California Employment Lawyers Blog

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has recently labeled the hospitality industry along with other low wage industries as "high-risk" in regard to the frequency of federal wage and hour law violations against vulnerable workers. As a result, the DOL has planned an initiative that will target these industries across the country, with DOL Wage and Hour Division audits and investigations.

According to the DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD) fact sheet, in an audit, the division chooses certain types of low wage industries for investigations because of the high rates of violations, the employment of vulnerable workers, as well as the quick changes in the growth or decline of the businesses. The DOL reports that certain businesses are targeted for investigations in order to protect employee rights, by improving employer compliance with federal laws, like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), requiring proper overtime and minimum wage payment.

In a DOL Wage and Hour Division investigation:

• An employer's records are examined in order to determine the exact exemptions or laws that apply.
• The company's payroll and time records are examined, to make sure that the employer is not violating any wage and hour laws under the FLSA.
• Certain employees are interviewed, to verify the employer's payroll, examine the classification of employees, and ensure the legality of working minors.
• When the investigations are completed, the employer is reportedly informed on the extent of the employment violations, and instructed on how to implement corrective actions. If the employer has violated overtime or minimum wage laws, and back wages are owed to workers, the WHD investigator will ask that the correct amount of back wages are paid to the employees.

Continue reading "DOL Wage and Hour Division Audits for Low Wage Industry Violations" »

Several former employees of an auto plant that was shut down recently in California, sued the plant and its parent company, Toyota Motor Corp. yesterday, stating that they were denied access to fair and comprehensive severance agreements, because employment-sustained injuries kept the employees from working prior to the closure.

The New United Motor Manufacturing Inc., or Nummi, was established in 1984 as a business venture between Toyota and General Motors, in Freemont, California. The lawsuit claims that Nummi and Toyota Motor Corp., allegedly engaged in discrimination against disabled and injured workers because they were classified as ineligible to receive comprehensive severance packages if they weren't consistently working for the six-month period prior to the close of the factory.

According to the lawsuit, many Toyota car and truck assembly workers, who were laid-off, but worked consistently prior to the plant's closing, received a monetary settlement of around $21,175 each, plus a bonus payment that averaged to around $32,000 depending on the number of years they dedicated to the plant.

These agreements were reportedly not available, or were only partially available to workers on leave for disability from the plant, and unable to work prior to the plant closure. This reportedly constituted a major loss for those disabled workers, some of whom had worked at the plant for 25 years, and had been injured within the final six months. Many funds for retraining and employment services were also not available to these workers.

Continue reading "Workers Sue Toyota for Disability Discrimination and Full Severance" »

In recent California employment law news, a class action discrimination lawsuit has been filed against 24 Hour Fitness, by the company's workers, who claim to have been victims of employment discrimination based on national origin, color, race and gender.

According to the class action lawsuit, 24 Hour Fitness has discriminated against female and minority workers on a widespread basis, in regard to equal pay, and promotions to management positions--violating California Business and Profession codes, as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Raoul Fulcher, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, claims that he consistently not promoted to a higher position because of his race, African-American. Another plaintiff claimed that as a Latino, he was hired to be a membership counselor and reach out to the Spanish-speaking community in his job, yet he could never get the promotion he deserved because of his race.

The class-action lawsuit demands that the fitness chain end the patterns of discriminatory practices against women and minorities that are alleged in the suit, and provide back pay and damages to employees who have been discriminated against.

Continue reading "Employees Hit 24 Hour Fitness with Class Action Discrimination Lawsuit" »

In recent news, Foster Farms, the poultry producer and reportedly one of the country's largest private employers, was sued by a former employee for pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination. As our California employment attorneys reported in a previous blog, pregnancy discrimination is one of the fastest growing forms of discrimination in the workplace, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

According to the lawsuit, Sara Supple a former full-time associate programmer analyst for manufacturing, claims that after going to the Human Resources department on May 5, to obtain benefit information for pregnancy within the company, she was told by officials in the HR office to come back at a later date, when her pregnancy had progressed.

Supple claims that a few hours after her meeting with the HR representative to discuss her pregnancy, she was brought back into the HR office, where the same representative from HR and her immediate manager confronted her about time card violations that she had no prior knowledge of. She was suspended from her job immediately until they investigated the issue further.

On May 11, Supple was brought back into work and told that her employment with Foster Farms was terminated based on the information that they revealed during the investigation. According to Supple, she never received a warning for any time card issues. She believes that after telling the HR representative that she was pregnant, she was accused of made up time card violations, and was subsequently never given the chance to defend herself against the allegations, as her employment was immediately terminated.

Continue reading " Foster Farms Sued for Pregnancy Discrimination and Wrongful Termination" »

In recent news that our Riverside, California Employment Attorneys have been following, a former employee is suing Walmart for wrongful termination, after he was fired for testing positive for marijuana--a drug he was using legally for medical use.

