Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Black Employees are Suing CNN for Racial Discrimination

January 13, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Current and former employees at CNN, based in Atlanta, are suing the company, as well as Turner Broadcasting and Time Warner, for alleged racial discrimination.

Employment attorneys are seeking class action status for the lawsuit, which they assert was spurred after several employees came forward after DeWayne Walker filed his employment lawsuit in January 2016. Those stories involved allegations of nepotism, abuse of power, discrimination, retaliation and revenge.

Walker was a CNN producer who sued the company last year for $50 million, alleging racial discrimination and later retaliation for his filing a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He asserted that CNN refused to promote him for more than a dozen years because of his skin color. He says he was skipped many times over for promotions that instead went to white employees. Walker currently works at the company has an integrated marking manager. Continue Reading ›

Racial Discrimination Against Black Temp Workers Alleged

January 11, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A major national job placement company is accused of discriminating against black workers in favor of Hispanic workers in factories, on assembly lines and in low-skilled positions. The claim was made in a federal class action lawsuit recently filed on behalf of numerous African American workers, who say companies favored Hispanic workers because it was believed they would be less likely to complain about poor working conditions and pay.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Chicago, alleges a temporary employment agency called Personnel Staffing Group LLC and its clients used code words to conceal hiring decisions that were racially motivated and in violation of federal civil rights law. For example, they would refer to black hires as “guapos,” which is Spanish for , “pretty boys.” This was intended to mean they would not be open to doing “dirty work.” Meanwhile, they referred to Hispanic workers either as “feos,” which is Spanish for, “ugly ones,” or sometimes as, “bilinguals.”

Black workers say they were given just one assignment, sometimes over the course of several months, despite showing up every day. They would wait hours for an assignment that never came, watching as one-by-one, the Hispanic workers were called to various jobs. Some of the black workers say that when they were given an assignment, it was often for the most dangerous, undesirable posts. Plus, they were usually the only workers who received background checks, while their Hispanic counterparts did not. Continue Reading ›

Disability Discrimination Case Settled for $75K by Wal-Mart

January 8, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Retail giant Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $75,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit that was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the company allegedly broke federal discrimination laws in its treatment of a worker who had survived cancer.

According to the EEOC, the worker was employed at a store in Illinois. After successfully undergoing treatment for cancer, she suffered some limitations that required accommodation at work. However, the retail company is accused of not extending her those accommodations and further not addressing harassment against her. In order to continue working, plaintiff needed a modified schedule and a chair. Management worked out a modified schedule fora time, but later revoked it without stating why. The store also refused to provide a chair in plaintiff’s work area, explaining she would have to be responsible for hauling the chair over from the furniture department to the area where she worked – a task that was next to impossible given her physical limitations. On top of this, plaintiff endured cruel remarks from a co-worker who went unpunished after calling her names like, “chemo brain” and, “cripple.”

This kind of alleged conduct is a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which strictly bars discrimination against workers based on their disability. Discrimination can include the denial of a reasonable workplace accommodation to the employee. It can also mean subjecting them to a work environment that is hostile. Continue Reading ›

Woman Fights for Workplace Pregnancy Accommodations

January 5, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A woman in Tennessee is fighting for workplace pregnancy accommodations for workers who may need temporary modifications, transfers or reassignments based on medical restrictions.

Plaintiff had been working for a local grocer for two years when, in the fifth month of her first pregnancy, she started to suffer sharp pains in her abdomen. As it turned out, the baby had dropped into her cervix. She was at risk of preterm labor, which could have serious and devastating consequences for her unborn child. Her doctor gave her a note to give to her employer, with instructions that she avoid heavy lifting. For two weeks, her employer acquiesced, allowing her to avoid carrying boxes of chicken or other supplies in the deli area. But then suddenly, after a follow-up doctor’s visit, her manager informed her that allowing such lifting restrictions was against the store policy. The 24-year-old was sent home, reeling, fearful for how she would pay her bills with a baby on the way.

She has now filed a class action pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, seeking a change in the store’s policy, which she says violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Both state and federal laws do protect pregnant workers, though sometimes the interpretation gets muddled. The Tennessee Human Rights Act & Disabilities Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of familial status, but in the scope of employment, most pregnancy discrimination claims are filed under gender discrimination provisions. At the federal level, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. This amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of one’s sex – which can include pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions. Women who are affected by pregnancy, birth and related medical conditions are to be treated the same for all employment-related purposes – including those who may not be so affected but similar in their inability to work. Continue Reading ›

California Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Filed by Former Elementary School Worker

January 2, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A former elementary school employee has filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the school district and her former boss, alleging her superior subjected her and another paid intern to “severe and pervasive” mistreatment based on their gender. She alleges wrongful termination and retaliation.

According to The East Bay Times, the plaintiff worked at one of the district’s elementary schools in Contra Costa County. Her boss was the director of technology with the district. She alleges that he asked her numerous times whether she was “satisfied” by her husband. He routinely commented on her appearance, making sexual comments. He also on occasion forcefully thrust his body up against hers and kissed her on the lips without consent. Plaintiff decided she had to report these incidents to human resources when she heard that a paid intern was enduring similar incidents of sexual harassment.

