As of July 1, 2023, California is set to implement new minimum wage increases, ushering in significant changes for workers across the state.  Our Orange County wage and hour lawyers can help you understand the new laws.  These increases, designed to address the rising cost of living and improve income equality, will impact both employees and employers. In this blog post, we delve into the details of California’s minimum wage increases and their implications for businesses and workers.

Overview of Minimum Wage Increases:

Effective July 1, 2023, California’s minimum wage will experience a notable increase. The specific wage rates vary based on the size of the employer, with different rates applicable to small businesses and larger companies. Let’s explore the key details:

Employers have been required to extend reasonable workplace religious accommodations ever since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such requests should only ever be denied when doing so would cause “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” But what does that mean, exactly? Los Angeles religious accommodations at work

Well as our Los Angeles employment discrimination lawyers can explain, since the late 1970s, courts have generally interpreted that to mean any employer effort or cost incurred that exceeded de minimis, or too minor or trivial to merit consideration. Admittedly, that’s a pretty low bar. So it’s long been pretty tough to successfully argue discrimination on the basis of failure to provide religious accommodations. But that’s about to change.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that picked that standard up off the floor. Justices asserted that an undue hardship in these cases should be defined as a burden that is substantial in the overall context of the business. There’s no clear, bright line rule, unfortunately. Determining whether a certain workplace religious accommodation imposed an undue hardship on the employer is a fact-specific determination.

In general, employers seeking to prove the requested accommodation would have caused undue hardship will need to show that it:

  • Is at minimum, something hard to bear.
  • Something that causes or entails suffering or privation/disadvantage.
  • Extreme privation, adversity, or suffering.

Although that’s still pretty broad, the Court made it a point in Goff v. DeJoy to say that in the context of employee rights, undue hardship on an employer needs to amount to something more severe than “a mere burden.” It would have to be unjustifiably excessive.

In other words, it sort of puts the ball back into the employer’s court. If they deny a workplace religious accommodation, the onus will be on them to show why it was not reasonable for their operation to swing. The practical impact of the accommodation would need to be considered in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of the employer. Continue Reading ›

Employers in California can’t be held legally responsible if workers contract COVID-19 on-the-job and then spread it to people they live with.covid workplace illness

In the case of Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., the California Supreme Court ruled that while take-home COVID claims filed by employee spouses aren’t barred by the exclusivity provisions of workers’ compensation law, employers owe no duty of care to non-employees.

Workers’ compensation claims are predicated upon injury suffered by an employee. An employee who files a workers’ compensation claim can’t also file a lawsuit against their employer, due to the exclusivity rules. But the spouse isn’t entitled to workers’ compensation if they get sick. And the claim here wasn’t based on the employee’s injury, but the spouse’s.

However, claims rooted in negligence must first establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. Employers, the Court ruled, don’t have a special relationship with the spouse’s of employees such that it establishes a legal responsibility to use reasonable care in preventing harm to them. The Court noted that while it’s foreseeable that negligence in employer policies and practices would increase the likelihood of spreading a highly contagious disease to employee household members, to recognize an employer duty of care to non-employees would “impose an intolerable burden on employers and society” that would be in contrast to public policy.

Of course, the bones of this case are more in the realm of injury/tort law rather than California employment law (which is our focus at Nassiri Law Group). But it’s still worth pausing to review, given how substantially COVID-19 upended so many workplace procedures, policies, and practices. So much of this was uncharted territory for the modern world. As such, California courts are still getting around to resolving workplace conflicts – direct and ancillary – that cropped up in the midst of the pandemic and its aftermath. Continue Reading ›

The death of a loved one can feel like you’re being torn into two – with waves of intense, very difficult emotions washing over you at any moment. In the immediate aftermath of such a loss, people need a moment to breathe, be surrounded by others they love, and start the long process of healing. That’s where California employee bereavement rights kick in. California Bereavement Leave violation

As our Los Angeles employment lawyers can explain, California law guarantees most employees up to 5 days of bereavement leave from work for the death of a qualifying family member (spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or parent-in-law). Employers are allowed to grant it for the loss of someone outside these categories with whom you were close, but they aren’t required to.

