Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

EEOC Sues Honeywell Over Wellness Testing

November 14, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Wellness tracking programs are increasingly under scrutiny by employee rights advocates, health care professionals and other policy makers. In yet another case that challenges the legality of the employee wellness program, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Honeywell International to stop the company from penalizing employees who refuse to undergo medical testing under the purported corporate wellness program. This is the third such case filed by the EEOC since August, but Honeywell is the largest corporation targeted so far.

Advocates for wellness programs say they can boost employee morale, ensure healthy habits among employees and reduce overall medical costs. While companies may have incentive to track the health of employees, critics point out they are invasive and could violate medical privacy laws. Despite the potential abuse of corporate wellness programs, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) actually promotes and encourages employee wellness tracking. Honeywell has been charged with penalizing employees up to $4,000 each through surcharges and other lost contributions for failing to participate. The employees can incur such losses if they or their spouses refuse to comply with the biometric testing.

Under the Honeywell corporate wellness tracking system, employees must undergo screening for blood-sugar levels, nicotine, waist circumference, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure. According to the lawsuit, the testing was to occur the last week of October this year. The EEOC is the law agency that enforces federal labor laws and instances of discrimination. According to the EEOC, Honeywell’s employee testing program is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The agency filed the lawsuit asking for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to stop the company from imposing penalties.

Weight Discrimination in the Workplace—Should There Be Legal Protection?

November 12, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Protected classes under California state and federal law are always evolving. Minorities, women, those with disabilities and members of the gay and lesbian workforce were not always given legal authority in the face of discrimination. A new class has emerged raising a new question—should the obese be established as a protected class? According to a recent publication in the Washington Post, the overweight—specifically women who are overweight—are more likely to earn less and suffer adverse employment action, including lower pay. A new study shows that the reality of weight discrimination in the workplace may demand additional protection, especially for women.

According to the study, conducted by Vanderbilt University Law School, women are increasingly less likely to work in higher paying jobs and more likely to work lower paying jobs if they are heavier. The study also looked at a correlation between “personal interaction” jobs and “physical activity” jobs, the former including sales or communications positions, and the latter including home health care, food preparation or other physical positions. When comparing the data, women were likely to make less the heavier they became, even though data did not reflect the same trends among male workers. According to the analysts, men did not seem to fare any worse when they gained weight.

Though beauty or physical attractiveness have long been tied to better wages for both men and women, the reason for the disparate impact of weight on a man or woman’s income is unclear. A basic understanding of the data suggests that a woman’s appearance is simply more important on the job than a man’s. Still, the trend suggests that women are unfairly suffering from discrimination if they are overweight. Our Orange County discrimination attorneys are dedicated to protecting the rights of women and the disabled in the workforce. If you believe you have suffered from workplace discrimination, we can review your case, determine the proper course of action and help you protect your rights.

Indian Tech Workers Exploited by Brokers: Wage Theft and Abuse

November 11, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

A recent report has exposed the myriad abuses committed against Indian high-tech workers employed by American companies. According to The Guardian, brokers have “hijacked” the professional visa program, creating a system of “bondage” resulting in wage theft and other abuses against Indian workers. Many workers who have quit or tried to leave the system have even been sued by the brokerage companies. In the United States, professionals can obtain a temporary visa to work for companies who are seeking “uniquely talented employees” for specific jobs. In the tech market, labor brokers will often sponsor the visas and contract out employees to tech companies and government agencies.

The workers are specifically trained and offer special skills in building databases, testing software and other high-tech projects. Critics of this indentured service-like arrangement for high-tech workers have pointed out that workers are exploited through humiliation, intimidation and other legal threats. In some cases, Indian workers have been sued for upwards of $50,000, just for trying to leave the company. The firms are also capitalizing on workers’ hopes for achieving the American Dream and finding permanent employment in the U.S.

Workers who obtain an H-1B visa through a brokerage firm are forced to comply with illegal working conditions, and are threatened if they report abuses. Based on government and external reports, there have been thousands of documents filed that evidence intimidation, restrictions on employment contracts, and other legal loopholes that deprive workers of their rights. According to The Guardian, there has been at least $29.7 million illegally withheld from 4,400 tech workers between 2000 and 2013. The numbers are alarming considering they barely scratch the surface in identifying wage theft that may have occurred in other firms and underground financial arrangements.

Ex House Staffer Accuses GOP Candidate of Sexual Harassment

November 8, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Sexual harassment scandals in politics are some of the most notoriously covered by the media. In a recent case, California House candidate Carl DeMaio has been accused of sexual harassment by a former staffer. Making matters worse, the former policy director claims the politician attempted bribery and made repeated advances for sexual contact. The Republican candidate is openly gay and is in a tight race against Scott Peters, but has gained national support and attention for his decision to drop social issues from the party platform. Despite his growing notoriety and place as a “rising star” in the Republican party, the candidate could suffer a huge blow to his campaign as a result of the sexual harassment allegations.

