California discrimination lawsuit

Terminated D.C. Metro Workers Sue for Discrimination

May 12, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

The Washington, D.C. metro transit system operated by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has been in the news a lot in the past decade, and none of it has been for positive reasons. We have seen reports of trains crashing and people injured and killed and a train trapped in a smoke-filled tunnel that caused the death of one victim. We have seen reports of workers injured or killed, and numerous safety violations, as well as a seemingly never-ending barrage of accusations of financial mismanagement.

In yet another recent news article for the Washington Post, we learn that five fired metro track workers are now suing WMATA on various claims, including discrimination and the creation of a hostile work environment. These workers had all been employed in the transit systems track inspection department. Two of these plaintiffs were track walkers and two of them were department supervisors. The last employee was a maintenance engineer. Continue Reading ›

LA County Metro Aims to Hire more Female Workers

December 15, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

According to a recent news feature from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, the Los Angeles Country Transportation Authority (Metro) is planning to do a lot of construction work in the near future, and they expect many of the new workers to be women.

Technically, Metro will not be doing any of the construction on the five new major rail projects, because they will be awarding bids to general contractors, and these contractors will then hire employees to do the actual work. However, Metro does control the contracting process, and the agreements all require general contractors to employ at least the minimum percentage of female workers as outlined in the agreement. They could, of course, hire more than the minimum number of female employees required, and that would be perfectly fine with Metro. Continue Reading ›

Immigrant Workers in California Strawberry Farming Must be Protected

September 14, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

There are millions of immigrants arriving in the United States each year, and many of these people choose to come to California. There are many reasons one would pick California as a place to find work and make a home. There are many jobs here that immigrants can get if they want. While many think of the construction industry as a large source of employment, in California, agriculture offers a large number of employment opportunities. Another reason people choose to live in California is because the state has some of the more progressive laws to protect immigrants in the nation.

According to a recent news article from the Californian, strawberry farmers tend to hire a lot of immigrant workers to work on their farms. Strawberry crops must be planted by hand, looked after and weeded by hand. Once the crops are producing strawberries, the fruit must be picked by hand to prevent the fruit from being bruised and to keep the plant alive, so it can produce more strawberries. For this reason, farm machines like combine harvesters are not useful in the strawberry farming industry, so manual labor is needed more so than with other crops, such as corn, which can be harvested almost entirely by machines. Continue Reading ›

Disability Discrimination Lawsuits Proliferate Nationwide

November 1, 2013 | by Nassiri Law

A number of high-profile disability discrimination lawsuits across the country are an important reminder of the fact that although we have made a great deal of progress in this arena, we still have a far way to go.

Here in California, the Fair Employment Housing Act, enforced by the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, bars employment discrimination on the basis of a person’s disability or even a perceived disability.

There are also requirements that hold employers to an expectation that they will reasonably act to accommodate workers with physical or mental disabilities and illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and cancer. In those cases where an employer fails to do this, the burden of proof is on the employer to show why doing so would cause an undue hardship.