California Employment Lawyers Blog

As Santa Ana Labor and Employment Attorneys, we have been following the recent announcement that Oldcastle SW Group, Inc., operating as United Companies of Mesa County, has settled a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit for nearly $500,000, that was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a former female employee.

According to the lawsuit, the female employee was hired in 1998 by Delta Sand and Gravel in Colorado (now part of Old Castle Group, and doing business as United Companies of Mesa County), to drive a truck, dispatch trucks, batch concrete, perform plant manager duties, and act as a quality control technician--the role in which she remained until she was allegedly wrongfully terminated.

The suit charges that the female worker spent a majority of her employment doing what is largely considered to be the "job of a man." The employee alleged that once she became a quality control technician, she started experiencing blatant sex-based discrimination, with workers and managers making harassing comments based on gender and engaging in sex based name-calling that interfered with her ability to perform her job duties.

Many of the employee's male co-workers reportedly witnessed the sex-based discrimination and offered to support her if she filed a complaint. After complaining to the management, and naming the male witnesses, the men confirmed her allegations, although admitted fear that they might be retaliated against for standing up for their female co-worker. According to the complaint filed by the EEOC, the men were subsequently subjected to serious retaliation, including name-calling, harassment, and threats to keep quiet. Over the course of the next seven months, the woman and two of the male employees who stood up for her rights were reportedly wrongfully terminated.

Continue reading "Gender-based Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Settlement-- Gravel Company to Pay Nearly $500K" »

In recent employment law news that our Long Beach Labor Attorneys have been following, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against the family-owned amusement party company, Pinnacle Amusements, on behalf of black employees, who claimed to be subjected to a constant stream of racial harassment in the workplace.

According to the suit, over his six years of employment as a warehouse employee and driver, Benjamin Henderson as well as other black employees reportedly continually endured caustic racial harassment, reportedly leading to a hostile work environment. The EEOC stated that on a regular basis the employees were subjected to racial comments and slurs, such as the "n-word" in the workplace. Henderson reportedly complained about the constant harassment based on race, and the owner of the company dismissed his complaints, encouraging Henderson to be a "tough guy" and to "handle" the racial comments and that the racially derogatory comments were just "jokes." Henderson also complained about the discrimination to the company's co-owner, but with no relief from the racial harassment.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is against the law for an employer to harass employees based on race. According to the EEOC, it is the responsibility of the employer to take action when an employee complains of harassment in the workplace. This lawsuit seeks punitive and compensatory damages, as well as injunctive relief for Henderson and the other African American employees who work for the company.

The EEOC claims that the owners subjected Henderson and the other employees to a hostile work environment where racial comments and slurs were disguised as "jokes" and the working employees were made to endure a constant stream of racial harassment in order to keep their jobs. According to Tina Burnside, supervisory trial attorney in the EEOC district office in Charlotte, NC, "Discrimination is never a joke--it is a violation of federal law."

Continue reading "Amusement Party Company Sued for Racially Hostile Work Environment" »

As California Employment Lawyers, we have been following the recent news of a California appellate court reversal of the $6.2 million verdict against the city of Los Angeles--from the lawsuit filed by black lesbian firefighter Brenda Lee, who claimed discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination in the workplace.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the 2nd District Court of Appeal made its decision today in Lee's case, where she sued the city of Los Angeles for alleged fire department discrimination. The lawsuit accused the fire department of discrimination based on gender, race, and sexual orientation and for failing to transfer her after she filed a harassment complaint.

Lee claimed in the lawsuit that her superiors put her through difficult fire department drills that neglected proper health and safety requirements, and subjected her to derogatory and inappropriate comments and actions.

The 2007 jury decision was reportedly the largest in a line of case settlements involving discrimination and retaliation against minorities and women within the fire department in Los Angeles. The cases have allegedly cost Los Angeles taxpayers more than $15 million since 2005.

Continue reading "California Court Overturns Female Firefighter's Racial, Gender Discrimination Case" »

In California employment news today, our attorneys at HOWARD | NASSIRI, PC have been following the announcement that Big Lots has settled a race harassment and discrimination lawsuit for $400,000, brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of at least five employees and group of unidentified class action members.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC accused Big Lots of subjecting a black maintenance mechanic as well as other black workers in the California distribution center to race discrimination and harassment--violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. According to the EEOC, the Hispanic supervisors and Big Lots co-workers harassed and discriminated against the black workers by consistently making derogatory comments, slurs and jokes based on race. The company allegedly did not take the necessary action to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

Along with the voluntary settlement of $400,000, Big Lots has also agreed to a two-year consent decree, to implement new policy, procedures, training, and court monitoring to protect employees from being subjected to workplace discrimination and harassment based on race in the future.

