California Employment Lawyers Blog

In a previous Santa Ana employment discrimination lawyers blog, Vincent Howard discussed the topic of discrimination in the workplace based on race, and the federal and state laws in place that prohibit employers from engaging in this kind of illegal employment activity.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals in the workplace on the basis of color, race, national origin, gender or religion. As Vincent Howard frequently reports, Title VII states that it is against the law to discriminate against a worker, employee, or a person applying for a job, in regard to any conditions, terms, or privileges of employment, including hiring, job advancement, firing, and employment training.

Under Title VII, workplace decisions that are based on any stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, performance or traits of individuals or of certain racial groups are also prohibited. And the act also prohibits any intentional discrimination as well as any neutral employment policies that unfairly exclude minorities and are not related to the specific job. Discrimination based on immutable racial characteristics, such as the color of skin, hair texture, or specific facial features, is also against the law, even though not all members of a certain race share the exact same characteristics.

The act also prohibits employment discrimination that is based on certain conditions, which predominately affect one race-- like sickle cell anemia, occurring predominately in African-Americans--unless the practice relates to the job and is consistent to the necessity of the business.

Continue reading "The EEOC and Workplace Discrimination Based on Race and Color" »

Howard Law managing attorney Vincent Howard recently discussed the problem of racial discrimination in the workplace in our Orange County employment lawyers blog after a recent U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit settlement brought $900,000 to thirty black and African workers--after the M. Slavin & Sons fish market employees allegedly experienced a hostile work environment filled with physical and sexual harassment and discrimination based on sex, national origin and race.

In another recently settled EEOC race discrimination lawsuit, that our Newport Beach labor and employment attorneys have been following, Matrix, LLC, a cleaning company in Pennsylvania, has agreed to compensate a class of fifteen former employees $450,000, to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.

The lawsuit accuses Matrix officials of instructing a white supervisor to discontinue hiring any more African-American cleaners for employment at the Concordville, Pennsylvania site. After the supervisor hired more black cleaners, who were qualified for the job, Matrix reportedly terminated her employment out of retaliation--for opposing the company's instructions to engage in racial discrimination during the hiring process.

The EEOC also reportedly discovered that the company officials engaged in racial discrimination against the black cleaners during their employment, by demanding that they sit in a segregated area during meal and rest breaks, and later ceasing to allow them access to that area within the cafeteria for their breaks. Matrix later terminated the employment all of the African-American workers within the company, and replaced the cleaning crew with workers who were not black.

Continue reading "Matrix to Pay $450K in EEOC Race Discrimination, Retaliation Lawsuit Settlement" »

New developments have emerged in the California class-action wage and hour lawsuit, against a San Francisco Bay-area Hooters franchise--that our Anaheim labor and employment attorney blog previously discussed--after a California state appeals court ruled this week that the lawsuit, filed by a group of Hooters waitresses last year, can proceed.

The California Court of Appeals for the First District reportedly denied the request of Hot Wings Inc., the local Hooters franchise--that asked for the employment complaints to be settled outside of court by a labor arbitrator. The court decision found that the franchise did not move forward in a timely enough manner to demand that the case move to arbitration--a legal choice that would have limited litigation in the future, and made all of the case proceedings private.

Hot Wings Inc. reportedly asked for arbitration based on the standard employment agreements that every employee must sign before working for the company--and although the court ruled that the agreements were valid, the company reportedly waited too long to demand that the case should be settled through arbitration.

The result of the ruling allows the nineteen Hooters waitresses to move forward with their class action wage and hour lawsuit, that claims that the Hooters franchise violated numerous state and federal wage and hour laws--by failing to pay proper minimum wage and overtime, forcing the workers to share their tips with managers, and forcing the employees to work through their rest and meal breaks, among other wage and hour violations.

Continue reading "California Court Decides Class Action Lawsuit Against Hooters Can Proceed" »

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a press release that our Santa Ana, California attorney Vincent Howard has been following, announcing the signing of a joint memorandum of understanding between Nancy J. Leppink, the deputy administrator of the DOL's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and Mary Morgenstern, California's Secretary of Labor--regarding the ongoing problem of employee misclassification.

At a press conference held on February 9th, Leppink and Julie A. Su, the Labor Commissioner for California, discussed how the DOL and the state of California will work together to implement new efforts guided by this memorandum--in order to protect the wage and hour rights of employees, to properly classify independent contractors, and to level the playing field for honest employers who are threatened by the practice of employee misclassification.

Labor Commissioner Su stated that California is proud to work in partnership with the DOL in order to attack the illegal practice of employee misclassification--and to address the problems of the underground economy. Su also claimed that her team is ready to work with the DOL in order to raise the labor conditions for hardworking employees and employers across the golden state.

