California employment lawyer

Federal Employment Discrimination Lawsuit May Require Proof of Disparate Treatment of “Similarly Situated” Co-Worker

February 3, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

When it comes to establishing discrimination and/or wrongful termination, it’s worth noting that some unique challenges can arise when trying to establish the adverse employment action was discriminatory. As our Los Angeles employment attorneys can explain, some legal arguments require plaintiffs to identify a “similarly situated” individual – someone with the same or similar job – who is outside the protected class, engaged in the same conduct, yet was treated more favorably than the plaintiff.

If the plaintiff is a manager, they may need to find evidence of other managers being given more favorable treatment. If they’re drivers, they may need to show evidence other drivers (not supervisors) were treated better. If they’re teachers, they may need to show other teachers (not principals or secretaries) being treated more favorably.

This was underscored in a recent federal employment lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and wrongful termination of a UPS supervisor.

Federal Racial Discrimination/Wrongful Termination Employment Lawsuit After Drug Test

After 20 years of employment, an on-road supervisor who is Black was fired after testing positive for cocaine in a random drug test. He filed an employment lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and wrongful termination, citing violations of both state and federal law. He indicated his direct supervisor told him that his superior had “racist tendencies” and had made racist comments about Black people to other employees.

The federal district trial court in New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The case, Langley v. UPS, then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appellate court also affirmed the ruling in favor of the employer. In its explanation, the court detailed the factual background: Continue Reading ›

California Layoffs Without Notice Can Lead to Legal Trouble

November 7, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Social media giant Twitter is facing legal action over allegedly laying off more than 950 workers without providing proper notice, as required under the federal and California WARN Act. WARN stands for Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Per the California Department of Industrial Relations, relocations, terminations, and mass layoffs in this state are regulated in Labor Code sections 1400-1408. Generally speaking, most large employers aren’t allowed to order mass layoffs, relocations, or terminations unless the employer provides written notice to employees 60 days prior to the order taking effect. Employers are also required to notify the state’s Employment Development Department. As our Los Angeles employment lawyers can explain, failure to do this can trigger recompense for ex-employees for back pay, the value of any benefits workers may have been entitled to during that time. Companies can obtain an exemption from the law if certain conditions under Labor Code section 1402.5 are met, but that doesn’t appear to have been the case here with Twitter.

Musk’s Rocky Start at Twitter Helm

As it’s been widely-reported, Twitter was recently purchased by Tesla CEO Elon Musk. The acquisition deal had been in the works for months, but was finally sealed Oct. 28th for a $44 billion price tag. At the time, he promised to keep employee benefits and compensation the same.

News soon began to spread that Twitter would begin mass layoffs the first week of November. In an effort to eliminate costs, Twitter axed 50 percent of its workforce, reducing staff by 3,700 positions.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, alleges the company initiated layoffs starting Nov. 1st, with several employees saying they were in the first wave of mass layoffs, despite not receiving proper written notice in accordance with state and federal employment law.

Of note: It’s not the first time Musk has been accused of violating WARN laws. Continue Reading ›

Los Angeles Employment Lawyer Reminder: Minimum Wage Up to $15.50 in 2023

August 1, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

A fair share of California employment lawsuits stem from employers’ failure to pay fair wages – including minimum wage. As a Los Angeles employment lawyer, I can affirm that failure to pay the state’s minimum wage ends up costing employers far more in the long-run. This is why it’s important to point out that California’s minimum wage rates are about to increase.

As recently confirmed by the California Department of Finance, the state is increasing the minimum wage for all employers by 3.5 percent to 10 percent to keep pace with inflation. that means statewide, minimum wage is going to increase from $15 hourly for employers with 26-or-more employees (which was set January 1st, 2022) to $15.50 hourly, which will become effective January 1st, 2023.

It’s important to note that this is applicable to all employers regardless of size. That’s a notable deviation from previous California minimum wage increases, which had been separated by employers with 26 or more employees and those with 25 or fewer. That means this increase will be particularly impactful for smaller businesses, whose minimum wage was set to $14 hourly at the start of this year. They, just like larger companies, are going to be expected to increase the minimum wages to $15.50. For them, this is a 10 percent wage increase.

