employment lawsuit

When California Employment Discrimination Involves Non-Minority Plaintiffs

December 28, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

When it comes to employment discrimination in California, we tend to presume that the complainants facing unfair treatment are those in the social minority group or otherwise at a systemic disadvantage. And they usually are: Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, women, religious minorities, members of the LGBTQ community, those with darker skin, those born outside of the United States, those who are pregnant, those with disabilities, etc. These are the individuals most commonly adversely impacted by personal biases and systemic inequalities that bleed into the workplace.

That said: State and federal anti-discrimination laws generally do not limit these protections solely to minority groups. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states it’s an unlawful employment practice for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Nowhere does it mention that certain races or religions or genders are the only ones covered by the law.

In other words, as our Los Angeles employment lawyers can explain, it is entirely possible for a White, Christian, heterosexual, young male born in the U.S. to be a plaintiff in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The key question is going to be: Was the worker treated unfairly on the basis of any of those characteristics?

California Wage & Hour Laws Applicable to Non-Residents Working for Outside Companies When Work is Done Here

February 27, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

California is widely recognized as having some of the strongest worker protections in the country. Recently, a California appellate court ruled that these wage and hour laws can be applied in some cases even for non-state residents working for a non-California employer – so long as the work was primarily done in California and work operations were based here.

The case, Gulf Offshore Logistics LLC v. Superior Court, was decided in December by California’s Second Appellate District, Division Six. Plaintiffs were members of a crew of offshore oil platforms for defendants on a boat that was docked exclusively in California for over six years. Administrative functions at the company took place at their headquarters in Louisiana, which was also where the vessel was registered. During the course of their assignments, plaintiffs were compelled to travel between state, federal and international waters.

The lawsuit alleged violation of California’s wage and hour laws – specifically those pertaining to minimum wage compensation, overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, accurate record-keeping and providing workers with wage statements. Defendants sought a summary judgment not on the merits, but rather on grounds that the proper venue for the case was Louisiana, not California. (Louisiana’s laws would also be much less favorable to employees.) Continue Reading ›

Racial Discrimination Alleged by Black Worker at Facebook

July 20, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A Black employee for Facebook, represented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has alleged in a complaint he experienced racial discrimination at the firm, being denied promotions and pay raises and receiving unfair evaluations, despite “excellent” work performance. Meanwhile, two job applicants say they were denied the opportunity to work for the company – despite being qualified – because of their skin color.

According to the Associated Press, the employee was employed as an operations program manager at the social media firm. Facebook said it is committed to investigating allegations of racism. The AP reports that like many Silicon Valley companies, Black workers are underrepresented, accounting for less than 4 percent of the total number of Facebook employees and only 1.5 percent of the company’s technical workers.

Allegations of racial discrimination have been leveled before at the company. Although CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared last month that, “Black lives matter,” previous employees say the tech firm hasn’t made racial diversity a priority. Continue Reading ›

Witnesses Can Be Key in California Workplace Harassment Cases

July 5, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Civil claims based on California employment law can be difficult to prove, particularly when they involve a case of alleged harassment, which often boils down to “he-said-she-said.” But whether we’re talking about harassment, wrongful termination or retaliation, plaintiffs will generally bear the proof burden. This is why for so many cases, witness statements prove critical.

One of the reasons witnesses are so essential is that they are, if not wholly unbiased, at least gaining less from the lawsuit than either of the involved parties. This is important in jury trials and even settlement negotiations, when it’s unclear who really has the stronger case.

For instance, plaintiff could argue that he was fired for making safety violations and that the performance-related reasons the company gave for the termination were nothing more than pretext. However, absent some solid proof, your Los Angeles employment attorney is going to need more than your word alone to prove this.

Similarly a restaurant manager’s sexual harassment of a young female waitress may be difficult to prove on her word alone. However, if co-workers attest to seeing it, that helps to substantially bolster the case. Continue Reading ›

State Tracking of California Sexual Harassment & Gender Discrimination by 2020

June 27, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A state-mandated project to track sexual harassment and gender discrimination in California government is slated to start in January 2020 – finally. Our Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyers know that not only will that make it a year late, but also long overdue.

The $1.5 million project was supposed to have already been underway this year, making 2019 the first year officials would have data on what we know to be a pervasive problem.

Under the previous state administration, the project was outlined as a meaningful first step toward addressing allegations of government-employee harassment and discrimination based on gender. The initiative was spurred in the midst of the #MeToo movement – at a time when more than 140 women working for the state government signed an open letter detailing their experiences with workplace sexual harassment.

Those included:

A California State Corrections Officer who, along with numerous other female corrections officers, were ignored when reporting constant indecent exposure and sexual harassment at work. When the CO wrote up an inmate for indecent exposure one week, nothing was done and she was brutally attacked by that same inmate while working without her partner one day. Officers later found numerous drawings of the C.O. in sexually explicit and violent poses in the inmate’ cell.
A state Highway Patrol field officer sexually harassed for months by another officer while supervisors did nothing to respond.
A state pollution control employee raped by a supervisor.