As our Anaheim labor and employment lawyers blog previously discussed, Governor Jerry Brown recently introduced Senate Bill 459--a bill that took effect on January 1, 2012--and punishes employers who engage in the willful practice of employment misclassification with harsh penalties. Last year CA Representative Lynn Woosley introduced a reinvigorated bill from 2010 that also aims to eliminate employee misclassification--the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (EMPA) of 2011.

Continue reading "State of California Signs Agreement with DOL to Reduce Employee Misclassification" »

Our dedicated Orange County labor and employment lawyer team, based in Costa Mesa, California and led by managing attorney Vincent Howard, is constantly looking at key employment issues that are plaguing the workplace throughout California and across the country--especially when it affects the way workers are being treated in regard to wages and fair pay.

As Vincent Howard has previous reported in an Anaheim wage and hour attorney blog, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor, (DOL), continues to aggressively pursue employers who do not properly compensate employees for all hours worked. For example, a recent Wage and Hour Division investigation in Dallas, Texas, revealed that 252 temporary employees from The Temp Team were forced to work as many as 79 hours per week, without receiving overtime payment--a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The employees were reportedly placed at local businesses and paid "straight time" wages, rather than the FLSA overtime requirement, which is one and one half their normal pay rates for work hours that total over forty in a work week. Under the FLSA, employees who are covered by the act must be compensated with the federal minimum wage, $7.25, for all hours worked in a week, plus overtime compensation, which includes any bonuses, incentive pay and commissions.

The DOL investigation also found that the company engaged in employee misclassification by incorrectly classifying two temporary employees as exempt from the FLSA overtime provisions--so both employees failed to receive any overtime compensation or protections under the wage and hour act. The company was also charged with violating the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and payroll records for all employees.

Continue reading " Temp Agency to Pay Nearly $250K for Wage and Hour Violations, Employee Misclassification" »

In recent employee misclassification news that Howard Law's managing attorney Vincent Howard has been watching, Massachusetts State Attorney General Martha Coakley and the State's Office of Labor and Workforce Development recently fined six subcontractors for Pulte Homes development sites over $540,000 in fines and penalties, for engaging in widespread employee misclassification, and failing to properly pay workers at the construction sites.

The employee misclassification enforcement action, focusing on projects of a single builder of homes, was reportedly one of the largest in recent history. The six Pulte subcontractors were reportedly charged with misclassifying workers as independent contractors--a move often used by employers in order to avoid paying unemployment taxes, and to get away with illegal business practices.

According to the Attorney General's office, the workers at the Pulte sites, many of whom were Brazilian immigrants, were not paid minimum wages or overtime compensation for many weeks of work. The back wages were found to have totaled over $190,000. Coakley's office stated that all workers in the state deserve to be fairly paid with the wages that they deserve, including overtime payment.

As Vincent Howard has frequently discussed in our Newport Beach employment lawyers blog, employment misclassification is a problematic workplace issue that often preys on vulnerable, low wage workers who are unaware of their employment rights. Employee misclassification robs workers of important employment protections and benefits, like overtime and minimum wage payments, rest breaks and meal periods, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and family and medical leave, among other important benefits.

Continue reading "Pulte Construction Subcontractors Fined for Employee Misclassification" »

As Howard Law's Vincent Howard discussed in yesterday's Riverside employment lawyers blog, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it against the law for employers to engage in harassment or discrimination against employees based on national origin, color, race, gender, and religion, in regard to job hiring, termination, compensation, job advancement, training, and any other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Under Title VII, retaliation against employees who report discrimination is also against the law.

In recent Los Angeles, California employment discrimination lawsuit news, that Vincent Howard has been following, the Los Angeles City Fire Department will reportedly pay $494,150 to settle discrimination charges filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, and implement massive anti-harassment training.

According to the EEOC's discrimination lawsuit, firefighter and engineer Anthony Almeida, a Fire Department employee for twenty-six years, alleged that he was consistently harassed by his colleagues at the fire station--who engaged in tormenting Almeida with deeply offensive sexual and religious comments.

An extensive EEOC investigation reportedly uncovered that Almeida's harassment began in 2006--after his co-workers discovered that he had filed a lawsuit against the Catholic Church, because of sustaining sexual abuse by a priest as a child. Several colleagues reportedly mocked him for the lawsuit and abuse, using offensive and explicit religious and sexual language. When Almeida complained about the harassment, the Los Angeles Fire Department allegedly failed to address the issue or put an end to the harassment. Instead, Almeida suffered retaliation from the Fire Department in the form of discipline, for his participation in another firefighter's EEOC investigation.

