California Employment Lawyers Blog

In recent national news that our Southern California Employment Attorneys have been following, Lady Gaga, the hugely popular pop star, is being sued by her former business partner and ex-boyfriend, the songwriter and music producer Rob Fusari, for breach of contract and failure to pay royalties that he is allegedly owed.

Lady Gaga, also known as Stefani Germanotta, met Fusari in March 2006. Fusari claims in his lawsuit that he discovered Germanotta while looking for a strong female pop singer, and then proceeded to co-wrote songs with her, create her new look and help her get a record deal at Interscope--reshaping her career and even giving her the name Lady Gaga.

In the over $30 million lawsuit, Fusari claims that the Grammy award winning Gaga forced him out of her career while continuing her meteoric rise to record breaking success. The lawsuit claims that Fusari is owed royalties for creating the Lady Gaga moniker, and for co-writing songs on the popular album "The Fame." Fusari also accuses Gaga of breaching the contract that they agreed upon in 2006.

Lady Gaga responded to Fusari, by filing a countersuit, claiming that the 2006 contract she signed was illegal because it was created in manner that concealed its real purpose, which as her lawyer reportedly said, provided the defendants compensation that was unlawful for services rendered as employment agents who were unlicensed. She claims the contract was financially abusive and that Fusari took advantage of her inexperience of a fledgling pop star.

Continue reading "Lady Gaga Slapped with Breach of Contract Lawsuit and Fights Back" »

As Santa Ana, California Employment Lawyers, we have been following the news story this week of the shocking store announcement made by an employee or possible shopper of a New Jersey Walmart, where they announced over the PA system that all black people had to leave the store immediately.

According to the Associated Press, the manager quickly addressed the problem and publicly apologized to the customers in the store. Officials with the Walmart Store in Bentonville, Arkansas claimed that the comment was not acceptable, and they are investigating how the possible bias-crime came to happen.

Walmart has faced similar high profile controversy in the past. In a previous blog our attorneys discussed the gender-based sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where the retail company agreed to pay more than $12 million to female applicants who were reportedly denied jobs based on gender and not qualification.

In other instances, black customers have reportedly claimed that they received unfair treatment at local Walmart stores, and in February of last year, the retail store paid over $17 million in a class action lawsuit settlement that alleged racial discrimination in hiring practices.

Continue reading "Racial Announcement in Walmart Store Tells Black People to Leave" »

In yesterday's blog, our California Employment and Labor Lawyers discussed a recent lawsuit involving the issue of fragrance sensitivities in the workplace, and how fragrance sensitivities can be considered as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA).

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN), is provided by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy, to help employers comply with Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to find reasonable accommodations for disabled employees.

JAN states that fragrance sensitivity can mean that an employee has an actual allergy to a fragrance or a simple irritation to a fragrance, that manifests through absorption, breathing, or ingestion. The first allergic indicator of a reaction to a fragrance is often a skin rash after using a perfumed product, although other reactions can also include nausea, hives, asthma attacks or symptoms, coughing, wheezing, runny nose, itchy eyes, or difficulty breathing.

According to JAN, there is no list of medical conditions that comprise all disabilities under the ADA, rather a general definition of disability that is answered on a case-by-case basis, with consideration on how the employee is affected by his/her medical condition. In this way, some employees with fragrance sensitivities can be protected under the ADA and some will not.

Continue reading "Fragrance Sensitivities and Disability Definitions under the ADA" »

In recent employment news that our Riverside, California Employment Attorneys have been following, a city planner in Detroit, Michigan sued the city in a federal employment lawsuit, claiming that her colleague's perfume and fragranced room spray made it hard for her to effectively do her job, as the scents caused serious health reactions.

According to the lawsuit, McBride, an employee of the city, complained to her supervisor that she was sensitive to chemicals, and that the room scent and perfume of a colleague made it difficult for her to breath--thus making it hard for her to do her job. Her allergic reactions to the scents reportedly induced nausea, coughing and migraines. After her boss didn't respond to her complaints, McBride sued the city under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In a recent CBS morning report, guest lawyer Joelle Sharman claimed that employees have the right to breathe without irritation while working to effectively do their job. If an employee complains to their supervisor that another employees perfume is causing a health condition that interferes with their ability to work, than it is the boss's responsibility to provide reasonable accommodation for that employee.

The city reportedly fought the lawsuit, claiming that there was no medical diagnosis of her condition and that she is not disabled.