Joseph Casias, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), reportedly sued Walmart last week, for wrongful termination, after a mandatory drug test found marijuana in his system. According to the complaint, Walmart policy states that employees are tested for drugs when injured on the job, and after Casias injured his knee at work, he was required to take the test.

Casias, 29, was a five-year Walmart employee and recipient of the 2008 "associate of the year" award in the Battle Creek, Michigan store. He has reportedly been suffering from sinus cancer for 13 years, as well as an inoperable brain tumor that presses against his skull. After a law was passed in Michigan in 2008 approving the drug for medical use, his oncologist prescribed medical marijuana to Casias. In the complaint, Casias claims that marijuana has had a "life-changing positive effect," on him, and that he uses it to alleviate the excruciating pain that his tumor and cancer cause.

Casias has a legal prescription for medical marijuana from his doctor, and even has a state-sanctioned card stating that he can legally use the drug. He claims that he never worked at Walmart under the influence of medical marijuana, and also never asked for any accommodation from the company for his illness.

Continue reading "Walmart Employee Fired for Using Medical Marijuana Sues for Wrongful Termination" »

As Santa Ana Labor and Employment Attorneys, we have been following the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) announcement this week, that a total of $1.8 million in funding, as part of the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Grant program (WANTO)--was given to six organizations in California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, to encourage women to pursue career opportunities in non-traditional fields.

In these grant funded projects, women will be trained by community-based organizations to enter careers in many non-traditional areas--like manufacturing and the construction industry. Women will be given educational opportunities to train and prepare for different and non-traditional occupational roles--including carpenter, plumber, welder, construction worker, electrician, cement-mason, machinist, and painter or plasterer, among others. Female workers will also have to opportunity to go to programs geared toward networking and mentoring, and receive advice on job placement, in an environment that supports and advances women in non-traditional careers.

The DOL's Women's Bureau is dedicated to ensure opportunities for American women who aim to achieve their potential, with equal opportunity in the workplace. The WB and the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) Office of Apprentice (OA) work together to administer the WANTO grant program--with the main purpose of increasing the number of women entering and remaining in apprenticeships having to do with non-traditional occupations. With grant funding, community-based organizations are able to provide technical assistance to help employers and labor unions place women in the right occupational apprenticeships.

Sara Manzano-Diaz, the director of the DOL's Women's Bureau (WB) claims that as women make up a critical part of this country's workforce, these grants recognize that there is a need for more talented women to enter occupations in lucrative and non-traditions industries. The grants will reportedly also provide female workers with important training opportunities and connections with established Registered Apprenticeship programs, to prepare them for long and successful careers, that are free from employment bias or discrimination based on sex.

Continue reading "DOL Announces $1.8M in Grants to Support Female Workers" »

In a recent blog, our California employment attorneys reported on the class-action gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart that has been going on since 2001, and is said to be the largest sex discrimination lawsuit in history. In an April ruling, the group of employees was given the go-ahead to move forward in the class action lawsuit--and sue Wal-Mart for a systematic pattern of discrimination based on gender in compensation and promotion.

According to a recent New York Times article, in 1995, the retailer hired a powerful law firm to study the possibility of such legal battles. The firm reportedly found gender disparities in compensation and promotion throughout the Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores.

This confidential report performed by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, found that female employees of Wal-Mart made less money than male employees in many categories of employment. Salaried male employees reportedly earned 19% more money than women. One statistic found that men were reportedly five and a half times more likely than women to receive a promotion into a managerial position that was salaried.

The report warned the company of the possibility of gender discrimination, after finding huge differences in job assignments and roles due to sex. In one finding, fifty-five percent of women were more likely to start as a cashiers, as opposed to 12 percent of men. Twenty-nine percent of men started in receiving roles that usually paid twenty percent more than the cashier's jobs--as opposed to seven percent of female employees.

Continue reading "Wal-Mart Warned of Gender Discrimination Possibilities Before Lawsuit" »

In a recent Southern California sexual harassment lawsuit settlement that our attorneys at Howard Nassiri, PC discussed in a blog, Starbucks has settled a lawsuit with a 20-year old former barista from Orange County, California, who claims that the coffee giant neglected to protect her from sexual demands made by the store manager, when she worked there as a teenager.

The former Starbucks barista, Kati Moore, claimed in her lawsuit that while working as a barista for the company at the age of 16, she was subjected to constant sexual harassment and discrimination by her then 24-year old supervisor. Moore claimed that Starbucks failed to protect her from the discrimination and sexual harassment, especially because other Starbucks supervisors reportedly knew about the sexual violations happening, but didn't come forward.

After finding out about the relationship, Moore's mother contacted prosecutors. Moore's manager claimed that he did not know that Moore was 16, and pleaded guilty of illegal sex with a minor--a felony charge that led to four months in prison.

