California Employment Lawyers Blog

In a recent Carson, California employment lawyers blog, our attorneys reported on religious discrimination in the workplace, covering a series of lawsuits that were filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), on behalf of individuals who were reportedly discriminated on based on their religious beliefs and practices.

In a related EEOC lawsuit that our Temecula, California attorneys have been following, a corporation that runs Taco Bell restaurants in North Carolina has been accused by the commission by violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by neglecting to reasonably accommodate the religious practices and beliefs of an employee, and firing him based on his religion.

According to the lawsuit, Christopher Abbey, a practicing Nazirite, had worked at the Taco Bell restaurant since 2004. In order to observe his religious practices and beliefs, Abbey had not cut his hair since he was fifteen. In April of 2010, Family Foods, the corporation owning the chain, reportedly told a 25-year-old Abbey that he had to cut his hair in order to comply with Taco Bell's grooming policy.

Abbey explained that according to his religious practices he could not cut his hair. The company reportedly failed to reasonably accommodate Abbey's religious practices and gave him an ultimatum--that if he didn't cut his hair, his employment would be terminated.

Continue reading "Owner of Taco Bell Restaurant Chains Sued for Religious Discrimination" »

Our Anaheim, California labor and employment attorneys have been reading about a recent California class action wage and hour lawsuit, filed by pharmaceutical sales representatives of the drug company Novo Nordisk, who claim that the company violated overtime laws by failing to pay the employees for overtime hours worked.

In the lawsuit, the pharmaceutical sales representatives accuse the drug giant of engaging in employee misclassification by classifying them as outside salespersons, and "exempt" from overtime laws under California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In a previous Carson, California employment lawyer blog, our attorneys reported that under the FLSA and California law, most non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime compensation at one and one half their regular pay rates for any hours worked beyond forty in a workweek. The FLSA provides exemptions from both minimum wage and overtime payment for outside sales representatives, administrative, executive, computer and professional employees. To qualify for an exemption under the FSLA, the employee's specific job responsibilities must be considered, and not just the job title.

The Novo Nordisk class action wage and hour complaint claims that the primary qualification for an outside salesperson exemption is that the sales representatives must be making sales. The Novo Nordisk sales representatives claim that while working they were not actually making sales, rather only promoting prescription drugs to physicians. According to the complaint, the physician can only agree to prescribe the medicine to the patients, but cannot actually buy the drugs from the pharmaceutical sales representatives directly.

Continue reading "CA Drug Sales Reps Sue Novo Nordisk in Class Action Wage and Hour Lawsuit" »

A U.S. Representative is being sued in a disability discrimination lawsuit development that our California employment attorneys have been following, after a former employee claims she was denied reasonable accommodation in the workplace for her disability.

According to the lawsuit, Mona Floyd was hired in 2010 as legislative director and chief counsel for Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-Texas), with the assurance that her disability needs would be accommodated. Floyd claims that Jackson Lee had known about her disability since 2006, when she began working for the congresswoman. After Floyd was hired to the new position in 2010, Jackson Lee's then chief of staff reportedly assured Floyd that her reasonable accommodations would be honored.

Floyd suffers from the visual disability called monocular vision, which causes eye fatigue, headaches, strain, making her read 20 to 30 percent slower than the average person. Floyd's reading speed is also reduced if she is not given an proper chance to rest her eyes throughout the workday, as the eye fatigue causes reduced comprehension and concentration, as well as physical fatigue.

Jackson Lee, is known for publicly supporting the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal act that prohibits disability discrimination in the workplace. Under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), employers must reasonably accommodate the known mental or physical limitations of a disabled individual, applicant or employee who is qualified for the job--unless accommodating the disabled employee would cause undue hardship to employer's business operations.

Continue reading "U.S. Representative Sued for Disability Discrimination" »

According to a recent California Supreme Court wage and hour ruling that our Newport Beach employment attorneys have been closely following, California companies must follow state law on overtime payment for out-of-state residents who are working in California.

The California class action wage and hour lawsuit was originally filed against Oracle Corporation, by a group of instructors, residents of Arizona and Colorado, who traveled between states, instructing customers on how to properly use the Oracle software products. The employees argued in the lawsuit that under California's wage and hour laws, they should be entitled to overtime payment for working over eight hours in a day, during California business trips.

The employees in the lawsuit claimed that Oracle engaged in employee misclassification by erroneously classifying them as teachers under federal law, putting them in the category of "exempt" workers, who are not entitled to overtime compensation. The employees argued that they were in fact "non-exempt" employees under California law, and should be eligible to receive overtime payment.