It should be noted, however, that with this increase in the state minimum wage also comes a corresponding raise in the minimum salary that is required for a work to be qualified as “exempt” under so-called “white collar exemptions.” (These are especially impactful when it comes time to paying time-and-a-half for overtime. Salaried employees are exempt from this, but as a Los Angeles employment attorney, I have seen far too many cases of employees being wrongly classified as exempt.) In order to be exempt, the employee must:

Perform specified duties in a particular manner.
Be paid a monthly salary that is no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment.
As of Jan. 1, 2023, to qualify for a white collar exemption requires the employee to earn an annual salary of $64,480 (or $1,240 weekly).
Employee spends more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt duties.
Salary of exempt employees is guaranteed, and cannot be reduced for quality or quantity of work.

The proof burden for establishing that employee should be classified as exempt is on the employer, as established in the 1999 ruling of Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. Continue Reading ›

When Can I Sue for Wrongful Termination in California?

April 25, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Wrongful termination in California is a situation wherein a worker is laid off or fired for a reason that violates state or federal law or public policy.

As our Orange County employment attorneys can explain, most wrongful terminations stem from firing that resulted from:

Violation of an implied contract.
Whistleblower activities.
Violations of public policy.
Exercising rights under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Filing a workers’ compensation claim or reporting a work injury.
WARN Act violations (involving mass layoffs).
Retaliation for workers exercising rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or state employee leave laws.

Workers who successfully bring a wrongful termination lawsuit may be entitled to collect lost wages and benefits, back pay, compensation for emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages (the last specifically awarded for gross misconduct by an employer).

How Do I Know if My Firing Was an Exception to California’s At-Will Employment Law?

When we say that wrongful termination lawsuits stem from illegitimate reasons, we’re specifically referring to unlawful reasons. The reality is that as an at-will employment state, an employer can legally fire you for no reason at all. Just the same way an employee can quit for any reason at all.

However, if you get fired for reasons that have something to do with your race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, color, sexual orientation, gender identity, age (if over 40), disability, marital status, pregnancy (or related condition), medical condition, being a member of the military or a victim of domestic violence/stalking, etc. – that is what amounts to a wrongful termination under federal and/or state laws. (Cities may have their own additional categories that are protected under law.)

Similarly, one can sue for wrongful termination if the termination occurred in violation of an implied contract. Employers create implied contracts by doing things like issuing employee handbooks that list specific causes for termination or telling an employee they won’t be fired unless they engage in certain behavior.

Another exception to at-will employment is when termination is in violation of public policy. The best example of this would be an employee who refuses to follow an employer’s order to break the law and is fired for it. That individual would have a case for public policy wrongful termination. Similarly, companies can’t fire workers for telling police the employer broke the law or for reporting unsafe working conditions to an agency like OSHA.

Workers can’t be fired in retaliation for reporting or cooperating with a case involving harassment, discrimination, criminal wrongdoing, wage and hour violations, or safety violations. Continue Reading ›

Understanding the Ministerial Exception in California Employment Lawsuits

February 7, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Both federal and state anti-discrimination laws cover most employers in California. These laws prevent employers from firing or taking other adverse action against workers on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity, pregnancy, nationality, disability, etc. However, as our Riverside employment lawyers can explain, religious institutions – including schools – are often protected by something known as the ministerial exception. What sometimes throws people is that:

One does not need to be an actual minister – or even administrator – for the exception to be applicable.
The ministerial exception may protect religious institutions from claims of employment discrimination that aren’t solely about religious discrimination.

The California Supreme Court in the past has expressed empathy for employees at religious institutes (mostly schools) unable to sue for employment discrimination under the law when they’d otherwise be able to, but for the ministerial exception. It remains a significant barrier to some claims.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claim by a California Catholic high school principal, who the court found qualified as a minister under the ministerial exception. Continue Reading ›

California Employee Retaliation Case Threatens to Slash Worker Protection Nationally

May 15, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Los Angeles employment lawyers have been carefully watching developments in a California workplace retaliation lawsuit that raises new questions about the scope of protections afforded under federal labor laws. This could potentially endanger these protections – not only here in the Golden State, but across the country – if the National Labor Relations Board sides with the construction company employer in the dispute.

