9th Circuit Sides With Employers on California Forced Arbitration Law

March 16, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

A California law that prohibits employers from forcing workers to resolve major workplace disputes in private arbitration is a violation of federal statute – according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The 2-1 ruling addresses conflict over California’s AB51, which criminalizes the act of an employer forcing an employee to sign an arbitration agreement that would compel them to resolve serious job conflicts before a private arbiter rather than in court.

As our Los Angeles employment lawyers can explain, this outcome is considered a big win for employers and big businesses – and a serious blow to the average worker.

These so-called “mandatory arbitration agreements” require workers to settle their complaints about things like sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in a closed-door, private session – with an arbitration company paid by the employer – rather than in an open, public court proceeding. Arbitrators don’t even necessarily have to follow the law or due process, the way courts are bound. Such agreements had become extremely common in California and throughout the country in recent years, with many companies forcing workers to sign them as a condition of employment.

Those who support mandatory arbitration to resolve workplace disputes say it’s faster and cheaper than court, and makes the most sense when trying to settle routine points of contention. However, labor advocates say such agreements help to hide systemic abuses and discrimination. Arbitration agreements were shown to be particularly problematic in the midst of the #MeToo movement because workers weren’t able to identify their unfair or unlawful treatment as part of a bigger problem as opposed to an isolated incident that impacted only them.

AB51, which went into effect in 2019, attempted to address these concerns. It was passed along with a clutch of several other bills intended to protect workers from sexual harassment, unlawful wage gaps, and inadequate workplace health and safety protections. Continue Reading ›

Types of California Workplace Discrimination

June 15, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

California workplace discrimination can be broadly explained as a job candidate or employee is treated unfavorably due to their age (if over 40), disability, genetic information, national origin, ethnicity, pregnancy, religion, race or skin color, or sex. Federal law make it illegal for employers to retaliate against applicants or employees who assert their right to be free of employment discrimination.

Here, our Riverside workplace discrimination lawyers explain the basics of employment discrimination laws.

Title VII

One of the primary sources of our federal workplace anti-discrimination laws is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This statutes makes it unlawful to discriminate during hiring, discharge, referral, promotion, termination, or any other aspect of employment on the basis of color, race, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII is enforceable by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Title VII banned workplace discrimination against LGBT employees on the basis of their sexual orientation. (Prior to that, protections for LGBT workers was only specified in certain states, California being one of them.) Furthermore, federal subcontractors are required to implement affirmative actions to ensure equal employment opportunities regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, race, color, or religion. Continue Reading ›

Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Bill Has a Shot at Passing

April 2, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

Pregnant workers have long faced discrimination in the workplace. California has some of the strongest protections for pregnant workers, but our employment discrimination lawyers in L.A. know employees in the rest of the country has not been so fortunate. That could soon change, if a new bill moving through the House is successful.

The bill, called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, or PWFA, was first introduced in 2012 – and nearly every House session since. In the meantime, pregnancy discrimination lawsuits across the U.S. have numbered in the thousands – including one that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, it seems the latest effort has real promise. When H.R. 1065 was first introduced several months ago, it got 225 sponsors and included representative from both sides of the political aisle, increasing optimism about its prospects.

What Would the PWFA Do?

The main thing the PWFA could do for pregnant workers across the country is to both clarify and strengthen the decades-old Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This law made it unlawful for employers to use pregnancy as a determining factor when deciding who to hire, fire, promote, etc.

The PDA has some great intent and important protections. But as our Los Angeles pregnancy discrimination lawyers know, it doesn’t go far enough for many workers. It was passed as an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act some four decades ago. The original federal law is frankly pretty ambiguous. Critical language is left undefined, and frequently, employee plaintiffs face an almost insurmountable proof burden to establish discrimination. Continue Reading ›

Is Caste System Discrimination Illegal in California Workplaces?

July 5, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Recently, California employment law regulators filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Silicon Valley technology company Cisco, Inc., accusing the multinational firm of failing to intervene in harassment experienced by an Indian-American employee by two of his managers because he’s from a lower Indian caste than they are.

The Indian caste system is an ancient one that divide’s the country’s Hindus into four different social hierarchy groups. Privilege is bestowed on the higher castes while prejudice and repression is sanctioned against lower castes. India’s constitution banned caste-based discrimination in 1950, but much like the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, enforcement has been a process.

As our Orange County employment discrimination attorneys can explain, neither Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor the California Fair Housing and Employment Act bars discrimination on the basis of one’s caste. However, it does protect against discrimination on the basis of religion. What regulators in the case against Cisco are alleging is that the caste system stems from the Hindu faith, and thus this type of discrimination can be covered against discrimination on the basis of religion.