Continue reading "City Employee Sues Over Perfume Stink in the Workplace" »

In last week's blog, our Anaheim-based Employment and Labor Attorneys discussed sexual harassment in the workplace, and how sexual harassment is considered a form of discrimination according to California and Federal laws.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is against the law to discriminate against a person based on sex, race, religion, color and national origin with hiring, firing, promotions, training, harassment, benefits, or wage discussions. Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual employee based on an association with another employee or individual of a specific sex, race, religion, color or national origin.

Title VII also makes it illegal to retaliate against an individual because the employee complained about discrimination, filed a discrimination charge, or engaged in an investigation or lawsuit involving discrimination. Under Title VII, employers are required by law to reasonably accommodate an employee or applicant's religious beliefs that are sincerely held, unless it would create or impose any undue hardship on the business operations of the employer.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing the federal laws that protect employees or job applicants from discrimination based on a person's race, religion, color, national origin, or sex, which includes pregnancy. Most employers with at least fifteen employees are covered by Title VII, as well as most labor unions and employment agencies. The EEOC may also step in and protect employees by investigating, mediating, and by filing lawsuits on behalf of the victims.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" »

In recent national news that our Carson, California Labor and Employment Lawyers have been following, members of the nonprofit group "Make the Road New York," a group that combats national origin discrimination within the administration of New York City public schools and government agencies, held a rally and news conference in front of the Fifth Avenue J. Crew retail store to protest against alleged discrimination against job applicants who are transgender.

Researchers reportedly investigated the hiring practices of over twenty Manhattan retailers in the report entitled, "Transgender Need Not Apply: a Report on Gender Identity Job Discrimination," and found J.Crew to be in violation of the Human Rights Law of New York City.

According to the San Diego San and Lesbian News, the employment survey followed transgender and non-transgender applicants with equal qualifications, work experience, race and age, and found that 42 percent of job applicants who are transgender experience discrimination, a figure that is reportedly high compared to the statistics that were documented for other populations, including the elderly or African-Americans.

Irene Tung of "Make The Road New York" claimed that J.Crew is being focused on because they allegedly acted with a pattern of discrimination against the transgender applicants. "Make the Road New York" has filed a complaint with the New York State Attorney Generals' Office and claims that J.Crew violated New York City's human rights law.

Continue reading "Employment Study Questions J.Crew's Hiring Practices--Discrimination Against Transgender Applicants" »

As Southern California Employment Lawyers, we have been interested in the recent $2,000,000 discrimination settlement between Les Schwab Tire Centers and Warehouse, and female applicants who were denied employment based on their sex.

According to the gender-based hiring class lawsuit, filed four years ago by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), more than 200 qualified women have been denied jobs involving tire-changing since 2004 in California, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Nevada because of their gender.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that discrimination based on gender in hiring, firing, harassment, promotions, training, benefits, or wage discussions is against the law.

Les Schwab will pay $2,000,000 monetary settlement to be dispersed to the eligible females in the suit, and agreed to maintain the company's anti-discrimination procedures and policies. The tire company will also engage in training for employees, managers, and assistant managers about gender-based discrimination under Title VII and will report to the EEOC to make sure the company is complying with the consent decree terms that settled the lawsuit.

Continue reading "Tire Company to Pay $2M in Gender-based Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement" »

In yesterday's blog, our Southern California Labor and Employment Lawyers discussed that sexual harassment is considered a form of discrimination in both California state and Federal laws.

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), harassment based on sex includes gender harassment, sexual harassment, harassment based on medical conditions, or harassment based on pregnancy.

Sexual harassment is defined by the FEHA as unwanted sexual advances or visual, physical or verbal behavior that has a sexual and offensive nature, and can even include same-sex gender-based harassment. A partial list of the FEHA violations in the workplace include:

• Sexual advances that are unwanted
• Physical touching, assault or obstructing the movements of an employee
• Threatening an employee after being rejected by sexual advances
• Visual conduct--making crude or sexual gestures, staring or leering, displaying sexually suggestive pictures, objects, posters or material.
• Verbal conduct--engaging in sexually offensive or derogatory slurs, comments or jokes.
• Sexual advances of a verbal nature, including propositions for sexually inappropriate activity.
• Verbal abuse of a sexual nature--sexually charged comments about an employee or individual's body, offensive or degrading sexual comments spoken against an individual, sexually suggestive notes, invitations, or obscene letters.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace and California FEHA Law" »

In our ongoing report on sexual harassment in the workplace, our Riverside Labor and Employment Attorneys have been following the news released this week that a high-end New York fashion designer is suing her boss for egregious sexual harassment.

