Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

LGBTQ Employee Rights Take Center Stage Before U.S. Supreme Court

July 8, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in three cases alleging LGBTQ workplace discrimination. In an amicus brief (documents filed in appellate matters by non-litigants – or amicus curiae – with a strong interest in the stakes), some of the biggest U.S. companies urged the court to rule that federal civil rights law protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning workers.

In their brief, more than 200 companies in all argued that their own corporate anti-discrimination policies cannot serve as an adequate substitute to the law. It is the position of these companies – among them Amazon, Bank of America, Microsoft, Starbucks and Walt Disney – that LGBTQ workers have inherent protections under existing federal rights law.

Most argue this in the context of gender discrimination, but the problem is is no express terminology from the legislature opining these rights exist in U.S. law. That has resulted in courts in different jurisdictions reaching inconsistent conclusions. Continue Reading ›

Witnesses Can Be Key in California Workplace Harassment Cases

July 5, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Civil claims based on California employment law can be difficult to prove, particularly when they involve a case of alleged harassment, which often boils down to “he-said-she-said.” But whether we’re talking about harassment, wrongful termination or retaliation, plaintiffs will generally bear the proof burden. This is why for so many cases, witness statements prove critical.

One of the reasons witnesses are so essential is that they are, if not wholly unbiased, at least gaining less from the lawsuit than either of the involved parties. This is important in jury trials and even settlement negotiations, when it’s unclear who really has the stronger case.

For instance, plaintiff could argue that he was fired for making safety violations and that the performance-related reasons the company gave for the termination were nothing more than pretext. However, absent some solid proof, your Los Angeles employment attorney is going to need more than your word alone to prove this.

Similarly a restaurant manager’s sexual harassment of a young female waitress may be difficult to prove on her word alone. However, if co-workers attest to seeing it, that helps to substantially bolster the case. Continue Reading ›

Soaring Temps and Dress Codes: Are Your Company Rules Legal?

July 3, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Temperatures in cities throughout Southern California soar well into triple digits around this time of year. For those who must brave the heat and still make it to work, many companies are seeing workers skirt the dress code rules with attire that may not meet company professional standards. But are workplace dress codes legal in California? Can a company reasonably defend them in a court of law?

As Los Angeles labor and employment attorneys can explain, companies are free to implement workplace dress codes by setting standards for what is appropriate for the company or industry.

However, what they may NOT do is discriminate against workers on the basis of gender, gender identity (including transgender employees/those in the midst of a transition), religion, race or physical disability. Continue Reading ›

Promotions Can Lead to Overtime Woes Some Workers

July 1, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Landing a promotion is often a cause to celebrate. However, those who land supervisory roles in some industries find that when they move from an hourly post to a salaried position, they lose their access to overtime pay. That means employers start working them for as many hours they can, and workers end up being paid less per hour for all their new responsibilities.

Los Angeles overtime lawyers know this is very often illegal, and workers are encouraged to discuss their concerns with experienced wage and hour attorneys.

This issue is all the more pressing given a new proposal by President Trump’s U.S. Labor Department, setting the salary threshold (the minimum to which all workers are entitled) to $679 weekly, or little more than $35,000 annually as of next year. That might not seem awful, but the effect is that adopting this proposal would leave behind millions of workers behind that would have gotten a boost of overtime protections per regulations that had been finalized by the Obama administration in 2016. Continue Reading ›

Spotlighting Residential Health Care Worker Wage Theft in California

June 29, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Residential health care workers are winning the right to secure unpaid wages in California in wage theft lawsuits. However, actually getting paid has proven a different story, one our Orange County employment attorneys have been monitoring closely.

While much has been made of the elder abuse in nursing homes and residential care facilities, the story of caregivers gets less spotlight, but isn’t much brighter.

Recently, the Reveal Center for Investigative Reporting unearthed a host of working conditions described as “abusive,” likely not only to endanger patients but also subject workers to unfair conditions. It underscores the need for more substantial oversight of owner/operators of these for-profit facilities. Continue Reading ›

State Tracking of California Sexual Harassment & Gender Discrimination by 2020

June 27, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A state-mandated project to track sexual harassment and gender discrimination in California government is slated to start in January 2020 – finally. Our Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyers know that not only will that make it a year late, but also long overdue.

The $1.5 million project was supposed to have already been underway this year, making 2019 the first year officials would have data on what we know to be a pervasive problem.

