September 2009 Archives

September 30, 2009

Dan Rather's $70 Million Breach of Contract Lawsuit Dismissed--Court Rules in Favor of CBS

As California Labor and Employment Lawyers, we have been following television news anchor Dan Rather's high profile two-year employment lawsuit--dismissed yesterday in the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court.

The ruling, handed down by a five-judge panel, dismissed Rather's claims against CBS network for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and ruining his reputation. Rather claimed that CBS forced him take the fall for the controversial 2004-news story profiling George W. Bush's participation in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The judge dismissed Dan Rather's $70 million lawsuit, claiming it had no merit.

Rather filed the lawsuit in the state Supreme Court in Manhattan in 2007, claiming that CBS intentionally mishandled the aftermath of the 2004 broadcast. Rather narrated the news story, accusing President George W. Bush of relying on high political influence to dodge responsibilities during his service in the Texas Air National Guard. The broadcast incorporated copies of documents by Bush's commanding officer, supporting aspects of the story.

Rather received harsh criticism from conservative partisans following the broadcast, accusing him of trying to influence the 2004 presidential race. Critics questioned the authenticity of the documents, and CBS conducted an independent investigation into the production. CBS determined that the story was inaccurate, and fired the producer and Rather, forcing Rather to apologize for the alleged journalistic errors. According to the lawsuit, Rather was used as a "scapegoat" and shoved into the spotlight by CBS, making him take the fall professionally to "pacify" the White House--costing him significant financial loss and damage to his reputation. As a result the media called the episode, "Rathergate."

Rather stepped down from the Evening News in May 2005, continuing to report for 60 Minutes until his job was permanently terminated in June 2006. Rather claimed in the suit that CBS "warehoused" him during this time, and failed to properly compensate him for the final 15 months when he could have sought other employment. The appeals panel cited the CBS "pay or play" provision in the ruling--claiming that although Rather was not used as frequently in his final 15 months, CBS did not violate the terms of Rather's contract, because they continued to pay him "applicable compensation." Rather's annual CBS salary of approximately $6 million was paid until June 2006.

Continue reading "Dan Rather's $70 Million Breach of Contract Lawsuit Dismissed--Court Rules in Favor of CBS" »

Bookmark and Share
September 25, 2009

Equal Pay for Women--Third Circuit Court Reverses Decision in Pay Discrimination Case

As Orange County, California, Labor and Employment Lawyers, we have been following new developments this month in the Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania, gender-based pay discrimination case, in which a Federal appeals court reversed an earlier decision on the claim, focusing on the newly enacted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court in Philadelphia ruled in favor of Mary Lou Mikula on September 10th, charging that her Title VII pay discrimination claim was wrongly dismissed in a previous ruling from March. Her claim was deemed invalid, based on the charge that it was not filed in a timely manner.

Mikula managed the police grants budget for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and according to Ms. Magazine, was paid around $7,000 dollars less than a male colleague, with whom she shared many job responsibilities. After Mikula made frequent requests that her pay be matched to her male colleague's salary, her requests were ignored. Mikula then filed a gender discrimination complaint with the Human Resources department, and was told that her claim was unfounded.

In 2007, Mikula filed a gender-based wage discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Allegheny County, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, failure to receive a pay raise in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for being paid less then a male colleague who performed equal work. This was also dismissed, based on the charge that it was untimely.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires any person claiming a potentially unlawful employment practice file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. According to the petition, in the 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision, the Supreme Court ruled that "employees cannot challenge ongoing pay discrimination if the original discriminatory pay-setting occurred more than 300 days earlier, even when the employee continues to receive paychecks that have been discriminatorily reduced."

The National Women's Law Center (NWLC) championed the case, filing a petition for an appeal. The petition clearly argued that "the panel decision is not only inconsistent with the Fair Pay Act's plain text, it also undermines the very purpose of the Fair Pay Act and Title VII more broadly."

The Court focused on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in the ruling this month, a bill that extends the time period in which employees can pursue equal compensation lawsuits, and restores the law that existed for years in regions all over the United States, including Southern California, prior to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. Supreme Court decision. The language of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is clear--each discriminatory paycheck renews the 300-day time limit for filing a Title VII claim. The appellate court reversed its original decision, concluding that under the Ledbetter Act, Mikula's EEOC charge was timely.

