Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Employers Call California Assembly Bill 465 a “Job Killer”

September 9, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

There has been a lot of news lately about Assembly Bill 465 (AB 465). While employees and labor rights organizations are heralding the new law a major improvement in the rights of employees, employers are calling it a “job killer,” according to a recent article by the National Law Review.

AB 465 makes it illegal to force employees to sign mandatory employment arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. The mandatory employment arbitration agreements are supposed to be mutually beneficial and must consider an employee’s rights to due process under the law, but in reality they rarely do. Continue Reading ›

California Legislature Acts to Bar Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements

September 7, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

According to a recent news article form the National Law Review, the California state legislature has just passed Assembly Bill 465 (AB 465), which prohibits the use of mandatory employment agreements by employers in the state. With the bill having passed, it is up to the governor to sign the law by the middle of October or challenge it

The new law would effect any employment arbitration agreements entered into, renewed, or revised after the first of next year. There is also a provision in the new law making it illegal for an employer to retaliate against or threaten any employee for refusing to sign an arbitration agreement. Continue Reading ›

Recent Change to California Employment Law

September 5, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

While some aspects of the law and legal doctrine date back more than 1,000 years ago, when empires were fighting each other in Western Europe, a good portion of our laws and our legal system are constantly evolving based upon the will of the people and the actions of legislative bodies.

For this reason, is it important to review all recent changes to the law from time-to-time. A news article from The National Law Review takes a look at recent changes to employment law in the state of California. One of the recent changes was that the word “alien” has been removed from the California Labor Code. Continue Reading ›

Court: Uber Drivers Are Employees in California

September 2, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Most people living in Los Angeles are familiar with Uber and how the company and its competitors operate. When a person needs a ride, he or she can take out a smartphone, open the company app and request a driver to come to a given location.

Drivers working for the company own their own vehicles and have to pay for a company-owned smartphone that allows them to respond to requests for rides. If they accept a ride request, they must pick up the passenger and take him or her to the desired destination. There is no exchange of money, because the company debits the money from customer’s account and pays the driver after taking a percentage. There is no need to tip a driver, because that is supposedly covered in the company transaction. Continue Reading ›

U.S. Court of Appeals Agrees with Home Health Workers

August 31, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

According to a recent article from California Healthline, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has issued an opinion granting home healthcare workers the right to overtime pay and no less than the prevailing minimum wage.

The decision paves the way for officials in the state of California to go ahead with a law passed last year allowing overtime pay for workers in the In-Home Supportive Services program throughout the state. This law was on hold pending this recent decision from the federal appeals court in Washington, DC. Continue Reading ›

California Employment Rates Slowly Rising

August 28, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

We often hear about the unemployment rate when the economy is down. In good times like we are experiencing now, the employment rate in California has been rising steadily, and it’s important to note that too.

New data released by the California Economic Development Department suggests this trend is likely to continue, according to one recent article from the San Francisco Bay News.

Numbers released in July show the state unemployment rate has fallen to 6.2 percent. The previous rate for the month of June was 6.1 percent, so these numbers are slightly better, which is a good sign.

However, because to month-to-month fluctuations can and do happen without regard to the national and local economy, it is often helpful to look at year-over-year rates. Last year at this time, the California unemployment rate was 7.4 percent. Unlike the 0.1 percent rise we saw from June to July of this year, we can see that the unemployment rate has fallen significantly overall in the past year. Continue Reading ›

Former San Francisco Investigator Sues Prosecutor’s Office for Age Discrimination

August 25, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Age discrimination by employers is a serious problem in the state of California and across the nation. As the population is aging and people are working much later in life, the problem will only get worse if things do not change.

According to a recent news article from KRON 4, a former investigator with the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office is suing for age discrimination following her termination. Employee had been working for the prosecutor’s office since the summer of 1985. She claimed in her complaint she received numerous positive performance reviews and had been promoted five times before being fired. Continue Reading ›

Target Resolves Employment Discrimination Litigation with Large Settlement

August 22, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

According to a recent news story from Bring Me The News, big box retailer Target has just agreed to pay $2.8 million to settle a complaint by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It was alleged the screening process for job applicants the retailer used was discriminatory.

The money collected as part of the settlement agreement will be given to the roughly 3,000 candidates who were allegedly rejected for higher-level positions with the retailer. The reason these applicants were rejected, according to EEOC, is because the test instruments utilized in the screening process were allegedly discriminatory against African Americans, Asians and women. EEOC said several of these tests were not even job-related. More specifically, it was not that there was one thing in these tests you point to and say was discriminatory, but when the results are reviewed in the context of the gender, ethnicity and national origin of the applicants, it was clear to EEOC that there was a discriminatory impact. Continue Reading ›

Dept. of Justice Fines Meat Producer for Employment Discrimination

August 18, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Harsh working conditions in the food processing industry are nothing new. The struggle of immigrants working in a meatpacking factory was one of the main stories in “The Jungle,” by Upton Sinclair.

One would hope though that in today’s modern era of regulation and an emphasis on workers’ rights, there would not be contemporary examples of unfair employment practices in this industry, especially for immigrant workers.

According to a recent article from Food Production Daily, a major beef processor has just been fined $200,000 for allegedly engaging in unfair employment practices. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued the hefty fine against the company after DOJ and the company had reached a settlement agreement to end the litigation. Continue Reading ›

A Look at the “Employment/Layoff Paradigm”

August 16, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

According to a recent news report from The Denver Post, there is a new “employment/layoff” paradigm at work in the United States, and it is blaming the victims of this system

The article begins with an account from a worker who was employed by a major corporation. This employee worked around 50 hours per week, and the company always paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 per week. However, this all changed when the company changed this employee over to an independent contractor following a routine layoff. Under the new contract, he was paid a flat rate for 37 hours a week, but the company still demanded the same level of work from him as it did when he was working 50 hours per week. In other words, they wanted to cut his pay and cut his benefits, but still get the same productivity Continue Reading ›