California Employment Lawyers Blog

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" »

Our Anaheim-based employment lawyers at Howard Nassiri, PC are currently representing an individual contractor in a case against her former employer, Synergistic Resources, LLC, and Medical Marijuana Evaluation Centers (MMEC). The firm has filed a complaint for employee misclassification, wage and hour violations, wrongful termination, retaliation, unfair business practices, and other violations of California labor codes.

According to the complaint, in June of 2009, a California physician was hired as a "professional consultant" to work as an independent contractor for MMEC, a business that specializes in providing medical marijuana to patients, under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, (Proposition 215)--the act that allows California residents to legally use and possess medical marijuana, as deemed appropriate by a physician who has determined that the patient's health would benefit from the prescription.

The physician claims that she was incorrectly hired as an "independent contractor" by MMEC to lower labor costs and maintain an unfair competitive advantage over its competitors, creating unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Our lawyers discussed the distinction between an "employee' and a "independent contractor" in a recent blog.

In the lawsuit, MMEC is being accused of creating a "sham" independent contractor relationship with the doctors they hire, by placing the operating expenses and risk responsibility on the doctors, while still exerting employer control by managing all aspects of the employment relationship--without offering the doctors any legal protection that employees have rights to under California law.

Continue reading "California Physician Sues Company for Employee Misclassification, Wrongful Termination and Retaliation" »

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" »

In a recent blog our employment attorneys at HOWARD | NASSIRI, PC discussed a recent $1 million employment lawsuit against action movie star Steven Seagal, for allegedly harassing and assaulting a former employee in a sexual way, as well as retaliation.

This week, two more former employees came forward claiming that they were also sexually harassed by Seagal, one of whom is Blair Robinson, the granddaughter of Ray Charles.

Robinson reportedly met Seagal in 2004 at her grandfather's funeral service. Seagal soon after hired Robinson to be his assistant, where she allegedly was told on the first day that is was required in her job description to give him massages. Robinson claimed that it quickly became clear that Seagal expected sexual favors as a part of her job responsibilities, an employment proposition Robinson was unwilling to accept.

According to TMZ, another woman also came forward claiming that Seagal made similar unwanted sexual advances toward her while she was employed by the film actor. She claimed that he touched her inappropriately by placing his hands on her breasts and down her pants. The former employee reportedly screamed and cried until Seagal released her.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Saga Continues for Action Star Seagal" »

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" »

In yesterday's blog, our Southern California Labor and Employment Lawyers discussed that sexual harassment is considered a form of discrimination in both California state and Federal laws.

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), harassment based on sex includes gender harassment, sexual harassment, harassment based on medical conditions, or harassment based on pregnancy.

Sexual harassment is defined by the FEHA as unwanted sexual advances or visual, physical or verbal behavior that has a sexual and offensive nature, and can even include same-sex gender-based harassment. A partial list of the FEHA violations in the workplace include:

• Sexual advances that are unwanted
• Physical touching, assault or obstructing the movements of an employee
• Threatening an employee after being rejected by sexual advances
• Visual conduct--making crude or sexual gestures, staring or leering, displaying sexually suggestive pictures, objects, posters or material.
• Verbal conduct--engaging in sexually offensive or derogatory slurs, comments or jokes.
• Sexual advances of a verbal nature, including propositions for sexually inappropriate activity.
• Verbal abuse of a sexual nature--sexually charged comments about an employee or individual's body, offensive or degrading sexual comments spoken against an individual, sexually suggestive notes, invitations, or obscene letters.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace and California FEHA Law" »

In yesterday's blog our Anaheim, California Employment and Labor Attorneys discussed the increase of male sexual harassment charges across the country being reported to the U.S. Equal Employment Commission, (EEOC) over the past ten years.

According to a recent article in the Associated Press, male sexual harassment claims comprised 12 percent of all cases ten years ago, and this number has grown even as the number of complaints has declined. In 2009, the percentage of lawsuits filed by the EEOC on behalf of male employees who claimed sexual harassment rose to 14 percent--a record high.

The majority of these charges reportedly involve men harassing other men, although some cases allege female harassment by co-workers or supervisors. The Associated Press reports that cases involving women making unwanted sexual advances toward male employees may be rising as more and women make up large part of the ever expanding work force.

In a recent blog, our attorneys discussed a lawsuit brought by the EEOC last year, in which a male employee of a Regal Entertainment movie theater in Los Angeles, California, claimed sexual harassment by a female co-worker and was awarded $175,000 in monetary damages. According to the suit, after complaining to the supervisor, she neglected to stop the harassment and retaliated against the male employee with poor performance evaluations and unfair discipline.

Continue reading "Growing Rate of Male Sexual Harassment in the Workplace by Women" »

In a recent blog, our Southern California Labor and Employment Attorneys reported on the growing number of male sexual harassment charges filed with state and federal agencies across the country.

Our lawyers discussed the lawsuit involving six male employees at a Phoenix Cheesecake Factory who endured repeated and severe sexual assaults by a group of male kitchen workers. The male employees were allegedly dragged kicking and screaming into the refrigerator where the male kitchen workers groped their genitals, forced simulated rape, and made offensive and sexual remarks. The Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain settled the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by paying $345,000 in monetary damages.

The Associated Press reported this week on another male on male sexual harassment case, in which employee Jonathan Pilkington was allegedly harassed by a male chef in a sexual manner, with groping, fondling, and pinching his genitals on numerous occasions while he worked at Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar. Pilkington stood up for himself and complained to a supervisor, but the violations reportedly did not stop. Pilkington claims to have finally yelled at the chef, to stop the harassment and was fired a few days later--he claims in retaliation for filing the complaints.

Sexual Harassment in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the EEOC the filing of male sexual harassment charges has steadily multiplied over the past ten years from 12% to 16%. In 2009 the complaints filed by men totaled over 2,000, out of around 12,700 sexual harassment cases.

Continue reading "EEOC Shows Increase in Male Sexual Harassment Cases" »

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" »