Co-President of the National Women's Law Center, Marcia D. Greenberger stated in a NWLC Press Release, that this decision is victorious for both Mikula and employees all over the country who have been denied access to equal pay. This decision gives pay discrimination victims the ability to defend their rights in court, thereby implementing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as Congress intended.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and modifies the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Court Cites Ledbetter Law in Reversing its Prior Decision, Business Insurance.com, September 14, 2009

Equal Pay Victory For Women in Third Circuit, Ms. Magazine, September 11, 2009

Third Circuit Holds Claim Timely Under Ledbetter Act, Jackson Lewis Press Release, September 24, 2009

Victory for Equal Pay in the Courts, NWLC Press Release, September 10, 2009

Related Web Resources:

National Women's Law Center, NWLC

EEOC

Continue reading "Equal Pay for Women--Third Circuit Court Reverses Decision in Pay Discrimination Case " »

Bookmark and Share
September 23, 2009

EEOC Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Abercrombie & Fitch--Muslim Teen Denied Rights

As California Employment Lawyers, we have been following the religious discrimination lawsuit filed last week by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against popular clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch.

The lawsuit, filed by the EEOC on behalf of 17-year old Samantha Elauf in Oklahoma Federal Court, claims that Abercrombie refused to hire the Muslim teenager, because of her religious beliefs and attire.

In June 2008, Elauf interviewed for a retail position at the Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Abercrombie allegedly discriminated against Elauf, by denying her the right to work in an Abercrombie store while wearing a religious headscarf. In observance of her religious beliefs, Elauf wears a Hijab, or headscarf, and was told in the job interview that her head covering would interfere with the company's "Look Policy."

The EEOC is citing violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which as amended, protects job applicants from employment discrimination based on religion.

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Michelle M. Robertson stated that it is illegal in any aspect of employment for employers to treat workers or applicants differently based on religion. According to Robertson, employers must follow Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and, "reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the company."

The EEOC tried to resolve the suit informally, but is now seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. According to the Associated Press, the lawsuit seeks compensatory damages that would amount to back pay if she had been hired. The suit also seeks a permanent injunction against the company, to stop discriminatory practices in the workplace. The amount for damages has not been disclosed, but ABC news reported that the cap for all damages against a company of Abercrombie & Fitch's size would be around $300,000.

Abercrombie & Fitch responded that they have a strong equal opportunity employment policy, accommodating religious beliefs and practices when possible, and that the company follows the law in every respect. According to the company website, Abercrombie & Fitch is committed to increasing diversity in the workplace, as well as supporting a "culture of inclusion," to better understand customers and represent the communities in which they do business.

The youth-oriented retailer has had legal trouble in the past with the same "Look Policy." In 2004, Abercrombie paid $50 million, settling a lawsuit filed by the EEOC accusing the retailer of promoting only white employees in the store fronts, advertising and promotional materials, instead of minorities. The store is known for promoting an east coast, ivy league, prep school fashion trend--cultivating a style based on the idea of privilege.

In September of 2008, another religious discrimination lawsuit was filed by Lakrettra Bennett, an assistant manager and recent Pentacostal convert, who asked if she could wear a skirt that covered her knees--thus obeying her religious beliefs. She was allegedly told that short skirts were the only acceptable attire.

Abercrombie & Fitch, Co. operates 1,131 stores in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom--352 Abercrombie & Fitch stores, 213 Abercrombie stores, 521 Hollister stores, 29 RUEHL stores, and 16 Gillie Hicks stores.

Abercrombie & Fitch Sued By EEOC For Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Teen Applicant, EEOC Press Release, September 17, 2009

Lawsuit: Muslim Scarf Not Part of Abercrombie & Fitch 'Look', ABC News, September 18, 2009

Abercrombie & Fitch Discriminated Against US Muslim Teen, Lawsuit Claims, The Guardian, September 18, 2009

Teen Alleges Discrimination by Abercrombie & Fitch, Associated Press, September 18, 2009

Related Web Resources:

EEOC

Continue reading "EEOC Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Abercrombie & Fitch--Muslim Teen Denied Rights" »

Bookmark and Share
September 22, 2009

California Wage and Hour Lawsuit--Labor Commissioner Sues FLM Law Center for $17.5 Million

In Orange County Superior Court last week, California Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet filed a wage and hour lawsuit against Federal Loan Modification Law Center, LLP (FLM Law Center) as well as other related individuals and affiliated entities. In the suit, Bradstreet accused FLM Law Center of failing to compensate employees for actual hours worked--violating Labor code law.

