Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

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 ›

Los Angeles Employment Lawyer Talks Challenges of Discrimination Litigation

July 24, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Despite the rhetoric of corporate lobbyists, California discrimination claims are anything but easy wins. The process is difficult, complex and expensive – and deep-pocketed defendants have both the advantage and incentive to drag these cases out, in the hopes plaintiffs will throw up their hands and walk away.

This is not to say they shouldn’t be pursued, but only under the direction of an experienced employment attorney who understands the risks, can realistically explain your odds, has a proven track record of success and in whom you feel you can place your trust.

It’s important to note that not all types of discrimination are unlawful. For instance, it is legal to discriminate on the basis of age in California – so long as the person impacted isn’t 40 or older. There are some states that protect younger workers from age-based discrimination, but California isn’t one of them. However, if, for example, both workers are over 40, age discrimination can still apply. Continue Reading ›

Cash a Check, Sign Away Your Right to California Employment Lawsuit

July 20, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

An increasing number of tech-based software companies that hire workers in a non-traditional setting are facing down the potential of a wave of employment lawsuits – potentially class action litigation – because of the fact they have long likely been misclassifying workers. Employment attorneys for companies looking to ward off this potential expense are preemptively doling out checks. If cashed, these payments have the effect of a worker signing away any possible right to pursuit of a future claim.

Workers are strongly advised against cashing these checks until reviewing their legal rights with a Los Angeles employee misclassification lawyer – because your claim to damages from an employee lawsuit may far exceed the amount on that check.

That’s because by designating drivers and others as “independent contractors” as opposed to employees, companies like Lyft, Uber and a new startup, Getaround Inc., are able to sidestep any duty to cover major expenses like retirement benefits, overtime, workers’ compensation and various liabilities to third parties for worker negligence. Companies also get away with denying routine rights, such as regular breaks and mealtimes. Collectively, this all adds up to significant coin. Continue Reading ›

“Go Back to Where You Came From” Cited by EEOC as Discriminatory

July 17, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

As longtime labor and employment attorneys, we represent individuals from all backgrounds. Recently, amid internal strife within the Democratic party, President Donald Trump stirred a firestorm of controversy when he called out four far-left Congresswomen (AKA “The Squad”), directing them to “go back” to the countries from which they/their ancestors came.

The exact phrase used within his series of tweets was:

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

The issue is not the fact that the president has some folks in an uproar, as this is nothing new.

EEOC Considers Comments in This Vein Evidence of Racial Discrimination

What our Los Angles racial discrimination employment lawyers can say is this:

Far in advance of this maelstrom, the federal agency responsible for enforcement of anti-discriminatory employment laws expressly noted a phrase very similar and in the same vein as that shared by the president, noting it to be the type of language that might violate federal anti-discrimination employment laws. Continue Reading ›

Wal-Mart and its Litany of Lunch Break Lawsuits

July 15, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

The lunch time wars at Wal-Mart rage on. A class action Los Angeles labor and employment lawsuit over meal breaks has resulted in a $6 million verdict – and the introduction of something known as the “meal break discouragement theory.”

In Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., plaintiffs alleged the mandatory security check through which they had to exit and enter during every break consumed so much time, the end result was workers were left with less than their legally protected right to a full half hour for meals during their shift. Beyond this, workers alleged it was overly-intrusive, embarrassing to be required to remove feminine hygiene products from their purses. Break rooms were noisy, crowded, uncomfortable places to be.

It wasn’t that they were ever denied the opportunity to take a meal break. They were, however, soundly discouraged from it. A jury agreed with them, and in April, awarded $6.1 million. Continue Reading ›

Employee Lawsuits Abound at Beverly Hills PD

July 12, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Three years ago, the Beverly Hills Police Department hired its first-ever female police chief. While her appointment was lauded, her tenure has been marred by a series of civil lawsuits against the department – namely by at least 20 employees alleging misconduct specifically by her.

The California employment discrimination claims assert professional misconduct and discrimination against employees on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity and more.

In the most recent claim, jurors awarded a department employee $250,000, finding the chief targeted the worker for racist and homophobic harassment. This reportedly began when the chief learned plaintiff was a lesbian. The chief’s response – which she did not deny – was, “Ew! Gross!” Although the chief later admitted this comment, she insisted it was not intended to be discriminatory.

In another incident involving the same plaintiff, the chief reportedly told plaintiff that if she hoped to attend an upcoming holiday party, she was expected to “dress Mexican.” Continue Reading ›

Pregnancy Discrimination Led to Firing, Netflix Exec Alleges

July 10, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

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.

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.