Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

McDonald’s Faces Suit for “Rampant” Racial and Sexual Discrimination

January 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

McDonald’s is facing some of its most egregious accusations of racial and sexual discrimination and harassment, which could result in a significant settlement or verdict for 10 former employees. The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against the company in January of 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs were subjected to “rampant racial and sexual harassment.” Alleged offenders were high-ranking supervisors and managers who have been accused of demeaning the workers, nine of whom are African American, and one who is Hispanic. Of all the plaintiffs, seven are women.

According to the court documents, supervisors were demeaning, claiming that there were “too many black people in the store.” African-American workers said their supervisors called them derogatory names like “ghetto” or “bitch,” and the Hispanic worker said that she was repeatedly called a “dirty Mexican.”

In addition to the hostile work environment created by the aggressive and ongoing name-calling, the employees were disciplined more heavily than while employees who violated the same rules. The employees were also inappropriately touched on their buttocks and legs. Supervisors also sent the female employees nude and other sexually explicit photographs and in several instances, tried to solicit sexual favors from their employees.

Saks Claims Right to Discriminate Against Transgendered Employees

January 23, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Transgendered employees are a protected class under California state laws and federal law. The Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hold it is illegal for employers to discriminate against transgendered employees. In a recent turn of legal events, Saks & Co. administrators in a federal motion asserted the company has the right to discriminate against employees for being transgendered.

According to the filing, Saks asked for the dismissal of a former employee’s discrimination lawsuit because transsexuals are not protected under Title VII.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bans employment discrimination based on race, religion and gender. According to reports, a transgendered woman alleges she was instructed to separate her work and home life and to begin behaving in a more masculine manner at work. The lawsuit alleges that she was ultimately terminated in retaliation for speaking up about a hostile work environment. Saks attorneys filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas, denying all legal claims. The defense team also alleges that though the discrimination is tied to gender, the discrimination is related to his status as a transsexual. In essence, the defense attorneys are arguing adverse employment action based on plaintiff’s status as a transsexual is grounds for a discrimination action.

Catholic High School Liable for Gender Discrimination

January 21, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The American Civil Liberties Union has succeeded in taking on a gender discrimination case against a Catholic school in Indiana. According to court documents, a teacher was discriminated against after she sought in vitro fertilization treatment to get pregnant.

After working at the school for more than seven years as a language arts and literature teacher, the Catholic school informed her that her contract would not be renewed because the act made her a “grave and moral sinner” through the eyes of the religious employer. This is one of many cases that pit civil liberties against religious rights.

The ACLU has worked aggressively to put an end to discrimination in the name of religious beliefs. In this case, a federal lawsuit was filed against the school and the local Catholic authorities for sex discrimination in the workplace. The legal team highlighted the reality that no man had ever been fired for his involvement with fertility treatments. In defense, attorneys on behalf of the school argued that the organization should be exempted from federal anti-discrimination laws because the decision was based on “sincerely-held religious beliefs.”

Rise in FCRA Lawsuits: Employer Liability in Background Checking

January 19, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Employers are being more heavily scrutinized for taking potentially illegal action when background checking employees either prior to hire or during the course of employment. A class action lawsuit was filed in a Missouri federal court alleging Michaels, a craft store chain, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in its hiring process. According to the complaint, the store violated the law because it failed to properly disclose to candidates that a credit report could be requested and reviewed during the application process.

The FCRA governs how credit reports, criminal background checks, traffic reports and other consumer records can be used during the hiring process. Employers do have the right to access these records. However, they must follow a very strict set of guidelines to ensure compliance with the law. Even though the majority of job applicants may be unaware of their rights under the law, employers should be in full compliance when requesting information on a job candidate.

Michaels is far from the only alleged offender. Whole Foods, Publix and Dollar General are all facing lawsuits over purported FCRA violations.

Venture Capital Partner Files Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

January 15, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Discrimination and retaliation can impact lower-rung employees as well as high-paid executives. A recent case demonstrates that even employees at the upper end of the pay scale can suffer because of discrimination in the workplace.

According to Reuters, a former partner filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against a Silicon Valley venture firm. The case is unique because the partner waited five years before filing her claim.

In June of 2007, the partner informed the firm she would resign due to job dissatisfaction. Court records indicate that the resignation came seven months after she ended an affair with another partner. According to the complaint, the plaintiff suffered from discrimination and retaliation from the partner after she called off the relationship. The venture firm has denied the allegations of discrimination and retaliation and challenges the assertion that it did not take proper steps to prevent or put an end to the misconduct.

Drivers Win $1 Million in Wage and Hour Class Action

January 13, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Nationwide, there has been a rise in wage and hour claims related to mis-classification. In a recent success story for employees in California, a trial court awarded truck drivers nearly $1 million in damages plus attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and additional enhancements in the class action. The defendant employer, Oakland Port Services Corp (AB Trucking) had previously appealed a trial court decision on the grounds that federal law preempted California’s meal and rest break requirements. The appellate court disagreed and reaffirmed the trial court decision.

Two drivers for the defendant company filed a class action lawsuit against Oakland Port Services Corp after the company denied wages for weekend work. The employer improperly misclassified the drivers as “unpaid trainees” and failed to provide state mandated meal and rest breaks.