The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) investigated FLM Law Center after receiving multiple claims in May of this year reporting wage violations. According to Reuters, the information obtained in the investigation proved that FLM Law Center had full knowledge of the violations, yet continued to willfully and knowingly fail to pay employees on scheduled paydays as required by law.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid wage damages of over 1,000,000, as well as liquidated damages and penalties of more than $16.5 million dollars--for not paying employees minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to pay total wages at the end of an employee's term, and for not paying overtime.

FLM Law Center opened in 2008 and lists addresses in both Woodland Hills, and Irvine, California.

The mission of the DLSE is to enforce minimum labor standards and to ensure that employees are not forced or permitted to work under substandard or unlawful conditions. The DSLE investigates discrimination and public works complaints, adjudicates wage claims, and enforces state labor law and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.

Bradstreet has been the Labor Commissioner for the State of California since June 2007. She commented that FLM Law Center has committed blatant Labor Code violations by not paying their employees as required by law. "This lawsuit not only seeks restitution for their employees, but should also send a strong message to all employers that we won't stand for a company that cuts corners at the expense of their workers."

CA Labor Commissioner Files $17.5 Million Lawsuit Against FLM Law Center, Reuters, September 15, 2009


Related Web Resources:

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, California Department of Industrial Relations

Continue reading "California Wage and Hour Lawsuit--Labor Commissioner Sues FLM Law Center for $17.5 Million" »

Bookmark and Share
September 18, 2009

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Kobe Bryant by Orange County Housekeeper

In Orange County Superior Court yesterday, Judge Kirk Nakamura ruled that Maria Jimenez, former full-time housekeeper for California NBA basketball star Kobe Bryant and his wife Vanessa, can continue pursuing a wrongful termination claim against the famous couple--but not sue for emotional distress.

Jimenez, who worked full-time as a housekeeper at Bryant's Newport Coast home filed the suit in March of this year, claiming wrongful termination. She alleged that while employed by the Bryants from September 2007 to March 2008, she endured harassment, humiliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In the widely publicized suit, Jimenez contended that she was driven to quit after being reprimanded by Vanessa for washing an expensive blouse, and humiliated by being forced to dig through a bag of dog excrement to find the blouse receipt. Jimenez also claimed an invasion of privacy, from being video taped on the home surveillance cameras, and complained for not being provided with health insurance or overtime compensation.

Judge Nakamura pared down Jimenez's lawsuit in court yesterday, throwing out her claims of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. According to the Orange County Register, the judge ruled that suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress is 'superfluous' as Jimenez already seeks emotional distress damages under the wrongful termination argument. Nakamura also ruled that the Bryants' did not "violate any basic duty imposed by law on all employers," and that Jimenez cannot sue for invasion of privacy because she already had knowledge of the extensive surveillance cameras within the house throughout her employment.

Nakamura also ruled that Bryant and his wife can pursue their countersuit against Jimenez, for violating a confidentiality agreement by talking openly to the press about the celebrity couple. The trial date has been scheduled for April 12.

Judge in Kobe Bryant Case Throws out Part of Ex-maid's Suit, The Orange County Register, September 17, 2009

Judge: Maid's Suit Against Kobe Bryant Can Proceed, Associated Press, September 17, 2009

Judge Kirk Nakamura rulings, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, September 17, 2009

Kobe Bryant's Attorneys Seek to Dismiss Maid's Lawsuit, Wave Newspapers.com, August 22, 2009

Related Web Resources:

California Department of Industrial Relations

Continue reading "Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Kobe Bryant by Orange County Housekeeper" »

Bookmark and Share
September 17, 2009

Orange County Courts to Shut Doors Once a Month

In Southern California, and throughout Orange County, courthouse doors were closed yesterday as part of the State Judiciary's plan to close the courts once a month addressing the California state budget crisis. This week marks the start of the court closure--to be done the third Wednesday of every month.

Announced in July, the California Judicial Council decided that closing the largest court system in the country once a month would be among the best ways to address the Judiciary's budget cut of $414 million, that came from this year's $26 billion state budget crisis.

As California Employment Lawyers, we have been following the Judicial Council's decision carefully, as these closings could result in delays of trials and proceedings. According to the council's decision, legal matters will be rescheduled for newly assigned dates, and court closure dates will be classified as official court holidays, for the purpose of calculating state court deadlines. Case filing deadlines will also be pushed back for one day.

