishment. She and her husband/co-owner are accused of violating numerous state labor laws by failing to pay minimum wage or overtime, refusing to give employees pay stubs, not paying gratuities that were earned and not providing adequate breaks as required by law.

According to E! News, the plaintiff (filing on behalf of herself and others) alleges that her employers at SUR failed to follow the law for at least one of the last four years. Plaintiff was employed at the upscale establishment for three months, ending in January. While there, she was a hostess, tasked with answering phones, confirming reservations and seating patrons.

This is the second labor lawsuit that has been filed against the owners of SUR in recent months. Late last year, another former employee filed their own class action lawsuit alleging California labor law violations. That worker, a non-exempt employee for three months, was employed not only at SUR but also at the owners’ other restaurants, Tom Tom and Pump Restaurant Lounge. He too alleges that for the last four years, workers were denied minimum wages and overtime, proper meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements or pay stubs at the end of their employment. Continue Reading ›

Regulators Target Gig Economy for Crackdown on Wage and Hour Violations

August 21, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

In the first AB5 enforcement lawsuit over California wage and hour violations, the state labor commissioner alleges that a gig-economy car wash company in Southern California is breaking the law by misclassifying workers as independent contractors when in fact they are employees. It’s the same argument that has been made in numerous employment lawsuits against gig economy giants like Uber and Lyft.

As our Los Angeles employee misclassification attorneys can explain, this issue has become so problematic because employees who are wrongly classified as independent contractors lose out on a host of employment benefits, including minimum wages, overtime, health insurance, tax breaks and underpayment of things like Social Security, Medicare, etc.

The defendant in this action, MobilWash, uses an app to offer on-demand car wash and detailing services. Customers can order the services, pay for them and provide a tip all through their phone. Workers use their own vehicles and supplies, go to the customer’s vehicle and provide the cleaning services. They must purchase their own uniforms, insurance, cleaning equipment and supplies and gas. Workers are not reimbursed for travel time or business expenses – as they would be if they were employees. Further, the company charges a $2 transaction fee for every tip the workers receive, something the labor commissioner says is illegal.

Recently, the Orange County Register editorial board posited that if the arrangement wasn’t working for those involved, it wouldn’t be successful. The labor commissioner says that’s not a solid legal argument, and that if a worker puts in 10 hours daily for six days each week, they’re entitled to more than $1,500 in weekly wages (which includes minimum wage plus overtime), something they aren’t receiving. The board argued that such companies are never going to operate like traditional factories, with workers spending 10 consecutive hours daily, clocking in and out, when the whole concept of the service is being on-demand. Continue Reading ›

9th Circuit Reinstates California Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Judd v. Weinstein

August 15, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court ruling in Judd v. Weinstein, reinstating actress Ashley Judd’s California sexual harassment lawsuit against one-time Hollywood power player, producer Harvey Weinstein.

As our Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyers can explain, the complaint stems from a sexual harassment claim under California Civil Code section 51.9. This allows for claims of sexual harassment that occurs between people who have a business, service or professional relationship wherein the defendant holds himself/herself out to be able to help the plaintiff establish a business, service or professional relationship with defendant or third party. These can include doctors, lawyers, estate trustees, landlords, teachers, elected officials, lobbyists, directors/producers or any substantially similar relationship. In order to prevail in such a claim, plaintiff needs to show defendant made sexual advances, solicitations, requests, demands (or engaged in conduct of a sexual nature or hostile based on gender) and the plaintiff has or will suffer some economic loss as a result of that conduct.

Judd’s case appears to fit the bill, but a lower court had dismissed it, siding with Weinstein’s arguments, which were that the traditional power balance might be flipped in some scenarios and that there was not a professional relationship at the time of the alleged harassment. The question of whether the relationship between the two parties was an employment relationship outside the purview of that statute is a question for the trier of fact (the jury). The case was remanded for further consideration.

Biden’s ‘Racial Equity Plan’ Would Bolster Workplace Discrimination, Harassment Laws

August 7, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Recently, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden unveiled a broad plan to confront systemic racism and promote racial equity. The former vice president’s Racial Equity Plan is part of a larger Build Back Better economic proposal. This newest element – support of the BE HEARD Act – addresses workplace inequalities that are known to disproportionately impact minorities.

BE HEARD (Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination in the Workplace), or H.R. 2148 has drawn praise from social justice advocates – yet earned the sharp ire of corporate interest groups. Essentially, it would (among other things) prohibit workplace harassment and discrimination under federal law – regardless of how many employees a company has – and require harassment training. It would further seek to address sexual harassment of tipped employees (a well-established problem) by requiring the cash wages paid to these workers be steadily increased until they meet the minimum wage for other workers.

As staunch regulatory critic Hans Bader wrote in the National Review, “(Under this plan), even the tiniest of employers would be saddled with unlimited legal liability for discrimination or harassment committed by an employee.” He added the law would alter the definition of sexual harassment in a way that would make small businesses vulnerable to liability for “trivial actions of their workers.”

As a longtime Los Angeles employment lawyer experienced in handling cases of racial discrimination and sexual harassment, I would note first that it’s a misconception that California employment lawsuits are or have ever been easy to win. Part of what this new law would do is establish a new liability standard for workplace harassment that “fulfills the Congressional intent” (as meticulously laid out in prior legislative action and case law) of providing broad protection from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth, a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth and sex stereotype), national origin, age, disability, genetic information and uniformed service status. Note the recognition of sexual orientation and gender identity – statuses that have protection in California, but not nationally. Continue Reading ›

Los Angeles Employment Lawyer Explains Your Rights When Your Boss Wants You Back in the Office

August 2, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

As cities and schools across California and the U.S. are preparing to reopen, employers are requiring workers to return to in-person interactions – despite the fact that we are still in the grips of a global pandemic. Further, as Kaiser Health News reports, some employees are being compelled to sign a waiver of liability – agreeing not to sue their employer if they catch COVID-19 or suffer any injury from it while working there. In Irvine, CA, a teacher who refused to sign the waiver was fired within a week. “They said it was my choice to sign the paper, but it wasn’t really my choice. I felt so bullied.”

We encourage employees to discuss their concerns with a Los Angeles employment lawyer before signing any such waiver or if you have been fired as a result of refusing to sign one. Note that last year, California lawmakers passed AB-51, which bars employers from mandating workers or prospective employees sign away their right to pursue legal claims or benefits as a condition of employment. It also forbids employers from terminating any worker who refuses to sign it. That law is being challenged in court by a number of business interest groups, but for now, it stands.

Reports of employers requiring their workers to sign these liability waivers have been sporadic, probably because they know these agreements won’t hold up in court. In addition to AB-51, there is the fact that there is clearly a power imbalance between employers and employees/prospective workers – especially at a time when so many people are unemployed. Continue Reading ›