Oracle reportedly argued that California law should not apply to employees visiting from other states, as their own state laws should follow them while working in any other states. Oracle also claimed that applying California's wage and hour laws to employees who are visiting and not residents would impose undue burdens on California employers. Oracle's other argument claimed that both Colorado and Arizona's wage and hour laws conflicted with California's, and therefore Oracle couldn't properly apply the California laws.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court Rules in Oracle Overtime Lawsuit" »

Our Carson labor and employment lawyers blog recently discussed a wage and hour settlement involving 63 Houston-area restaurant workers, who will receive nearly $250,000 after the U.S. Department of Labor found that their employer had violated federal wage and hour laws, including minimum wage, overtime payment and failure to maintain proper records.

In a similar Houston-area DOL wage and hour investigation, the department found that three Taconmadre Mariachi & Grill restaurants violated federal wage and hour laws by engaging in employee misclassification. The employer reportedly classified employees incorrectly as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and paid them salaries that were less than the federal minimum wage, along with failing to compensate them for overtime. The company also reportedly took deductions out of the employees' paychecks for lost items and employee uniforms, and failed to maintain proper time and pay records.

According to the DOL, the low-wage restaurant workers were taken advantage of by the employers, many of whom worked up to 91 hours in a single workweek without receiving any overtime compensation--a violation of FLSA requirements.

Under federal wage and hour laws, all covered employees are required to receive at least $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage, plus an overtime compensation of time and one-half the worker's regular pay for any hours worked above and beyond the forty hour work week. This includes bonuses, commissions and any incentive pay.

Continue reading "Another DOL Investigation Brings Restaurant Employees $275K in Overtime Back Wages" »

Our Anaheim employment attorneys have discussed the topic of wage theft among low-wage workers in the restaurant industry, in a recent California employment lawyer blog, and how the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is striving to keep employers from cheating employees out of their hard-earned wages by failing to comply with federal labor laws.

In recent wage and hour news, three Houston-based Mexican restaurants by the name of Taqueria de Jalisco, were found to be in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, after a DOL investigation discovered through many employee interviews that workers were being paying salaries that equaled less than the minimum wage for all employee hours worked.

The company was also reportedly violating minimum wage laws by making illegal deductions from employees' wages that included received tips, for items such as lost restaurant flatware. Other wage and hour violations reportedly included failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and failure to keep accurate time and payroll records.

The restaurants have agreed to pay nearly $250,000 in minimum wages and overtime back pay, to 63 former and current employees, including waiters, kitchen staff and cashiers.

Continue reading "Taqueria Restaurant to Pay Workers Nearly $250K in Overtime Back Pay and Minimum Wages" »

In last week's California employment lawyer blog, our Anaheim labor and employment attorneys reported on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that sided with Wal-Mart, after the retail giant appealed a California U.S. court of appeals decision in August of 2010 that would have allowed the ten year old gender discrimination lawsuit to include over 1.5 current and former female Wal-Mart employees across the country in a class action--to sue the retail giant for having a nationwide policy in place that allegedly led to gender discrimination.

A recent Reuters legal analysis claims that although Wal-Mart's victory could prove to be more difficult for employees, as it could limit how many employees can band together in class action lawsuits, other class-action lawsuits, especially those involving wage and hour claims, seem to have gained strength due to the ruling.

According the report, other employment disputes, including overtime and wage and hour claims , are gaining momentum since the Wal-Mart Supreme Court ruling, as judges have issued statements arguing that the Wal-Mart decision doesn't not apply to each case.

As our Anaheim employment lawyers have reported previously, the Wal-Mart case focused on whether 1.5 million former and current employees could be certified as a class action group. The Supreme Court decided that the women did not have enough in common as a group to join together and sue jointly, in their gender discrimination fight against Wal-Mart. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the workers will be required to sue as individuals, or in smaller groups.

Continue reading " Wal-Mart Supreme Court Ruling May Not Affect Wage and Hour Claims" »

According to a recent press release that our Santa Ana labor and employment attorneys have been following, Verizon Communications will reportedly pay $20 million to settle a class action discrimination lawsuit, after the company was sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for failing to accommodate disabled employees.

The lawsuit was reportedly filed against the telecommunications giant and twenty-four Verizon subsidiaries--for denying reasonable accommodations to hundreds of disabled employees, by either disciplining or firing them when they needed more time off than Verizon's leave policy allowed.

Before this lawsuit, Verizon had an employment policy in place that reportedly set a maximum number of employee absences in place. The company would not make exceptions for disabled employees who needed reasonable accommodations in order to work for the company.

The EEOC claims that Verizon violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to make exceptions and accommodate employees with disabilities under its "no fault" attendance plans--which disciplined an employee if they accumulated a designated number of "chargeable absences." The EEOC stated that Verizon failed to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled people, especially when "chargeable absences" were caused by disabilities.