Under the previous state administration, the project was outlined as a meaningful first step toward addressing allegations of government-employee harassment and discrimination based on gender. The initiative was spurred in the midst of the #MeToo movement – at a time when more than 140 women working for the state government signed an open letter detailing their experiences with workplace sexual harassment.

Those included:

A California State Corrections Officer who, along with numerous other female corrections officers, were ignored when reporting constant indecent exposure and sexual harassment at work. When the CO wrote up an inmate for indecent exposure one week, nothing was done and she was brutally attacked by that same inmate while working without her partner one day. Officers later found numerous drawings of the C.O. in sexually explicit and violent poses in the inmate’ cell.
A state Highway Patrol field officer sexually harassed for months by another officer while supervisors did nothing to respond.
A state pollution control employee raped by a supervisor.

They are among 10 sexual harassment plaintiffs to whom The Sacramento Bee reported the state had paid some $25 million over the course of three years just to settle claims. Continue Reading ›

Establishing Pretext in a California Employee Discrimination Lawsuit

June 23, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

In many employment discrimination lawsuits, proving pretext means showing evidence that the defendant employer’s reported reason for taking adverse employment action is contrived. In other words, the reason the company gave for the worker’s firing or other adverse employment event was made up in order to cover up its discriminatory intent.

If a California employment lawsuit plaintiff can prove “prima facie” (correct on first impression) evidence that there was employment discrimination, the court will shift the burden of proof to the employer to prove that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action it took. Plaintiff may then take this reason and provide evidence that it’s merely a pretext for discrimination. Plaintiff will have the burden of showing it was a cover-up, and not in fact the reason reason for the employment decision.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc. ruling the plaintiff employee had made a valid comparison of a similarly situated employee who was treated differently than he was. This served as evidence of that the defense was using this as a pretext for the reason reason – which was discriminatory. Continue Reading ›

California Wage & Hour Claims Not Subject to Federal De Minimis Rule

June 20, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Although federal labor laws cut employers a break when it comes to payment of “de minimus” work – that which is “trivial,” and only takes just a few minutes. In other words, the de minimum rule employers can compel workers to complete a minimal amount of work off-the-clock, rather than making them clock back in for an occasional couple minutes here-and-there.

However, a California Supreme Court decision last year held that defense was not applicable in the Golden State, as our lawmakers and courts expressly sought to provide greater protection for workers compared to federal law.

The state high court’s ruling in Troester v. Starbucks has proven a precedent, on which another federal appellate court ruling has been based. Continue Reading ›

Ride Hailing Behemoths Try to Bargain With Workers Seeking Employee Benefits

June 17, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Rideshare companies may compete fiercely on the road, but when it comes to classifying drivers as employees, they are rock-solid united. The CEOs of Uber and Lyft penned an opinion-editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle voicing opposition to a new California law that would re-designate their drivers from independent contractors to employees – with all the actual legal benefits and bargaining rights that entails.

The company has long been extremely reticent to classify these workers as “employees,” arguing their business model is unique in that it merely connects riders to customers, and is not a traditional “transportation company.” It owns no vehicles, drivers have no direct supervision and drivers are free to set their own hours, types of vehicles/services. The company does, however, insure drivers and provides a host of standards and criteria workers are required to meet.

However, Assembly Bill 5 – a broad piece of legislation that will become law if it gains the vote of the state senate as well as Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature – would expand the definition of “independent contractor” to more closely match that which was outlined in last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Los Angeles Superior Court. Continue Reading ›

Cannabis & Your Company: Lawmakers Increasingly Offering Worker Protections

June 15, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Nevada recently became the first state to ban employment discrimination of job applicants who use cannabis. Although other states have been inching toward this kind of measures, and employers have been adopting marijuana-friendly practices internally, Nevada is the first to adopt this into state law.

Los Angeles employment discrimination attorneys at The Nassiri Law Group (who also have extensive experience in California cannabis law) recognize that perhaps this isn’t all that surprising given Nevada’s long-time reputation as a libertarian-leaning state. It’s not clear whether others will follow, but it could set a strong precedence in other states where the drug is legal both for medicine and recreation.

Vice.com reports the new law, which comes three years after the state legalized cannabis, will take effect in 2020 and prohibits companies from declining to hire potential employees who test positive for the drug. Continue Reading ›