Los Angeles employment lawyer

Rampant Racism, Sexism in Fitness Industry Led to $11.25 Million Employment Law Verdict

June 1, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

A former professional body builder and personal trainer manager won her $11.25 million employment lawsuit after a jury agreed that she had been the target of rampant racism and sexism. While the case is out of New York City, NY, our Los Angeles employment lawyers recognize that such problems are pervasive throughout the fitness industry.

It’s no secret that the racial and gender diversity in many elite health clubs becomes slimmer the higher up the ladder you go. Although harmful stereotypes of the “Black athletic archetype” are deeply rooted in the U.S., it’s also given rise to the racist presumption that the only “acceptable” place for these displays is on a sports playing field. (Even then, we were well into the 20th Century before most sporting events were open to Black competitors.)

Private gyms started to gain popularity in the 1970s and 1980s – largely in the suburbs. But even if technically open to all people, those of color were underrepresented thanks to systemic redlining; they simply weren’t living in the areas where the gyms were opening. We started to see some expansion of diversity with the introduction of more ethnic fitness programs, such as Zumba, Yoga, Tae Bo, and Hip Hop dancing. But those programs still skew heavily white in many areas – both in terms of membership and employment.

Does California Law Protect Against Workplace Harassment by Customers?

May 31, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

“The customer is always right.” That’s the longtime adage, anyway. But it’s dead wrong when it comes to workplace harassment. Both California and federal laws protect employees against workplace harassment by customers, as well as colleagues and supervisors.

This is true whether your clients are high-level investors, bar patrons, retail shoppers, or patients.

You have the right to work in a harassment-free environment. That goes not just for sexual harassment, but harassment on the basis of any protected class – disability, age, religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, military or veteran status, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy or related condition, etc. In California, this right also extends to independent contractors, not just employees. A harassment-free workplace is not a privilege. It’s not up for debate. It is your right.

If your employer has failed to protect you from workplace harassment by customers, you need to get on the phone with a Los Angeles employment lawyer as soon as possible. The company/employer could be held liable for failure to protect you from harassment perpetrated by non-employees, so long as there is evidence they knew or should have known about it and failed to take swift and reasonable steps to stop it.

Depending on the nature of the harassment, you might have only 180 days from the date of the last incident to initiate your complaint (if it’s a federal-level complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). You probably have longer for state-level claims, but these aren’t “wait and see” situations. Fast action is recommended.

Laws that Protect Employees from Customer Harassment

Both federal and state laws protect against workers being subjected to a hostile work environment as a result of harassment. Continue Reading ›

California Racial Discrimination Alleged by Black Doctor at Large Healthcare System

May 21, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

The implicit bias and racial disparities in health care are well-documented. In America, Black people are likely to get sicker and die earlier than other racial groups – largely because they receive lower quality (and quantity) health care than white counterparts. But according to a recent California racial discrimination employment lawsuit, the patients aren’t the only ones treated disparately.

According to recent court filings, the case in question involves an internationally renowned eye doctor for children – the first and only Black doctor to chair a department in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation area of Sutter Health, one of the largest hospital systems in California. A longtime employee, he alleges that racism in the workplace resulted in his being the subject of repeated derogatory comments, as well as reductions in salary and demotions.

He referred to the racism he suffered as “they type that hits you in the back of the head when you don’t see it coming.” Continue Reading ›

Filing Your Own California Employment Lawsuit vs. a CRD Investigation/Remedy

May 10, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

If believe you have been subject to employment discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, or retaliation at work, your path to justice can go one of two ways: Filing your own lawsuit or handing the case over the California Civil Rights Department. Sometimes, you opt for the latter and might still end up suing, but you could also skip the state’s involvement and go straight to court.

How do you decide which route to go?

You might be best served by scheduling a free consultation with at least one or possibly a couple of Los Angeles employment attorneys. Have the basic facts of your case ready to run through. They can’t give you legal advice unless/until they are hired, but they can probably provide you with information to help you make an informed choice about which option makes the most sense in your case. And these conversations are confidential.

Do I Have to File a Complaint With Human Resources?

In some situations, yes.

Doing so may not be necessary if the company refused to hire you. It also may not be necessary if you were discriminated against based on your position in a protected class (race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, gender/gender identity, sexual orientation, age over 40, pregnancy or related condition, etc.).

However, it may depend on the particulars of your situation and whether part of your claim involves harassment and/or retaliation. Continue Reading ›

Feds Push for National Non-Compete Clause Ban – Similar to California’s Existing Protections

April 11, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

Non-compete clauses (also called California non-compete agreements) affect roughly 25 percent of the U.S. working population – but they aren’t enforceable in California. Meanwhile, they’re a major issue for workers throughout the rest of the country. But that could soon change.

For those who may be unfamiliar, a non-compete clause is a type of employment contract that prohibits employees from accepting new job opportunities for a period of time after leaving the employer with whom they have the contract. They’re usually limited to similar lines of work and/or competing businesses within a certain geographic area.

While this is less of an issue for workers whose jobs are highly technical and well-paid, these same provisions can be very tough on lower-paid workers. One analysis showed that more than half of workers who sign non-compete clauses are non-salaried, hourly wage workers – about 15 percent of them earning less than $40,000 annually.