Continue reading "LA Fire Department Will Pay Nearly $500K to Settle EEOC Harassment and Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Our Los Angeles, California employment and labor lawyers have been following the latest announcement by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), that M. Slavin & Sons, a New York-based fish market, will pay $900,000 in an EEOC-filed discrimination lawsuit settlement to over 30 black and African male drivers and loaders--who allegedly endured a hostile work environment that was filled with verbal and physical sexual harassment based on sex, national origin, race and retaliation against workers who joined in the EEOC lawsuit.

As Vincent Howard reported in a previous Costa Mesa labor and employment lawyer blog, the EEOC lawsuit accused the M. Slavin & Sons owners and managers of regularly taunting and harassing black male workers on the overnight shift, by making obscene comments, racial slurs, sexual propositions, and engaging in inappropriate and abusive physical groping and touching. The employees in the lawsuit charged that M. Slavin's owners and managers harassed the employees from 1984 until the lawsuit was filed, making explicit sexual remarks, and using offensive racial slurs and terms when talking to the workers. When workers came forward with complaints, they were reportedly retaliated against with resistance and punishment.

Many employees who have worked for the company for 10 to 20 years, reportedly continued to endure the harassment and discrimination because they desperately needed the work. The suit originated from employee Kevin Pierson, a truck loader, who reported the abuse to the EEOC, at which point an EEOC investigation uncovered that the employment discrimination in the company was widespread and involved many more victims.

As Howard Law's managing attorney Vincent Howard has frequently discussed, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against race, color, national origin, religion and sex discrimination in the workplace.

Continue reading "M. Slavin & Sons Fish Seller To Pay $900K in EEOC Sexual and Racial Discrimination Lawsuit" »

In a recent Carson employment lawyers blog, Howard Law's managing attorney Vincent Howard discussed Walmart v. Dukes--the ten-year sex-discrimination case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, in which Wal-Mart was accused of gender discrimination by a group of female Wal-Mart employees, who alleged discrimination in every level of employment, from entry level to managerial positions--a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

In July of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that the discrimination lawsuit could not move forward as a potential class of 1.5 million female employees--which could have been the largest class-action gender discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history--because the former and current female workers in the claim are not similar enough and lack common elements to form together as one class--necessary, according to the highest court in order to prove that Wal-Mart held a common pay policy that led to gender discrimination.

As Vincent Howard also reported in a previous Santa Ana employment attorneys blog, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision reversed the April 2012 decision made by the 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which decided that the lawsuit could be handled as a single group. The Supreme Court decision allowed the group of women to pursue their claims individually.

According to the Sacramento Bee, at the end of last month, more than 500 of the 1.5 million in the potential national class action gender discrimination lawsuit filed a gender discrimination charge against Wal-Mart with the U.S. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC)--as last month was the deadline for women in five states, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Alabama, to pursue their claims. Former and current Wal-Mart workers from other states who also filed class action discrimination claims against the retailer reportedly have until May of this year to file an EEOC claim--and thousands of additional charges are expected.

Continue reading "Over 500 Female Wal-Mart Workers File Sex-Discrimination Charges with EEOC" »

According to a recent New York Times article that Vincent Howard, managing attorney of Howard Law, has been following--an unpaid intern who formerly worked for Harper's Bazaar magazine, filed a lawsuit this week accusing the both the fashion magazine and the Hearst Corporation, Harper's parent company, of violating wage and hour laws by making her work full time hours, without compensation.

As our Costa Mesa employment lawyers blog has recently reported, unpaid internships continue to be a hot topic in federal employment news, as a growing number of young people who do unpaid internships for experience and future employment, are often taken advantage of by employers who break wage and hour laws. Many unpaid interns and labor advocates claim that employers exploit internships by classifying the workers as interns, but then force them to perform the jobs of regular workers, in order to avoid paying proper wages--causing the interns to miss out on the educational experience that should be the focus of experience.

In the wage and hour lawsuit, Xuedan Wang, a 2010 college graduate, interned at the magazine from August 2011 until December 2011, working around 40 hours a week, but often up to 55 hours. Wang claims that although her degree was in strategic communications, she was given the assignment to coordinate the retrieving and delivering of samples between the fashion magazine, showrooms and vendors, and gave other unpaid interns the responsibility of helping to facilitate the drop-offs and pickups. Wang claims to have also helped maintain the sample records and process requests for corporate expense report reimbursements.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has been focusing on unpaid internships over the past few years, and investigating employers who take advantage of interns--many of whom have a difficult time finding paid jobs. According to the DOL, there are not many options for a for-profit employer to offer an unpaid internship--and employers must comply with the six federal legal criteria in order to achieve an unpaid internship status.

Continue reading "Former Unpaid Intern Files Wage and Hour Lawsuit Against Harper's Bazaar and Hearst" »