California Employment Lawyers Blog

As Southern California Employment and Labor Lawyers, we have been following the news announced last week that Dolly Gee, an attorney in Los Angeles, California is on her way to becoming the first Chinese-American female U.S. District Court Judge.

Gee was nominated by President Barack Obama, and her nomination was confirmed by the Senate on Christmas Eve of last week.

After receiving her law degree from UCLA in 1984, Dolly Gee has specialized in employment and labor law. President Clinton appointed Gee in 1994 to serve as an arbitrator and mediator in disputes between labor unions and federal agencies. According to the Los Angeles Times, Gee was nominated for the federal bench in 1999, but Clinton's term ended without a confirmation for her in the Senate.

Senator Barbara Boxer, (D-California) claimed that Gee personifies the American Dream. She has used her position and her career as an influential Los Angeles employment and labor attorney to promote racial tolerance in the workplace, and to fight against discrimination.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Attorney Confirmed as First Female Chinese-American Judge on Federal Bench" »

In California Employment & Labor news, the California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CA) recently released an annual report that shows an increase in the number of employment discrimination and harassment incidents against Muslims in 2008.

The report is titled "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights, California 2009" and offers a summary of discrimination, anti-Muslim violence and harassment in the workplace in California during the 2008 calendar year.

In comparison to the 2007 report, complaints of employment discrimination, verbal harassment and the denial of religious accommodation represented the highest increases--at 41 percent, 19 percent, and 12 percent respectively. Workplace incidents rose from 88 cases in 2007 to 103 cases in 2008.

Affad Shaikh, the civil rights manager for CAIR-Greater Los Angeles Area reported that there is still an anti-Muslim climate in our country, and employers should be encouraged to conduct training sessions to make sure that religious practices of all Americans are reasonably accommodated--so Americans' civil rights are respected and protected in the workplace, in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Continue reading "CAIR-CA Report Shows Rise in Harassment and Employment Discrimination Against Muslims" »

A sexual harassment lawsuit settlement that our California Employment Lawyers have been following was announced yesterday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)--where a young female worker was allegedly subjected to assault and sexual harassment by a store manager, while working for Aaron Rents, Inc.

According the lawsuit, Ashley Alford, a female service representative for Aaron Rents, the operator of more than 1,500 "rent-to-own" stores in Canada and the United States, was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment--where the general manager made sexually explicit comments towards her with regular requests for sex. The EEOC's complaint accused the manager of touching Alford's body in a sexually offensive manner, and exposing himself to her on several occasions. The EEOC also alleged that the manager made repeated attempts to force Alford to have sex with him, until his attempts culminated in a sexual assault in the store's warehouse area in Illinois.

Alford allegedly complained to her direct supervisor, and called a company hotline, but no action was taken to end the continual workplace harassment. According to the EEOC, Alford was the only woman working in the store for most of the time she was employed. She was twenty years old at the time of the attack.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under which this lawsuit was filed, it is illegal to discriminate against employees based on sex. It is also unlawful to retaliate against employees who complain about illegal treatment. According to the EEOC, no employee should have to face sexual harassment as part of their employment.

Continue reading "Sexual Assault and Harassment Lawsuit Settled by Aaron Rents" »

In recent news, our California Employment Lawyers have been reading about the $43,000 settlement between Ivy Hall Assisted Living, and Khandija Ahdaouri, a Muslim housekeeper. In the religious discrimination lawsuit, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Ahdaouri, Ivy Hall Assisted Living was accused of discrimination, by forcing her to remove her head scarf, or hijab, while she worked, as a condition of her continued employment.

According to the suit, Ivy Hall Assisted Living discriminated against the housekeeper by not accommodating her religious beliefs--the mandatory wearing of a hijab, a Muslim head scarf outside her home. Ahdaouri was allegedly asked to remove the scarf, having to choose between her religion and her employment. After choosing to wear the scarf at work, Ahdaouri's employment was wrongfully terminated--a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--where under law, employers must accommodate applicants' and employees' religious beliefs in all aspects of employment.

The EEOC states that no employee should have to make the choice between their religious beliefs and their job. Unless it would be an undue hardship for the company, and the operation of its business, an employer must lawfully accommodate an employee's religious practices and sincere beliefs, such as wearing a head scarf or other religious attire, certain hairstyles, or facial hair.

