Articles Tagged with Los Angeles employment attorneys

2019 has been a banner year for worker rights in California. One important development that might have gotten lost in the shuffle amid all the rest was the passage of AB738 in September. Effective Jan. 1, 2020, home daycare providers will have the right to form, join and participate in unions. Our Los Angeles employment attorneys know this is a right home-based child care providers have been pursuing for almost two decades. In the lead up to Governor Newsom’s signing the bill, there had been five gubernatorial vetoes of similar bills. Los Angeles employment lawyers

As KCRW.com reports, most of the workers in the industry are women of color who own and operate their own businesses. Yet some lawmakers in the past had taken to routinely calling them “babysitters.” These workers comprise roughly half of the state’s 200,000 early childhood education workers

One of the main reasons they wanted to unionize was to gather bargaining power to finally address subsidized payments – both the amount and method. Reimbursement for individual childcare workers is low to start. When the government steps in to subsidize daycare payments for low-income families, it’s below market rate. On top of that, the way these workers are paid is complex and ultimately problematic because it often results in some workers not being paid for months at a time. Earning enough to survive – let alone run a business, pay taxes, etc. – can be very difficult.

The Economic Policy Institute reports that most of the more than 27,000 licensed family child care providers in California barely earn minimum wage. Unions will allow these workers to better negotiate compensation with the government, as well as other entities like health insurance companies, liability insurance companies, etc. Continue reading

Healthcare workers face an out-sized risk of physical harm on-the-job. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration reports that more than 75 percent of the 25,000 workplace assaults that occur annually in the U.S. occur in settings like hospitals, nursing homes and other social service settings. On average, health care workers are 20 times more likely to be injured in an act of workplace violence than other types of employees. The American Nurses Association reports 1 in 4 nurses has been physically assaulted by either a patient or a patient’s family member.healthcare worker violence protection

This was the basis for the introduction of H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. The measure passed with notable bipartisan support in the House of Representatives (251-158). If passed, it would usher in the healthcare workplace violence prevention standards that already exist in California on a national level. However, it still has to make it through the Senate, and even if it does, officials with the Trump White House have said the president would veto it as written.

The American Hospital Association opposes the bill, with the executive vice president saying federal interests should instead be more focused on “research to identify best practices for different workplace settings and circumstances.” That information should then be disseminated to health care facilities to adopt as necessary, rather than requiring “a one-size-fits-all approach.”

However, the measure is strongly supported by numerous health care worker labor unions. Continue reading

Employees at giant tech companies are figuring out ways to exercise free speech and protest against employment attorneysassignments they find ethically questionable, in spite of at-will laws that could get them fired for such acts of rebellion, according to CNBC. Employees at big names such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are staging protests and signing petitions largely in response to government contracts requesting work they find objectionable. Some examples include facial recognition software being used by police, improved military drone technology, and technology used in immigration and customs enforcement.

Nondisclosure agreements and general fear of losing their jobs have kept workers quiet about moral gray areas when it comes to tech work in the past. The First Amendment protects free speech, preventing the government from impeding on rights of U.S. citizens. Those rights, however, do not protect people from their places of business taking action against them. Whistleblower laws offer some safeguards, but only if an employee is reporting illegal activity. They do not protect employees who are taking a stance against legal projects to which they have an ethical objection. Public dissent against the company you work for is not protected and could easily get a person fired. Continue reading

According to a recent news report from the Los Angeles Times, workers at a golf course owned by President Donald J. Trump’s family business, and the workers of another luxury resort nearby have, through their union representation, filed a lawsuit against the city clerk after their proposed ballot initiation was not placed on the staff meeting for the upcoming meeting required to allow the measure on the November 2018 ballot.

employment lawyersThis ballot measure would require all employees who work in remote areas of the property, or who are working alone, to be provided with panic buttons they could activate if they were the target of a sexual assault or in some other type of danger. The ballot measure would also require the employees to be paid at least a $15 per hour minimum wage as well as the provision of other related benefits.  Continue reading

A longtime agent in Tennessee has filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles-headquartered Agency for the Performingemployment lawyers Arts alleging a hostile work environment and seeking to be released from his contract. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee. Plaintiff claims executives at the agency have tried to edge him out and take his clients, sent hostile and abusive emails to him, and threw him into a wall during an argument, according to a report from Tennessean. The agent alleged an internal inquiry into the events led to a vague response from the company, essentially calling on all parties involved to follow the rules and get along. Plaintiff found this conclusion unacceptable, and believes APA’s tolerance of a hostile work environment frees him of his contract, which is set to expire in 2019. Continue reading