The trial court had previously certified a class of drivers to performed work for the company out of its Oakland facility. In May of 2013, the trial court awarded the drivers a total of $964,557, including $487,810.50 in attorneys’ fees, $42,106.16 in litigation expenses, as well as $20,000 in class representative awards.

Still No Sexual Harassment Training for Congress?

January 11, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

State and federal legislators commonly intervene to protect the rights of employees. While managers and business owners are required to stay abreast of sexual harassment training, it appears that California lawmakers are not. Despite the ongoing threat of sexual harassment in the workplace, and the repeated number of sexual harassment claims in state and federal politics, members of Congress are still not required to undergo sexual harassment training. According to an investigation by California radio station KPCC, House members, unlike most people who are in positions of power, are not required to undergo sexual harassment training.

The loophole opens the floodgate for not only, sexual harassment claims, but the potential for liability. One California lawmaker sees the lack of sexual harassment training for House members as an embarrassment and is trying to change the rules to protect staffers. Political figures, including members of Congress, are not strangers to sexual harassment charges. According to reports, more than a dozen women have filed complaints regarding the conduct of Bob Finer, former Congressman from San Diego. The representative retired from Congress in 2012 and won his race for San Diego mayor. Despite this political success, he faced numerous accusations of sexual harassment, alleging that he repeated touched, grabbed, and groped women while serving in Congress. Following the allegations, the San Diego mayor resigned and pleaded guilty to battery and false imprisonment.

This is one of many stories coming out of Congress related to sexual harassment. To initiate change on behalf of citizens and staffers, San Mateo Congresswoman spearheaded a bill to fund $500,000 of sexual harassment training for Congress members. Despite the initiative, the money was swiped from the compromise bill. Now she is seeking the House Rules Committee to take action to prevent future instances of employment law violations and abuse. Though training is mandatory for employees and managers throughout California, Congress members have not been held to the same standards. For those in favor of the bill, stopping sexual harassment could mean a step as easy as mandatory sexual harassment training.

49ers Team and CEO Sued for Age Discrimination

January 8, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

The NFL is one of many sports organizations that has been the recent target of lawsuits related to employment claims. In a recent development, the San Francisco 49ers and its CEO, Jed York, have been named in an employment discrimination lawsuit. According to the complaint, two former employees have alleged the organization terminated employment due to their age. The lawsuit alleges that the organization and CEO are in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).

According to the lawsuit, two employees were fired in 2011 with the simple reasoning that the organization was “taking a different direction.” The employees have filed the lawsuit years after the termination and after exhausting other administrative remedies with the EEOC and Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The employers were given a right-to-sue letter and the litigation has been appropriately filed within the statute of limitations. The complaint alleges that Jed York wanted to hire younger tech workers, seeking to turn the organization into the “start-up” company of the NFL. The complaint alleges that disparaging comments were made about older workers, including that they “want to go play golf six days a week.”

The lawsuit claims there were widespread firings related to the initiative. Group termination of “legacy” employees ensued, even as the organization attempted to spread it over days, weeks, and months to give the appearance it was not happening to a group of employees. Under the OWBPA, legal procedures must be followed when a group of older workers are terminated. According to the complaint, the 49ers did not follow mandatory processes or procedures when terminating the older employees.

California Judges Sue Over Pensions

January 5, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

In addition to wage and hour claims that involve violations over the course of employment, former employees may have rights to recover for lost pensions.

In a recent case, a group of judges has filed a lawsuit over California’s pension system, known as Calpers, as well as the state of California for doubling contribution requirements. According to Courthouse News, the current state pay grade entitles the six California Superior Judges to more than $181,000 per year. A lawsuit filed on December 23, 2014 alleges the pension contributions should be lowered by $13,000 a year.

Six California Superior Court Judges who were elected in 2012 claim that a new pension reform law that when into effect in 2013, raised contributions to 15 percent of their salary from 8 percent. The new law was signed by Governor Jerry Brown. According to the judges, the original 8 percent contribution agreement was set when they were elected, and the contributions cannot be adjusted. Representatives from the California Public Employees Retirement System (Calpers), have stated publicly that the lawsuit is too recent to comment on. The agency is considered America’s biggest public pension fund and manages assets upwards of $300 billion.

Muslim Prison Guard Files Discrimination Lawsuit

January 2, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Employment discrimination can take many forms, ranging from failure to hire, termination and other adverse employment actions, as well as harassment and hostile work environment. Minorities, women, and disabled persons are among protected classes as they are often the targets of discriminatory acts. As the West continues to wage a war against terrorism and extremism, many innocent Muslims have become the target of harassment and discrimination too.

In a recent case, a Northern California prison guard has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was harassed because of his race and religion. The case was filed on December 31st in federal court against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDRC). According to the complaint, the plaintiff is from Sudan and is a practicing Muslim. Representing him are employment lawyers who are collaborating alongside the Council on American-Islam Relations.

According to the complaint, co-workers routinely referred to the plaintiff as a “terrorist” and made derogatory comments about Islam and his Sudanese accent. The Muslim guard has alleged the harassment was in retaliation for an earlier complaint he filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with similar complaints against his co-workers. That complaint was filed confidentially in 2010. The 56-year-old guard has been a correctional officer in Sacramento for over 12 years.