Recently in Wage and Hour Cases Category

February 12, 2010

California Labor Commissioner Enforces Labor Code 2810 in Landmark Janitorial Settlement

As California Employment and Labor Lawyers, we have been following the recent news of a landmark settlement that tested the 2004 addition to the California labor code, where a contractor will compensate subcontractors for depriving the workers of social security, unemployment insurance, and disability contributions.

Tidy Building Services, Inc., a New Orleans-based company, has agreed to pay $100,000 to the state of California to compensate employees who worked in janitorial services in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, after reportedly not providing proper funding to subcontractors to ensure that employees received the full benefit of employment regulations and laws. As part of the settlement, over one hundred employees will receive anywhere between $100 and $2,000 each in compensation.

California Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet filed the complaint in 2008, and this is the first lawsuit where Labor Code section 2810 has been enforced--making it unlawful to subcontract janitorial or other services without providing enough funding to allow the subcontractor to comply with California laws and regulations. Employees who experience violations of this California labor code are entitled to receive damages.

In 2004, Labor Code section 2810 became law, in an effort to address specific problems low wage workers were experiencing in the employment areas of construction, janitorial services, security, farm labor, and garment industries--where violations of wage and hour laws are more prevalent, and exploitation of low wage workers is often due to language barrier and immigrant status.

Continue reading "California Labor Commissioner Enforces Labor Code 2810 in Landmark Janitorial Settlement " »

Bookmark and Share
January 12, 2010

Labor Violation in Los Angeles and the Role of Public Policy Development

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" »

Bookmark and Share
January 11, 2010

New Study Reveals More Abuse of Low-wage Workers in Los Angeles

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" »

December 17, 2009

California Managers Sue AT&T for Withholding Overtime Pay

In recent California employment law news, telecommunications giant AT&T and its Pacific Bell Telephone Co., and BellSouth Telecommunications Co., are being sued by over 5,000 current and former workers for withholding up to $1 billion in overtime wages--forcing managers across the country to work overtime without compensation.

According to the two lawsuits, filed yesterday in San Francisco, California and Atlanta, Georgia, AT&T is being accused of violating the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as California state laws by engaging in the company-wide, unlawful treatment of employees, with a policy that wrongfully misclassifies thousands of low-level managers as being exempt from overtime wages.

Within the AT&T hierarchy, "first level" managers are reportedly the lowest in a seven-tier management classification structure, and they have minimal supervisory roles. According to one lawsuit, first level managers serve as low-level functionaries who are expected to communicate between company management and the field technicians, and engage in duties that are primarily clerical and non-managerial. The workers claim that they don't meet the federal standard for what is classified as an exempt manager--as they do not exercise discretion or independent judgment on important matters, and their job duties are not directly related to the management policies of the company or general business operations.

Reuters reports that prior to the AT&T takeover, BellSouth used to pay all of the first level managers overtime--a policy that changed in 2007. In the past few years, many these first level workers have been expected to work more than a regular 40-hour work week without overtime pay--some reported to working up to 100 hours or more. The plaintiffs are pursuing class-action status on behalf of the over 5,000 current and former level one managers.

Continue reading "California Managers Sue AT&T for Withholding Overtime Pay" »

Bookmark and Share
November 24, 2009

Spelling Settles California Wage Violation and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

As Southern California Employment Attorneys, we have been following the recent Los Angeles, California lawsuit settlement between Candy Spelling, widow of television tycoon Aaron Spelling, and her ex-maid--who accused Spelling of wrongful termination, for being overworked and underpaid.

The lawsuit, filed by Lourdes Serrano in April of this year, alleged that Spelling, mother actress Tori Spelling, forced the employee to "clock out," so she would miss her paid 10-minute breaks that are required by California law. Serrano claimed that after coming forward with her complaint, she was fired for reporting the California wage and overtime violation.

According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, (DIR) permit nonexempt employees must take a rest period in the middle of each work period. Based on the total hours worked daily, the rest period must at least constitute ten consecutive minutes for each four-hour period worked.

As the rest period is counted as "time worked," the employer is required by law to pay for these periods. Because workers are paid for their rest periods, they can be required to physically stay within the employer's workplace during the breaks.

The Los Angeles, California employment lawsuit was settled last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the settlement terms are reportedly confidential.

Continue reading "Spelling Settles California Wage Violation and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit " »

Bookmark and Share
November 12, 2009

Wal-Mart Will Pay Up to $85 Million in Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

Our California Employment and Labor Lawyers recently read a report that Wal-mart, the largest retailer in the world, has agreed to settle a class action employment lawsuit and pay workers as much as $85 million. The settlement was approved last week and involves around 3.1 million hourly workers in 30 states--all suing for allegations of hour and wage claims violations.

Wal-mart workers alleged in the wage and hour lawsuit that the retail chain unlawfully prevented them from taking breaks, failed to compensate them overtime, and altered their time cards. This settlement covers over 30 federal court lawsuits brought by workers and combined for the judge.

U.S. District Judge Philip Pro approved the final settlement last week in Las Vegas, and awarded one-third of the recovery in fees to the worker's lawyers, which would be around $28 million depending on the total claims made.