The law allows for five days for the death of each qualifying family member. So if you suddenly lose three of your close relatives – even if it happened all at once – you would be entitled to 15 days, rather than just 5. You have three months to use your bereavement leave, but it doesn’t have to be taken consecutively. That is, you could take a day or two immediately after, and the rest of the time to attend calling hours, the funeral, etc.

Bereavement leave can be paid or unpaid; It will be up to the employer’s policy. If the company has an existing bereavement policy that offers fewer than 5 days of paid leave, the employee can receive pay for the number of days in the existing policy, but the rest might not be paid. If there leave isn’t paid, employees can use accrued paid leave to cover unpaid days.

Proof of death can be required within 30 days. Acceptable forms include a death certificate, obituary, or some other written proof of your loved one’s death, burial, or memorial services.  You’re entitled to expect confidentiality regarding these requests. Further, taking bereavement leave won’t adversely impact other types of protected work leave.

Similar to the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), it is against the law for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge, demote, fine, suspend, expel, or discriminate against an employee exercising their right to bereavement leave. They also can’t retaliate against an employee providing information or testimony about another person’s bereavement leave in any inquiry related to the employer’s possible violations of the law. Continue Reading ›

A former employee for a prominent wine magazine has filed a California transgender discrimination lawsuit against the publication and its parent company, alleging harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation. Los Angeles transgender discrimination lawyer

According to the Napa Valley Register, the employee worked as an assistant tasting coordinator and writer for the magazine. She says at the time she was hired, she was upfront about the fact that she would be needing some reasonable accommodations to receive periodic gender-affirming medical care. This included surgeries and subsequent recovery times.

Upon undergoing a second surgery, a supervisor reportedly expressed concerns about the time off she was taking for medical care and recovery. This was also around the time that she reported to her employer that a colleague had violated the company’s policies for wine scoring and blind tasting. (A reviewer allegedly changed several wine scores after repeatedly opening wine bags to peek at the label.)

A supervisor reportedly made numerous comments to/about the plaintiff that were demeaning, obscene, offensive, and derogatory – pertaining to her transgender status.

After undergoing a third gender-affirming surgery, she had a difficult recovery, which included substantial psychiatric and psychological impacts. She was recommended for inpatient psychiatric treatment. During this time, she was placed on involuntary administrative leave, and fired about a week later. This also canceled her medical insurance coverage.

Her lawsuit alleges transgender discrimination, as well as retaliation for reporting the policy violation.

The magazine, communications company, and other defendants say the allegations are without merit. Continue Reading ›

A cancer diagnosis can utterly upend your life. That’s true even when the odds are fairly good. What can be nearly as jarring is the fact that you might face cancer discrimination at your work. cancer discrimination lawyer

For most people, cancer isn’t something they planned on – or planned for. As such, many aren’t ready to pause or forego their career – and they may not need to. But most cancer patients are unlikely to make it all the way through treatment without requiring some type of workplace accommodations.

Sometimes, when employees with cancer ask for the accommodations or leave to which they are entitled under law, they are met with employer responses that can include:

As longtime advocates for fairness in the workplace, our Los Angeles employment attorneys primarily devote our energies to representing employees on the receiving end of inequity on-the-job. But there’s also value in explaining to employers how they can sidestep some of the most common issues that lead to California employment lawsuits.California workplace retaliation

Unlawful workplace retaliation is one of the most common sources of legal claims. It’s also potentially one of the costliest for employers. In a single recent years, nearly 6 in 10 claims filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged retaliation, often in conjunction with other claims. It is the No. 1 type of employment discrimination alleged nationally.

What is Retaliation in an Employment Setting?

The term “retaliation” can have a few different meanings in an employment context, but it’s only illegal when it crosses the boundaries of state and federal fair employment laws.

In this context, retaliation occurs when an employer initiates a materially adverse action because an applicant or employee asserts or engages in rights that are protected under equal employment opportunity statutes. Such rights are referred to as “protected activities.”

Examples of protected activities would be things like:

  • Refusing to comply with a directive the employee believes to be discriminatory. (This requires only a good faith belief by the employee that the conduct in question is unlawful or could become unlawful if repeated. They don’t have to prove the underlying act was, in fact, discrimination.)
  • Filing a complaint of workplace discrimination (or indicating an intention to do so) regarding one’s self or other employees.
  • Refusing sexually-charged advances at work or intervening to protect others at work.
  • Requesting reasonable accommodations, as allowed by law, for one’s disability or religion.
  • Filing a complaint with management about equal employment disparities.
  • Gathering evidence in support of or preparation for a potential equal employment opportunity claim.