The EEOC reports that race-based charges have historically been one of the most frequent types of complaints in the offices throughout the nation. In fiscal year 2009, race-based discrimination accounted for nearly 36% of the EEOC's private sector caseload of 33,579 charges.

Continue reading "Big Lots to Pay Big in California Harassment Case" »

Our employment and labor attorneys at HOWARD | NASSIRI, PC have been following the recent announcement of a lawsuit settlement, in which the California-based Akeena Solar Company will pay a former employee $30,000 to settle her disability discrimination lawsuit.

According to the suit, brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Gladys Tellez was hired as a payroll and accounts technician in November of 2006. Tellez is a 44-year old Latina employee, who has a left arm that is paralyzed, and was reportedly fired within a few hours of her first day on the job after her supervisor discovered the disability. The EEOC supported Tellez and her case, after determining that she was perfectly capable and qualified of performing her necessary job description, despite having a disability.

Akeena Solar will pay Tellez $30,000 in monetary damages, according to the consent decree, as well as commit to posting a notice detailing the company's compliance to the ADA, hold annual training to prevent disability discrimination, and report any disability discrimination complaints that surface in the next three years.

The EEOC stated that this resolution will hopefully encourage employers to give future disabled workers a chance to prove their own value and abilities in the workplace--whereas Tellez wasn't even given a full day to prove her value as an employee.

Continue reading "California Solar Power Company Settles in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit" »

A recent New York Times article, that our California Labor and Employment Attorneys have been following, discussed last month's $70 million settlement of a class-action age discrimination case brought by 165 television writers--who claim to have been discriminated against consistently by studios, agents, and producers because of their age.

The defendants in the lawsuit include the major broadcast television networks and the corresponding production studios affiliated with the networks, as well as several talent agencies--all of which the writers claim refused to represent their work, or their ability to be hired as writers because of their age. The $70 million settlement will reportedly be mostly paid by insurance carries, which reveals that neither the agency, studio, network or production company will be responsible for more than $1 million--less than it costs to produce one single episode of half-hour network television.

The article states that although $70 million sounds like a sizable settlement amount, roughly 40% of the age-discrimination settlement will go to lawyers' fees, as well as $2.5 million to create the Fund for the Future, a grant and loan fund writers. This leaves $43 million for the writing plaintiffs, of which nearly $245,000 will go to each of the named plaintiffs--although few will receive this much, as settlement payouts will depend on how many people apply for and are qualified to receive class action status.

Martin L. Levine, professor of Law and gerontology at UCLA claimed that $70 million is such a big number that it may attract a lot of attention for writers, as the threat of having to pay money might change the employment behavior. David R. Ginsburg, the executive director of the entertainment and media law program at UCLA's School of Law, counters that this settlement should be viewed through a narrow lens, as the defendants settled the case merely as a business matter, and never admitted any discriminatory acts.

Continue reading "Ten Year Hollywood Age Discrimination Lawsuit Ends--Writers Entitled to Settlement" »

In a recent blog, our Anaheim-based Employment Attorneys discussed a class action disability discrimination lawsuit settlement announced last year between Sears, Roebuck and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In September 2009, Sears agreed to a $6.2 million settlement under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) for allegedly maintaining a policy for workmans compensation leave that was inflexible, and involved the termination of employees without providing them reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. This case was the largest single lawsuit settlement in EEOC history under the ADA.

Last week, the EEOC announced the court approval of the distribution of a $6,200,000 compensation fund, that is being carried out according to the terms of the consent decree approved last year.

Under the consent decree terms, many employees who were terminated under the company's inflexible workers' leave policy were given claim forms to report back to the EEOC the extent of their disabilities, their professional ability to come back to work for Sears, and whether there has been any effort by Sears to facilitate their return to work. The result of the claim forms found 235 individual workers were qualified to be awarded in the settlement, with over twenty workers who did not qualify. The entire settlement fund will be distributed to the Sears employees--the EEOC will not retain any of the amount.

The EEOC reports that as a result of this longstanding disability discrimination lawsuit, originally filed in November 2004, there has been a positive effect from the consent decree. The EEOC believes that Sears has improved the process of taking a workers' compensation leave, and has lawfully posted employee notices covering the consent decree--ultimately benefiting the Sears employees and creating a stronger human resource process for employees.

Continue reading "Sears, Roebuck Disability Settlement is Distributed--Court Approves $6.2 Million in Damages to Employees" »

In recent California employment law news, the San Gabriel Hilton, run by Landwin Management, Inc., has settled two lawsuits for national origin discrimination and sexual harassment for $500,000, and significant remedial relief.