Anyone who ever worked for Wal-mart was urged to fill out a claim form, and those who filed a long claim form are reported to possibly receive anywhere from $50 to 1,000 based on their length of employment and work experience answers.

Under the agreement, Pro stated that Wal-mart will strive to keep accurate records, to ensure that hourly employees are compensated for every hour of employment.

Continue reading "Wal-Mart Will Pay Up to $85 Million in Class Action Lawsuit Settlement" »

Bookmark and Share
October 26, 2009

Age Discrimination in Hiring Practices-- EEOC Sues Ruby Tuesday

As California Labor and Employment Lawyers, we have been following the The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) recent class action lawsuit against the Maryland-based restaurant chain Ruby Tuesday--for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, (ADEA) in the restaurant's hiring practices.

The EEOC, who enforces the federal laws prohibiting age discrimination, filed the employment lawsuit on behalf of job applicants who were 40 years and older, who allege that since January of 2005, Ruby Tuesday refused to hire them for many job positions as hosts/hostesses, wait-staff, bartenders, cooks, and dishwashers because of their age. The suit also claims that the restaurant managers were "directly or implicitly" instructed not to hire job applicants that were over the age of 40.

The suit was filed in Pennsylvania federal court, after failing to reach a voluntary settlement with the restaurant chain, and names Ruby Tuesday restaurant locations from across Pennsylvania, Indiana and Ohio. The suit also accuses Ruby Tuesday of neglecting to preserve employment records as well as employment applications for hiring-- as required by EEOC and ADEA regulations.

The EEOC is seeking to recover lost wages and liquidated damages for applicants who were refused work because of age discrimination. The lawsuit also asks that Ruby Tuesday prevent future workplace discrimination by implementing new policies, procedures, and training to staff.

Debra Lawrence, Acting Regional Attorney for the EEOC said that it is clear from this case that some companies still hire employees unlawfully based on factors such as age, rather than ability and years of proven experience.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination in Hiring Practices-- EEOC Sues Ruby Tuesday" »

Bookmark and Share
October 19, 2009

California Live-In Domestic Worker Fights for Rights and Wins Settlement

In recent California employment news, our Anaheim-based Labor and Employment Lawyers have been following the case of Vilma Serralta, a 71-year old California live-in housekeeper and nanny who recently filed a wage and hour lawsuit against her employers after enduring extensive state and federal wage law violations and exploitation in the workplace.

In the lawsuit, Serralta alleged that while working for Sakhawat Khan and his wife Roomy over the course of four years, she was paid between $1,000 to $1,300 a month--working 14-hour days, with no mandatory breaks, overtime, vacation or holiday time. She lived in the house with the family, and typically worked six days a week, regularly experiencing verbal abuse and a work environment that was hostile. During her employment with the Khans, they failed to keep any records of Serralta's working hours.

Originally from El Salvador, Serralta has limited English skills, and had no understanding of her rights to receive minimum wage and overtime wages until she was fired abruptly in September of 2006. While looking for new work at the San Mateo County Family Services, she was introduced to the legal services of La Raza Centro Legal, Inc. and the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC)--who took her employment complaint seriously, filing a lawsuit against the Khans in U.S. District Court for the violation of state and federal worker protection laws.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that domestic workers in California are some of the most vulnerable, with frequent complaints of California employment wage law violations. In the state of California, live-in domestics are rightfully entitled to receive a minimum wage hourly rate of $8, overtime pay after a nine-hour work shift, and after a five-day work week. These rights are hard to enforce, as homes are often isolated with no other workers or witnesses. Serralta fell into this category, as she had few witnesses to corroborate her employment claim, and limited documentation of the violations.

Serralta left El Salvador in 1977, and became a U.S. citizen in 1992. According to the suit, she worked around the clock in the nearly 10,000 square-foot home--cleaning, cooking, doing laundry, dusting and vacuuming, as well as caring for their small child. Serralta had worked for domestic employers many times before, but claimed that none of the jobs were as physically and mentally demanding as her four years with the Khans. According to Serralta she would occasionally sit down for a five or ten minute break, but Mr. Khan would observe her every move, making sure she was working.

The case took an unusual turn when the Khans, who denied ever violating state or federal wage labor laws, submitted a document from 2002 that appeared to have been signed by Serralta--limiting her eligible work hours and wage entitlement. The document was proven to be fraudulent, and the judge ordered that the jury translate this act as an indication that the Khans were guilty of the alleged violations.

Continue reading "California Live-In Domestic Worker Fights for Rights and Wins Settlement" »

Bookmark and Share
October 16, 2009

California Construction Workers to receive $242,301 in Overtime Settlement

Our Orange County, California Labor and Employment Attorneys, have been following the recent settlement between SelectBuild, a subsidiary of Building Materials Holding Corp. (BMHC), once the nation's largest residential construction contractor, and 85 residential construction workers from California, Arizona and Nevada.

The wage and hour lawsuit was settled in a federal lawsuit last month, in the amount of $242,301 in unpaid overtime wages, to be shared between the workers.

