California Employment Lawyers Blog

According to a recent U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) press release that Howard Law attorney Vincent Howard has been following, Pepsi Beverages has decided to former job applicants $3.13 million, and will provide job possibilities and employee training to resolve a charge of discrimination based on race.

During the EEOC race discrimination investigation, the commission reportedly found that Pepsi had a policy in place that used a criminal background check for job applicants--and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against African Americans.

The EEOC discovered that Pepsi's former policy reportedly adversely affected over 300 African Americans, by excluding the black job applicants from permanent employment after applying a criminal background check to each applicant. Under Pepsi's former hiring policy, any job applicants who had been previously arrested and were pending prosecution or who were convicted of certain minor offenses were not hired for permanent positions.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, using records of arrest and conviction for the basis of hiring or denying within an employment setting can be against the law when it is not pertinent for the job, because it can reduce the opportunities for workers or job applicants based on ethnicity or race.

Continue reading " Pepsi Will Pay Over $3M in EEOC Hiring Discrimination Case" »

In our previous Irvine employment lawyers blog, Howard Law attorney Vincent Howard discussed important California and federal labor and employment law cases from 2011.

In this Costa Mesa employment blog issue, Mr. Howard will continue in his labor and employment discussion, highlighting other key 2011 developments, including the EEOC's largest disability discrimination settlement with Verizon, the topic of suitable seating in the workplace, and the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) continuing crusade to curb wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), among other high-profile cases from last year.

Verizon Pays Record $20M in EEOC's Largest Disability Discrimination Settlement
Last year, in the largest disability discrimination settlement in a single lawsuit in the EEOC's history, Verizon, the telecommunications giant, agreed to pay $20 million to resolve the EEOC's nationwide class disability discrimination lawsuit. Verizon Communications was accused in the lawsuit of violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to accommodate disabled employees and make exceptions to the company's "no fault" attendance plans--which reprimands employees if they accumulate a certain amount of "chargeable absences." The EEOC accused Verizon of denying reasonable accommodations to hundreds of disabled employees by either disciplining them or firing them when they needed more time off than Verizon's leave policy allowed--especially when the "chargeable absences" were caused by disabilities.

Wage and Hour Violations Hit All Time Highs
In 2011 the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) continued on its crusade to reduce workplace labor violations and wage and hour issues. According to the DOL, overtime payment is the largest wage and hour violation issue in the country, with thousands of complaints reported every year. In 2010, nearly 6,800 wage and hour lawsuits were filed, totaling about 700 more than the previous year, and the DOL forced employers to pay an estimated $176 million in back wages to employees. In the past five years, employers have also paid nearly $925 million in back pay and overtime wages to 1.2 million workers.

Continue reading "2011 Labor and Employment Law in Review: EEOC's Verizon Settlement, Suitable Seating, Employee Misclassification" »

In this month's Costa Mesa, California employment lawyers newsletter, Howard Law attorney Vincent Howard reviewed key California and federal labor and employment law developments from 2011--hot topics that our Riverside, California employment lawyers blog covered over the course last year, including GINA's final regulations, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Walmart v. Dukes sex-discrimination lawsuit, and Charlie Sheen's wrongful termination lawsuit against Warner Brothers and Chuck Lorre, among others.

GINA's Final Regulations Take Effect
After the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted unanimously in late 2010, the final regulations that implement the employment provisions of GINA (Title II), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, took effect in early 2011. Title II of GINA represents the first extension of the EEOC's jurisdiction since the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and makes it illegal for employers to engage in genetic testing or discriminate against employees based on genetic make-up.

Third Party Retaliation Limits Case Decided by Supreme Court
In January of last year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thompson v. North American Stainless, a retaliation ban limits case, stating that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a company can be sued for retaliation by terminating an employee's fiancée. The case arose after a former female engineer with North American Stainless, who was engaged to a metallurgic engineer at the company--claimed to have experienced gender-based discrimination and filed a complaint with the EEOC. The female engineer's fiancée was fired three weeks after her EEOC sex-discrimination complaint was revealed, whereupon the fiancée filed his own third-party retaliation claim. As Vincent Howard reported in our California employment attorney blog, the highest court decided that third-party victims of retaliation are covered by federal protections.

