California Employment Lawyers Blog

Our Orange County employment attorneys have been following the recent Los Angeles, California sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Dov Charney, the 42-year old founder and CEO of popular clothing store American Apparel, who has been hit with two sexual harassment lawsuits this month, that follow a long line of sexual accusations that have shadowed Charney's provocative career as CEO.

Charney's edgy personality and unconventional behavior reportedly helped to swiftly bring success to the retail clothing company that started as a colorful wholesale cotton t-shirt business in downtown Los Angeles, known for basic styles that are often modeled by young girls in blatantly sexual ads.

But according to the Los Angeles Times, Charney's bad publicity and behavior continues to influence the public company's currently troubled business operations--with former employees accusing the founder of a sexually charged hostile work environment, filled with inappropriate and crude comments and a sexually charged lifestyle that includes having consensual sex with his employees. Charney has been very public about his management style, and the importance of stimulating creativity by fostering a workplace that is sexually charged.

Earlier this month, Charney was hit with a $250-million lawsuit by a former New York store employee, who accused the founder of sexually abusing her when she was 18-years old, by holding her prisoner in his apartment and allegedly forcing her to perform oral sex on him--under the threat that if she didn't perform, she would lose her job.

This week a second sexual harassment suit has surfaced in Los Angeles, California, by Kimbra Lo, who claims that she was harassed by Charney seven months after she left American Apparel, when she went to Charney's home in Los Angeles to discuss a new job with the company as a model and photographer. Lo states that after she was invited into his bedroom for the interview--a place where Charney has publicly claimed he often conducts his meetings--he tried to have sex with her that was non-consensual.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Founder and CEO of American Apparel Hit with Two Sexual Harassment Suits" »

In recent Hollywood entertainment news that our Riverside labor and employment attorneys have been watching, television actor David Boreanaz, the star of the hit FOX television series "Bones" settled a lawsuit today after a former extra on the show sued him for sexual harassment.

According to the lawsuit filed in July of last year, Kristina Hagan met Boreanaz while working as an extra on the show in 2009. Hagan reportedly gave the television star her personal contact information after Boreanaz allegedly promised her a featured acting role on the show. Hagan accused Boreanaz of sexual harassment after she receiving sexually explicit texts, or 'sexts' from him that included graphic pictures.

Hagan claimed in the lawsuit that his sexual advances became physical after she agreed to meet with him to talk more about her career. Boreanaz allegedly made unwanted sexual overtures toward Hagan, and when they weren't reciprocated, Hagan claimed that Boreanaz retaliated by masturbating in front of her.

Marty Singer, Boreanaz's attorney has called the sexual harassment lawsuit absurd from the start, and powerhouse attorney Gloria Allred, who represented Hagan in lawsuit, stated that the lawsuit has been settled and the matter has been resolved.

Last year, just a few months before this sexual harassment lawsuit was filed, Boreanaz reportedly announced publicly that he had cheated on his wife, former Playboy Playmate Jaime Bergman, who he has been married to since 2001, and with whom he has two children. Boreanaz reportedly came forward with the infidelity after the woman he was involved with threatened to blackmail him.

Continue reading ""Bones" Television Star David Boreanaz Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear what has been called the largest class-action sex discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history, and one of the most important employment lawsuits in decades--brought by female employees against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for allegedly neglecting to pay women as much as men, and providing them with fewer opportunities for promotions.

As our attorneys discussed in a recent California employment lawyers blog, the decade-long discrimination lawsuit was originally filed in 2001 by Wal-Mart greeter, Betty Dukes, along with five other former and current Wal-Mart employees alleging sex-discrimination in the workplace based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The women reportedly filed for class certification in 2003, asking the judge to allow the case to go to trial on behalf of all women who had worked for the retail giant in the United States at any time from December of 1998--a group that is considered to include over 1.5 million former and current female Wal-mart employees.

In June of 2004, a U.S. District judge reportedly ruled that the gender discrimination lawsuit could proceed as a nationwide class-action, including women who worked at over 3,400 Wal-marts across the country. The trial was separated into two trials--one trial for the court to decide if Wal-mart was guilty of blatant sex discrimination, and another trial to decide remedies, such as back pay, damages, and injunctive relief that would require changes in company policy in regard to compensation and promotions.

