Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

California Wage and Hour Law May Put Brakes on Uber, Lyft

April 13, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Two federal judges in California have ruled that it should be up to a jury to decide whether drivers for on-demand ride serves Lyft and Uber should be classified as independent contractors or employees.

The reason it matters is because if the drivers are in fact employees, the companies have been misclassifying them, and in term denying them important employment benefits, such as workers’ compensation, unemployment, minimum wage and overtime. They also aren’t reimbursed for gas or car maintenance expenses.

Lawsuits filed against both companies in California are pursuing a request to obtain class action status.

Former Coach Gets $5 Million in California Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

April 11, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A former high school football coach in Southern California who was wrongly terminated for blowing the whistle on a sexual hazing scandal at a Catholic school will receive nearly $5 million in damages.

Jurors decided with the coach in his lawsuit and awarded him $900,000 in compensatory damages, and gave authorization for punitive damages. Jurors were set to debate how much those damages should be when the diocese offered $4 million to settle those claims.

The coach alleged he was wrongfully fired, retaliated against and then defamed after he reported hazing at the high school in December 2012.

Adams v. ActionLink LLC – Wage and Hour Dispute Settlements Should be Reviewed by Lawyer

April 10, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

When wage-and-hour disputes are investigated by state or federal authorities, there may be a finding of wrongdoing and the company may agree to settle the matter with the government, in an effort to avoid litigation. However, workers may be free to pursue additional litigation, assuming they didn’t sign away their rights by cashing the check offered in the settlement.

That’s what nearly happened in the recent case of Adams v. Action Link, LLC, reviewed recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The case reveals why it’s so imperative for workers in this situation to have the settlement agreement reviewed by a lawyer before signing and/or cashing the check. They may be signing away rights to additional compensation by doing so.

Here, according to court records, the Department of Labor launched an investigation into the labor practices of a marketing company after receiving a complaint alleging the firm was mis-classifying some workers as non-exempt and failing to pay them the overtime they were due.

Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Targets Twitter

April 8, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed by a former female employee of social media giant Twitter, alleging the way the company initiated promotions was discriminatory to women workers.

The gender discrimination lawsuit is just the latest to be filed against a California-based technology firm. Others that have faced similar allegations include Facebook and Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield, which is being sued by Reddit’s CEO.

In the case against Twitter, filed in a state court in San Francisco, plaintiff alleges the microblogging giant had no formal way of promoting workers. It did not post job openings or grant promotions. Rather, it reportedly relied on a “shoulder tap” process that effectively blocked women from the company’s highest-ranking engineering posts.

California Equal Pay Act Introduced by Female Democrats

April 6, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Inspired by the Academy Awards acceptance speech of actress Patricia Arquette, a group of female Democrat lawmakers are introducing a bill that would help women workers earn the same paycheck as men for the same work.

The measure, SB 358, is sponsored by the Democratic members of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus and would strengthen protections against pay discrimination and retaliation against workers who ask about pay.

Sponsors of the bill called it “long overdue.” Equal Rights Advocates conducted a study in 2013 that found companies in California pay women 84 cents for every dollar earned by a man. That gap is even wider for Latina women, who earn 44 cents to every dollar white men make.

Employer Fired HIV-Positive Worker, Fined $125K for Disability Discrimination

April 2, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

In the 1980s, a diagnosis of HIV or AIDS was a death sentence. It was also essentially a license to discriminate, and employers did so frequently.

Although it has since become illegal to do so and the stigma surrounding the condition has waned, discrimination against HIV-positive workers continues. Some of it based in the misguided belief that the condition is associated with immoral behaviors or identities of which certain people may disapprove (i.e., drug use, sex work, homosexuality or infidelity). Other times, discrimination is perpetuated by a misunderstanding of how the disease is transmitted and who could be placed at risk.

In the U.S., taking adverse employment action against a worker because the worker is HIV-positive is a form of disability discrimination, and it’s illegal.

Spratt v. DirecTV – Cable Company Accused of Wage-and-Hour Abuses

March 31, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A California lawsuit accuses a large cable company of forcing hourly workers in California to toil through designated brake times, among other wage-and-hour violations, according to the latest lawsuit filed against the firm.

In Spratt v. DirecTV Enterprises LLC, filed within the Los Angeles Superior Court, a former maintenance worker alleges the company improperly imposed an “alternative” work week schedule that consisted of four, 10-hour days. It also allegedly failed to pay overtime and other required pay to more than 100 workers employed with the firm in California, starting in early 2011.

Plaintiff worked for more than a decade, starting in 2002.

McMaster v. Eastern Armored Servs. – Motor Carrier Act Exemption to Overtime

March 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

One of the ways companies frequently attempt to skirt overtime wage laws is to wrongly classify workers as exempt. They may fudge the definition of the job, or in some cases, simply look for any available legal loophole and stretch it to fit the situation.

The recent case of McMaster v. Eastern Armored Servs., Inc. is one in which an employer avoided paying overtime based on the Motor Carrier Act exemption. Employer was able to cite this act, at least for a time, because the worker’s duties were split, as were the type of vehicles she drove.

Let’s start by explaining that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires almost all employers to pay overtime wages to hourly workers. Professional motor carriers are generally exempt from this mandate, but a recent Congressional act waives the exemption for motor carrier workers who, either in whole or in part, operate vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds. The worker in this case argued she fell within the exception to the exemption – and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit sided with her, ordering the company to pay back wages for the all the overtime she was previously denied.

Walz v. Ameriprise Fin. Inc. – Mental Illness Discrimination Allegation

March 21, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A federal appeals court has affirmed a judgment in favor of a company accused of disability discrimination, finding because employee never informed her bosses of the nature of her disability and never requested accommodations, she could not prove the reason for her termination was the disability.

Walz v. Ameriprise Fin. Inc. is an interesting case insofar as it deals with mental illness as a disability – which it most certainly can be. However, there remains an intense stigma around such conditions, so that makes it more understandable that a worker would not disclose this condition to employers.

But as this case shows, failure to do so could leave the worker legally unprotected in the event of an adverse employment action. This particular case originated in a federal court in Minnesota, and was most recently weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. – Failure to Prevent Harassment Alleged by Spa Worker

March 18, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A California appellate court reversed a $285,000 verdict in favor of a former spa worker who alleged her employer failed to take reasonable steps necessary to protect her from the sexual harassment and gender discrimination of two customers.

The issue was that although jurors ruled defendant was not liable for sexual harassment or gender discrimination, it nonetheless found defendant liable on plaintiff’s claim for failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the actions. (Jurors did not find defendant liable for failure to prevent racial harassment, which plaintiff had also alleged.)

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, ruled in Dickson v. Burk Williams, Inc. that when a jury finds that the sexual harassment that occurred wasn’t sufficiently pervasive or severe enough to result in liability, there can’t also be a finding that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.