Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Soccer Team Owner Accused of Sexual Harassment

December 31, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

A Seattle soccer team owner has been sued for sexual harassment and members of the team have questioned whether he was properly screened and background checked. Twenty-two players quit the Seattle Impact FC team after only one season game. Players stood alongside the dance team known as “Ladies with Impact,” who also resigned to protest the assault of two dancers. According to reports, the coach, also a former college soccer player, had a history of sexual assault and misconduct in his two-decade career as a high-school coach. In addition to lawsuits filed against the coach, questions remain if other entities are liable for failure to background check the owner.

According to the Seattle Times, the coach had fired his staff and other office workers who were embittered by his management style. He accused the women who filed the lawsuit of being ‘dirt poor’ and trying to extort money through litigation. A 22-year-old dancer filed the lawsuit after the coach allegedly asked her to come over to his home. She accuses him of an assault that occurred during this encounter. The dancer was not only concerned about the professional complications of the assault, but has also been forced into counseling and takes medication to manage the stress associated with the event.

The coach has not been criminally charged for the offense, but the local law enforcement authorities are investigating. Members of the team, the association, and local fans have continued to protest his ongoing presence as the owner and coach of the team. The case has also raised questions about whether the Major Arena Soccer League (MASL) went through a proper screening process to vet the coach. The newly formed professional circuit has boasted top indoor talent, but has had other legal problems related to sexual harassment. Reports indicate that another coach of a team in Texas was sued in 2010 by a female intern at his New York consulting firm. According to the complaint, the coach sent inappropriate emails, texts and notes. The case was settled out of court for $50,000.

Pepperdine and Coach Sued for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

December 30, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California laws protect individuals from sexual orientation discrimination. In a recent case, a lawsuit has been filed against Pepperdine University and one of its basketball coaches, alleging harassment related to sexual orientation. According to reports, two players filed the suit against the school and the coach after they suffered harassment related to their lesbian relationship. One of the students suffered such severe harassment that she went into a deep depression and suicide attempt. The coach and academic coordinators allegedly became obsessed with the couple’s relationship and claimed that “lesbianism is not tolerated” on the team.

In addition to the violation of privacy rights, the lawsuit also alleges that that school is in violation of the federal Education Amendments Act of 197 which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded programs and activities. The women were pulled aside and repeatedly questioned about their relationship, about their sleeping arrangements, sexual orientation, and sexual preferences. Both women repeatedly asked the coach to stop “prying” into their personal lives. In another discussion with the team the coach warned the players that they were prohibited from dating. The coach even blamed a team loss on a mid-season break-up between the players.

Other players on the team recognized that there was an intensive investigation going on. They were being questioned and asked about the relationship and warned the players to be careful. After months of living in fear and being harassed, one of the players went into a severe depression and attempted suicide. When she decided to return to the team, the coach refused to allow her back on the court without a doctor’s note from a gynecological exam. According to reports, the doctor’s notes provide evidence of good health, but have also prevented women from playing basketball at the university.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Hijab in the Workplace Lawsuit

December 27, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Muslims have become a target of discrimination in public settings as well as in the workplace. Under employment laws, discrimination could involve adverse action, including failure to hire, demotion, or termination. It could also mean disparate treatment in the workplace or failure to accommodate a protected class. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the rights of a woman to wear hijab while working at Abercrombie and Fitch. The case originated in Oklahoma in 2008 and has made its way to the highest court.

While some countries have banned full covering or headscarves in schools (France, Denmark, Germany, Turkey, Russia, and China), the United States has generally given protection for religious garb. Briefs have been submitted to the court from a host of civil rights and anti-discrimination groups to prevent a private company from prohibiting hijab in the workplace. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, private companies are prohibited from refusing to hire or discharging an employee based on a religious observance and practice. This is not the first case involving hijab that has been brought into state and federal courts.

In 2004, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a sixth grader who wanted to wear hijab in her public school. The school amended policy, paid a settlement and made the decision to allow hijab in school. Another case in Michigan involved a woman who refused to take of her face mask in court. The ACLU argued for a religious exception to courtroom attire. In 2009 the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a judge had the power to order witnesses to review covering when testifying. The ACLU has gone to court in California, Florida, Michigan and Oklahoma to fight for a woman’s right to cover her head and face in schools, courts, and in the workplace.

New Protections for Foreign Workers in 2015

December 24, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California attracts worker from Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe and Asia. Unfortunately, many of these workers have become victims of exploitation, wage and hour violations, and other illegal activities. California lawmakers have expanded protections to foreign workers and the new laws will go into effect in 2015. Under the new laws, foreign labor contractors are forbidden from charging any fees or other costs to workers for contracting activities. New protections also prevent employers and contractors from charging foreign workers with any costs or other expenses that are not charged to American workers in a similarly situated position. It limits the housing costs that employers can charge to foreign employees to ensure that they are only charged market rates.