Charlie Sheen Sues for Millions
One of the highest-profile employment lawsuits from 2011 that garnered massive media attention was filed by Hollywood actor Charlie Sheen in March, who sued Warner Brothers Studio and Chuck Lorre, the executive producer of Two and a Half Men, in a $100 million dollars lawsuit--for wrongful termination, breach of contract, retaliation and other Los Angeles, California labor and employment charges. Sheen's contract was reportedly terminated for health issues that allegedly led to his inability to perform his duties for the television show, for public tirades against Lorre, and for alleged substance abuse and destructive behavior. Sheen and Warner Brothers reportedly finalized a multi-million dollar settlement in September.

Continue reading "2011 Labor and Employment Law in Review: GINA, Charlie Sheen, Walmart v. Dukes" »

In recent Los Angeles, California employment lawsuit news that our Costa Mesa attorney Vincent Howard has been following, a former employee of a California car dealership owned by John Elway, the well-known former quarterback of the Denver Broncos--is suing the dealership, claiming that minority employees were regularly subjected to racial discrimination, harassment and a hostile work environment.

According to the class action lawsuit filed earlier this week in Los Angeles Superior Court, Timothy Sandquist, a former sales manager at Elway's Toyota dealership in Manhattan Beach, claims the he and other minority employees were frequently denied employment opportunities and promotions based on their race.

The California racial discrimination lawsuit names John Elway and his two business partners, and claim that Sandquist who was an employee of the company for eleven years, was paid less than his white colleagues and was frequently passed over for promotions that he was entitled to after many successful years of employment with the company--because he is black.

The lawsuit also claims that the general manager of the dealership, Darrell Sperber, created a hostile work environment for minority employees by saying ethnic slurs against black, Middle Eastern, and Latino employees, along with allegedly encouraging employees to say demeaning comments about non-white customers who chose not to buy cars. The discrimination and harassment lawsuit also claims that Sperber, who was hired to be the general manager in 2007, engaged in retaliation against any employees who reported the alleged racial harassment or discrimination.

Continue reading "Employee Sues John Elway's Los Angeles Car Dealership in Class Action Racial Discrimination Lawsuit" »

In a recent California disability discrimination lawsuit settlement that Howard Law's managing attorney Vincent Howard has been following, UPS Supply Chain Solutions has recently agreed to pay $95,000 after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found the world's biggest package delivery company responsible for illegally denying a deaf employee with reasonable accommodation in the workplace.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, deaf employee Mauricio Centeno worked at the UPS facility from 2001 until 2009 as a junior clerk in the accounting department. Centeno has reportedly been deaf since birth, and his primary language is American Sign Language (ASL). The EEOC investigation uncovered that during his employment with the company, Centeno struggled to understand written English language in the workplace, and continually asked for reasonable accommodation--in order to receive help from an interpreter for departmental staff meetings, training, and other work-related sessions.

Although aware of his hearing impairment, UPS supervisors continually denied Centeno's requests for reasonable accommodation in the workplace, and instead required that he attend the meetings, where he was reportedly counseled about his job performance without the aid of an interpreter. The EEOC found that although at times the company would provide Centeno with written notes and summaries, this did not adequately accommodate his disability--due to his lack of written English language proficiency.

The EEOC reportedly filed the disability discrimination lawsuit in 2006, claiming that UPS violated the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by failing to reasonably accommodate Centeno.

As Vincent Howard of Howard Law has discussed in a previous Santa Ana labor and employment attorney blog, under the ADA, it is against the law to discriminate against workers who suffer from disabilities, and all employers are required by federal law to reasonably accommodate disabled job applicants and employees, unless doing so would cause a significant expense or difficulty for the employer.

Continue reading "UPS to Pay $95K in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement" »

Our Costa Mesa labor and employment attorney blog recently covered the topic of religious discrimination in the workplace, while discussing a religious discrimination lawsuit that involved a Muslim security guard--who sued his employer for pressuring him to shave facial hair while working for a security company. The employee claimed that his facial hair is part of his Islamic faith, and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the security company engaged in discrimination and retaliation by firing the employee for not shaving his beard.