Maria Adamkiewiczm a designer at S. Rothschild & Co., the well known coat company, carrying labels such as Tommy Hilfiger and DKNY, filed a lawsuit yesterday in Manhattan, claiming that she had to resign from the company in 2008 because of enduring continual sexual harassment from her boss, Michael Kaufman.

According to the suit, Kaufman's harassment started in 2006, when he suggested that Adamkiewicz and a colleague buy sex toys to use with their boyfriends from a Hustler lingerie shop that he brought them to on a business trip in Los Angeles. In other allegations, Adamkiewicz claimed that Kaufman licked her hand during a meeting and asked jokingly if that constituted sexual harassment, and also dropped his pants on another occasion. In another instance Kaufman reportedly removed his belt in front of an employee and jokingly snapped the belt, claiming that he was going to whip her with it.

Adamkiewicz, who created design sketches and developed fabric designs for the company claimed to have filed a complaint with S. Rothschild & Company's president Mark Friedman about the sexual misconduct. Friedman reportedly admitted that he was aware of Kaufman's actions.

Continue reading "High-end New York Designer Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

In yesterday's blog our Anaheim, California Employment and Labor Attorneys discussed the increase of male sexual harassment charges across the country being reported to the U.S. Equal Employment Commission, (EEOC) over the past ten years.

According to a recent article in the Associated Press, male sexual harassment claims comprised 12 percent of all cases ten years ago, and this number has grown even as the number of complaints has declined. In 2009, the percentage of lawsuits filed by the EEOC on behalf of male employees who claimed sexual harassment rose to 14 percent--a record high.

The majority of these charges reportedly involve men harassing other men, although some cases allege female harassment by co-workers or supervisors. The Associated Press reports that cases involving women making unwanted sexual advances toward male employees may be rising as more and women make up large part of the ever expanding work force.

In a recent blog, our attorneys discussed a lawsuit brought by the EEOC last year, in which a male employee of a Regal Entertainment movie theater in Los Angeles, California, claimed sexual harassment by a female co-worker and was awarded $175,000 in monetary damages. According to the suit, after complaining to the supervisor, she neglected to stop the harassment and retaliated against the male employee with poor performance evaluations and unfair discipline.

Continue reading "Growing Rate of Male Sexual Harassment in the Workplace by Women" »

In a recent blog, our Southern California Labor and Employment Attorneys reported on the growing number of male sexual harassment charges filed with state and federal agencies across the country.

Our lawyers discussed the lawsuit involving six male employees at a Phoenix Cheesecake Factory who endured repeated and severe sexual assaults by a group of male kitchen workers. The male employees were allegedly dragged kicking and screaming into the refrigerator where the male kitchen workers groped their genitals, forced simulated rape, and made offensive and sexual remarks. The Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain settled the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by paying $345,000 in monetary damages.

The Associated Press reported this week on another male on male sexual harassment case, in which employee Jonathan Pilkington was allegedly harassed by a male chef in a sexual manner, with groping, fondling, and pinching his genitals on numerous occasions while he worked at Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar. Pilkington stood up for himself and complained to a supervisor, but the violations reportedly did not stop. Pilkington claims to have finally yelled at the chef, to stop the harassment and was fired a few days later--he claims in retaliation for filing the complaints.

Sexual Harassment in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the EEOC the filing of male sexual harassment charges has steadily multiplied over the past ten years from 12% to 16%. In 2009 the complaints filed by men totaled over 2,000, out of around 12,700 sexual harassment cases.

Continue reading "EEOC Shows Increase in Male Sexual Harassment Cases" »

As Los Angeles and Orange County Labor and Employment Attorneys, we have been following the recent news that video game makers Vince Zampella and Jason West are suing Activision Publishing, Inc. for breach of contract and wrongful termination.

West and Zampella are video game developers who produced the hugely successful Call of Duty, and Modern Warfare at the Encino, California-based company Infinity Ward, a studio they started in 2001. Activision reportedly bought Infinity Ward in 2003 for $5 million, and West and Zampella agreed to three-year employment contracts, as president and CEO.

After Infinity Ward's release of the hugely successful fourth game in the series, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in 2008, Zampella and West reportedly extended their contract with Activision through 2011. The extension allegedly included additional royalties, other payments, and the right to control the company independently, with the right to creative control over any Call of Duty games that take place after the Vietnam War, or any Modern Warfare sequels.