Non-compete clauses can also ban workers from:

Launching their own company in the same or similar industry.
Reaching out to former customers.
Using the skillsets you acquired on the job.
Publicly discussing whistleblower actions.
Revealing or making money from the employer’s trade secrets.

While some of these are more reasonable than others (ex-employees revealing trade secrets would be a problem for any employer), others risk stifling free markets.

Recently, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission proposed a new rule that would ban employers from imposing non-compete clauses on workers, calling the practice exploitative. If the rule goes into effect, it could potentially expand job opportunities for some 30 million Americans and increase wages by as much as $300 billion annually. Continue Reading ›

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 ›

How California Employers Can Avoid Employee Misclassification

February 27, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

As Los Angeles employment lawyers, our focus is advocating for workers whose legal rights as employees have been violated by their employer. Most people immediately think of workplace issues with discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, etc. But it often involves classifying employees improperly – categorizing them as independent contractors as opposed to employees, in turn denying workers the employment protection and benefits that the title of “employee” confers by law.

An estimated one-third of all employers in the U.S. have misclassified at least one worker at some point.

Sometimes, this “mix-up” is willful and intentional, with the employer aware of exactly what they were doing with the specific (if not express) goal to deprive workers of the rights and compensation to which they’d otherwise be entitled. But in a lot of cases, the employer may simply not understand how the law applies.

Lack of intent on the part of the employer isn’t a full-proof defense. If an issue is discovered, employers still have a responsibility to come correct once they’re made aware. That might mean back pay, tax contributions, and liquidated damages for however long the misclassification lasted. However, those whose employee misclassification was intentional are likely to face more significant fines and other penalties from the government and courts.

While our Los Angeles employment lawyers represent the workers in these scenarios, we’ve handled enough of these cases to be able to provide employers with a few tips on making sure employees are appropriate classified in your operation. Yes, this helps mitigate the organization’s liability, but also to make sure workers are treated fairly – and that’s always been our ultimate goal.

What is an Independent Contractor, Exactly?

Workers in the U.S. can typically be classified as either employees or independent contractors. (There are also other contingent employment arrangements, such as on-call, on-retainer, or temp agency workers.) Continue Reading ›

“Can They Fire Me on Parental Leave?” L.A. Employment Lawyer Answers

February 23, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

As an L.A. employment lawyer, we’ve fielded a fair number of questions about the legality of lay-offs or termination of an employee who is on maternity leave or parental leave.

The answer isn’t always cut-and-dried, depending a fair bit on the specific circumstances of the case.

Of course, losing a job in general is never an easy prospect. But firing or laying off someone who is on parental leave is arguably all kinds of wrong from a moral perspective – especially because employees in this situation truly need both money and health care during this time. One might even consider it “emotional robbery.” Those first few days, weeks, and months bonding with a new baby are priceless. If the parent is suddenly overwhelmed with stress over finances and healthcare, they’re emotional and physical energy will be spent elsewhere – and that’s time they’ll never get back. It can also have serious health consequences, especially for employees who have just given birth.

All this makes it very risky for a company’s reputation and brand to engage in such practices. And yet, some still do. Whether that’s the basis for a successful California employment lawsuit will hinge on a few different factors.

Rights of Employees on Parental Leave

There are federal and state laws that protect the rights of employees on parental leave. California has some of the strongest state-level parental leave protections.

California (as well as a handful of other states) requires paid parental leave – up to 8 weeks of partial wage replacement to eligible workers. It can be used for new parents and/or within 1 year of a child’s birth or foster care placement or adoption. Pregnant mothers are also given up to 4 months of job-protected disability leave prior to parental leave once the child is born. The California Paid Family Leave law (available to workers at companies with 20+ employees) is not solely for new parents, but can also be used to care for a seriously ill close family member. Continue Reading ›

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 Bereavement Leave and Expanded Paid Sick Leave Laws Now In Effect

January 5, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

Two new employment laws in California went into effect Jan. 1, 2023 – one expanding worker protections when a loved one dies, and another expanding existing sick leave laws when caring for a loved one outside of their immediate family circle.

As our Los Angeles employment lawyers can explain, California has some of the strongest worker rights protections in the country – and these two new statutes are good examples.

Let’s start with Bereavement Leave – or more specifically, Assembly Bill 1949. This is a measure amending the California’s Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act to allow workers to take paid bereavement leave, also known as funeral leave or grievance leave.

New California Bereavement Leave Law for Employees

A fair amount of employers in California already offer some type of bereavement leave to their workers as part of their benefits package. Most have a set number of workdays that employees can take off if a loved one dies. Some require that workers first exhaust all their vacation and/or sick days first before they can be permitted to take any additional days for bereavement. Additionally, there are a number of cities throughout the state that require employers operating in those jurisdictions to provide workers with bereavement leave. But these policies are a patchwork of rules, with broad variations on how many days off are permitted, how close in relation the worker must be to the decedent for the worker to claim benefits, how the time must be taken (consecutively, broken up, etc.), and how requests must be made. Smaller employers may not have a set bereavement policy, but rather make determinations on a case-by-case basis.

This new law requires private employers with five (5) or more employees to provide any eligible employees (having worked there at least 30 days) to at least 5 days of bereavement leave upon the death of a family member. Some companies already offer more than this, but any employer who offers fewer days than this will need to amend their policies.

“Family member” in this case can mean: Continue Reading ›