retaliation

It’s Not Only Direct Targets of California Workplace Sexual Harassment Who Can Sue

June 1, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

One does not necessarily need to be a direct target of California workplace sexual harassment or racial discrimination to file a legal claim for damages. Retaliation against bystanders for brining such offenses to light can have a devastating impact on one’s career. Employers have been known to respond to bystander reports of harassment and discrimination by giving whistleblowers less desirable shifts or duties, shutting them out from key professional opportunities/accounts/clients, or outright firing them.

Fortunately, as our Riverside sexual harassment attorneys can explain, there are legal remedies for those who speak out to protect those most vulnerable in the workforce. One such case recently ended with a $460 million damage award to two plaintiffs in Los Angeles who alleged they were forced out of their jobs at the local electricity company after blowing the whistle on rampant sexual harassment and tolerance of racial epithets.

The Los Angeles Times reported the damage award included $440 million in punitive damages alone. Plaintiff attorney’s had only asked the court for a quarter of that amount. That’s on top of tens of millions in compensatory damages paid. Punitive damages, for those who may not know, are paid to penalize the defendant for especially egregious conduct. Compensatory damages, meanwhile, are intended to cover a plaintiff’s actual losses (loss of wages, loss of benefits, loss of career advancement opportunities, emotional distress, etc.).

The company, which plans to appeal, acknowledged that the two reported that supervisors were engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct toward female employees. Plaintiffs alleged that the company had fostered a fraternity-like culture, where sexual harassment and racial harassment were not only the norm, but actively protected. Reported incidents were allegedly disregarded. Continue Reading ›

California Supreme Court Clarifies Worker Retaliation Lawsuit Proof Burden

February 28, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Claims of whistleblower retaliation filed under labor laws in California are going to be weighed by the standard set forth in that law, rather than the more stringent burden-shifting test that was laid out in the 1973 case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. This was the recent ruling of the California Supreme Court in the case of Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

As our Riverside worker retaliation lawyers can explain, Labor Code section 1102.5 stipulates that employers can’t make or enforce any rule that prevents an employee from whistleblowing. Employers also cannot retaliate against a worker for whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is defined as the disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency when the employee has reason to believe the disclosure reveals a violation of state or federal law by the company.

In the following provision of the law, Labor Code section 1102.6, which went into effect in 2004, lawmakers stipulated that once the worker establishes a prima facie case that retaliation for whistleblowing was at least one contributing factor of the negative employment action, the proof burden is then on the employer, who must prove by clear and convincing evidence it would have happened for legitimate, independent reasons, regardless of the employee’s whistleblowing.

But despite this seemingly straightforward law, some California courts weighing whistleblower retaliation cases have been instead applying the proof burden set in the McDonnell Douglas ruling. This standard was established in the context of handling Title VII discrimination claims. The latter test – widely acknowledged to be much more employer-friendly than the standard set forth in California Labor Code – requires that once the employee proves unlawful retaliation, the employer can evade liability by simply showing the adverse action was taken for reasons that were non-retaliatory and legitimate. The employee still bears the burden of proving the reason the employer gave was merely a pretext for illegal retaliation.

The Lawson ruling is considered a victory for future plaintiff/employees. Continue Reading ›

No Wage Loss Damage Award in Harassment, Discrimination Lawsuit When Firing Was Lawful

September 7, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

When it comes to California employment discrimination lawsuits alleging wrongful termination, a common defense is the “mixed motive.” That is, even where discrimination is a deemed a substantial motivating factor in firing someone, employers cans still effectively defend themselves if they can successfully argue the outcome would have been the same absent any such discrimination. In that situation, as it was in the 2013 case of Wynona Harris v. City of Santa Monica, employees may not be entitled to damages, back pay, or an order of restatement (often the primary relief many seek), though they may still be entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensation for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

The high proof burdens in these employment law cases are one of the primary reasons we urge anyone considering a claim for discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, and/or retaliation, will work only with a highly experienced and skilled Los Angeles employment attorney with a track record of success in similar cases.

Recently, a similar case arose from an allegation of racial discrimination by a former scientist with the UCLA Medical Center. She alleged on-the-job, race-based harassment – which she did prove. In fact, jurors had previously awarded her $1.5 million in damages. However, in a review by a California Court of Appeals, the panel held that because the plaintiff was fired for legitimate reasons (notwithstanding race discrimination as a substantial motivating factor), the claimant’s damage award was reduced by more than $275,000.