In April of 2010, a San Francisco, California U.S. court of appeals upheld the judge's conclusion to handle the case as a single group rather than requiring individual lawsuit litigation. Wal-mart appealed to the Supreme Court in August of 2010, arguing that the claims involving former and current workers were too different in regard to issues and interests to process as a class-action lawsuit--urging the Supreme Court to reject the class-action status. The Supreme Court announced in December of last year, that it will decide if the class-action certification violated federal court rules for such lawsuits, employment laws, or the Constitution.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Wal-mart Sex-Bias Discrimination Lawsuit " »

Our California employment lawyers blog recently discussed the problem of employment misclassification in the workplace--where workers are often misclassified and robbed of employee benefits like overtime, minimum wage and meal periods when employers violate state and federal wage and hour laws.

In a related investigation led by the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, that our Santa Ana employment lawyers have been following, the department's Administrative Review Board has recently ordered the Long Island City construction contractor, Pythagoras General Contracting Corporation to pay over $769,000 in back wages to nearly 80 workers for engaging in employee misclassification.

According to the DOL's Wage and Hour Division investigation, Pythagoras was found to have violated benefit and wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) while working on the New York City Housing Authority project at Vladeck Houses--a project that receives partial funding from the U.S. Government.

Due to the misclassification of its employees under the Davis-Bacon Act, Pythagoras reportedly failed to compensate workers at the prevailing wage rate for the skilled labor that was actually performed, and also consistently failed to compensate some employees for all of the hours worked on the project. Pythagoras and the company's president Stanley Petsagourakis are also reportedly banned from working on future contracts that receive federal funding for three years, after Pythagoras' willful underpayment of employee wages and failure to compensate employees for all hours worked.

Continue reading "Workers on Federally Funded NYC Housing Project Receive $792K in Back Pay for Employee Misclassification" »

Our Fullerton, California employment attorneys have been closely watching the U.S. Supreme Court's decision announced this week in the anti-retaliation lawsuit, Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.--a decision that proves to be a huge victory for workers across the country.

According to the original lawsuit, employee Kevin Kasten sued his employer, Sant-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which provides employment rules on minimum wage, overtime pay and maximum hours and prohibits employers from firing employees out of retaliation, for filing a complaint.

Kasten claimed in his retaliation lawsuit that he was discharged from the company after he complained orally about the company's practice of placing timeclocks in an area that kept workers from receiving credit and compensation for the time spend donning and doffing--or taking on and off their protective work gear, as well as walking to work areas. According to the Supreme Court decision, Saint-Gobain was found to have violated the FLSA's wage and hour requirements for the timeclock placement.

The highest court's decision also agreed with the U.S. Department of Labor--that an employee who complains in an oral manner about not receiving payment for all hours worked, as opposed to a complaining in a written manner, is protected from retaliation. This decision will also protect workers who complain orally under a variety of other whistleblower statutes administered by the Department of Labor.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Supports Workers in Wage and Hour Decision " »

In a recent news development that our Westminster, California employment lawyers have been watching, a California class-action wage and hour claim filed against two Hyatt Vacation companies has been denied transfer from California--after the company moved to transfer the case to Florida, where their headquarters are located.

The wage and hour lawsuit was filed by Jeanne Shultz, a former Carmel, California sales executive who sued Hyatt for failing to pay Shultz and her colleagues overtime and minimum wage in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

Shultz claims that while working for the company for five years, from 2005 until 2010, there were instances where she received no compensation, because as a sales executive, she and other Hyatt sales executives were designated to receive commissions only. Shultz claims that although Hyatt would sometimes pay them a recoverable draw, she still received even less than the minimum wage, as the recoverable draw was reportedly deducted from Shultz's future commissions.

Hyatt is also being accused of failing to provide proper meal and rest breaks to the employees, as well as failing to provide accurate pay records and wage statements. Shultz's lawsuit proposes two classes: a nationwide class, as well as a California class.

Continue reading "Hyatt Sued in California Class-action Wage and Hour Lawsuit" »

In a recent Orange County, California employment lawyer blog, our attorneys discussed a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Elgin Baylor, the 76-year old former general manager of the Los Angeles Clippers, who claimed to have been fired based on age and race discrimination.