The Judicial Council is the constitutionally created body that administers California's court system. Created in the 1920's to make government more efficient, the Council's mission today is to promise the public consistent, impartial, and accessible state justice.

In an article in the Los Angeles Times earlier this week, California Chief Justice and Chairman of the State Judicial Council Ronald M. George commented that closing courthouses once a month can slow down the judicial system--with approximately 3 million case delays, 150 trial interruptions, and 250 child custody cases left unheard.

To George, closing California courthouses represents yet another tragedy in the state's economic crisis. George stated that the mission of the Judicial Council is to protect access to justice for the people, so it was a difficult decision to make. George claims that although the decision was taken with great reluctance, court closure was the only rational option in helping to avoid massive layoffs, protect experienced court employees, maintain consistency of court services for the lawyers and public, and preserve "equal access to justice."

According to the Judicial Council, closures are expected to total about $94 million in savings. Legal closures will affect each of the California Superior Courts in 58 counties, as well as the California Supreme Court, and the six regional appeals courts. These courts will be closed once a month for the next ten months until the end of the fiscal year in June 2010. This is the first closure of court access in California's history.

California Courts To Close Once A Month, KSWT.com, September 15, 2009

Monthly Court Closures Start Wednesday, The Desert Sun, September 15, 2009

Full Text of Chief Justice George's State of the Judiciary Address, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, September 14, 2009

Judge Speaks Out on Budget Related Court Closures, SFAppeal.com, September 14, 2009

In California, Justice Takes a Day Off, Los Angeles Times, September 14, 2009

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Decries Forced Court Closures, SDNN.com, September 13, 2009

CA Courts Have First Budget Related Closure This Wednesday, The Alley.com, September 13, 2009


Related Web Articles:

California Supreme Court Justice: Ronald M. George

Bookmark and Share
September 11, 2009

California Whistleblower Bill Passed in State Senate

Last month, the California State Senate approved legislation that will provide employees of University of California the same legal rights and protections as other employees in the state who file whistleblowing complaints in the workplace.

Written by Senator Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco and San Mateo County, the legislation gives UC employees the right to sue the University for damages if they are fired for reporting wrongdoing or health and safety concerns in the state workplace. The legislation passed in the Senate with a 22-12 vote, and will be presented to Governor Arnold Schwarzenagger for a signature of approval.

Currently, if a UC Employee files a complaint, it is reviewed by the university internally, giving the UC executives the power of both judge and the jury in cases regarding monetary claims. According to the The Daily Californian, Senator Yee stated that this was not the intent of California's Whistleblower Law. Yee stressed the immediate importance of having the Governor sign the bill to correct the statute, so UC workers will be protected in the future from wrongful retaliation when filing a complaint.

The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) defines a whistleblower as an employee who discloses employer violations of state or federal statues, employer noncompliance with state or federal regulations, or disregard to employee safety and health.

Senator Yee introduced the bill last year in response to a July 2008 ruling against two former UC Berkley employees by the California Supreme Court. The employes claimed wrongful termination and retaliation after complaining about workplace safety in a university-managed research laboratory.

In 2003, computer scientists Luciana Messina and Les Miklosy reported multiple workplace health and safety concerns to UC supervisors while engaged in a nuclear weapons project at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The supervisors fired Miklosy in February of 2003, and Messina resigned three weeks later. Messina and Miklosy filed internal whistleblowing complaints, accusing the university of wrongful termination and retaliation for reporting safety and health issues, which led to the California Supreme Court ruling in 2008.

According to the Supreme Court findings, the California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits state employees from engaging in unfair retaliation against employees who report fraud, waste, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health to law enforcement authorities. The Act authorizes "an action for damages" to redress acts of retaliation. But The California Supreme Court ruled that UC employees who experience retaliation as a result of whistleblowing are unable to sue for damages under the state's Whistleblower Protection Act, unless the employee first files a complaint with a UC officer, and the university fails to reach a timely decision on the retaliation complaint. This ruling exposed an oversight in the Legislature's amendment of the Act in 2001--which provided all California state employees the legal right to seek damages--except UC employees.

If approved by the Governor, the new law will change the statute currently exempting UC employees from the same protections as other state employees.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, although UC officials opposed the measure, they were in agreement with the idea that whistleblowers should have the same rights as other state employees--they should be able to sue over retaliation and be protected in the workplace.