According to the first suit, filed in 2007 by the U.S. Equal Employment Commission, (EEOC), Landwin Management, the company that runs the Hilton hotel in the middle of San Gabriel's Asian community, was accused of not rehiring Latino banquet servers after taking over the management of the Hilton hotel in 2005. The former servers claimed that because they were not Chinese, they were not hired back after the hotel turnover, and were replaced with Chinese employees who were less qualified.

In the second lawsuit, the EEOC claimed that the female workers in the Hilton endured a hostile work environment that was filled with verbal abuse by the supervisor of the housekeeping department, who reportedly referred to the women as prostitutes and whores. The female employees also claimed that the supervisor scolded the female workers if they talked to men. The lawsuit states that these harassment complaints were ignored by the management at Landwin.

Landwin Management will pay $500,000 to settle the two lawsuits, and will commit to a three-year consent decree that includes company policy changes, such as aiming to hire Hispanic workers, training employees in anti-discrimination, and hiring an EEOC consultant to monitor the progress of these goals.

Continue reading "California Hotel Pays $500,000 in Racial Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settlements" »

In a blog from last week, our Anaheim-based Employment Attorneys discussed the topic of pregnancy discrimination--after the settlement of a case involving a female security guard who was allegedly subjected to unlawful pregnancy discrimination, termination and retaliation in the workplace.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed by Congress in 1978, as an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to protect pregnant women in the workplace from any aspect of discrimination when it comes to hiring, firing, pay, equal opportunity for job assignments, promotions, layoffs, fringe benefits, health insurance, or any other term or condition of employment.

Under Federal law, pregnant women, or women who have conditions related to pregnancy must receive the same fair treatment as other employees. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, medical conditions related to pregnancy, or childbirth constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.

According to the EEOC, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:

• It is illegal for an employer to choose not to hire a woman who is pregnant due to her pregnancy or condition related to pregnancy, or based on any prejudice from co-workers, customers, or potential clients.

• An employer cannot determine the work capability of an employee based on conditions related to pregnancy. An employer does have rights, however, to request doctor's statements before giving sick leave, or sick benefits to an employee who is unable to work.

• Female employees who are unable to work temporarily due to pregnancy or conditions related to pregnancy must be treated in the same manner as other employees who are disabled temporarily.

• Employers must permit pregnant employees to do their job, for as long as the employees are capable of performing their job.

Continue reading "EEOC Facts about Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace" »

As Southern California Employment Attorneys, we have been following the recent settlement of an employment lawsuit--where U.S. Security Associates will pay $79,880 for subjecting a female security guard to pregnancy discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Margaret Gibson was an employee at the Marietta, Georgia facility, working for U.S. Security as a security guard. After informing her manager that she was pregnant, she was allegedly mistreated, subjected to discipline that was unwarranted, and made to endure sexist comments about the manager's bias against pregnancy in the workplace, as well as sexist comments about how Gibson would look in the security guard uniform. After completing and turning in her application for maternity leave, Gibson's employment was terminated on the same day. The EEOC claimed that her husband, who was also employed with U.S. Security, was also terminated, after he failed to stop his wife from filing a pregnancy discrimination complaint.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) that amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pregnant women or women who are affected by conditions that are related to pregnancy must be treated like other employees or applicants with the same abilities in the workplace. Discrimination of the basis of pregnancy, medical conditions related to pregnancy, or childbirth constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.

Continue reading "Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Settled--U.S. Security Associates to Pay $80,000" »

In a recent blog, our California Employment Attorneys discussed the seriousness of teenage sexual harassment in the workplace, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) fight to keep young workers protected and educated as to their employment rights.

In 2007, according to an analysis of seven years of EEOC data, restaurants accounted for the majority of employers sued by the EEOC over alleged harassment of teenagers in the workplace. In the study, dating back to 1999, out of 127 EEOC complaints involving teenagers, 72 were against restaurant companies, and all but 11 of these were sexual harassment cases. Restaurants paid out more than $7.3 million to settle teenage harassment lawsuits.

According to the EEOC, an alarmingly high number of cases are now being reported by high school students who have experienced sexual harassment from their managers or supervisors. The EEOC claims that employers who choose to hire teenagers have a responsibility to protect them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under law, it is illegal to harass or discriminate against teenage employees based on gender, race, color, sex (including pregnancy), national origin or age, in hiring, firing, training, wages, benefits and promotions.

The EEOC states that when workers complain to supervisors about harassment in the workplace, it is the responsibility of the employer to take action and end the unlawful discrimination. The commission also stated that cases involving the sexual harassment of teenage victims need to be taken seriously.