The court’s position on this is being closely watched by many of the hundreds of thousands of Indian immigrants living and working in California. Continue Reading ›

New California Law Would End “No Rehiring” Clauses in Worker Discrimination Settlements

September 28, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

When a 34-year-old former California correctional officer secured a $1.7 million settlement from her former employer in her pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, she thought that might be the end of it. The agency was accused of failing to accommodate her pregnancy, ultimately resulting in her baby’s stillbirth. But she’s back in court facing them again, this time for a clause in the settlement that required her to resign – and barred her from ever working for the agency again.

Although she does not want to return to that line of work, her concern is the impact this condition might have on her ability to collect disability retirement. A court hearing has been scheduled to address the issue, but this is something our Los Angeles employment attorneys have found affects many, many workers who have been discriminated and retaliated against.

It’s the driving force for a pending bill that would prohibit “no rehire” clauses like this in employment discrimination settlement agreements. Continue Reading ›

Will a Los Angeles Employment Lawyer Take My Discrimination Case?

March 28, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

You may be unsure about whether a Los Angeles employment lawyer will be willing to take your discrimination case. It’s important to understand what constitutes discrimination (not all unfair treatment will qualify) and whether you have or could acquire the evidence necessary to establish a case. If you do have evidence you were treated unfairly in employment or hiring on the basis of being part of a class that is protected by anti-discrimination laws, then a Los Angeles employment attorney will probably want to speak to you.

Employment lawyers do offer free initial consultations, so it is usually worth your time to reach out, explain your situation and arrange a meeting. A few things to keep in mind before you arrive.

Understanding Employment Discrimination

Facebook Vows to Block Discriminatory Employment Advertisements

March 15, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

It is illegal – in California and across the U.S., per the EEOC – to discriminate against a job applicant based on their race, color, religion, gender (including gender identity, sexual orientation and pregnancy) national origin, age (over 40), disability or genetic information. Yet one of the most frequently-used forums to lure new hires has essentially been facilitating just that, according to critics and a few employment lawsuits filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Communication Workers of America.

Social media giant Facebook has faced years of criticism that it allowed companies advertising job listings to use key categories allowing employers to cherry-pick who their ads would be shown to based on age group, gender and race. The New York Times now reports Facebook has agreed it will stop doing this.

It’s not just prospective employees that have been complaining either. Those advertising credit and housing have also been allowed to screen their ads so that they would only show to a certain subset of social media users. (Housing and credit are also regulated by federal anti-discrimination laws that bar selection of applicants on such bases.) Continue Reading ›

Lawsuit Against Google Raises Questions of Gender Discrimination in California

October 4, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Recently, Google has been the target of a wide variety of discrimination lawsuits. From issues of political speech raised by the infamous “anti-diversity manifesto” to the gender issues which plague the technology and venture capital sectors, the tech giant is facing the potential of significant civil liability for violations of state and federal employment law. According to Reuters, Google is also facing an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor into gender discrimination in its pay practices. Now, a new lawsuit alleging gender bias in pay and promotions could be the latest – and greatest – of Google’s legal woes. Continue Reading ›

How Airbnb Host Violations Affect Employers Through the Department of Fair Employment and Housing

July 21, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Employers might be surprised to learn that the actions of an Airbnb host can affect policy and obligations created by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Nonetheless, that is the outcome of a particularly heated racial case arising out of Big Bear.

The Star reports that, in February 2017, Asian UCLA law student Dyne Suh had rented a cabin in Big Bear. The cabin had been rented from Tami Barker through Airbnb. After driving for hours through rain and snow, Suh received a text message canceling the reservation when she was only minutes away from the cabin. Barker wrote:

“I wouldn’t rent to u if u were the last person on earth”
“One word says it all. Asian.”
“This is why we have Trump”
“I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners.”

Suh, an American citizen and law clerk at the Riverdale County Public Defender’s Office, reported the case to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The Department ordered Barker to pay a $5000 fine, issue a personal apology to Suh, take a college level course on Asian American studies, complete community service at a civil rights organization, and report rental data to the Agency for the next four years. Airbnb also permanently banned Barker from their site. Continue Reading ›

Discrimination Against HIV-Positive Workers

July 18, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

For decades, fear spawned widespread discrimination against people with HIV/ AIDS that resulted in sufferers losing their homes, jobs, education opportunities and access to medical and social services.

A series of federal protections, beginning with the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bragdon v. Abbot, made discrimination on the basis of HIV/ AIDS unlawful. There is also HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) which protects patients’ privacy. The U.S. Department of Human Services Office for Civil Rights now offers a clean breakdown of “Your Rights as a Person With HIV Infection or AIDS.”

And yet, it seems HIV/ AIDS discrimination continues to persist, even in 2016. Most recently, it’s been alleged in Arkansas, where the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has launched legal action against the operators of a McDonald’s franchise in a city called Bentonville. There, they allege a worker was fired because of his HIV-positive status. Continue Reading ›