Legislature OKs Protections for UC Workers, San Francisco Chronicle, August 25, 2009

State Senate Passes UC Whistleblower Bill, The Daily Californian, August 25, 2009

California Legislature Approves Protections for Whistle Blowers at Universities, Chronicle.com, August 24, 2009

UC Whistle Blower Protection Act Passes Senate, California Progress Report, August 27, 2009

Assembly Approves Bill to Protect UC Whistleblowers, California State Senate Press Release, July 13, 2009

Related Web Resources:

The Whistle Protection Program, OSHA

California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR)

Continue reading "California Whistleblower Bill Passed in State Senate" »

Bookmark and Share
September 10, 2009

Orange County School District Settles Harassment Suit with ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC) has reached a settlement agreement in the harassment lawsuit against Orange County's Newport-Mesa Unified School District and officials of Corona del Mark High School.

The agreement filed yesterday in Orange County Superior Court resolves the lawsuit filed by the ACLU's Southern California branch, on behalf of Hail Ketchum, a former student at Corona del Mar High School and the Orange County Equality Coalition, suing district educators for permitting intolerance and hostile behavior among the students, resulting in sexism, homophobia, and a death threat against Ketchum.

The school officials, as well as the school district, were accused in the lawsuit of discriminating against students on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Title IX and California safe schools laws.

The Corona del Mar High School garnered national media coverage in February, when the principal canceled the school edition of "Rent," citing concerns over content. The musical was reinstated, and shortly after the principal resigned. The lawsuit filed by the ACLU in March, claimed that the controversy sparked by the gay and lesbian characters in the musical exemplified the school's intolerance and homophobia. The subsequent harassment at the school was also said to rise during the campaign of Proposition 8, aiming to eliminate the rights for gays and lesbians to marry.

According to the lawsuit, three varsity football players made a video that was posted on Facebook, threatening to rape and kill Ketchum, the lead actress in "Rent" and defame another student they believed to be gay. The district is accused of not responding appropriately, and therefore condoning this behavior.

The settlement outlined in an ACLU press release that the Newport-Mesa Unified School District training will be led by the Anti-Defamation League, and will include the topics of discrimination and harassment--what constitutes these actions, and who is harmed by them. The settlement also states that later in this school year, teachers, staff and students in the high school will be given two-hours training sessions, whereas principals, assistant principals, school-site administrators, and district managers will receive an eight hour program of training. The results of the student training will be monitored by the district, in the form of a survey.

Hector Villagra, director of the ACLU/SC's Orange County Office said that this mandatory training will clearly educate administrators, teachers and students on "what constitutes sexism and homophobia, but what school officials must do to deal with it - and prevent it from spreading - according to law."

ACLU Sues Orange County School Officials for Sanctioning Sexist and Homophobic Environment, ACLU Press Release, March 18, 2009

ACLU Settles Lawsuit Accusing Corona del Mar High School of Sexism, Homophobia, OC Register, September 9, 2009

ACLU, School District Settle Harassment Suit, Mercury News/AP, September 9, 2009

ACLU/SC Settles Lawsuit over Orange County High School That Tolerated Homophobia and Sexism, ACLU/SC Press Release, September 9, 2009

O.C. District, ACLU Settle Suit Over 'Rent', Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2009

Related Web Resources:

ACLU/SC

Continue reading "Orange County School District Settles Harassment Suit with ACLU" »

Bookmark and Share
September 9, 2009

Ventura County Sued by Department of Justice Over Disability Discrimination

The federal government is suing Ventura County, California, for employment disability discrimination--after the county rejected a qualified job candidate because she was deaf.

The lawsuit, filed by the Justice Department in Los Angeles Federal Court last week claims that Ventura County violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The suit claims that after an initial investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the county acknowledged that the deaf woman was not hired because of her disability.

In 2005, Lee Ann Unchangco applied for a position to work for children's social services with Ventura County after working in a similar position in Los Angeles County successfully for over eight years. In her first interview, Unchangco was given high ratings after being asked questions that were job-related and standardized. Her second interview, conducted by different country interviewers, focused on her disability--mainly how often she needs to use an interpreter, and whether this interpreter would interfere with her ability to provide social services to children. Unchangco responded that with the help of hearing aids, a reasonable accommodation, she would be able to perform well in the job. She was not hired.