They are among 10 sexual harassment plaintiffs to whom The Sacramento Bee reported the state had paid some $25 million over the course of three years just to settle claims. Continue Reading ›

Establishing Pretext in a California Employee Discrimination Lawsuit

June 23, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

In many employment discrimination lawsuits, proving pretext means showing evidence that the defendant employer’s reported reason for taking adverse employment action is contrived. In other words, the reason the company gave for the worker’s firing or other adverse employment event was made up in order to cover up its discriminatory intent.

If a California employment lawsuit plaintiff can prove “prima facie” (correct on first impression) evidence that there was employment discrimination, the court will shift the burden of proof to the employer to prove that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action it took. Plaintiff may then take this reason and provide evidence that it’s merely a pretext for discrimination. Plaintiff will have the burden of showing it was a cover-up, and not in fact the reason reason for the employment decision.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc. ruling the plaintiff employee had made a valid comparison of a similarly situated employee who was treated differently than he was. This served as evidence of that the defense was using this as a pretext for the reason reason – which was discriminatory. Continue Reading ›

Settlement Reached in Long-Running California Wage Dispute Over Trucker Pay

October 31, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

Commercial trucking carrier J.B. Hunt has agreed to pay a $15 million settlement in an employment lawsuit over trucker pay, weeks after the original class of 11,000 was de-certified. Los Angeles wage dispute lawyers following the case recall the firm had sought intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing interstate drivers in California should be exempt from state law mandates on meal and rest breaks.

In Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport Inc., originally filed more than a decade ago, plaintiffs asserted the commercial trucking company failed to pay drivers in accordance with California wage-and-hour laws. Truck drivers in California (like all other employees) are entitled at minimum to receive 30-minute breaks for every 5 hours in which they work. It was the carrier’s position that a federal law passed in 1994 preempted this requirement by asserting that state statues couldn’t interfere with laws pertaining to interstate trucking.

Wage dispute lawyers in California know that the trucking industry lobbied hard – for years – to pass the Denham Amendment to that 1994 law, which would have effectively voided California’s law and any other state that attempted to pass one similar. Absent that amendment, states have the right to override this provision. The effect in California is that a truck driver over the course of an 11-hour shift would be required to take two, 30-minute breaks. Defendant in this case isn’t the only one to face scrutiny after workers alleged they also were denied state-mandated breaks from their employer. Continue Reading ›

9th DCA: No Rehire Clause in Employment Lawsuit Settlement Breaches Trade Law

October 8, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

What started as a California racial discrimination wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a physician has on appeal broadened employee rights of refusal in so-called “no rehire clauses” in settlement.

The case, Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medicine Group, had previously been before the 9th DCA, but the appellate court weighed it once more to consider whether an employee could lawfully be ordered to sign an employment lawsuit settlement that would restrict future employment with the former employer/ defendant.

The answer is: It depends. In this case, some of the factors that came into play were the size and reach of defendant’s corporation, as well as the fact that the restriction included a provision that plaintiff would be at risk for termination even if his current employer or another in the future contracted with his former employer. For instance, if his former employer – a partnership of 2,000 doctors providing services to emergency rooms and 160 other facilities in 10 states – contracted to provide, say anesthesiology services with a hospital wherein plaintiff was working, his employment would be in jeopardy. That, said the court, violated his rights as outlined in BPC Section 16600.

As Los Angeles wrongful termination attorneys can explain, this is something we may see be highly relevant in future California employment law cases against large corporate defendants, particularly for professionals in specialized fields. Continue Reading ›

Restaurants Ordered to Pay Back Wages, Penalties to Immigrant Workers

September 21, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Mistreatment of immigrant employees unfortunately happens all too often, as some employers take advantage of workers’ lack of English skills and fear of potential deportation. Holding these firms accountable for such discrimination is a primary goal of our L.A. employment discrimination lawyers.

One’s immigration status or language skills should have no bearing on the way a company treats its workers.

Recently in Illinois, two restaurants and an employment agency were ordered to pay nearly $215,000 in back wages and penalties to a number of immigrant workers who were both mistreated and underpaid. Defendants in the matter – a sushi restaurant, a hibachi restaurant and an employment agency in Chinatown – are all expected to abide the consent decree. A judge will be in charge of overseeing the execution of the settlement, which partly requires the businesses to make a notable change in their employment practices. Continue Reading ›

California Court Sides With Airline in Flight Attendant Wages Lawsuit

March 8, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A judge in California has ruled on an employment lawsuit, ruling in favor of the airline in finding out-of-state workers with limited attendance in the state aren’t entitled to protections under California’s wage-and-hour laws.

The class action litigation, to which four flight attendants had been a party to, alleged their airline employer had violated California’s Labor Code. They argued that because they were frequently stationed in the state and because state law governs their scheduled work for that pay period, they should be entitled to the benefits that come with that.

However, the judge favored the employer, finding the workers were hardly ever in California, which meant they weren’t eligible for California’s legal workplace protections – specifically, the wage and hour laws. Further, the fact that the airline is not headquartered in the state bolstered the defense. Continue Reading ›