According to the consent decree that settled the suit, along with $43,000 in monetary relief, the assisted living home must take the necessary steps for equal opportunity training, post a notice of anti-discrimination, and report any future complaints of discrimination. In the consent decree and the lawsuit, Ivy Hall denied all liability and allegations of wrongdoing.

Continue reading "Muslim Housekeeper Fired for Wearing Head Scarf--Wins Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement" »

As California Labor and Employment Attorneys, we have been following the $8.9 million settlement of three Albertsons discrimination lawsuits, announced this week by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC represented 168 Black and Hispanic Albertsons employees in these cases, who were allegedly subjected to discrimination based on race, color and national origin, as well as retaliation, in the Colorado distribution center.

The first lawsuit, filed in 2006 by the EEOC, accused the national grocery store chain of providing a hostile work environment filled with harassment and discrimination, where minority employees were repeatedly exposed to verbal harassment and derogatory name calling, as well as graffiti taunting with racial and ethnic slurs, swastikas, drawings of lynchings, white supremacy comments, and anti-immigrant language. The bathroom graffiti was allegedly so offensive that many employees opted to leave for lunchtime, or relieve themselves elsewhere, to avoid being subjected to the shocking and blatant harassment.

The EEOC also charged that managers were made aware of the frequent harassment and discrimination of the minority workers and the employees were retaliated against as a result--with harder job assignments, more discipline than their white colleagues, denied promotions, and wrongful termination.

The second lawsuit was filed in 2008, accusing Albertsons of this pattern and practice of retaliation against employees who had complained about the discrimination and harassment. The third case was filed in 2008 as well, and accused the grocery chain of discrimination based on race, on behalf of an African American employee who was wrongfully terminated at the distribution center.

Continue reading "$8.9 Million Settlement Reached in Albertsons Racial-Bias Discrimination Lawsuits" »

In recent California employment law news, telecommunications giant AT&T and its Pacific Bell Telephone Co., and BellSouth Telecommunications Co., are being sued by over 5,000 current and former workers for withholding up to $1 billion in overtime wages--forcing managers across the country to work overtime without compensation.

According to the two lawsuits, filed yesterday in San Francisco, California and Atlanta, Georgia, AT&T is being accused of violating the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as California state laws by engaging in the company-wide, unlawful treatment of employees, with a policy that wrongfully misclassifies thousands of low-level managers as being exempt from overtime wages.

Within the AT&T hierarchy, "first level" managers are reportedly the lowest in a seven-tier management classification structure, and they have minimal supervisory roles. According to one lawsuit, first level managers serve as low-level functionaries who are expected to communicate between company management and the field technicians, and engage in duties that are primarily clerical and non-managerial. The workers claim that they don't meet the federal standard for what is classified as an exempt manager--as they do not exercise discretion or independent judgment on important matters, and their job duties are not directly related to the management policies of the company or general business operations.

Reuters reports that prior to the AT&T takeover, BellSouth used to pay all of the first level managers overtime--a policy that changed in 2007. In the past few years, many these first level workers have been expected to work more than a regular 40-hour work week without overtime pay--some reported to working up to 100 hours or more. The plaintiffs are pursuing class-action status on behalf of the over 5,000 current and former level one managers.

Continue reading "California Managers Sue AT&T for Withholding Overtime Pay" »

Our Anaheim-based Employment and Labor Lawyers have been following the settlement announced today by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC)--where Economy Finance, a personal loan company, will pay a former loan clerk $65,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit.

According to the suit, a loan clerk for the company was refused the option of returning to work until she submitted to a medical exam that would detect viruses. The company insisted that the employee undergo virus testing, after they discovered that her husband had a medical condition related to Hepatitis C.

The EEOC, representing the case, protested that this medical exam was not related to her employment, and that her husband's disability did not affect the clerk's job performance or her ability to do her job effectively and safely. The EEOC alleged that Economy Finance discharged the employee because she refused to participate in the medical exam--and accused her of being disabled by association, because of her relationship with her husband.

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) it is illegal to fire or discharge an employee who is considered to be disabled through association with someone who is disabled or believed to have a disability. Employee medical exams must be job-related, in direct correlation to as the EEOC claims "objective medical evidence" and workers should be judged on performance and abilities, rather than stereotypes and unfounded fear through association.

Continue reading "Former Loan Company Clerk Wins $65,000 Settlement in Disability Bias Suit" »

In a previous blog from October, our California Labor and Employment Lawyers discussed the Obama administration's initiative to create equal employment federal job opportunities for individuals with disabilities --opportunities that welcome the special abilities of all qualified employees and help them to grow to their fullest employment potential.

