Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

SAG-AFTRA Fights to Revive Blocked California Age Discrimination Law

September 9, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

The American labor union representing some 160,000 television and film actors, radio personalities, journalists, singers and others is arguing a 2017 California age discrimination law that censors celebrity ages online should be reinstated. The law was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on First Amendment grounds.

The goal of AB 1687 was to crack down on rampant age discrimination in youth-oriented Hollywood, but the effect has been the ages and birthdays of famous actresses and actors can be removed from online entertainment employment services sites like IMDb.com, at the entertainers’ request.

Los Angeles age discrimination lawyers understand that SAG-AFTRA’s argument to have it reinstated was met with a great deal of skepticism from the appellate court justices.

Both Overinclusive and Underinclusive?

IMDb, wildly popular with 250 million unique visitors monthly, was created in the early 1990s, with its website launched in 1996. The law had forced the company to remove actors’ ages if they were subscribers to the site’s premium service and asked them to do so. Continue Reading ›

Workplace Racial Discrimination Protections Threatened in Pending SCOTUS Lawsuit

September 6, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Dozens of civil rights groups have filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to review a racial discrimination case against a large telecommunications conglomerate by a black Hollywood mogul. The concern is that depending on how the SCOTUS decides, workplace racial discrimination protections could be weakened.

The head of the NAACP characterized the harm that could be caused to civil rights could be “irreparable.”

The federal lawsuit filed in California by the entertainment executive alleges the television corporation refused to carry his cable TV channels, and asserts the company did so because of his race. He’s seeking $20 billion.

As Los Angeles racial discrimination attorneys can explain, the legal question at issue is whether a plaintiff in such a case needs to show whether race is the only reason for an adverse employment decision, or if it need only be proven that discrimination was a motivating factor. Continue Reading ›

How Companies Can Avoid California Employment Lawsuits

September 2, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

As longtime employment attorneys in California, we know that corporations can seem blind with greed, cutting corners on pay, discriminating and exploiting where it suits them. These things can be true, but it’s also true that most companies are comprised of individuals – including managers, supervisors and owners – who want to do the right thing, but find avoiding California employment lawsuits can be a significant challenge.

Large companies are savvy enough to have lawyers on retainer to advise them of ever-changing employment expectations. However, small- and mid-sized companies may not have those kind of resources.

To avoid the landmine of potential employment litigation and retain your competitive advantage, our Orange County employment attorneys have some general tips for consideration. Legal advice specific to your circumstances should be sought from an experienced labor law attorney who can weigh the unique fact pattern of your company/case. Continue Reading ›

Longtime Newspaperman Wins $15M+ in Los Angeles Age Discrimination Lawsuit

August 19, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A long-running legal battle between the Los Angeles times and one of its sports writers concluded recently when a jury in Los Angeles was awarded more than $15 million in damages for age discrimination and disability discrimination. The claim was first filed six years ago, according to The Washington Post.

Plaintiff, a sports reporter for the Times, suffered a small stroke while covering a spring training in Arizona. He was also later diagnosed with chronic migraines. After this, the newspaper slashed his three-times-a-week column down to two. The reasoning given by the newspaper was that the columns were not well-written and resulted in a poor reflection on the newspaper. The columns he did produce were subsequently more heavily scrutinized than ever.

A few months later, he was suspended, demoted to reporter and resigned – all over a video surfaced that the Times asserted showed a conflict of interest. Plaintiff argued he never had a business relationship with the producer. Plaintiff then went to work for a competitor newspaper before filing his lawsuit, alleging he’d been the victim of workplace age discrimination and disability discrimination. Continue Reading ›

Trump Administration Seeks Permission for Transgender Worker Discrimination

August 17, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

The Department of Justice under President Donald Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to establish formal precedent that would allow employers to terminate workers because of their transgender status. Orange County employment LGBT employer discrimination attorneys know this is a sharp deviation from the Obama administration’s stance, as well as that of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and California law.

In a brief submitted to the SCOTUS, attorneys for the administration requested a ruling holding that Title VII protections, which bar workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion and sex, doesn’t extend to a person’s transgender status.

The case that gave rise to this issue involves a funeral home that fired a worker who was transgender on that basis. A lower court ruled that the funeral home committed wrongful termination on the basis of unlawful discrimination. That ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit last year. The Trump administration is asking for that ruling to be overturned. Continue Reading ›

California Law Requiring Female Board Members Challenged in Court

August 6, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A group of Californians are suing the state to prevent enforcement of a state senate bill signed by the governor last year that requires publicly-held corporations with principle executive offices here to have a minimum of one female on their boards of directors. That requirements is slated to go into effect by the end of this year. Then by the end of 2021, boards with five members are required to have at least two female members and boards of six or more must have at least three.

The whole idea behind Senate Bill 826 was to even the imbalance of power that exists from longtime discrimination against women in the workplace. However, the group of taxpayers now say the law amounts to a kind of reverse gender discrimination and is an overreach of government power.