The Justice Department claims that Unchangco was not hired after the second interview because she was deaf. Unchangco contacted the EEOC and filed a discrimination complaint. The EEOC tried to resolve the charge, but was unsuccessful, referring the case to the Justice Department in 2006.

The Justice Department is seeking an unspecified monetary resolution for Unchangco, as well as the position she interviewed for in 2005, along with back pay with interest, pension and health benefits, and other measures. The suit also asks for the court to ensure that Ventura County is unable to discriminate against qualified deaf applicants in the future, and to make sure that the county provides reasonable accommodations, unless these accommodations would impose undue hardship.

According to Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, the ADA was created to protect disabled individuals from this very kind of discrimination--to prevent employers from hiring on the basis of stereotypes and and possible cost involved in providing accommodations for an employee with a disability.

Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits employers, in this case Ventura County, state and local governments, labor unions and employment agencies from discriminating against a qualified individual with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, compensation, advancement, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. An employer is required to make reasonable accommodation for the qualified applicant's disability, as long as it does not impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business.

King stated in a Justice Department press release, "The Civil Rights Division is committed to protecting the promise of equal employment opportunities for all individuals with disabilities."

In 2008, the EEOC reports to have resolved 15,708 disability discrimination charges, recovering $57.2 million in monetary restitution.

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Ventura County, California to Enforce Employment Rights Under the ADA, Reuters/U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, September 3, 2009

U.S. Sues County Over Alleged Hiring Bias, Ventura County Star, September 3, 2009

Ventura County Sues For Failing to Hire Deaf Woman, Mercury News/AP, September 3, 2009

DOJ: County Ignoring Employment Rights for Disabled, Avvo.com, September 4, 2009

Related Web Resources:

EEOC

ADA

Continue reading "Ventura County Sued by Department of Justice Over Disability Discrimination" »

Bookmark and Share
September 8, 2009

Financial Discrimination for Low-wage Workers in Los Angeles

Low-wage workers in Los Angeles, California are routinely paid less than minimum wage, denied overtime compensation and access to workman's compensation, a recent study revealed. The survey uncovered systematic violations of employment and labor laws in low-wage industries throughout Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

The study, "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers," was released last week and surveyed over 4,000 low-wages workers in 2008, exposing serious financial discrimination as well as violations of the very rights most Americans take for granted--the right to receive minimum wage, overtime compensation, health and safety protection in the workplace, and the right to be treated fairly.

Funded by the Joyce, Haynes, Ford, and Russell Sage foundations, the mission of the survey was to obtain statistically accurate estimates of violations in low-wage industries often overlooked by standard surveys--reaching the "front-line" workers who cover a population of around 1.64 million workers, or fifteen percent of the workforce in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

The survey was based on interviews with 4,387 workers in a wide variety of low-wage industries including apparel manufacturing, private households, construction, food service, car washes, and childcare. Thirty-nine percent of the workers were illegal immigrants, thirty percent were U.S. born citizens, and thirty-one percent were legal immigrants.

According to the surprising results, sixty-eight percent of workers experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous workweek. The average worker in a low-wage industry, who earns $339 per week, is reportedly robbed of $51 each week by employers committing wage violations. Assuming a full-time, full-year work schedule, the low-wage worker estimates a loss of $2,634 a year--a theft of wages equaling fifteen percent.

Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis discussed the findings with the New York Times, stating that this disregard of federal labor standards was inexcusable--that these laws are, "designed to protect the neediest among us." Solis is staffing over 250 additional investigators to get to the bottom of the wage-and-hour issue. She claimed that the Department of Labor will not rest until employers follow the law, and each worker is compensated and treated fairly.

The report reveals a magnitude of wage violations--employers paying less than minimum wage, demanding off-the-clock-work, refusing payment for overtime hours, and persuading employees not to file for workman's compensation.

• In California, Illinois and New York, workers are required to receive documentation of their earnings used to verify the legality and accuracy of payment. The study found that fifty-seven percent of workers had not received mandatory pay documents.

• Only eight percent of workers who were seriously injured in the workplace filed for compensation to receive medical treatment. One-third of the injured paid for the healthcare bills themselves to avoid getting fired, whereas twenty-three percent used insurance.

• Over a quarter of workers who worked more than forty hours weren't compensated for the time during the previous week. Of these, seventy-six percent of workers were not paid the legally required rate by their employers. Over two-thirds of workers were forced to work through their legally entitled lunch breaks.