According to reports, DeMaio repeatedly sexually harassed his staffer by grabbing his crotch and “masturbating in front of him” while in his office. DeMaio vehemently denies the allegations. He describes the staffer as a disgruntled ex-employee who was fired for plagiarizing documents for the website. DeMaio has also accused the staffer of breaking into the campaign office and committing property damage – a case that also drew national headlines.

In this highly-publicized dispute, sexual harassment allegations could result in a significant settlement or jury verdict if the plaintiff is successful in litigation.

Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc: On Employee Misclassification Cases

November 6, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Employers have a long history of trying to classify employees as independent contractors rather than employees. The reason for this is that the company is not required to pay Social Security for independent contractors it hires, the company does not have to provide the workers with benefits, and the company is not automatically liable for any negligent acts committed by independent contracts, as it would be with employees.

In Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., an appeal heard in the Supreme Court of Kansas, involved a number of class actions suits filed across the country by current and former delivery drivers who worked for defendant. Drivers were seeking a judicial determination that they were entitled to all costs and expenses they spent while working for defendant and repayment for all overtime wages that they were never paid. Continue Reading ›

Tramp v. Associated Underwriters, Inc.: On Age Discrimination Employment Termination

November 3, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Tramp v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., an appeal heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, involved claims of wrongful termination due to age discrimination.

Employer hired worker in 2000. Seven years later, employer was operating at a loss. Due to economic issues, employer underwent a reduction-in-force (RIF) and terminated seven of its employees. The workers terminated were chosen based upon the quality of their work. According to court records, employee retained her job, but the company president was still concerned about the quality of her work.

The following year, things had not gotten better, and the office manager suggested the company terminate the firm’s health insurance plan. The president did not agree. However, the insurance plan premiums greatly increased and employer sought quotes from competitors. The company provided demographic information on the employees when submitting applications for quotes.

One of the quotes was lower than all others and employer learned that it was because the names of employee and another worker who were both over the age of 65 had been accidentally omitted from the application. When the quote was adjusted, it was much higher. Continue Reading ›

Acevedo-Perez v. United States: On the Statute of Limitations in Employment Discrimination Cases

October 31, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Acevedo-Perez v. United States, a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, involves an employee who was terminated from his employment with federal government. Employee alleged that his termination was wrongful and based upon discrimination as to his age and national origin.

Employee was assigned to an office in San Juan in 2005. The Washington, DC office was short-handed and asked for volunteers who would accept a lateral transfer to that office. One other employee in office in which employee worked volunteered for reassignment. Employee’s supervisor need to fill an additional transfer request and issued a letter informing employee that he was also being transferred. Employee accepted the transfer in September 2005.

Employee requested, and was granted, two extensions on the time he was scheduled to transfer, based upon family issues. He made a third request to delay the transfer, but it was denied, so employee decided to retire instead of being transferred. Continue Reading ›

Raspardo v. Carlone: On Employment Discrimination Claims Involving a Hostile Work Environment

October 28, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Lawsuits involving allegations that an employer created a hostile work environment can involve complex litigation. In Raspardo v. Carlone, a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, several employees sued the city, the police department, and five police supervisors. The claims were filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1983, alleging employment discrimination.

Plaintiffs were two former and one current female police officer. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants discriminated against them on the basis of sex and created a hostile work environment and treated them unequally with respect to male officers in the department.

According to court records, the individual defendants moved for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. The District Court denied this motion. Continue Reading ›

Bluestein v. Cent. WI Anesthesiology, S.C: Employment Discrimination

October 24, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Bluestein v. Cent. WI Anesthesiology, S.C, an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, involved an anesthesiologist who sued her employer for wrongful termination under Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964, the Rehabilitation act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Plaintiff’s employer was technically a service organization formed to engage in providing anesthesia services. She was initially hired as an employee and then became a shareholder and member of the company board of directors. In addition to her work as a physician, plaintiff was elected to be the treasurer of the organization.

Originally, plaintiff was working in a part-time capacity but then switched to working up to 90 percent time providing anesthesia services. After five years of working nearly full-time, she was injured in a kayak accident. Her injuries and resulting conditions included ischiogluteal bursitis, proximal hamstring endiopathy, and several other neurological issues. Continue Reading ›

Dynamex v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

October 18, 2014 | by Nassiri Law

Dynamex v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County is yet another example of a package delivery service trying to classify its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees to avoid paying overtime and benefits. This case was heard before Court of Appeal for the State of California Second Appellate Division.

In Dynamex, two men were hired by delivery service as drivers. Prior to 2004, delivery service had classified all of its drivers as employees protected by California state employment laws. In 2004, delivery service converted the official status of all driver-employees to independent contractors. Continue Reading ›