Continue reading "Verizon's Class Action Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settles for $20 Million" »

Our Santa Ana labor and employment attorneys have been following the recent wage and hour announcement that Los Angeles-based Farmers Insurance Inc., has agreed to compensate 3,459 employees over $1.5 million in overtime back wages, after the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) found that the insurance company systematically violated record-keeping provisions the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in over eleven call centers located in Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan and Oregon.

According to the DOL's Wage and Hour Division investigation, the company was found to have violated the record-keeping provisions of the FLSA by not accounting for the time employees worked performing pre-shift duties. Employees regularly worked for thirty minutes before their shifts, which was work that went unpaid and unrecorded. The weekly duties included turning on computer work stations, initiating specific software applications that were integral to begin call center duties, and logging into the company's phone systems.

Because the necessary employee pre-shift work was not recorded, the times were kept from the company's official time an payroll records, leaving employees without any overtime compensation--which under federal labor laws should be one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for any hours that exceed forty in a workweek.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, covered employees must be paid for any pre-shift or post-shift responsibilities, and for attending mandatory meetings. Employers must also compensate workers with at least $7.25 per hour, the federal FLSA minimum wage requirement for every hour worked in a forty hour work week. Any hours worked beyond forty must be paid with overtime at one and one-half the workers' regular pay rates, including bonuses, incentive pay, and commissions.

Continue reading "Farmers Insurance Will Pay $1.5M in Overtime Back Wages for FLSA Violations" »

A $10.5 class action wage and hour lawsuit settlement has been recently approved in Los Angeles, California, accusing Aon Corporation units in California of engaging in the employee misclassification of over 500 employees.

Our Santa Ana, labor and employment attorneys have been following the news of the wage and hour class action lawsuit settlement, that accused the Aon business units of misclassifying California Account Specialists, who worked to assist account managers in providing insurance brokerage services to Aon's clients.

The California Account Specialists were reportedly misclassified as exempt administrative employees who were salaried, and therefore did not receive overtime compensation when they worked beyond forty hours in a workweek. The group of California Aon specialists reportedly included relationship specialists, client specialists and senior account specialists, as well as account managers, client services representatives, and customer services representatives--and were all classified as exempt from overtime and rest and meal break requirements.

The California class action wage and hour lawsuit was certified last year, against Aon Insurance Services, Aon Risk Services Companies, and Aon Corporation, and the $10.5 million settlement approved last week by the Los Angeles Superior Court, applies to 534 class action members, who should receive their wage and hour settlement within the next sixty days.

Continue reading "Aon Corp. Settles Employee Misclassification Lawsuit for $10.5M" »

In a previous Anaheim, California employment lawyers blog, our attorneys discussed the issue of religious discrimination in the workplace, after the popular retail chain Abercrombie & Fitch was sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2009 on behalf of a 17-year old Muslim applicant, for refusing to hire her based on her religious beliefs and for wearing a hijab--a religious headscarf.

In related news, an Abercrombie & Fitch store in California is being sued by a Muslim woman, who is also being backed by the EEOC, and claims that the retail chain failed to accommodate her religious beliefs and attire, and fired her for wearing a hijab while working at the clothing store.

Hani Khan was reportedly hired in October 2009 to work in Abercrombie's Hollister Co. store, in San Mateo, California. Khan states that when she was hired, store managers told her that her hijab would not be in conflict with the store's strict "look policy" as long as the hijab reflected the company's colors.

In February of last year, a district manager reportedly visited the store, and instructed Khan to stop wearing the hijab. Khan was suspended for refusing to stop wearing the headscarf, and was then fired one week later.

Continue reading "Abercrombie Hit With Another Religious Discrimination Lawsuit over Hijab" »

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in what could have been the biggest class-action sex discrimination lawsuit in this country's history, brought by female Wal-Mart employees against the retail giant for allegedly engaging in gender discrimination.

In a recent Anaheim, California employment lawyers blog, our attorneys discussed the ten year old discrimination lawsuit, filed in 2001 by Wal-Mart employee Betty Dukes and five other current and former employees of Wal-Mart, who claimed discrimination based on gender, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The group of women have been fighting over this past decade for class action status to represent a class of over 1.5 million current and former employees across the country that have worked in over 3,400 stores since December 1998--which could have led to billions of dollars in damages.

In the 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the justices ruled in favor of Wal-Mart, agreeing that the discrimination lawsuit cannot continue as a potential class of 1.5 million women, who allegedly suffered gender discrimination in every level of employment, from management to entry-level workers.

This reverses the April 2010 decision made by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California, that the lawsuit could be handled as a single group, instead of requiring individual lawsuit litigation.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court's Decision Sides with Wal-Mart in Sex Bias Discrimination Case" »