This week in Los Angeles Superior Court, Baylor testified in his wrongful termination lawsuit against the Clippers organization, stating that after being an executive in the organization for 22 years, he felt humiliated and insulted when he received a letter in 2008 asking him to retire and become a consultant.

Baylor is suing the basketball team, President Andy Roeser and owner Donald Sterling for wrongful termination based on age discrimination, claiming that both Sterling and Roeser would continually bring up his age in conversations, asking him how much longer he was going to work.

In another statement, Baylor reportedly claimed that he was promised in 1993 by Sterling that he would be "a lifer" with the Clippers, and was then shocked when many of his duties and responsibilities were later taken over by Roeser, Sterling and the then-coach Mike Dunleavy, prior to being fired.

Continue reading "Elgin Baylor's Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Heard in LA Superior Court--Clippers Accused of Age Discrimination" »

In a recent California class action wage and hour lawsuit that our Riverside employment attorneys have been following, Verizon is being sued by a Verizon FIOS field manager, who accuses the company of employee misclassification--for allegedly refusing to pay the field managers overtime, and demanding that employees work through rest and meal periods, in an alleged effort to cut company costs.

According to the complaint, Ulysses Aburto claims that he and other field managers were told that they were salaried employees, and exempt from California overtime and other laws.

Aburto states that although he and the class of employees were field managers, they lacked the exempt requirements under California law as they did not have duties that were managerial, nor did they have authority--and should have been classified as non-exempt employees.

As our attorneys discussed in a recent Carson employment lawyer blog entry, under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California law, job titles do not determine exemptions--an employee's exemption status depends on the specific job responsibilities. Under the FLSA, administrative exemptions cover employees whose primary duties include performing office or non-manual work that is directly related to the management with the primary responsibility of exercising discretion and independent judgment with respect to specific matters regarding the company's business.

Continue reading "California Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Verizon for Employee Misclassification" »

Our San Bernardino County employment attorneys continue to be alarmed by the ongoing trend of employee misclassification in low-wage industries--a topic we frequently discuss in our employment blogs, where employees are often misclassified as "exempt" so employers can cut costs by evading their responsibilities to honor overtime and minimum wage laws, employee rest breaks and meal periods, tax responsibilities, and other employee benefits, along with observing other state and federal employment laws and regulations.

In related news, the U.S. Department of Labor has recently gone after a group of restaurants in the Boston area, which reportedly engaged in employee misclassification. According to the DOL, 1760 Society Inc., who does business as various Sherborn restaurants as well as the D'Ann Restaurant, moved many employees to the payroll of a staffing agency, Operations Management Group (OMG), where the employees received less compensation than legally required.

The DOL investigation found that the restaurant would set the employees' hourly rate, reporting the number of hours that each employee would work to OMG--but instead of paying overtime, which the employees previously received on the restaurant payroll, they were paid only for "straight time" by OMG for all hours worked, including any overtime hours. The workers' tax deductions were also not withheld.

According to Nancy Leppink, the DOL Wage and Hour Division's acting administrator, the department wants to send a message to employers across the country that they cannot shirk their legal responsibilities and duties by engaging in employee misclassification and using staffing agencies or labor contractors.

Continue reading "DOL Recovers $219K After Restaurant Cheats Workers with Employee Misclassification " »

A recent California disability discrimination lawsuit settlement has been recently reached between John Muir Health and eight health care workers, after the California health care system agreed to pay the workers $340,000 to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Our Irvine, California employment attorneys have been following the original lawsuit, filed by the EEOC, where John Muir was accused of failing to offer jobs to one lab technician and seven nurses based on employment disability restrictions that were decided by independent doctors. The John Muir reportedly hired the doctors to perform pre-employment health screenings on the eight interviewees, and assumed that the workers had latex allergies that were life-threatening, and therefore could not safely work in hospital settings.

A few of the workers reportedly received independent evaluations by allergists, all of whom were board-certified, who found that the employees did not have allergies or sensitivities that would prevent them from working in hospital settings safely. All of the interviewees have gone on to work in the hospital and healthcare industry.