In related California religious and racial discrimination lawsuit news, a Muslim Employee at the Human Assistance Department for Sacramento County, has recently claimed in an employment lawsuit that he has consistently suffered from harassment and discrimination based on race and religion since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

According to the lawsuit, filed last year, Abdur-Rahim Wasi, an African American employee, claims that since the terrorist attacks, he has been called a variety of discriminatory names including, "Taliban," "Osama Bin Laden," and "Al-Qaida." Wasi claims that the county managers have failed to stop the racial and religious harassment, and have even gone as far as to mock his employment concern. The lawsuit states that after Wasi filed an harassment complaint, his program manager proceeded to wear a Muslim head covering at a Halloween party in jest.

In his complaint to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Wasi claims that six months after starting this job with the county in 2001, when the terrorist attacks occurred, his co-workers started questioning Muslims and harassing him by saying that he was a member of the Taliban. Wasi also reportedly endured other pranks and jokes over the years that were allegedly associated with his faith. When he reported the harassment and discrimination to his superiors, he claims that he was told that his colleagues were just joking.

Continue reading "California Muslim Alleges Religious Harassment and Racial Discrimination in the Workplace" »

In a recent Santa Ana labor and employment lawyers blog, Howard Law attorney Vincent Howard discussed a series of lawsuits filed against the popular Los Angeles, California-based retailer American Apparel, a manufacturing company that employs thousands of workers in the Los Angeles production facility, and in retail stores throughout the country.

In related news that our Riverside labor and employment attorneys have been following, American Apparel has agreed to settle a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-filed (EEOC) disability discrimination lawsuit for $60,000, after the retail company was found to have violated federal labor laws for disability discrimination.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, American Apparel violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by firing a garment worker while he was on disability leave, failing to accommodate him based on his disability.

The EEOC and American Apparel have reportedly worked over an extended period of time to settle this case, and recently arrived on a three-year consent decree--whereupon American Apparel will adopt a comprehensive ADA policy, will agree to provide the retailer's managers and supervisors with ADA training, will ensure that workers are informed as to their rights under the ADA and how to seek ADA accommodations, and will designate an ADA coordinator in order to oversee the implementation of the decree.

Continue reading "American Apparel Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit for $60K" »

Wal-Mart made California discrimination lawsuit headlines again last week, according to an U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) press release that our Vincent Howard, our Riverside labor and employment lawyer has been following--for allegedly failing to accommodate a disabled employee, and wrongfully terminating his employment in retaliation, because of his disability.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, David Gallo worked as an employee for Wal-Mart starting in June of 2003, and was employed for six years for the retail chain, working his way from overnight stocker to manager of the tire and lube express bay in Placerville, California.

Gallo reportedly suffers from a heart condition called atrial fibrillation, which causes a shortness of breath and making walking difficult. In March of 2008, a new store manager reportedly refused to allow Gallo to park in the handicap parking spots along with any spaces that are close to the front of the Wal-Mart store--even through the company was aware of Gallo's heart disability and his handicap parking placard. Gallo filed a California disability discrimination charge with the EEOC in September of 2008, and was fired eight months later, allegedly for a mistake made by one of Gallo's subordinates. The subordinate and the inspector who reviewed the work were not, however, fired for their mistake.

As our Carson, California employment attorney Vincent Howard has discussed in a previous Santa Ana employment lawyers blog, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), discriminating against workers who suffer from disabilities is against the law, and employers must reasonably accommodate disabled applicants and employees. It is also against the law for employers to retaliate against employees for requesting an accommodation or for filing an EEOC discrimination charge.

Continue reading "Wal-Mart Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation of Employee with Heart Condition" »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently discussed a sexual harassment lawsuit settlement, involving a class of female greenhouse workers in an Oxnard, California Orchid Growing Company.

According to the EEOC lawsuit settlement, that our Anaheim employment attorneys have been following, Cyma Orchids, Inc., one of the country's largest orchid growers, will pay $200,000 to settle the sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation charges due to national origin bias and sex--filed by the EEOC on behalf of the female Hispanic workers. The Orchid Farm's owner will also pay $40,000 to resolve the lawsuit.