Obama proclaimed October, National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and called upon the Federal Government, the nation's largest employer, to set a positive example and implement new employment practices and policies to increase opportunities for disabled workers.

In advancing Obama's campaign to increase the federal hiring of disabled employees, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) has released a new set of guidelines to promote individuals with disabilities--made specifically for each participant in the federal hiring process in a clear, simple and straightforward way.

The EEOC-issued guides are called the five "ABCs of Schedule A" guides, and are made for applicants with disabilities, hiring managers, human resources professionals, service providers, disability program managers and selective placement coordinators. According to Christine M. Griffin, Acting Vice Chair for EEOC, agencies have to work harder to encourage the participation of individuals with severe disabilities in the federal workplace, as the participation rates are rapidly declining.

Continue reading "Guides to Promote Federal Hiring of Workers with Disabilities" »

In recent Los Angeles, California employment law news, Hollywood star Jennifer Aniston was recently served a summons to testify in an ongoing sexual harassment lawsuit that involves her talent agent, Todd Shemarya, and his ex-assistant, Heather Devlin.

The lawsuit accuses Shemarya of creating a hostile work environment and exposing Devlin to constant sexual harassment in the workplace. Shemarya is being accused of harassing Devlin by subjecting her to offensive racial and sexual slurs, pornographic emails and videos, as well as derogatory remarks about the firm's Hollywood clients, including Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, Aniston's ex-husband. Devlin claims in the suit that Shemarya was stealing from his clients on a regular basis--exposing Devlin to this client theft. Devlin claims to have been fired via email after she refused to help him steal from clients. Shermarya is also being accused of exposing Devlin to drug purchase and usage in the workplace.

Devlin also claimed in the suit that Shemarya sexually harassed her by arranging for the only bathroom in the office bathroom to be without a door during her entire 6 years in the job. Shemarya allegedly exposed his genitals to her on a regular basis and forcing her to take dictation while he urinated and defecated. Shemarya also allegedly walked around naked in front of her, and forced her to use the bathroom without a door.

In the suit, Devlin also accuses Shemarya of persuading her to abandon her previous career as a Beverly Hills retail saleswoman making $100,000 a year for a $30,000 a-year job as his assistant--with empty promises of a secure job that would lead to a career as a top talent agent for celebrities. After being fired, Devlin was allegedly refused severance by Shemarya and forced to sign a confidentiality agreement about his unlawful behavior.

Continue reading "Jennifer Aniston Summoned to Testify in Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Case " »

Our California Employment and Labor Lawyers have been following the recent announcement of the age discrimination lawsuit settlement between CHESCO Services, a disability services provider and Larry O. Knight, a 73-year old worker who was denied a position with the company because of his age.

CHESCO Services, formerly known as Chesterfield County Board of Disabilities and Special Needs, is a non-profit organization approved by the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs (DDSN). According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's complaint, (EEOC), in early 2007, CHESCO took over operations of a residential care facility, where Knight was employed. Knight's position was then consolidated with a position held by a much younger, 43-year-old co-worker.

The EEOC contends that Knight, who was qualified for the newly formed position, was not chosen for the position because of his age--a direct violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the act protecting individuals who are 40 years of age or older from age-based employment discrimination in both employment and the application process.

The EEOC stated in a press release that age bias is often a motivating factor in the hiring process, and older applicants are often not given the same respect and consideration for jobs as younger applicants. According to the EEOC, this case should remind businesses and employers that all workers deserve equal opportunities and freedom from age discrimination in the workplace.

Continue reading "EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit Settled--Older Worker Denied Position Because of Age" »

As employment and labor lawyers in Anaheim, California, we have been following the announcement this week of singer and Oscar winner Liza Minnelli's $100 million sexual harassment lawsuit settlement--between Minnelli and her ex-driver and bodyguard for ten years, M'Hammed Soumayah. Soumayah filed charges against the famous Minnelli in 2004, for allegedly beating him during drunken rages, forcing him to engage in sexual activity, and for spitting on him after he refused her advances.

Soumayah claimed in the suit that Minnelli repeatedly sexually harassed and assaulted him, attempted to have sex with him, and threatened to fire him if he did not succumb to her sexual advances. According to the lawsuit, after fearing the loss of his $283,000 year job, Soumayah agreed to engage in sexual intercourse with the singer.

