California Employment Lawyers Blog

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

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

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

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

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

According to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin, (D-IA) who recently discussed the issue of employee misclassification at the U.S. Senate HELP Committee hearing, over 10.3 million workers in this country are incorrectly labeled as independent contractors--which amounts to around 7.3 percent of the nation's workforce. Harkin stated that the scope of the employee misclassification problem is "staggering." The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) supported this statement, as a recent study found that as many as 30 percent of this country's businesses misclassify employees as independent contractors.

As our Southern California Employment Attorneys discussed in a recent blog, employee misclassification is a frequent and growing problem--as misclassified workers don't receive the same protections under our laws, like minimum wage and overtime payments, meal periods and rest breaks, tax responsibilities, safety and health laws, workers' compensation, antidiscrimination protections, along with other federal and state employment laws and regulations.

Harkin claimed that employee misclassification is also costing the state and federal governments billions of dollars in unpaid revenues, and hurting businesses who are trying to comply with the law. An employer that misclassifies workers could outbid honest and lawful employers by as much as 30 percent.

Harkin reported that in Iowa's first year of operating the Iowa misclassification program, the state uncovered 182 employers who had misclassified 1,565 workers--that totaled more than $27 million in total unreported wages, $1 million in unemployment taxes due, and unemployment penalties and interest amounting to $340,000. He claims that if state and federal agencies help to solve the problem, they can recover millions of dollars from employers who aren't paying their fair share to workers and to the individual states.

Continue reading "Senator Harkin Aims to "Level the Playing Field" to Protect Workers And Businesses from Employee Misclassification" »

Our Orange County, California Employment Attorneys recently posted a blog discussing the introduction of the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (EMPA), that was introduced into the House of Representatives by California Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and into the Senate by Senator Sherrod Brown, (D-OH).

California Representative Woolsey recently discussed employee misclassification in an article--stating that it is a huge problem that cheats workers out of income, robs them of their rights, is a threat to fair competition, and leaves taxpayers to deal with the problem.

In her article, Woolsey claimed that the Governmental Accountability Office estimated in 2006, that over ten million independent contractors were misclassified as employees, with at least 30 percent of these workers in California.

Woolsey stated that employee misclassification often happens because employers don't want to pay for Social Security, vacation, pensions, sick leave, and especially labor protections that employees receive, like the right to receive minimum wage and lawful overtime. Woolsey claims that the top reason that employers engage in misclassification is to dodge disability and workmen's' compensation disputes, as well as compensation premiums--so if there is an injury on the job, the worker will have no workman's compensation benefits, no income to cover the time that they can't work, and probably no health insurance--a problem affecting low-income workers across the country.

Continue reading "California Rep. Lynn Woolsey Fights Employee Misclassification with EMPA" »

A recent court case that our Anaheim, California-based Employment Lawyers have been following has reportedly alarmed the franchising industry across the country, as the case is challenging the industry understanding that franchisees are considered to be independent contractors and not employees--a topic our lawyers recently discussed in a blog.

According to the case, Coverall North America, Inc., the commercial-cleaning franchise located in Boca Raton, Florida, was sued by franchisees in 2007--who claimed that Coverall committed deceptive and unfair business practices, as well as employee misclassification in Massachusetts as well as other states. The franchisees accused Coverall of misclassifying them as "independent contractors" instead of "employees" and claim that under law, they are entitled to minimum wage rights, overtime pay, and other benefits, like unemployment and workers' compensation.

In March, a judge in a district in Boston reportedly ruled that Coverall's franchisees were essentially employees who paid a franchise fee to clean buildings--the main business of the company. The judge wrote in the his opinion that Coverall failed to establish that the franchisees were independent contractors--which violates Massachusetts state employment law.

Last week, the court reportedly issued a memorandum and order granting the workers' motion for a partial summary judgment, stating that under Massachusetts law, the franchisees were found to be employees. The implications of this decision could mean that franchises could be legally liable to for unpaid wages and benefits, including health insurance, workers' compensation, overtime payment, as well as other rights given to employees who have been misclassified as independent contractors under law.

Continue reading "Employee Misclassification Lawsuit: Franchisees Found to Be Employees Not Independent Contractors" »

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" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "New Legislation to Reduce Employee Misclassification" »

Our Orange County Employment Lawyers have been following the recent announcement of the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act, that was introduced into the Senate recently by Senator Sherrod Brown, (D-OH), after the companion legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives by California Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

The act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act from 1938 and require that employers keep accurate records of "non-employees" or "independent contractors" who work for payment. This act will penalize employers who attempt to incorrectly classify "employees" as "non-employees."