• Twelve percent of workers who received tips, claimed that employers or supervisors had stolen their tips, which is illegal.

• Only one in five workers reported complaints to employers last year, and of these, forty-three percent experienced one or more forms of illegal retaliation as a result--firing, suspension, or threats to call immigration. Another twenty percent of workers who experienced dangerous working conditions or wage violations reported that they did not issue complaints out of fear of losing their job.

• Women were much more likely, according to the report, to endure a minimum wage violation than men, with female illegal immigrants at the highest rate. African-American workers born in the United States had a violation rate that tripled that of whites.

Annette Bernhart, an author of the study and policy co-director of the National Employment Law Project estimated on NPR that in a given week, around 1.1 million workers in the three major cities experience at least one violation with payment. That estimates nearly $56 million of lost wages in one week. This income is lost--money stolen from families, communities, and government. "This problem is not going away," Bernhard said, "if anything, we think it's just going to escalate"

The authors of the study advise that the best solution for preventing workplace violation is to educate workers about workplace rights, to make sure the workers have access to legal resources, to improve government monitoring of the workplace, and encourage workers not to have fear over employer retaliation--a sound plan for legal immigrants and U.S. residents, however difficult for illegal immigrants. The authors stated that any policy initiative aimed to reform workplace violations must also place national immigration reform at the top of the list, ensuring equal protection with the enforcement of employment and labor laws.

This study was published by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California at Los Angeles, the National Employment Law Project, and the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says, New York Times, September 1, 2009

Solis Pledges Employment Law Crackdown, ForexTV.com, September 2, 3009

How the Lowest Paid Workers Get Ripped Off, U.S. News and World Report, September 3, 2009

Low-Wage Workers Suffer Financial Discrimination, NPR, September 3, 2009

Working Without Laws, The Nation/NPR, September 8, 2009

Related Web Resources:

U.S. Department of Labor

OSHA

Continue reading "Financial Discrimination for Low-wage Workers in Los Angeles" »

Bookmark and Share
September 4, 2009

Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against AT&T

An age discrimination lawsuit has been filed recently against AT&T, Inc., by The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The suit accuses the telecommunications company of discriminating against AT&T employees who took voluntary severance and retirement packages by denying the possibility of reemployment.

According to the EEOC press release, John Yates and a class of other retired AT&T workers who took early retirement plans, are being denied the opportunity to reapply for employment-- violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The lawsuit, filed by Yates and the EEOC in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claimed that the AT&T workers are being denied the opportunity for reemployment because of participating in the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP), the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program (ERP) or other forms of retirement plans.

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 protects individuals from age-based discrimination who are forty years of age or older. For employers with twenty or more employees, including state and local governments, the ADEA prohibits employers from using age as a basis for hiring, firing, promoting or compensating.

In the state of California, age discrimination is a violation of the state's Labor law. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also protects workers over the age of forty from age discrimination by making it illegal to use age as a basis to make decisions on hiring, firing, pay, and promotion.

The EEOC stated that the organization is focused on reevaluating age discrimination, and enforcing the ADEA. All employees should be allowed to compete for job opportunity equally regardless of age, and the EEOC commits to taking action when the ADEA has been violated. The New York Times reported that the AT&T early retirement programs have affected more than 50,000 people, though it is not yet known how many of these employees have been discriminated against. The EEOC is asking the court to pay unpaid wages to the employees who have experienced age discrimination.

AT&T is based in Dallas, and operates as the world's largest telecommunications company.

U.S. Lawsuit Accuses AT&T of Age Bias, New York Times/AP, August 20, 2009

EEOC Files Age Discrimination Suit Against Telecommunications Giant AT&T, EEOC Press Release, August 20, 2009

EEOC Sues AT&T, Alleging Age Discrimination, Washington Post, August 21, 2009

Federal suit charges AT&T with Age Bias, Phoenix Business Journal, August 25, 2009


Related Web Resources:


The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)

California Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC)

The Age Discrimination Act of 1967, EEOC.gov

EEOC

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against AT&T" »

Bookmark and Share
September 2, 2009

Former Miss California USA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against California Pageant Officials

Former Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean filed a discrimination lawsuit against California pageant officials on Monday, accusing the state organization of religious discrimination, libel, and slander.