The California sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit claims that a class of female workers were continually sexually propositioned and inappropriately groped by Hispanic and Korean male managers, supervisors and company owners. The female workers were reportedly groped on their breasts and bottoms, forced to endure sexual propositions, and were frequently the subject of sexual jokes and lewd comments about their bodies and their national origin. The EEOC found that the female workers who complained or reported the sexual harassment were retaliated against. A male lead worker in the greenhouse who defended one of the victims was also reportedly retaliated against, by being fired for standing up for a female employee.

As Vincent Howard has discussed in a previous Howard Law employment lawyer blog, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to sexually harass, discriminate or retaliate against job applicants or employees based on gender or national origin in hiring, training, firing, benefits, wages, promotions and other employment terms and conditions. According to the EEOC, sexual harassment can include advances of a sexual nature that are unwelcome, requests for sexual favors, and other sexual harassment in a physical or verbal form. The EEOC also states that harassment can include remarks about a person's sex or gender that are offensive.

Continue reading "Orchid Growing Farm to Pay $240K for Sexual Harassment, National Origin Discrimination" »

According to the annual Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC), the commission received an unprecedented number of discrimination charges in fiscal year 2011--99,847--the highest number of charges in the EEOC's 46-year history.

The EEOC's PAR, filed earlier this month, showed that in fiscal year 2011, the EEOC staff also brought historic amounts of monetary relief through administrative enforcement--with $364.6 million in benefits for victims of discrimination in the workplace, which was also the highest amount ever obtained in the history of the commission. The fiscal year ended on September 30, 2011, with 78,136 pending charges--a total decrease of 8,202 in discrimination charges, or ten percent. This was the first reduction since 2002, as the pending inventory in the previous years had increased as staffing declined.

As our Irvine employment lawyer blog has recently discussed, the EEOC enforces the federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination against an employee or job applicant based on race, sex, religion, color, national origin, disability, age (40 years, or older) and genetic information. It is also against the law to discriminate against an individual because the person reported discrimination, filed a discrimination charge, or participated in an employment discrimination lawsuit or investigation.

The EEOC has the authority to investigate discrimination charges against employers who are covered by federal law, and the role of the commission is to accurately and fairly assess the discrimination allegations and then make a finding. If the EEOC discovers that employment discrimination has occurred, the commission can attempt to settle the charges, and if this attempt is not successful, the EEOC has the authority to file an employment lawsuit in order to protect an individual's employment rights. According to the Chair of the EEOC, Jacqueline A. Berrien, the work of the EEOC during this past fiscal year demonstrates what can be achieved when the commission is given the necessary resources to enforce the federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination.

Continue reading "EEOC Sets Record Highs in Monetary Relief, Intake, and Charge Resolution in 2011" »

According to a recent U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) press release that our Rosemead employment attorneys have been following, a Los Angeles-area Medical Center will reportedly pay former female employees $530,000, to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging the sexual harassment of the female medical staff.

The EEOC investigation reportedly uncovered that from 2007 until 2009, several of the female employees of the Garfield Medical Center, located in Monterey Park, California, were targets of sexual harassment by a male emergency room representative, whose job was to admit patients.

The Garfield Medical Center was found by the EEOC to have allowed the male emergency room representative to sexually harass a group of female hospital employees by subjecting them to sexual propositions, unwanted inappropriate touching, obscene photos, discussions of sexual activities that were graphic, and sexual comments about the female anatomy, including those of patients who were underage.

After reporting the harassment, their complaints were reportedly ignored by the hospital management. One female employee was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for complaining about the harassment, while other employees were driven to quit in order to escape the hostile work environment. Even after repeated complaints to the hospital management, the male employee was not terminated from his job until 2009, over two years after the initial sexual harassment complaints were reported.

Continue reading "Los Angeles-area Medical Center Will Pay $530K in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settlement" »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently settled a disability discrimination lawsuit that our Carson employment attorneys have been following, after Journal Disposition agreed to pay $55,000 to settle the suit.

Journal Disposition is the former operator of a full-service print, distribution and manufacturing company, called IPC Print Services, that according to the EEOC disability discrimination lawsuit, wrongfully terminated a long-term employee due to his disability. The lawsuit states that after the employee was diagnosed with cancer, he used up the maximum amount of time available under the company's short-term disability insurance policy--which reportedly provides 26 weeks of leave within a rolling 12-month time period.