But when defendant supervisor learned of plaintiff’s intention, he reportedly asked to meet with her privately and at that time told her if she pressed forward with her complaint, it would “change a lot of things.” He assured a poor outcome could be avoided if she would avoid making a report. Plaintiff decided to go forward with her complaint anyway. A human resources officer concluded the allegations had merit, and the supervisor was subsequently placed on leave. But he wasn’t fired. He simply took another position as a technology coordinator for a nearby school district. However, plaintiff didn’t get such a sweet deal. Continue Reading ›

Trucker Wage Lawsuit Results in $54 Million in Damages

December 29, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

For denying fair wages to hundreds of truck drivers in California, retail giant Wal-Mart will have fork over $54 million in damages. The company may also face additional penalties from the state for violating California labor laws.

A federal jury decided a class action lawsuit recently in favor of hundreds of drivers who worked for the company between October 2005 and October 2015. They had been seeking $72 million in damages, so this verdict fell somewhat short, but legal experts agree was a plaintiff victory nonetheless. Additional penalties and damages could push the total amount owed by the firm well past the $150 million mark. The amount of those civil penalties will be determined by a judge.

The seven jurors ruled the company did not properly pay wages to its drivers in adherence to state law for certain activities, including washing and inspecting their trucks and during layovers. Most of the damages claimed by the workers were for the time spent during layovers. Continue Reading ›

Racial Discrimination at Work: Facebook Managers at Data Center Accused

December 26, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

A federal employment lawsuit filed in California alleges two African American workers faced racial discrimination at work while employed at a North Carolina data center for tech-giant Facebook. According to Fortune magazine, the two workers say the company’s leaders failed to immediately respond to repeated complaints of harassment.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and alleges the company allowed retaliation against the two employees who were reporting racial discrimination. One is a current employee and another still works at the data center.

Specifically, the two say a facility manger repeatedly used racial slurs to refer to black workers. They also assert they were paid less than white colleagues, and that these trespasses took place over the course of three years of employment. They are asking for damages in excess of $25,000, plus punitive damages, for each plaintiff. A spokesperson for the company alleges the claims are without merit. Interestingly, the company does not deny racial discrimination took place. Rather, the assertion is that the company responded appropriately. Continue Reading ›

DFEH: 90 Age Discrimination Complaints Filed Against Tech Firms Since 2012

December 22, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing reports that since 2012, there have been 90 age-related complaints filed against the 12 top technology companies in Silicon Valley.

This tells us two things:

Age discrimination is commonplace in the technology industry.
The graying workforce isn’t staying quiet about it.

Age discrimination lawsuits nationally are on the rise, as Baby Boomers are reaching and working beyond the age of 65. The New York Times detailed the fact that in 2015, there were 21,000 age discrimination complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Only a small percentage of those actually go to court, and proving these claims at trial is often a challenge. That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that in cases of demotion or dismissal, workers have to prove that age was the motivating factor. That can be tough for a few reasons. One is that we’re often talking about colleagues who may have known each other for a long time and have worked together closely for years. The second is that there is not usually a so-called “smoking gun” that clearly shows age was the motivation. Continue Reading ›

Federal Appeals Court Considers Workplace Protections for LGBT Community

December 18, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently heard arguments in the LGBT discrimination case of Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, a case that could have profound implications for the future of gay rights as it may well end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s actually the second time the 7th Circuit has weighed Hively. It previously issued a judgment in favor of the defense, but agreed to reconsider its findings after closer consideration.

The key question is whether the worker, Hively, is protected by Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and can take action against a company that refused her advancement at work the basis of her sexual orientation as a lesbian. As it now stands, federal workplace laws do not protect people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, though some state-level laws do. California prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender in the realms of employment, housing and public accommodations. Continue Reading ›

Lawsuit: “Phantom” Meal Breaks Keep Nurses on Job With No Pay

December 15, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

A wage-and-hour lawsuit filed in Texas by a nurse at a large hospital alleges the health system docks the pay of nurses each shift for 30 minutes, but they aren’t actually allowed a 30-minute meal break. Instead, nurses are expected to remain on duty for the duration of their shift.

According to the Houston Chronicle, plaintiff is seeking class-action status for her and 4,000 other nurses who she says should be paid for the time they spend with patients on “phantom” lunch breaks. The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Houston. Plaintiff asserts the hospital system’s payroll program automatically takes out 30 minutes for meal periods every shift, even though nurses don’t actually get 30 minutes uninterrupted in any given shift. Instead, nurses have to be available the entire shift to care for and attend to patients.

In California, the Department of Industrial Relations holds that companies can’t force an employee to work more than five hours in a given day without providing the worker meal breaks of at least 30 minutes. The only exception is if the worker’s entire work day is no more than six hours. In that case, the meal break can be waived – but only if both the employer and employee mutually consent to it. Further, workers are entitled to a second, 30-minute meal break after 10 hours, except if the employee is going to be working no more than 12 hours and there is mutual consent from both employee and company. (Some variations exist within the motion picture industry.) Continue Reading ›