In addition to limiting expenses and fees, the new protections also prevent employers from requiring workers to pay any expenses prior to starting work. Employers are also prohibited from changing any terms of the contract that was originally provided to and signed by a foreign worker. Employers are able to make contractual changes if the employee is given at least 48 hours to reconsider any new modifications to the contract and must specifically consent to any changes in the contract. The new law also requires foreign labor contractors to meet additional documentation requirements. Employers and contractors must also comply with new regulations related to registration, licensing and bonding. Every employer is prohibited from using non-registered foreign labor contractors in California.

Employers who are found to be in violation of new labor laws could face strict penalties in the event of non-compliance. In addition to civil action, including a lawsuit filed by an employee, contractors and employers will also be held jointly liable for any contract and violation. The abuse of temporary foreign workers is an ongoing problem in California and throughout the United States. Third-party contractor as well as employers know that many workers are willing to come and work for low wages, even sacrificing pay for a place to work and live. This has created a host of abuses that the new California law seeks to rectify.

Sony Employee Rights After Privacy Hack

December 21, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

The Sony privacy hack has drawn international attention and calls into question internet security for companies and employees. For employees who were victim to the security breach, legal questions remain. What are their rights? Can employees take legal action against an employer for a security breach? Thousands of employees suffered from the security breach when their social security numbers, birthdays, salaries, and even medical records were leaked online. In addition to the sheer loss of privacy, these employees are left vulnerable to identity theft and extortion. What next?

Employees at Sony are likely to be successful if they file a lawsuit under California law and could even recover millions of dollars for their losses. California has some of the strictest protections regarding employee information disclosure in the country. The workers would have significant rights and opportunities to recover compensation from the company. Under state law, residents are protected against having their information disclosed by any company or other institution. Even though Sony did not intentionally disclose data, it may not have met its burden in protecting the data from exposure and disclosure by third-parties.

According to reports, hundreds of Sony employees had their medical information disseminated, including complaints about unpaid insurance claims and lists of the medical procedures they had performed. Under California’s civil code, individuals have the right to bring an action against any entity that negligently released confidential information. In addition to the immediate $1000 claims, they can also collect on direct damages for the breach of privacy. To defend itself against these allegations, Sony would have to prove that it met its burden in protecting workers’ data, though this has been hotly disputed since the data hack.

Fired Black Editor Sues People Magazine for Discrimination

December 19, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Discriminatory practices in the workplace can impact the lowest paid minimum wage workers to high paid executives. There have been cases of discrimination in every industry, from manufacturing to law firms. Earlier this year, a black editor of People Magazine filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination. According to the complaint, the editor was the only black senior employee and alleged that her former boss left her out of magazines, dismissed stories centering around black victims and even disparaged her way of speaking, telling her that, “You’re not at Essence anymore.”

According to reports, the plaintiff has a degree in English and a Master’s in Journalism. In addition to her educational accomplishments, she also held an adjunct position at New York University. The complaint alleges that throughout her successful career, no other editors had a problem with her or her work. People Magazine and senior level editors systematically discriminated her for the way she spoke and communicated, and related it to her race. The lawsuit also alleges that the magazine had a discriminatory editorial policy. According to the complaint, the magazine is entirely run by white people and focuses exclusively on white celebrities and individuals.

The editor was fired last May during what the company called a “reduction in force,” though the plaintiff alleges that the termination was directly tied to her race. She is seeking financial damages against People Magazine as well as its parent company, Time Inc., as well as her supervisor and the former executive of the magazine. While many employment law and discrimination cases will settle out of court, the attorney for the plaintiff is hoping for a trial by jury to send a message to other media companies that they cannot discriminate against employees or when making decisions about which people to feature in their stories or articles.

Unpaid Interns and Volunteers Covered by FEHA in 2015

December 18, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

California law will now give unpaid interns and volunteers a number of the same legal protections as regular employees. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on race, religion, national origin, ancestry, disabilities, sex, gender, age sexual orientation, or gender expression. Assembly Bill 1443 will expand the protections against discrimination and harassment to unpaid interns and volunteers. The law will go into effect January 1, 2015. The new law will also require employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of volunteers and unpaid interns.