In Crest et al v. Padilla, three plaintiffs assert that the law amounts to a quota system and is unconstitutional in light of Article I, Section 31 of the state constitution. As our L.A. gender discrimination lawyers can explain, this provision prevent discrimination of workers on the basis of sex. Plaintiffs are asking the Los Angeles County Superior Court to block taxpayer-funded resources that would be necessary for enforcement of the measure and initiate a permanent injunction to block enforcement. Continue Reading ›

Pregnant Workers Allege Lack of Employment Protections

August 3, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Roughly 85 percent of working women will become mothers at some point during their careers. There are numerous legal protections in place to ensure they aren’t discriminated for this, including California’s rule against pregnancy-based harassment as well as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, a federal law. And yet, pregnancy is often treated some sort of deviation from the ideal norm.

Almost all pregnant workers will need some time away from work to attend prenatal appointments. Others will need more time off due to the need for emergency medical care. Unfortunately, too many employers all too often respond to these needs with a penalty – which is illegal. Women go to the hospital for a few days, only to learn when they return home that they’ve lost their jobs, their health insurance and sometimes, ultimately, their homes – told their pregnancy-related hospital stays amounted to “unauthorized absences” or “no-call-no-shows.”

Some of these absences are covered under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (which allows unpaid time off for medical emergencies) but this is only applicable to companies with 50 or more workers – and employees need to have held that job for at least one year. That means 44 percent of all U.S. workers won’t have that protection. Continue Reading ›

California Employee Meal Break and Rest Break Requirements to be Clarified

August 1, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A federal appellate court has requested the California Supreme Court clear up confusion about the state’s employee meal break and rest break laws, which often lead to wage theft claims. Employment attorneys in Orange County recognize this decision handed down by the court could have a significant impact on both employers and workers in the Golden State.

According to court records from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Cole v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., the primary questions the court seeks to answer are:

Whether the lack of a formal workplace policy on rest and meal breaks is a violation of state law.
Whether an employer’s failure to maintain records of rest and meal breaks results in the rebuttable presumption that they were not provided.

A rebuttable presumption in civil law is when the court assumes something to be true unless it is proven otherwise. An example of a rebuttable presumption in civil litigation would be that a driver in the rear of a rear-end collision is presumed negligent. (In criminal law, the best-recognized rebuttable presumption is that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.)

In this employment law case, it would mean it could be presumed that meal breaks were not given (due to the lack of records) unless the employer can prove otherwise. Continue Reading ›

Religious Discrimination May Rise With Noted Uptick in Gov’t Restrictions, Social Hostilities

July 29, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Employment attorneys in Los Angeles have noted an uptick in employment complaints stemming from religious discrimination. Turns out, this coincides with a notable uptick in government restrictions and social hostilities against religious persons between 2007 and 2017.

Policies, laws and actions by state authorities that restrict religious practices and beliefs, according to the Pew Research Center, are up around the world as well as in the U.S. Hostilities – which include violence and harassment – is also on the incline.

The most recent data we have suggests that over the last decade, more than 50 governments – including those in Russia, China and Indonesia – have been imposing either a level of restriction on religious activity considered either “high” or “very high.” Nations where individuals report feeling a “high level of social hostility” due to their religion rose from 39 up to 56 in the course of those 10 years.

Pew tracked the not only restrictions of religious freedoms (limits on certain activities or outright harassment) but also government favoritism of some religious groups or belief systems to the exclusion of others. The latter could mean providing funding, property or other benefits. The average global score for both is up by 20 percent. Continue Reading ›

Free Speech Not a Free Pass for Job Discrimination, California Supreme Court Rules

July 26, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

The California Supreme Court ruled that a national news network employer’s termination of an employee could amount to protected activity under anti-SLAPP laws, even if ultimately those activity are deemed unlawful. At the very least, it’s going to mean careful evaluation of employment lawsuits against news organizations in California.

Plaintiff, who is black, alleged that as an employee, he suffered racial discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. The network argued the claim violates anti-SLAPP laws intended to shield businesses from frivolous lawsuits intended to chill speech or some other protected activity of public importance.

Analysts famed the case by considering whether a media company’s free speech right to decide who produces content that’s distributed to an audience of millions supersedes the employee’s right to a discrimination-free workplace. Based on the line of questioning, our Los Angeles employment discrimination attorneys surmise the court had no intention of effectively giving media organizations carte blanche reign to discriminate against their employees simply by citing the First Amendment and anti-SLAPP laws. But while that aspect of the case was remanded back to the lower court, that’s still no guarantee the worker will, especially given allegations of plagiarism, which for that industry, is often considered a fire-able offense.

Attorneys for the major network argued that editorial decisions included things like who to hire and which assignments should be given to whom. All of this, they said, is connected to furthering the mission of public speech, and thus the decision to fire the plaintiff producer should protected under anti-SLAPP laws.

Employment discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles and throughout the state had been watching closely how the case unfolded. Continue Reading ›