Starbucks claims to have a strict policy against sexual harassment, as well as employee relationships. After the release of the "20/20" news program investigating Katie Moore's case, and teen sexual harassment in the workplace, Starbucks reportedly stated that because the employees violated company policy by concealing their relationship, the company was confident the case would be resolved, in finding that Starbucks was not at fault.

Continue reading "Starbucks Settles with California Teen in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

In a highly publicized employment news story that has swept the nation over this past week, former Citibank worker Debrahlee Lorenzana was featured in a Village Voice article, revealing the details of her lawsuit against Citibank for gender discrimination because of the company's reaction to her work attire and looks. After Lorenzana was reportedly fired last year due to poor work performance, she slapped Citibank with a discrimination lawsuit, claiming that her bosses thought she was too "hot."

Lorenzana claims in her lawsuit that two male bosses told her to stop wearing tight turtlenecks, pencil skirts, heels or fitted business suits, and fashionable clothing that accentuated her buxom figure--that reportedly distracted her male co-workers and supervisors. The 33-year old single mother claims that she always dressed in a fashionable and respectable manner, and that other female colleagues wore clothing that was more revealing, yet they were not asked to change their wardrobe.

In the Village Voice article, complete with a 32 page spread of photographs of Lorenzana in tight and body hugging clothing, Lorenzana claims that she was punished because her shapely figure attracted too much attention, and was "too much" for her male coworkers and supervisors to "bear" looking at. Lorenzana is accusing Citibank of discrimination based on gender, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliation.

According to the Village Voice, because Lorenzana signed a mandatory arbitration clause before as a condition of employment, the case will never go to trial in front of a jury or judge. An arbitrator will reportedly decide the outcome of the case.

Continue reading "Employee Who Claims Citibank Fired Her for Being Too "Hot" Sues for Gender Discrimination" »

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Perdue Farms, one of the nation's largest poultry producers, will pay $25,000 in an age discrimination lawsuit--after reportedly violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by denying employment to a female worker because of her age.

According to the lawsuit, filed by the EEOC, Audrey Sheftall applied for employment at a Perdue Farms facility in North Carolina when she was 66 years old. Sheftall was reportedly qualified for the position in the deboning department, and yet was refused by the company. The EEOC reports that Perdue went on to hire over 70 new employees within the month that she applied, who were all considerably younger than Sheftall--including her granddaughter who applied on the same day as her grandmother.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects both employees and job applicants who are forty years of age or older from discrimination based on age. Under the ADEA it is against the law to discriminate against a person because of age in any condition of employment including, compensation, job assignments, hiring, firing, layoffs, and other terms of employment. It is also illegal to retaliate against an employee or applicant for opposing age discrimination practices.

The EEOC enforces the federal laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, and is committed to ensuring that employment applicants are considered for jobs based on actual skills and qualifications and not stereotypes based on age.

Perdue Farms operates facilities in sixteen states and employs approximately 20,000 people throughout the country. Sheftall applied for a job in a facility that reportedly processes nearly 40,000 chickens each day, to sell to retailers.

Continue reading "Poultry Producer Settles in Age Discrimination Lawsuit--Perdue Pays Applicant $25K" »

In recent news, that our Riverside, California Employment Attorneys have been interested in, a current sexual harassment trial hoped to change history this week, as a Brooklyn lawyer attempted to use a brain scan to prove honesty in court, as the next generation of a lie detector test.

According to Wired.com, David Zevin, an attorney in Brooklyn, hoped to blaze a trail in court this week by attempting to offer a brain scan as key evidence that a witness in the trial is speaking the truth.

The brain scan in question is the fMRI scan, used instead of the polygraph test for truth telling. If admitted in court, the brain scan would be groundbreaking in regard to neuroscience's role as evidence in future courtrooms.

Zevin is representing female employee Cynette Wilson in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit. Wilson was reportedly harassed in a sexual manner on the job, and complained to the temp agency that placed her, named CoreStaff Support Services. Wilson claims that after complaining about the harassment, she stopped receiving the best temporary assignments out of retaliation. Another CoreStaff worker reportedly overheard the supervisor state that Wilson should stop receiving temporary job assignments because of her sexual harassment complaint.

Continue reading "Lawyer Attempts to Use Brain Scan as Evidence in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Case" »

Our Southern California Employment Attorneys have been following the recent California Supreme Court discussion on Proposition 209, questioning the topic of affirmative action in California employment contracts.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the California Supreme Court recently debated the constitutionality of Proposition 209, also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, which was the California ballot proposal approved in 1996 that amended the California Constitution to prohibit state, local governments, public universities, colleges, schools, districts, or any other governmental institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, education or public contracting on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, or national original.

During the hearing, the high court questioned the reach of Proposition 209, and whether the affirmative action ban in government should be limited. Certain court members were reportedly interested in permitting some form of affirmative action in addressing the continuing problem of discrimination in the California workplace.