According to the EEOC, excluding job candidates from employment based on unfounded fears violates the Americans With Disabilities Act--stating that all job candidates cannot be excluded from employment based on a disability or perceived disability. Instead of withdrawing the job offers, the EEOC claimed in the lawsuit that the candidates should have been provided with latex substitutes that were readily available in gloves and hospital equipment.

Continue reading "EEOC Latex Disability Lawsuit Settled--John Muir Pays Workers $340K" »

In a recent Santa Ana, California employment blog, our attorneys discussed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where under the act, discrimination based on gender in hiring, job training, promotions, job assignments, firings, layoffs, fringe benefits, or any other employment terms of conditions is against the law.

In an ongoing California gender discrimination lawsuit development that our Chino Hills employment attorneys have been watching, Deere & Co., the company known for being the largest manufacturer of agriculture equipment in the world, has been accused by a female job applicant of systematically discriminating against women who are looking for entry-level positions with the company.

The original lawsuit was filed by Holly Artis last year in a federal San Francisco court, and according to Bloomberg, Artis filed another complaint today that was amended, seeking class-action status for her gender discrimination lawsuit that she claims was filed on behalf of all female job applicants who were routinely denied jobs.

Artis claims that her Deere job application was rejected and she was denied work with the company in the landscaping division, because the division favors men for the customer-service and sales jobs. The lawsuit states that Artis applied for a job that was filled with a man who had less experience.

Continue reading " Female Job Applicant Accuses Deere of Sex Discrimination in Hiring" »

Employment misclassification is a growing problem in the workplace, as our attorneys discussed in a recent Orange County, California employment blog, where employees are often misclassified as being exempt from overtime laws, denying them of their hard earned wages.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees who are covered by the act must at least be paid $7.25, the federal minimum wage, for all hours worked, and one and a half times their normal pay rates for all hours worked beyond 40 in a work week. According to the DOL, in general, any "hours worked" includes the time an employee or worker must be on work duty, or on the premises of the employer or any other work area prescribed by the employer--from the beginning of the main work activity of the day to the end of the last main work activity of the day. The law also specifies that all records of any employee hours, wages or conditions of employment must be accurately kept.

In a recent employee misclassification investigation, spearheaded by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the Florida-based company RDL Logistics LLC, has been ordered to pay $50,258 in overtime back wages to eight yard tractor operators after the employees were found to be misclassified by the department.

The investigation found that the employees, who moved trailers and trucks on the company's property only and did not transport goods on public roads, were forced to perform physical labor for over 40 hours a week, including weekends, without receiving any compensation for their efforts.

Continue reading "Employee Misclassification Lawsuit Brings Overtime Compensation to Tractor Operators" »

Actor Charlie Sheen continued to make Hollywood headlines this week by filing a Los Angeles, California employment lawsuit yesterday against Warner Brothers Studio and Chuck Lorre, the executive producer of Two and a Half Men, a hugely successful television show that has starred Sheen since 2003.

Screen has held the celebrity spotlight in recent months, after rehab and hospital visits led to Two and a Half Men's hiatus in January. Last month, Warner Brothers canceled the hit television comedy for the rest of the season, reportedly after Sheen lashed out at Lorre with public verbal attacks.

According to reports that our San Bernardino County employment attorneys have been following, Sheen was fired on Monday, for committing a felony involving a "moral turpitude" which Warner Brothers claimed in a statement included trashing New York's Plaza Hotel, engaging in cocaine binges, failing to report to set and perform because drug usage, and for hurling recent public insults against the show's creator, Chuck Lorre.

Sheen claims that he has filed his employment lawsuit on behalf of the Two and a Half Men cast and crew, and is asking for $100 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit states that Sheen's contract termination came from Lorre, in order to serve Lorre's ego and self-interest, making Sheen the scapegoat for his own conduct--taking money away from the dedicated cast and crew of the show by canceling the production. The lawsuit also accuses Warner Brothers and Lorre of breaching his contract, retaliation, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, among other employment charges.

Continue reading "Hollywood Actor Charlie Sheen Slaps Warner Bros. with $100M Lawsuit for Contract Termination" »