If you are an unpaid intern or volunteer, you should know your rights under California law. The new protections require employers to expand their policies that prohibit discrimination and harassment. Employers should also make necessary changes to handbooks, policies, and guidelines to ensure that interns and volunteers are protected against unlawful actions. Employers are also responsible for informing interns and volunteers about these protections and offer procedures for reporting harassment and discrimination.

Employers are responsible for ensuring that workers are protected against harassment and discrimination. Extending this protection to unpaid interns and volunteers means that employers with 50 or more employees must provide at least two hours of training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees. These training sessions must take place to reiterate issues and processes every two years. To better protect employees and to prevent liabilities, many employers are providing this training to both supervisors as well as all members of the staff. Additional protections could include providing training to volunteers and interns so that they know their rights in the workplace.

Joint Liability for Businesses and Contract Vendors in 2015

December 15, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

One of the reasons that using third-party vendors and other staffing companies is attractive to businesses, is that they were able to shift legal responsibilities elsewhere. Needing manpower didn’t require concern for worker protections, including workers’ compensation, proper training, or other benefits. Businesses were able to quickly and efficiently get staffed without worrying about employment and labor laws. Things are about to change in California. The contractor model has been under scrutiny for years and many courts agree with the criticism. In 2015, businesses and contract vendors will be held jointly liable for any employment law violations.

In June of 2014, the Ninth Circuit rejected an independent contractor agreement that made Georgia the venue, finding that the contract was in fact an employee under California law. Later in the summer, the California Supreme Court opened the door for more plaintiffs to gain class action certification in contractor misclassification disputes. Another Ninth Circuit decision overturned a lower decision, and reclassified hundreds of delivery drivers as employees. All of these decisions and regulatory shifts have made it clear that the contractor-model is under scrutiny and businesses may no longer be able to shield behind misclassification.

The difference between an employee and a contractor primarily turns on the duties and amount of responsibility given to the individual worker. Many contractual arrangements require workers to sign away their rights as an employee, even though they should have rights to benefits and other protections. A new California law, effective in 2015, will force contract vendors and businesses to start ensuring collaborations and compliance, as both will be held liable in the event of any wage and hour or other violations. The new regulation is critical to protect workers’ rights in an era where third-party contracting companies benefit companies, while exploiting workers without adequate benefits and pay.

Pregnant? Workplace Rights When You’re Expecting

December 12, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Whether you were an employee and planned to get pregnant, have an unexpected pregnancy, or you are pregnant and looking for a job, it is important to know your rights. Despite state and federal laws that protect women against discrimination and other forms of adverse employment action, many women still suffer pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. So what are your rights? When should you take legal action against an employer? How can you protect your reputation and career in the face of discrimination? Here’s the short list of “what to expect when you’re expecting” in the workplace:

Freedom against discriminatory hiring practices: If you are pregnant and seeking employment, remember it is illegal for employers to ask about your pregnancy status or to deny you employment because of a pregnancy. While the facts of every case must be examined, you should consult with an experienced advocate if you suspect that you were denied employment because of a pregnancy.

Reasonable accommodations: Under the EEOC guidelines, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant women. This may mean a change of actual duties, or for example, to provide a chair if you are otherwise required to stand for long hours. If your previous duties required heavy lifting, employers should do their best to find other suitable job duties.

Discrimination Has Health Impact on Older Chinese-Americans

December 9, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Discrimination can take many forms—in employment and hiring, housing, or in day-to-day business interactions. While some forms, including employment discrimination, are illegal, other forms are commonplace and may not be chargeable under state or federal law. Not only does discrimination put individuals at a disadvantage, but new research shows that it also can create significant health problems for those who are targets. According to a Reuters report, one in five older Chinese Americans in Chicago has experienced discrimination. The stresses has compounded into negative health consequences, according to a new study.

One of the reasons that Chinese Americans suffer so deeply is that they have a cultural preference for tolerance. Rather than standing up for themselves and fighting back against discrimination, they may prefer compliance. According to researchers, failing to take action, or enduring ongoing discrimination can impact self-esteem, increase psychological distress, and lead to social isolation. In time, this can lead to health risks and lower health status. A professor at Rush University Medical Center and the director of the study points out that many older U.S. Chinese Americans still suffer from considerable discrimination and respond passively.

To come to these results, researchers analyzed data from 3,159 Chinese adults over the age of 60. The participants reported their experiences of discrimination—defined as times when they were prevented from doing something or meant to feel inferior because of race. The individuals interviewed described both the instances of discrimination, as well as their personal response to the incident. According to data, 21 percent of respondents experienced racial discrimination. Eight percent suffered discrimination in the workplace and the most common form, happened in public. Those with a higher socioeconomic status and in poorer health were more likely to have suffered from some form of discrimination.