Minnelli filed a $250,000 countersuit against Soumayah, accusing him of violating an agreement of confidentiality. This long-time legal battle came to a close last month after Minnelli was deposed, and questioned about the charges. Both sides struck a settlement out of court shortly after.

Minnelli is no stranger to lawsuits, as she was previously sued for $10 million by her ex-husband David Gest--who also complained of drunken battery by Minnelli. Gest publicly spoke of Minnelli's alleged super-human strength under the influence of alcohol.

Continue reading "Liza Minnelli $100M Sexual Harassment Suit Settled with Ex-Driver" »

Our Los Angeles, California Employment and Labor Lawyers have been following the The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) filing on Monday of a shocking lawsuit against M. Slavin and Sons, accusing the managers and owners of the fish distribution company of violating federal law by verbally and physically harassing black male employees based on sex, race and national origin, and creating a hostile environment in the workplace.

According to the lawsuit, supervisors of the Brooklyn-based company regularly taunted and harassed black male employees on the overnight shift--a group that included male African immigrants and American-born black employees. The commission revealed shocking allegations in a press release, accusing the owners and managers of taunting, making obscenely sexual comments and racial slurs, physical groping, inappropriate rubbing, and the jabbing of fish hooks in employees' buttocks. The lawsuit states that in one instance, a supervisor asked one African immigrant worker if he had engaged in sex with elephants. Other supervisors reportedly asked the workers to have anal and oral sex.

The employees allegedly left their positions because of the harassment, and the worker who came forward with the original complaint received retaliation. The EEOC reported that after the worker complained, the manager retaliated against him by instructing other co-workers not to communicate with him, by reprimanding him when he spoke to other employees, and by punishing him with assigning him with frequent garbage duty.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It is also against the law for employers to retaliate against employees who complain against such unlawful treatment. According to Sunu P. Chandy, an EEOC senior trial attorney, this case represents a new area for the commission, where both gender and race come together, as it relates to men of color. The EEOC reports that the number of sexual harassment complaints in the workplace filed by males rose from 11.6 percent in 1997 to 15.9 percent in 2008.

Continue reading "Fish Seller M. Slavin & Sons Sued for Male-On-Male Sexual and Racial Harassment" »

In recent employment and labor news, our Anaheim Employment Attorneys have been following The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) announcement of the $142,000 disability discrimination lawsuit settlement between Hudson Valley Hospital Center, and Gorianne Romano, a nurse with diabetes.

The lawsuit accused the hospital of discriminating against Romano based on her disability--Type I "brittle" diabetes, after Romano reportedly experienced a diabetic coma from her condition, and was treated there.

According to the EEOC, Romano's doctor requested that she needed a consistent schedule to help her gain control over her diabetes. As a part-time employee health nurse, Romano requested to work three days in a row, as opposed to alternating days. The hospital failed to grant Romano a reasonable accommodation for a flexible schedule, stating that it unduly disrupted the hospital's business operations. The EEOC charged that the hospital was endangering Romano's health--and effectively terminating her employment--by failing to accommodate her modified work request.

By failing to grant a reasonable accommodation, and terminating Romano's employment, the hospital violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)--which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals based on disabilities in the workplace. The EEOC claimed that if the hospital had fulfilled its legal obligation to find a reasonable accommodation for Romano's diabetes, this lawsuit could have been avoided.

Continue reading "Community Hospital to Pay $142,000 in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement" »

In a post from last week, our Anaheim, California Employment Attorneys discussed the recent passing of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)--the new law banning discrimination based on genetic information in the workplace, and the use of genetic information with health insurance.

Genetic information is defined as the information about an individual's genetic testing as well as the genetic testing and medical history of an individual's family. Information involving the disease, condition, or disorder of an individual's family members is considered genetic information because it is used to determine the likelihood of whether someone has an increased risk of developing a potential health problem in the future.

Title I of GINA addresses the use of genetic information with health insurers and group plans--where a person's genetic makeup cannot be used against them for the basis of denying coverage and setting insurance rate premiums or deductibles based on genetic information. The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury are responsible for issuing all regulations for Title I.

Under Title II of GINA, it is illegal for employers to discriminate based on genetic information with any aspect of employment, from hiring, paying, promoting, layoffs or firing. Genetic testing is not allowed by employers, and employees cannot be forced to reveal the medical histories of their family--as genetic information does not inform an employer about an employee's work abilities. Title II of GINA bans the use of genetic information to make decisions based on employment, and limits the employer's accessibility and disclosure of an individual's genetic information.

