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" »

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" »

Our Anaheim, California-based attorneys at HOWARD | NASSIRI, PC have been reading about the recent wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Dr. Ivor van Heerden, recent deputy director of the Louisiana State University (LSU) Hurricane Center, where he is accusing LSU officials of retaliation, that led to his termination.

Dr. Igor van Heerden, a professor, disaster science specialist, author, and hurricane researcher, filed a whistleblower suit against the university and university officials last week, claiming that while he led the Louisiana team conducting a massive investigation into Hurricane Katrina, he suffered retaliation and harassment for years after making comments that criticized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' failure to keep the New Orleans safe.

After Hurricane Katrina, Dr. van Heerden spearheaded a major investigation examining the cause of the hurricane with the Louisiana State Forensic Data Gathering Team, called "Team Louisiana." Dr. van Heerden stated in his research that the levee design engineered by the Army Corps of Engineers proved to be a failure, and testified in front of Congress that this action was inexcusable, as the residents deserved to have proper levees that were secure. He also wrote many articles and published a best-selling book entitled "The Storm," where he attributed around 90 percent Katrina's flooding to the design failure of the levees.

According to the suit, University officials made attempts to quiet Dr. van Heerden from his public criticism and accused him of jeopardizing LSU's relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers and the federal government--risking LSU's posibilities for federal funding. Soon after the Team Louisiana report was released in April 2007, van Heerden requested as an expert witness on a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers and the federal government. Van Heerden asked for permission to testify, and was later told that his employment would be terminated if he proceeded to testify against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Continue reading "LSU Professor and Hurricane Katrina Expert Files Retaliation and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit" »

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 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 yesterday's post, our California Employment and Labor Attorneys discussed a new report released last week by the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, that surveyed 1,815 workers in Los Angeles County in 2008, focusing on low-wage workers who were most likely to experience some form of wage and hour violation in the workplace--workers in professions like the garment industry, service industry, construction, and domestic help. Compared to Chicago or New York, low-wage workers in Los Angeles were most found most likely to be subjected to workplace violations based on pay.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the study was geared to focus on the largely immigrant workforce that is often missed in regular employment surveys--17% of all workers in Los Angeles County, or 750,000 people. In the report, 56.4% were immigrants with no documentation, a vulnerability that is often exploited by employers. Nearly 75% of the workers in the study were Hispanic, and almost 60% of the workers claimed to not have a high school education.

According to the five-year study, workplace violations are the result of employer decisions--on whether or not to pay minimum wage and overtime, to give workers lawful meal breaks, overtime pay, pay documentation, safe working conditions, or how to respond to complaints in the workplace.

The report found that small and large employers throughout Los Angeles County are violating labor laws on a regular basis, and that certain sectors of the Los Angeles economy have allegedly built business strategies that incorporate labor law violation--especially with Los Angeles workers who have no union representation, and who are employed in service or apparel industries, and construction.

Continue reading "Labor Violation in Los Angeles and the Role of Public Policy Development" »

In a recent blog, our Southern California Labor and Employment Lawyers discussed a study released by UCLA last year that surveyed over 4,000 low-wages workers in 2008 throughout Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, examining financial discrimination and systematic violations of employment and labor laws in low-wage industries.

A new report was released last week that is part of the same study, and focuses specifically on Los Angeles County, the home of the largest population of undocumented workers in this country. The authors describe this study as a significant effort to focus on the largely immigrant workforce that is often missed in regular surveys.

The study, entitled "Wage Theft and Workplace Violations in Los Angeles," released by the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, surveyed 1,815 workers in Los Angeles County in 2008, all in low-wage professions, where the average worker's salary was $8 per hour. The study focused on domestic workers, garment workers, service industry employees, and construction workers, and found that compared to Chicago or New York, low-wage workers in Los Angeles County were the most likely to experience some form of pay-related violation in the workplace.

The survey also found that low wage workers are often robbed of their legal rights, by being forced to work during their breaks and off the clock, subjected to a lack of payroll documentation, stealing of tips, late pay, retaliation by employers, and being forced to work with employment-sustained injuries. According to the report, in almost every case, the rates of violation are higher in Los Angeles than the rates shown in Chicago or New York.

Continue reading "New Study Reveals More Abuse of Low-wage Workers in Los Angeles" »

Our Southern California Labor and Employment Lawyers have been following the recent lawsuit filed against K-Designers of Rancho Cordova, California, in which a former female sales manager is accusing the company of sexual discrimination and retaliation.

According to the lawsuit, Corri Buckley, a former sales manager within the exterior home remodeling company, worked in an employment environment that was dominated by men, and from mid 2006 to mid 2007, she was reportedly subjected to sexual discrimination and subsequent retaliation for filing a complaint with her branch manager.

Buckley accused the K-Designers' management of discriminating against her by trying to isolate her from other workers, denying her training along with other staff, placing her on disability leave when she was perfectly able to do work, and in the end terminating her employment.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sex, color, race, religion, and national origin. Any employee who complains against such unlawful offenses is also protected from retaliation within the company.