As the #MeToo movement has proven, it’s tough being a woman in the workplace, particularly working in a male-dominated field. Evenage discrimination tougher, it seems, is the discrimination women face as they get older and try to maintain their standing in their professional careers. Many face a different set of standards as they age than their male counterparts, according to an examination by Forbes. Men’s age is often seen as a symbol of experience, status, wisdom, and leadership capabilities. Even if they lack the modern skills some younger people bring to the workforce, they are typically valued for the knowledge they can share with those inexperienced in the field. For women, though, their age can be construed as a sign that they are outdated, out-of-touch, and lacking technical abilities. Sadly, physical appearance is frequently a factor is these discriminatory practices, with men’s appearances being viewed more favorably as they age.

Ageism and sexism run deep in our society, so some might not even be aware they are mentally perceiving their employees differently. But hidden biases are not an excuse to give employees unequal treatment. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Sec. 623 clearly states it is unlawful to fail or refuse to hire someone because of their age, or to discriminate in any way including compensation or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The law also prohibits classifying or segregating an employee in such a way that deprives them of opportunities other employees enjoy as a result of his or her age. Reduction of wages due to a person’s age is also illegal. Of course consideration of a person’s sex was already prohibited in workplace hiring, firing, and promotion matters based on Title VII of the civil rights Act of 1964.

Continue reading

We’ve heard all too many stories since the emergence of the #MeToo movement about women who wanted to come forward with theirwhistleblower attorneys accounts of workplace sexual misconduct, but their companies had created loopholes that made it nearly impossible or too risky to go public. One former Uber employee is kicking down some of those barriers and working alongside the California Assembly to make it happen.

The former Uber engineer drew national attention when she previously wrote a blog post about alleged sexual harassment and questionable practices within the company, according to Tech Crunch. Her courage to speak up led to the resignation of Uber’s then CEO last summer. Now the ex-employee is supporting a bill that will help women in situations like hers to be able to seek public legal action. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzales Fletcher (D-San Diego) introduced AB-3080, a bill that addresses one of the major ways companies try to silence internal complaints: forced arbitration.

Continue reading

They might share a name, hours, and overarching rules, but according to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,employment attorneys  7-Eleven franchisees are not direct employees of 7-Eleven. In the original employment lawsuit complaint, filed by a group of four franchisees, plaintiffs pointed to 7-Eleven’s restrictive rules, alleging they were unable to run a truly independent franchise and therefore qualified them as employees of the parent company. But the court ruled plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate an employee-employer relationship. Our employment attorneys experienced in wage and hour lawsuits know this could set a significant precedent for current and future cases involving franchises.

According to National Law Review, plaintiffs attempted to make a case based on a few factors:

  • The requirement that franchisees remain open 364 days a year for 24 hours a day.
  • 7-Eleven distributes payments to all employees.
  • 7-Eleven sets rules for pay practices, discipline, terminations, and performance appraisals.

Continue reading

One of the best ways workers can shield themselves from discriminatory practices at work is through the use of organized resistance to unscrupulous practices by employers.  When a worker’s rights have been violated, there may be the possibility of taking legal action but many labor unions strive to prevent such violations before they occur.

racial discriminationAccording to a recent news article from People’s World, the Los Angeles chapter of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), has pledged to renew their efforts to form an “inseparable resistance to illegal and otherwise unfair employment practices” committed by various employers in Los Angeles and across California. Continue reading

In a surprise move, the National Labor Relations Board reversed its own recent stance on the “joint employer rule” that determines the standard for unions and workers to hold companies accountable for the actions of contractors and franchisees. The Obama-era joint employer rule made it easier for workers and unions. A December 2017 decision by the labor board under Trump reversed that. But late last month, the board has ruled that a conflict of interest nullifies the December ruling – meaning workers will once again have an easier time holding employers accountable (for now). labor law attorney

The board determined one of the members had a conflict of interest. The December ruling had indicated franchisors could only be considered a “joint employer” to a franchisee when there is evidence the franchisor exercised direct control over workers. It was an about-face from the 2015 ruling that empowered workers to pursue claim against or seek collective bargaining with major corporations that may not actually sign their paychecks. It’s not necessary to show direct control under this standard.

Major franchise owners, like McDonald’s, have a lot at stake in this decision. These companies prefer to insulate themselves from responsibility once a franchisee takes over by limiting their own liability for a franchisee’s alleged labor law violations. 

Continue reading