According to the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday, West and Zampella were wrongfully terminated on Monday, a few weeks before being paid significant royalty payments that were pary of their contracts for the game Modern Warfare 2, that was released in November and has generated retail sales of more than $1 billion.

Continue reading "Fired Game Makers Sue Activision for Breach of Contract" »

In recent news that our Anaheim-based Labor and Employment Attorneys have been following, Walmart Stores, Inc. will pay more than $11.7 million to settle a class action sex discrimination lawsuit, where female applicants were reportedly denied jobs based on gender and not qualification.

According the class action lawsuit, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Commission (EEOC) nine years ago, from 1998 until February 2005, Walmart's Distribution Center in London, Kentucky denied jobs to female applicants for entry-level warehouse positions, even though they were reportedly equal or more qualified than the male applicants who were hired.

Walmart is being accused of using discriminating based on gender when hiring entry-level filler positions. Female applicants were reportedly told that the filling positions were not suitable for women, and only appropriate for men ages 18-25--an illegal practice of hiring based on gender that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The nearly $12 million payment will be distributed to eligible class members, who will receive $3.2 million in compensatory damages and $8.4 million in back wages.

Continue reading "Walmart Will Pay More Than $12 Million in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement" »

In recent employment discrimination news that our Chino Hills Employment Attorneys have been following, A&A Contracting, based in St. Louis, Missouri has agreed to settle a disability discrimination brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC).

The lawsuit accused the construction company of violating Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), by firing Rick Wells, a permanent construction worker, because of his history of cancer and kidney and liver problems.

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and individuals applying for employment who are disabled, who are considered disabled, or who have a history or record of a disability.

The EEOC suit alleges that the Wells had been given a clean bill of health by his doctor, and had been given permission to work, but after Wells applied for the company's health insurance coverage the company reportedly became aware of his history of health issues and wrongfully terminated his employment. Wells was reportedly humiliated for being fired for his perceived disability.

Continue reading "Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settled--Construction Company to Pay Back Wages" »

Our Long Beach, California, Labor and Employment Lawyers are following the lawsuit settlement announced today by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where a worker with an intellectual disability was allegedly discriminated against by fellow McDonald's employees at a franchise that was once owned and operated by Alstrun LLP.

The lawsuit, brought by the EEOC, alleged that Timothy Artis, a worker for the McDonald's franchise, experienced illegal harassment based on his intellectual disability, even though he was fully capable of performing his job duties as lobby and lot worker.

The suit claims that Artis was subjected disability discrimination and harassment that included offensive name-calling and comments by colleagues, managers, and supervisors, as well as physical abuse and threats. In one harassing incident Artis was threatened with a box cutter by a co-worker.

After continual complaints were made to the McDonald's supervisors and officials by Artis's mother, Artis quit his job, because the restaurant chain neglected to take the necessary action to protect him from the physical and verbal abuse in the workplace.

Continue reading "Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement--McDonald's Franchise Will Pay Employee $90,000" »

As Santa Ana Labor and Employment Attorneys, we have been following the recent announcement that Oldcastle SW Group, Inc., operating as United Companies of Mesa County, has settled a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit for nearly $500,000, that was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a former female employee.

According to the lawsuit, the female employee was hired in 1998 by Delta Sand and Gravel in Colorado (now part of Old Castle Group, and doing business as United Companies of Mesa County), to drive a truck, dispatch trucks, batch concrete, perform plant manager duties, and act as a quality control technician--the role in which she remained until she was allegedly wrongfully terminated.

The suit charges that the female worker spent a majority of her employment doing what is largely considered to be the "job of a man." The employee alleged that once she became a quality control technician, she started experiencing blatant sex-based discrimination, with workers and managers making harassing comments based on gender and engaging in sex based name-calling that interfered with her ability to perform her job duties.

Many of the employee's male co-workers reportedly witnessed the sex-based discrimination and offered to support her if she filed a complaint. After complaining to the management, and naming the male witnesses, the men confirmed her allegations, although admitted fear that they might be retaliated against for standing up for their female co-worker. According to the complaint filed by the EEOC, the men were subsequently subjected to serious retaliation, including name-calling, harassment, and threats to keep quiet. Over the course of the next seven months, the woman and two of the male employees who stood up for her rights were reportedly wrongfully terminated.

Continue reading "Gender-based Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Settlement-- Gravel Company to Pay Nearly $500K" »