As our L.A. racial discrimination lawyers can explain, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) holds that discrimination, retaliation, and harassment are separate wrongs, even if for the employee, it all appears connected. Each element of unlawful conduct has its own remedy. In the UCLA case, Birden v. The Regents of the University of California, the court held, a damage award for racial discrimination is only justified if that harassment ended with the employee losing his or her job. Continue Reading ›

California Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Spurs Activision Blizzard President’s Ouster

August 6, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

A new California sexual harassment lawsuit has rocked the gaming world, with an avalanche of dissent and claims of “frat boy culture” dominating descriptions of Activision Blizzard, the video gaming company that own games like “Call of Duty,” “Candy Crush” and “World of Warcraft.”

The upheaval and high-profile exit is reminiscent of what our Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyers have noted in the culture of the gaming industry (long noted for its misogyny), but some are speculating this could have reverberations throughout the tech world and even corporate America.

This all started with a California sexual harassment lawsuit filed last month by the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing. According to the complaint, multiple female employees were subjected to gender discrimination, sexual harassment and unequal pay. Company executives reportedly were aware of the harassment and other problems, but failed to take reasonable steps to halt illegal conduct. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, the company retaliated against the complainants. Continue Reading ›

California Retaliation Lawsuit Ends in $1.1 M Verdict Favoring Employee

February 14, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

An employee of One America News Network was awarded $1.1 million in his California retaliation claim. Of that, $810,000 was in punitive damages, awarded for egregious conduct. He alleged the company had harassed and discriminated against him for his race. But while the San Diego jury did not find merit with this claim, they did hold that the producer was retaliated against for filing the complaint.

Los Angeles employment attorneys highlight this case because it underscores the fact that retaliation can stand on its own in claims of wrongful termination.

California Workplace Retaliation Laws

California has numerous workplace retaliation laws that protect workers from wrongful termination and other adverse employment actions when they engage in certain protected activity. Protected actions could include: Continue Reading ›

California State University Professor Wins Retaliation Employment Lawsuit

November 4, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A California State University professor was wrongly denied a promotion to an associate professorship and lifetime tenure as a result of retaliation for reporting a hostile work environment to women and people of color. That was the finding of California’s First Appellate District, Division Three, which affirmed the trial court’s damage award of more than $965,000 in damages, plus attorney’s fees.

The professor had also claimed discrimination, but the court found no liability on that particular claim.

The appellate court rejected the university’s argument that plaintiff needed to show that she was clearly superior to a comparative professor who was granted tenure, but who had not filed a complaint.

As our Orange County employment attorneys can explain, workers are protected from discrimination and retaliation under a series of California Labor Code provisions, overseen by the California Department of Industrial Relations. Continue Reading ›

Workers’ Compensation Retaliation in California Alleged by Employees

September 10, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

A worker at a California home furnishing store has filed a Santa Barbara wrongful termination and workers’ compensation retaliation lawsuit, alleging her employer violated her rights as a whistleblower by falsifying her signature on work injury paperwork.

In her employment lawsuit, plaintiff alleges the retail furniture store based in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara sought to discredit her work injury claim and bolster its grounds to fire her after she was hurt while moving furniture with a co-worker. She reportedly filed a workers’ compensation claim, but the two owners of the business allegedly prepared a declaration with her name without her knowledge.

According to local news sources and court records of the complaint she filed, the declaration reportedly indicated she ad the other worker hadn’t moved any furniture on the day of the injury and conceded she never reported the job-related injury. Plaintiff alleges the store owners forged her signature on the document and that never was she interviewed by the store owners and that statements attributed to her were wrong. The store then denied her workers’ compensation claim – which is when she learned of the forged declaration. Concerned she may have been implicated in an act that was illegal, she felt she had no choice but to resign from her job right away. Continue Reading ›

Sharif v. United Airlines – FMLA Dispute Ruling Favors Employer

November 11, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal statute intended to enable workers who need to take leave for legitimate personal and family needs and medical reasons to do so without retribution. A company that retaliates against a worker for using these guaranteed safety net can be held liable in court and ordered to pay damages to the worker.

In the case of Sharif v. United Airlines, Inc., a plaintiff argued this was exactly what happened to him. However, the employer argued the worker had fraudulently taken FMLA leave in order to extend his vacation and further that he made dishonest representations when the company launched an investigation of it.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ultimately sided with the employer, finding the worker had not established a triable issue of fact that the airline truly fired him for taking leave, rather than fraudulently taking leave and then lying about it. Continue Reading ›