Continue reading "EEOC enforces GINA--Workplace Discrimination Based on Genetic Information is Illegal" »

Our California Employment and Labor Lawyers have been following a lawsuit filed last week by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of several female workers, some of whom were teenagers, who were sexually harassed in the workplace both physically and verbally while working at a local Dunkin' Donuts.

The lawsuit accuses the manager of a Dunkin' Donuts in Wynatskill, N.Y., of continuously and inappropriately grabbing the female workers' breasts and buttocks, kissing them on the neck, and forcefully holding and hugging the employees against their will. The manager allegedly told the employees they were sexually desirable, asked them about their sex lives and verbally described in a detailed manner specific acts that he would like to perform on them sexually. He told the workers that he preferred virgins, and that they should not tell anyone about the things that he told them. According to the suit, the officials at Dunkin' Donuts failed to protect the female employees from a hostile work environment by taking the appropriate measures to stop and prevent the workplace sexual harassment--especially after the female workers came forward with the alleged complaints.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawfully protects employees from experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace. The EEOC stated that it is important for companies to work diligently to protect employees from this kind of harassment. According to the suit multiple complaints were made to the company in 2006, and these actions reportedly went unanswered. EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Adela Santos stated the importance of taking sexual harassment complaints seriously, especially when employees are teenagers, as in this case, are working in their first jobs, and are afraid to complain about being harassed by their manager.

The EEOC was contacted in 2007 by one of the females represented in the suit, and estimates that between 5 and 15 other female employees were sexually harassed while employed by this Dunkin' Donuts store. This lawsuit claims that Dunkin' Donuts used unlawful employment practices that involved sexism intentionally. The EEOC seeks a permanent injunction against discrimination, monetary relief for the female victims, and the implementation of effective policies and procedures against discrimination, as well as training on anti-discrimination laws.

Continue reading "Dunkin' Donuts Manager Accused of Sexually Harassing Teens" »

In recent employment and labor news, a pregnancy and gender discrimination lawsuit has been settled between The Kohler Company, and Rachel Lee, a female showroom executive who was allegedly fired from Kohler as a result of her pregnancy, not as a result of her qualifications.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this discrimination lawsuit against Kohler, the privately owned company that is well known for its plumbing products, in November 2006, after attempting to reach a settlement before litigation. The agency charged that Lee was discriminated against due to her gender and pregnancy--by being placed on probation, despite her performance record, and fired less than one month before her pregnancy due date.

Kohler settled the case for $175,000 of monetary relief, as well as mandating equal employment opportunity training, anti-discrimination postings and encouraging reporting in the future. Kohler signed the consent decree, but denied any wrongdoing or liability.

Pregnancy and gender discrimination in the workplace is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC enforces the federal laws that ban this kind of discrimination in the workplace.

Continue reading "Kohler Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit--$175,000 for Female Showroom Executive" »

As California Employment and Labor Attorneys, we have been following the passing of the most comprehensive federal anti-discrimination law in almost 20 years--The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)--that prohibits employers from genetic testing, or discriminating in the workplace based on genetic makeup.

According to the new law, it is illegal for employers to hire, fire, pay, give promotions, layoffs, or any other terms or conditions of employment based on genetic information. Employers are prohibited from requesting genetic testing, or demanding employees to disclose family medical histories--because genetic information does not inform the employer about a person's ability to work. It is also illegal with this new law to fire, harass, or retaliate against an applicant or employee who participates in a discrimination proceeding or lawsuit.

Under GINA, health insurers and group plans are also unable to use a person's genetic makeup against them, for the basis of denying coverage or setting insurance rate premiums or deductibles based on possible genetic predispositions, like heart disease, breast cancer, or Parkinson's disease. The law also bans heath plans from rewarding employees for giving family medical information and histories when filling out questionnaires on health risk.

The federal government has not placed an act into motion with such comprehensive employment protections since the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Stuart J. Ishimaru, acting chairman of the EEOC, stated in a press release that GINA reaffirms the American labor principle that all workers have the right to be judged according to their ability to do the job, and that an employee should not be denied a job or treated unfairly in the workplace due to genetic predisposition.

Continue reading "Historic Anti-Discrimination Law Bans Genetic Discrimination" »