Continue reading "EEOC's 'Youth at Work' Protects Teenage Workers from Harassment" »

In a recent blog, our Southern California Labor and Employment Attorneys discussed the current San Bernardino County claim involving District Attorney Michael Ramos, and a former employee--who accused Ramos of sexual harassment and retaliation.

According to a San Bernardo County memo recently released, the District Attorney's Office did not retaliate against Cheryl Ristow, the former employee who claims to have had an affair with Ramos.

Cheryl Ristow worked as an investigative technician for the District Attorney's office for seven years and filed a claim last year against Ramos for sexual harassment. According to Ristow, after their affair of over seventeen months ended and the details of their affair were about to become public, she was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation by three top officials--by being accused of trivial violations by her supervisors that were unwarranted. Ristow took a disability leave of absence for stress in July of 2009, and recently filed a $1.5 million claim against the county.

After the county authorized a $140,000 investigation into the alleged misconduct, led by a Santa Monica law firm, the San Bernardino County's Department of Human Resources announced that Ramos did not harass or retaliate against the coworker after their consensual affair ended in February of 2005.

Continue reading "District Attorney Cleared of California Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Allegation" »

In recent California Employment Law news, an employee of San Bernardino County District Attorney's office has filed a claim against the county for $1.5 million, after filing a complaint against District Attorney Michael A. Ramos in August of last year, for sexual harassment and retaliation.

Cheryl Ristow worked for the District Attorney's office for seven years as an investigative technician, and claimed to have been involved in an affair with Ramos for over three years, that ended in 2005. Ristow later corrected this statement to the San Bernardino Sun Times, and stated that the relationship lasted for one and one half years--from September of 2003 until February of 2005.

Ristow alleges that after the relationship ended and news of the affair surfaced in a local newspaper, Ristow was rejected by Ramos, and made to endure workplace hostility.

Supervising Deputy District Attorney Michael Fermin and Michael Smith, Chief District Attorney Investigator, are also named in the suit. The suite alleges that Fermin acted as the main conduit between Ristow and Ramos--when the story of the alleged affair was about to become public.

Continue reading "California Worker Files $1.5 M Claim against District Attorney and County for Sexual Harassment" »

As Anaheim-based Labor and Employment Lawyers, we have been following the recent California discrimination case brought against Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, where the company is being accused of sexually harassing a young female farm worker, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and claimed that the teenage worker was forced to endure sexual comments and verbal harassment, as well as inappropriate sexual touching by a non-management Giumarra worker on a daily basis. After witnessing the sexual harassment, a group other farm workers stood by the victim and filed a complaint with Giumarra Vineyards, reportedly one of the largest table grape growers in the country.

According to the lawsuit, one day after reporting the harassment, the teenager and the class of farm workers were all fired in retaliation. All of the identified victims in the case are indigenous Indians from Mexico--a reported minority in the Mexican community of farm workers.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is against the law to harass employees based on gender, and illegal to retaliate against a worker who files a complaint about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC states that when workers complain to supervisors about harassment in the workplace, it is the responsibility of the employer to take action and end the unlawful discrimination. The commission also stated that cases involving the sexual harassment of teenage victims are taken seriously, as are aggressive acts of retaliation against workers who stand up for their rights, and the rights of their colleagues in the workplace.

Continue reading "California Vineyard Accused of Teenage Sexual Harassment " »

In recent employment and labor law news, that our Anaheim, California attorneys have been following, a prominent Tufts University chemistry professor and co-investigator for the high profile NASA 2008 Phoenix Mars Lander mission, is being sued by a former research assistant for the NASA science team--for alleged sexual harassment and gender discrimination.

Suzanne Young, a former Tufts University researcher and lecturer took part in the Tufts University group that helped build and create experiments for the NASA mission--to study the chemical composition soil on Mars and investigate whether life is possible on the planet. Kounaves and his team created and designed a wet chemistry lab on the Phoenix Mars Langer to analyze the soil for life. NASA experiments were led by the University of Arizona, and the headquarters were located in Tuscon.

Young's sexual harassment lawsuit claims that Samuel Kounaves, an associate professor at Tufts and one of the co-investigators of the mission from 2003 until 2009, subjected her to repeated incidents of improper behavior that was disturbing and sexually charged, where Kounaves made consistent requests for sexual favors. Kounaves allegedly told her that her job security and employment advancement in the future would depend upon her sexual consent.

Kounaves also reportedly insisted that Young stay with him on business trips in 2007, and threatened not to pay her lodging reimbursement when she refused the accommodations--even though he would allegedly pay for male colleagues to have separate lodging. Kounaves reportedly only agreed to pay for her accommodations after she reported this to other NASA colleagues.

Continue reading "NASA Scientist Hit with Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination Lawsuit" »