Continue reading "Female Manager Sues K-Designers for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation" »

In recent Los Angeles, California employment news, the infamous Playboy mogul Hugh Hefner has been sued by a former party planner for the Playboy Mansion--allegedly for unlawful termination while she was on medical leave.

Jenny Lewis worked as a Playboy's Guest Relations Coordinator for the Hefner and the Playboy Mansion for eleven years, and reportedly took a medical leave to recovery from surgery. According to the suit, after Lewis had permission from the company to take the leave of absence, she was unlawfully terminated from her employment on November 4, 2009 during her recovery period.

The lawsuit accuses the Playboy executives of twelve counts of liability that relate to the California and Fair Housing Act--the statute that fights unlawful discrimination and sexual harassment in California employment and housing.

Lewis claims that after receiving outstanding performance reviews for ten years, Lewis was retaliated against after she questioned certain practices that she felt were in violation of the California Employment and Fair Housing Act. She also accused Playboy of gender discrimination, citing that Lewis along with five other women were demoted and sent to the back-offices of the Playboy Mansion, while men in similar positions were not demoted in such a way. Lewis also claims she was subjected to a hostile work environment, and according to the entertainment website TMZ, she was unlawfully terminated after she turned 47, and her position was replaced by a 33-year old woman.

Continue reading "Former Playboy Mansion Party Planner Sues Hugh Hefner for Unlawful Termination" »

In California Employment & Labor news, the California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CA) recently released an annual report that shows an increase in the number of employment discrimination and harassment incidents against Muslims in 2008.

The report is titled "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights, California 2009" and offers a summary of discrimination, anti-Muslim violence and harassment in the workplace in California during the 2008 calendar year.

In comparison to the 2007 report, complaints of employment discrimination, verbal harassment and the denial of religious accommodation represented the highest increases--at 41 percent, 19 percent, and 12 percent respectively. Workplace incidents rose from 88 cases in 2007 to 103 cases in 2008.

Affad Shaikh, the civil rights manager for CAIR-Greater Los Angeles Area reported that there is still an anti-Muslim climate in our country, and employers should be encouraged to conduct training sessions to make sure that religious practices of all Americans are reasonably accommodated--so Americans' civil rights are respected and protected in the workplace, in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Continue reading "CAIR-CA Report Shows Rise in Harassment and Employment Discrimination Against Muslims" »

A sexual harassment lawsuit settlement that our California Employment Lawyers have been following was announced yesterday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)--where a young female worker was allegedly subjected to assault and sexual harassment by a store manager, while working for Aaron Rents, Inc.

According the lawsuit, Ashley Alford, a female service representative for Aaron Rents, the operator of more than 1,500 "rent-to-own" stores in Canada and the United States, was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment--where the general manager made sexually explicit comments towards her with regular requests for sex. The EEOC's complaint accused the manager of touching Alford's body in a sexually offensive manner, and exposing himself to her on several occasions. The EEOC also alleged that the manager made repeated attempts to force Alford to have sex with him, until his attempts culminated in a sexual assault in the store's warehouse area in Illinois.

Alford allegedly complained to her direct supervisor, and called a company hotline, but no action was taken to end the continual workplace harassment. According to the EEOC, Alford was the only woman working in the store for most of the time she was employed. She was twenty years old at the time of the attack.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under which this lawsuit was filed, it is illegal to discriminate against employees based on sex. It is also unlawful to retaliate against employees who complain about illegal treatment. According to the EEOC, no employee should have to face sexual harassment as part of their employment.

Continue reading "Sexual Assault and Harassment Lawsuit Settled by Aaron Rents" »

In recent news, our California Employment Lawyers have been reading about the $43,000 settlement between Ivy Hall Assisted Living, and Khandija Ahdaouri, a Muslim housekeeper. In the religious discrimination lawsuit, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Ahdaouri, Ivy Hall Assisted Living was accused of discrimination, by forcing her to remove her head scarf, or hijab, while she worked, as a condition of her continued employment.

According to the suit, Ivy Hall Assisted Living discriminated against the housekeeper by not accommodating her religious beliefs--the mandatory wearing of a hijab, a Muslim head scarf outside her home. Ahdaouri was allegedly asked to remove the scarf, having to choose between her religion and her employment. After choosing to wear the scarf at work, Ahdaouri's employment was wrongfully terminated--a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--where under law, employers must accommodate applicants' and employees' religious beliefs in all aspects of employment.

The EEOC states that no employee should have to make the choice between their religious beliefs and their job. Unless it would be an undue hardship for the company, and the operation of its business, an employer must lawfully accommodate an employee's religious practices and sincere beliefs, such as wearing a head scarf or other religious attire, certain hairstyles, or facial hair.

According to the consent decree that settled the suit, along with $43,000 in monetary relief, the assisted living home must take the necessary steps for equal opportunity training, post a notice of anti-discrimination, and report any future complaints of discrimination. In the consent decree and the lawsuit, Ivy Hall denied all liability and allegations of wrongdoing.

Continue reading "Muslim Housekeeper Fired for Wearing Head Scarf--Wins Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement" »