The high court is currently reviewing an ordinance in San Francisco that gives companies operated by minorities and women an employment advantage with city contracting. Even though Prop 209's constitutionality was upheld by the nation's 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court is not restricted by the ruling of the circuit court.

Continue reading "Affirmative Action Ban Debated in California Supreme Court--Should Women and Minorities have Employment Preferences?" »

In yesterday's blog, our employment attorneys based in Orange County, California, discussed Senator Sherrod Brown's introduction of the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (EMPA) into the Senate last month.

According to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who is also Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, employee misclassification is a problem that not only cheats workers out of important labor protections like wage and hour rights, the right to overtime pay, and the right to workman's' compensation, it cheats the state and federal government out of tax revenues.

Harkin claims that when employers misclassify employees, state and local governments are undermined, which increases costs for taxpayers or reduced services for the public. Attorney General for Ohio, Rich Cordray claims Ohio was documented in a study as losing nearly $160 million per year for employee misclassification. President Obama's Administration claims that if employers kept better records on classification over the next ten years, $7 billion could be potentially raised.

Senator Brown states that the EMPA would significantly reduce the prevalence of employee misclassification by:

• Ensuring that employers keep accurate records reflecting the status of each worker as an "employee" or a "non-employee."
• Requiring that employers notify workers of their employment classification, as an "employee" or "non-employee."
• Creating a website for employees that would inform workers about their state and federal wage and hour rights.
• Providing protection to workers who experience discrimination because they seek accurate classification from their employers.
• Making employers aware that misclassifying workers violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.
• Increasing employer penalties when employees are misclassified, or when employers are found to have violated employee's minimum wage and overtime rights.

Continue reading "New Legislation to Reduce Employee Misclassification" »

As Santa Ana, California Class Action Employment Attorneys, we have been following the recent news, ruled in federal appeals court this week, that thousands of women who work for Wal-Mart can move forward and sue the giant retailer in a class action lawsuit, over allegations of gender discrimination.

The decision was made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit based in San Francisco, and is reportedly a big step necessary to move the gender bias case to a court trial after nearly ten years. According to the New York Times, the federal appeals court gave a sharply divided 6-5 ruling, allowing the sex discrimination lawsuit to move forward as a class action suit. This suit could be the biggest employment discrimination case in U.S. history, with female employees seeking billions of dollars from Wal-mart.

The lawsuit reportedly began in 2001 with six female employees led by Betty Dukes, a California Wal-Mart greeter, who claimed that the retail giant systematically engaged in gender discrimination--paying the female greeters less than their male colleagues, even though they consistently had higher performance ratings and more seniority. The six employees also claimed that they received fewer promotions, fewer job opportunities, and smaller raises than the male employees, and had to wait longer for them. In one documented case, a female worker was told she was not qualified to be a manager because she could not stack dog food bags that weighed fifty pounds.

The Washington Post reports that the original class included female employees who had worked for Wal-Mart since 1998, initially estimated to include around 1.6 million women, which would have made it the largest sex discrimination case in this nation's history. The appeals court decided to leave out the group of female workers that left Wal-Mart prior to the 2001 filing of the suit, which could still mean that the class action lawsuit might include more than 1 million female employees. Wal-mart claims that the number is closer to 500,000.

Continue reading "Federal Court Upholds Female Employees' Right to Sue Wal-Mart in Class Action Gender Bias Suit" »

As Carson, California Employment Lawyers, we have been following the recent announcement that newly merged Merrill Lynch and Bank of America are being sued by three female Financial Advisors, accusing the companies of gender discrimination and retaliation.

The three plaintiffs, Judy Calibuso, Julie Moss, and Dianne Goedtel, had reportedly been financial advisers for the companies for fifteen, nine, and seven years respectively. In the lawsuit, filed as a national class action suit, they accused Merrill Lynch and Bank of America of subjecting female financial advisers to a pattern and practice of discrimination based on their gender, in compensation, professional support, business opportunities and other employment terms and conditions-- violating state and federal laws including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

The complaint alleges Merrill Lynch and Bank of America treat their female Financial Advisors like "second class citizens," and have given male colleagues of equal capabilities better professional opportunities. The companies are also being accused of failing to ensure equal opportunities for female financial advisers in partnership opportunities, account distributions, pay-out rates, income increasing opportunities, and other benefits in its plan of compensation.

Calibuso, Moss, and Goedtel also claimed that the companies acted in retaliation against them when they complained about experiencing inequality in the workplace. One of the financial advisers claimed that after she reported the inequality, she was reprimanded verbally, and immediately required to seek pre-approval when filing expense reports for business lunches--something that her male colleagues were not asked to do.

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch and Bank of America Sued for Gender Discrimination and Retaliation" »