(This is not an exhaustive list, but provides a general sense of what might constitute as a protected activity as referenced in retaliation statutes.) Continue Reading ›

The lawsuit comes as employers have asked the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for clearer guidance in how they should be using this technology. The EEOC has said it wants to initiate stronger enforcement of federal antidiscrimination standards to prevent hiring bias perpetuated by AI systems.
The primary plaintiff in the case against Workday  – representing others similarly situated – says he’s over 40, Black, and suffers from anxiety and depression. He has applied for upwards of 100 jobs through Workday’s system since 2018, when he earned a bachelor’s degree in finance and an associates degree in information technology. He’s been denied every single time.
Workday is a hiring screening tool that is used by thousands of employers nationally, according to the complaint. It purportedly allows for preselection of applicants outside of protected categories – with input from algorithms formulated with input from humans who, as we know, have both conscious and unconscious motivations for discrimination. This, plaintiffs say, has resulted in patterns of discriminatory practice. Furthermore, it’s alleged the software developer knew its systems were intentionally discriminating against protected class members in clear violation of the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (among other federal protections).
Plaintiff in Mobley v. Workday is seeking injunctive relief to reform the AI company’s screening products, policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that workers in state and federally protected classes will be able to compete fairly.
The company denies any wrongdoing, and insists its tools are fair and that the review process has been subject to extensive legal review to ensure compliance with state and federal employment regulations.

EEOC Has a Draft Strategic Enforcement Plan

The EEOC has a draft strategic enforcement plan that would allow its legal team four years to come up with concrete guidance on AI screening tools for employment. The strategic enforcement plan encompasses more than just AI, but the emphasis on this burgeoning tech was clear.

Continue Reading ›

A former professional body builder and personal trainer manager won her $11.25 million employment lawsuit after a jury agreed that she had been the target of rampant racism and sexism. While the case is out of New York City, NY, our Los Angeles employment lawyers recognize that such problems are pervasive throughout the fitness industry.Los Angeles racial discrimination lawyer

It’s no secret that the racial and gender diversity in many elite health clubs becomes slimmer the higher up the ladder you go. Although harmful stereotypes of the “Black athletic archetype” are deeply rooted in the U.S., it’s also given rise to the racist presumption that the only “acceptable” place for these displays is on a sports playing field. (Even then, we were well into the 20th Century before most sporting events were open to Black competitors.)

Private gyms started to gain popularity in the 1970s and 1980s – largely in the suburbs. But even if technically open to all people, those of color were underrepresented thanks to systemic redlining; they simply weren’t living in the areas where the gyms were opening. We started to see some expansion of diversity with the introduction of more ethnic fitness programs, such as Zumba, Yoga, Tae Bo, and Hip Hop dancing. But those programs still skew heavily white in many areas – both in terms of membership and employment.

“The customer is always right.” That’s the longtime adage, anyway. But it’s dead wrong when it comes to workplace harassment. Both California and federal laws protect employees against workplace harassment by customers, as well as colleagues and supervisors.California workplace harassment by customers

This is true whether your clients are high-level investors, bar patrons, retail shoppers, or patients.

You have the right to work in a harassment-free environment. That goes not just for sexual harassment, but harassment on the basis of any protected class – disability, age, religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, military or veteran status, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy or related condition, etc. In California, this right also extends to independent contractors, not just employees. A harassment-free workplace is not a privilege. It’s not up for debate. It is your right.

If your employer has failed to protect you from workplace harassment by customers, you need to get on the phone with a Los Angeles employment lawyer as soon as possible. The company/employer could be held liable for failure to protect you from harassment perpetrated by non-employees, so long as there is evidence they knew or should have known about it and failed to take swift and reasonable steps to stop it.

Depending on the nature of the harassment, you might have only 180 days from the date of the last incident to initiate your complaint (if it’s a federal-level complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). You probably have longer for state-level claims, but these aren’t “wait and see” situations. Fast action is recommended.

Laws that Protect Employees from Customer Harassment

Both federal and state laws protect against workers being subjected to a hostile work environment as a result of harassment. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information