Many employment law attorneys and scholars agree that a core safety net in all labor statutes – state and federal – is the understanding that litigation is a protected activity. This principle forms the foundation of labor laws that prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for filing a lawsuit for things like unlawful discrimination or wage and hour violations.

Relying on New U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

How Do I File an Employment Discrimination Lawsuit in California?

February 17, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Employment discrimination can be subtle, but it is described as unequal treatment or attitudes toward one group of employees or against another resulting in unfair, adverse impacts to a protected class of employees or prospective employees. Among the most common questions our Riverside employment discrimination attorneys receive is, “How do I file an employment discrimination lawsuit in California?” One of the first things we need to determine is whether you belong to a protected class, and if so, whether they suffered disparate and negative treatment as at least partially a result of being in that class.

The California Fair Employment Practices Act marks its 60th anniversary in 2019. The law prohibits discrimination against employees and/or applicants on the basis of one’s actual or perceived belonging or association with one of the following protected classes:

Gender (this provision also bars sexual harassment);

Race and Color
Ethnicity
Marital Status
National Origin or Ancestry
Religious Creed
Pregnancy, Childbirth or Related Conditions (including lactation)
Disability
Age (pertains to individuals over the age of 40)

Once our Riverside employment discrimination attorneys examine the facts of the case to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to file a claim, we’ll give you a detailed rundown of your legal options. Unlike other types of civil claims, the process of filing an employment discrimination claim doesn’t always go straight to court. Continue Reading ›

New Year, New Laws Affect Employment in California

January 15, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

Big changes have arrived in the state of California in the new year, many of which will have a direct impact on employers and their employees.

The San Francisco Chronicle recently documented a run-down of the biggest additions to state law and how they will change life in California in 2018 and beyond.

The list included everything from the new recreational cannabis laws, protections for women in the workplace, as well as employee rights for criminals.

While some of these changes have obvious and direct effects on the workplace, others are less clear, particularly the legalization of recreational marijuana, which quickly has turned into one of the biggest stories of the year. Continue Reading ›

Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highways Express – Associational Disability Discrimination

May 11, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

A sharply divided California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, issued a decision allowing a plaintiff to proceed with his associational disability discrimination claim against his employer. This was a reversal of the trial court’s opinion in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highways Express Inc., wherein a father alleged he was fired for his need to assist his disabled son.

This kind of “association” discrimination is outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which bars discrimination against an employee based on their association or relationship with an individual who has a known disability. The provision in 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(4) means a company is forbidden from taking adverse action against a worker simply for associating with or having a relationship with someone who is disabled.

Under the ADA, companies are required to give qualified workers with disabilities reasonable accommodations. However, federal courts have held in prior cases (see Tyndall, 4th Cir. 1994, Overly, 6th Cir. 2006) that this association discrimination provision doesn’t mean workers are entitled to employment modifications in order to care for a disabled spouse or child. Continue Reading ›

Twitter Takes On Gender Bias Employment Lawsuit in California

February 7, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

Much has been written about the lack of gender diversity in Silicon Valley. The problem has even birthed a few California employment lawsuits, with varied results. Most notable among those was the case of Ellen Pao, a junior partner, against her former employer and powerhouse venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Pao lost her her bid for compensation spring, after jurors found there was not enough evidence of gender discrimination.

Now in the latest legal action against a technology giant, Twitter is accused of gender discrimination by a former engineer. Tina Huang claims she was forced out of the firm because she is a woman. She has the testimony of a former colleague to help back her claims.

However, Twitter has come out swinging, alleging that former colleague of Huang’s likely violated an employment contract by helping his friend land a job at the venture capital firm where he’d begun working. The company plans to file a motion to dismiss, claiming the allegations have no basis in truth. Continue Reading ›