According to Senator Brown, tens of thousands of employers misclassify their workers as independent contractors, making employees ineligible for benefits like wage and hour rights, overtime, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. Employees who are misclassified are also not protected by health and safety laws, or anti-discrimination laws.

This act would reportedly prevent workers from being incorrectly classified as independent contractors and would give them the lawful protection and employee benefits that they have legally earned. The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act would reportedly help ensure that employees have access to health and safety protections in the workplace, fair labor standards, and unemployment and workers' compensation benefits.

Continue reading "Brown Introduces Employee Misclassification Prevention Act in Senate" »

In Los Angeles, California employment news, a wage and hour lawsuit has been filed against five Hooters restaurants in the Los Angeles area, Sacramento area, Fresno, and Bakersfield, by female waitresses who claim that they have been subjected to repeated violations of California labor laws.

According to the complaint, brought by one existing employee and several former employees, Hooters workers are subjected to a series of California wage and hour violations, such as being unlawfully forced to work through meal and rest breaks, having walkouts deducted from pay checks, having their time cards altered, and being forced to share tips with managers. Hooters is also being accused of failing to pay employees the minimum wages that are required by California state law, as well as applicable overtime and expenses. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, and will represent nearly 1,000 present and former employees within the past five years.

Hooters waitresses are also accusing the restaurant chain of forcing them to pay for and maintain their own uniforms for employment in the restaurant--a very specific uniform which requires mandatory orange short shorts, a tank top with the Hooters logo, nude pantyhose, and shoes. The uniform is reportedly not inexpensive, as pantyhose cost around $4-5 dollars per pair, and the shoes are upwards of $55. The waitresses are never allowed to wear the uniform anywhere other than the restaurant. California law requires that any specialized uniform must be paid for by the employer, and according to the suit, Hooters is failing to reimburse employees for all expenses that are reasonably incurred in the course of performing their jobs.

Hooters is also being accused of forcing the waitresses to make promotional appearances in public places, like golf tournaments without compensating them for their time, as well as neglecting to pay them for time spent doing paperwork at the restaurant that is expected to be done after clocking out. The female employees also claim to be subject to constant scrutiny for their looks and are expected to correct any flaw on their own time and dime.

Continue reading "Female Employees Sue Hooters in Class Action California Wage and Hour Lawsuit" »

In a previous blog, our California Employment Lawyers reported on the high profile two-year Dan Rather employment lawsuit--in which Dan Rather, former CBS Evening News anchor, accused CBS network of breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and ruining his reputation, after spending 44 years as an employee of CBS. The case was dismissed in September of last year, in the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, and Rather made plans to appeal.

Yesterday, New York's highest court denied Rather's request for an appeal, declining to hear the former CBS Anchor's motion to reinstate the $70 million lawsuit--leaving the dismissal of the case by the Manhattan appeals court from September intact, and marking a seeming end to the embittered and costly legal battle.

In the lawsuit, Rather claimed that CBS had breached his contract by not giving him enough broadcast time, after he was removed from news anchor in March 2005. Rather alleged that CBS set him up be the scapegoat for the controversial 60 Minutes broadcast from 2004, in which President George W. Bush's Vietnam War service the Texas Air National Guard questioned.

After the broadcast, Rather and CBS received criticism for the story, especially from conservative partisans who claimed that Rather was trying influence the presidential race from 2004. The authenticity of the documents was questioned, CBS conducted an internal investigation, and determined that the story was inaccurate. Rather was forced to apologize for the journalistic errors. The episode was called "Rathergate," by the media, and according to Rather the experience cost him substantial financial loss, as well as damage to his reputation. Bush won his second term as President of the United States two months later.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Rather's decision to sue CBS in 2007 caused strain in his professional relationships, and he received journalistic criticism for trying to pass blame for the inaccuracy of the 60 Minutes broadcast that had not been fully researched. Rather clams to have made a career out of fighting for journalistic freedom, and this case has represented a mission to take on the political and business interests that he believes are influencing news organizations.

Continue reading " Rather's Request for an Appeal Rejected by NY York State Supreme Court" »

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 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" »