Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries – Employment Lawsuit “Loose Ends” Prevent Summary Judgment

February 21, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Plaintiff in Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries may have an uphill battle in proving his employment retaliation case, but there were too many “loose ends” for the trial court to have declared a summary judgment in favor of the defense, a federal appellate court recently ruled.

According to the decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the case stemmed from an original charge of racial discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants in that case. But subsequently, plaintiff filed a separate action for retaliation, arguing he was being punished by his employer for filing the original claim.

While the district court again granted summary judgment to the employer, the federal appeals court reversed.

Court: California Healthcare Employers Subject to Litigation for Meal Break Waivers

February 18, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

For more than two decades, health care workers were given the option to waive a second meal break that would otherwise be required on shifts longer than eight hours under the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders, or IWC.

However, in the recent decision of Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem. Medical Center, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, has found part of the IWC orders invalid.

Specifically targeted was IWC Wage Order No. 5. The measure stated workers in the health care industry who worked shifts in excess of eight hours could voluntarily waive their right to one of their two meal periods, so long as the agreement was written and signed by both parties.

Bailey v. TitleMax – FLSA Not Undercut by Employee Underreporting Hours

February 15, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

When a company knows or should know a worker is under-reporting his or her hours, the firm can’t use the employee’s role to diminish its own responsibility under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

That was according to the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Bailey v. TitleMax. In its ruling, the federal appellate court reversed the summary judgment favoring the defendant company and remanded the case back to trial.

Had the court affirmed the earlier ruling, it would have allowed companies to wield superior bargaining power to pressure or even compel workers to under-report their hours, and then turn around and use that action as a defense if anyone complained. The Bailey ruling was an important one in furtherance of worker rights under the FLSA.

Betts v. McDonald’s Corp. – Can Chain be Liable for Franchisee Employment Actions?

February 13, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

In Betts .v McDonald’s Corp., a large restaurant chain was named as a defendant by 10 Hispanic and African American men who allege their termination by a franchisee of three Virginia-based restaurants amounts to racial discrimination.

It does seem the workers have a fair amount of proof necessary to win their case. Allegedly, supervisors of the franchise reportedly made statements flat-out saying the store was “too dark” and there were “too many black people” there on a day-to-day basis. In fact, the terminated workers were allegedly told directly they failed to fit the company’s desired profile.

These kinds of statements are going to be critical in determining whether racial discrimination was a factor in the workers’ firing. Most discrimination cases lack that kind of direct proof, so the case may be easier than others in that regard.

Court: Successor Liability for Racial Discrimination, Retaliation is Valid

February 11, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A successor company can be held liable for the discrimination and retaliation of its predecessor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed. The appellate court also found in Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. N. Star Hospitality Inc. the successor firm can be compelled to initiate the equitable remedies, as established by the trial court, which include not only payment for judgment, but the adoption of investigative processes and training to prevent future employment law violations.

The finding ensures companies can’t evade liability and responsibility for such wrongdoing by simply dissolving and reforming under a different name or new management.

Court records indicate employee in question is a black male who worked as a cook for defendant. During his time there, he was promoted to assistant kitchen manager, and was by all accounts a good worker.

Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc. – Requiring Guards to Remain On-Call No Violation of Rest Break Law

February 9, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The California Court of Appeal reversed a $90 million class action judgment in a case of alleged rest period violations under state law, finding the requirement of security guards to remain on-call during rest breaks was not improper.

In weighing Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., the appellate court for the second appellate district, division one, held the requirement to remain on-call did not constitute as “performing work” under California Labor Code 226.7. The law states no employer shall require any worker to work during any meal or rest break. Employers who fail to provide a rest period or meal break to workers in accordance with the Industrial Welfare Commission’s order have to pay the worker an additional hour of pay at the worker’s regular rate for each rest period or meal break not provided.

The ruling is a disappointing one for California workers, but it does help us to better define the kinds of cases worth pursuing.

McNaughton v. Charleston Charter School – Winning a Wrongful Termination Case

February 7, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A charter school teacher in South Carolina recently won her wrongful termination claim, which had been appealed by the school all the way to the state supreme court.

The case of McNaughton v. Charleston Charter School is relevant to workers here in California because just like here, South Carolina is an at-will employment state.

In both states, it’s generally held an employer doesn’t need a good or just cause to fire a worker. However, the exception to this rule is wrongful termination. A firing is wrongful if it was motivated at least in part by some impermissible reason, which could include physical or mental disability, use of the Family Medical Leave Act, pregnancy, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or race.

EEOC Sues Restaurant for Discrimination Against Male Applicants

February 5, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

While sexual harassment claims are often filed by women who suffer discrimination or retaliation by male superiors, a recent federal case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a reminder that discrimination and harassment can go both ways. According to a statement from the EEOC, a well-known restaurant chain is being sued for discriminating against male applicants for bartender and server positions. According to the complaint, the restaurant in its Park City, Utah locations only hired women for its summer positions. The federal lawsuit was filed in late January by the EEOC, seeking an injunction that would stop the restaurant from depriving men of employment as a result of their gender.

In taking legal action against the restaurant, the EEOC is sending a message to all restaurants and service industry employers that they must put an end to all wrongful and illegal employment practices. The EEOC is seeking to compensate two workers who were denied jobs during the summer of 2013 because they were male. An attorney representing the plaintiffs stated publicly that this is a cautionary tale to other employers who favor female employees when hiring.

According to the complaint, the company went out of its way to advertise for temporary positions during the summer of 2013, indicating it showed exclusive preference for female applicants. The company even stated specifically that it was not hiring men.

Paramount Pictures Sued for FCRA Violations

February 2, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Employees who turn in an application to an employer may not realize they have significant rights under federal law – even if they are not hired. Employers who decide to use consumer background checks, including criminal history or credit reports, to make a hiring decision must follow a very strict set of rules to do so.

First of all, they must inform you of their intent and get your permission. Your authorization for access to this information must be clear and separate from any other consent forms. In the event that an employer is not going to hire you because of what is turned up in reports, you must be given notice and time to rectify any mistakes.

These are only a few of the requirements set forth by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and an increasing number of employers are being held liable for violations. According to recent reports, Paramount Pictures is the most recent big offender in a string of class action lawsuits related to FCRA violations in the hiring process. The motion picture production company has been accused of failing to inform candidates of its intent to delve into their consumer, credit, and criminal histories. The class action alleges that there were very strict policies and practices that were not followed by the company.

California Home Healthcare Workers and the Fight for Overtime

January 30, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

With a growing elderly population, more families are turning to home health care services to help with the aid and medical needs of their loved ones. Many of these health service employees work for agencies responsible for salary and hourly wages, including overtime.

For employees, it is important to remember the laws about wages and overtime to ensure just compensation. Sadly, a California judge’s recent decision may limit the right to overtime for home health care workers. According to reports, California will not pay overtime to home health aides who care for the state’s elderly and disabled after judge overturned a federal regulation that requires overtime. The decision is a significant setback for home healthcare workers as well as the unions that back them.

Unions, workers and other advocacy groups fought aggressively in favor of the regulation and lobbied Governor Jerry Brown to include the funding package in the California budget. By refusing overtime and other benefits to home healthcare workers, the state is now positioned to save $183.6 million in the next six months and another $314.2 million in the fiscal year beginning in July. While the California budget and bottom-line may benefit, workers and their families will not be entitled to the compensation they should have access to under federal law.