Before exhausting his work leave, the employee returned back to his job, and began working part-time, while going through rounds of chemotherapy--performing all of the necessary job functions required in his position. When his employee benefits were used up, the company terminated his employment with the understanding that such an action would make him available for rehiring once he was able to work again full-time again.

Before his firing, the employee reportedly made a request for reasonable accommodation to be able to continue working part-time until his chemotherapy treatments ended, in a projected five month period. The printing company reportedly acknowledged the request, but applied the policy regardless of the reasonable nature of the accommodation request, of his ability to perform the job, or whether the request provided any undue hardship on the company's operations.

Continue reading "EEOC Settles Disability Discrimination Lawsuit with Printing Company" »

In a recent Costa Mesa employment lawyers blog, our attorneys discussed the federal protections under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA)--where employers are required to reasonably accommodate the disability of a qualified job applicant or worker, unless the individual's disability causes the employer's business operations suffer an undue hardship.

In related news, this week a former employee of the Huntington Beach City Library, who is deaf, is suing the city after she claims she was wrongfully fired from her job as a library clerk--because of her disability.

According to the lawsuit, Merrie Sager, 32, filed a disability discrimination complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (FEHC) on March 8, stating that the Huntington Beach Library management team was no longer willing to reasonably accommodate her disabilities, and that her job termination was a result of retaliation--as she had repeatedly filed complaints about the ongoing lack of reasonable accommodation.

The Orange County Register reports that when Sager was first employed in 1978 at the library, she fully disclosed her disabilities to the city library, as well as her need for written instructions on work assignments, and the assistance of a sign language interpreter to help her communicate at staff meetings.

Continue reading "City of Huntington Beach Sued by Deaf Library Clerk for Wrongful Termination and Discrimination" »

In a related Carson, California employment lawyer blog, our labor and employment attorneys reported about the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) role as the protector of the federal laws prohibiting disability discrimination in the workplace.

Under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA) a disabled and qualified job applicant or employee is defined as being an individual who can perform their necessary job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation--an adjustment or modification given by the employer in order to help disabled employees have equal employment opportunities.

Employers are expected, under the ADA, to reasonably accommodate the disability of a qualified worker or job applicant, unless the disability of the employee creates an undue hardship on the employer's business operations. A reasonable accommodation includes making job facilities that are available to employees equally as accessible to disabled individuals, modifying a job to benefit the disabled employee by changing a job position or work schedule, or getting equipment or devices for disabled employees to help assist them in the employment process.

According to the EEOC, not all requests for reasonable accommodations are the same, and they depend on the individual needs of each disabled employee or applicant. Examples of reasonable accommodation include:

• Providing a deaf job applicant with a sign language interpreter during an interview for a position within the company.
• Providing a blind employee with the assistance of another person to help read information on an employee bulletin.
• Allowing a diabetic employee to restructure their workday to include regularly scheduled breaks necessary in order to monitor their blood sugar levels.
• Allowing an employee who is suffering from cancer to have treatments for radiation or chemotherapy.

Continue reading "Employee Disabilities and Reasonable Accommodations Under the ADA" »

In a previous Orange County employment lawyers blog, our attorneys discussed a recent U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) disability discrimination lawsuit settlement, where a disabled hotel front desk clerk was denied reasonable accommodation and fired, as a result of his autism.

The role of the EEOC is to enforce the federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against an employee or applicant for employment, because of the person's disability. According to Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA), it is against the law to discriminate against disabled and qualified individuals in the job application process, or in hiring, advancement, employment training, job termination, compensation and other conditions and privileges of employment.

The commission also has the authority to investigate all charges of disability discrimination in the workplace, and to accurately assess the charges. If the commission finds that a disabled employee has been discriminated against, the EEOC can attempt to settle the discrimination charge, and if this attempt is not successful, the commission has the authority to file a disability discrimination lawsuit on behalf of the disabled individuals, in order to protect their employment rights.

Under the ADA, a disabled individual is a person who:

• Has a physical or mental impairment that seriously limits the person from one or more major life activities
• Has a record of this disability, and impairment
• Is regarded as an individual with such a disability, or impairment

Continue reading "EEOC Disability Discrimination Protection under the ADA" »