Named in the case were Keith Lewis, executive director of the pageant, Shanna Moakler, former Miss USA and co-executive director of the pageant, and publicist Roger Neal, as well as the Miss California Organization.

Pageant officials fired the 22-year-old Prejean in June, for breach of contract issues and for missing scheduled appearances. Prejean's attorney claims that there were no contract violations and that Prejean was fired for her anti-gay marriage remarks made during the Miss USA pageant in April. In a pageant question concerning the legalization of gay marriage, Prejean stated her support of traditional marriage--remarking that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. After being named first runner-up in the contest, many people felt that Prejean lost the Miss USA title because of her controversial answer.

According to CNN, Prejean filed the lawsuit in Superior Court of California, accusing Moakler, Neal and Lewis of religious discrimination, posting derogatory statements about her on the internet, publicly disclosing private facts and intentionally and negligently inflicting emotional distress.

Prejean has not stated the specific dollar amount that she is seeking, but claims to have lost wages, and experienced public ridicule and humiliation since the loss of her crown. The suit also claims that since June, she has suffered from depression, anxiety and loss of sleep.

Former Miss California USA Sues Pageant Officials, August 31, 2009

Shanna Moakler Fires Back at Carrie Prejean's Lawsuit, People.com, August 31, 2009

Carrie Prejean Files Discrimination Suit Against Miss California Organization, Fox News, August 31, 2009

Former Miss California Sues Over Firing, Associated Press, September 1, 2009

Shanna Moakler: Carrie Prejean's Lawsuit is "Without Merit!", Seattle PI.com, September 1, 2009

Emails Show Bad Blood Between Prejean, Pageant Officials Before Controversy, Fox News, September 2, 2009

Related Web Resources:

Miss USA


Bookmark and Share
September 1, 2009

California-based Company Indicted for OSHA Violations Causing Death of Five Workers

The California-based Company RPI Coating, Inc., Xcel Energy, and Public Service Company of Colorado, were indicted last week by a federal grand jury for violating workplace health and safety regulations that led to the deaths of five workers at a hydro-electric plant near Georgetown, Colorado, in October 2007.

Public Service Company of Colorado and Xcel Energy operate the hydro-electric plant, and hired RPI Coating, Inc. to re-line a 4,000-foot pipe, or penstock. The five men, employed by RPI were re-lining the pipe with a flammable epoxy liner when a fire erupted, blocking the escape route, and trapping the working men inside the tunnel. The men reportedly died within an hour due to asphyxiation after inhaling the carbon monoxide released from the fire.

The grand jury in Denver ruled that the five deaths were caused by a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) workplace health and safety regulations--resulting in a fire, as well as the inability to effectively rescue the workers.

The Denver Post reported that all of the defendants including both president and vice president of RFI, Philippe Goutagny and James Thompson, were aware of the serious safety and health risks involved in the operation of the re-lining project. Even with the knowledge of these risks, a required confined-space permit needed for safety was not obtained. The employees were also not informed of the immediate danger with any posted signs.

The grand jury alleged that the companies were aware of previous incidents that posed threat to the employees, and failed to protect the men from potential danger by not obtaining a proper permit for the project. The indictment also accused the defendants of failing to conduct proper safety rescue evacuation plans for the men in case of immediate danger.

According to CNN, Greg Baxter, OSHA's Regional Administrator in Denver, claimed that if the defendants had properly followed their health and safety procedures, this catastrophic event could have been avoided.

RPI Coating, Inc., Xcel Energy, Inc., and Public Service Company of Colorado, are all charged with violating OSHA regulation on five counts, and for causing death--punishable by a maximum fine of $500,000.

RPI's James Thompson and Philippe Goutagny face the same charges, and with a conviction, could each be charged with up to $250,000 fines on five counts, and sentenced to a maximum of six months in prison.

Indictments in Deaths of Five Workers, The Denver Daily News, August 31, 2009

Xcel Energy, 2 Firms, 2 Men Indicted in 5 Colorado Deaths, CNN Money.com, August 28, 2009

Xcel Energy and Others Indicted for OHSA Violations That Caused Deaths, Workerscompensation.com/PR Newswire, August 20, 2009

Indictments Issued Over '07 Georgetown Plant Deaths, Denver Post.com, August 28, 2009

Related Web Resources:

OSHA

Continue reading "California-based Company Indicted for OSHA Violations Causing Death of Five Workers" »

Bookmark and Share