The workers' suit was supported by the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), and claimed that BMHC Corp., as well as its subsidiaries routinely failed to compensate workers for hours worked, overtime or rest breaks, and did not pay workers for travel time between job sites, and while they waited for the arrival of materials.

The company denied all charges, but agreed to settle in the suit. In June, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In a related blog post, our attorneys discussed the recent academic study surveying more than 4,000 low-wage workers in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. The study, "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers," exposed serious minimum wage and overtime compensation violations.

The study found that employees in residential construction and other industries, reflect a sizable population of employees who experience wage theft. The researchers also noted that the federal inspections enforcing overtime laws and minimum wage declined between 1980 and 2007, by almost one-third, while the work force in the country grew by more than half.

The study also reported that over a quarter of workers who worked more than forty hours weren't paid for the overtime during the previous week. Of these, seventy-six percent of workers were not compensated for the legally required rate by their employers. Over two-thirds of workers were forced to work through breaks.

Continue reading "California Construction Workers to receive $242,301 in Overtime Settlement" »

Bookmark and Share
October 12, 2009

California Wage and Hour Lawsuit Delayed--70 Jack in the Box Restaurants Go Bankrupt

Our Orange County, California Labor & Employment Lawyers have been following a recent California wage-and-hour case, in which a lawsuit filed by former Jack in the Box employee Patricia Morgan and thousands of her night-shift colleagues has been put on hold. The delay stems from the company's recent file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

After being fired from her California job in August 2008, Morgan filed a lawsuit against the fast food chain--seeking unpaid hourly and overtime wages, and compensation for being forced to work through unpaid breaks and meal periods.

Morgan's suit names Kobra Associates, run by Jack in the Box franchisee Abe Alizadeh, as well as his three other companies--Sierra Valley Restaurants Inc., Food Service Management Inc., and Central Valley Food Services Inc. Alizadeh filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions for all four companies last month, closing the doors to all of the 70 Jack in the Box restaurants that he ran in Northern California, stranding over 2,100 employees. The restaurants were then immediately reopened under bankruptcy protection from creditors, filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California.

According to Morgan and her colleagues, the violation of wage laws should be accounted for, as their rights were repeatedly compromised while employed with the company. She claims in the suit that they were required to work through meal breaks during the night shift, that they were unable to leave the location, and that they were consistently overloaded with work. This was allegedly part of the Jack and the Box culture, and as employees, they were scared to report the working conditions for fear of retaliation.

Morgan's lawyers certify the case as a class-action suit on behalf of nearly 5,300 employees who have worked the night shift at Jack in the Box franchise restaurants run by Alizadeh since December of 2004. They estimate a resolution that could amount to millions of dollars of unpaid wages. The firm recently won a similar class-action lawsuit against another California-owned Jack in the Box franchise that involved nearly 30,000 night-shift workers. They were awarded $8 million in resolution.

The Sacramento Bee reports that even if Morgan and her co-workers succeed in the wage-and-hour lawsuit suit against Jack in the Box, the prospect for recovery could be seriously diminished. Alizadeh reportedly owes over $1.5 million in back state taxes, with liens against the company from the state. Morgan and her co-workers would be among the last to be paid from any remaining assets in liquidation.

If you or someone you know in Orange County or throughout Southern California has an employment or labor issue dealing with wage and hour issues in the workplace, our Anaheim-based team of experienced attorneys and professionals can help. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-872-5925.

Jack in the Box Bankruptcies Put California Worker Lawsuit in Limbo, Sacramento Bee, September 23, 2009

Franchisee Tax Trouble Closes 70 Jack Outlets, Modesto Bee, September 19, 2009

Owner of 70 Jack in the Box Restaurants Seeks Bankruptcy Protection, The Mercury News, September 19, 2009

Related Web Resources:

EEOC

Bookmark and Share
September 22, 2009

California Wage and Hour Lawsuit--Labor Commissioner Sues FLM Law Center for $17.5 Million

In Orange County Superior Court last week, California Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet filed a wage and hour lawsuit against Federal Loan Modification Law Center, LLP (FLM Law Center) as well as other related individuals and affiliated entities. In the suit, Bradstreet accused FLM Law Center of failing to compensate employees for actual hours worked--violating Labor code law.

The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) investigated FLM Law Center after receiving multiple claims in May of this year reporting wage violations. According to Reuters, the information obtained in the investigation proved that FLM Law Center had full knowledge of the violations, yet continued to willfully and knowingly fail to pay employees on scheduled paydays as required by law.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid wage damages of over 1,000,000, as well as liquidated damages and penalties of more than $16.5 million dollars--for not paying employees minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to pay total wages at the end of an employee's term, and for not paying overtime.

FLM Law Center opened in 2008 and lists addresses in both Woodland Hills, and Irvine, California.

The mission of the DLSE is to enforce minimum labor standards and to ensure that employees are not forced or permitted to work under substandard or unlawful conditions. The DSLE investigates discrimination and public works complaints, adjudicates wage claims, and enforces state labor law and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.

Bradstreet has been the Labor Commissioner for the State of California since June 2007. She commented that FLM Law Center has committed blatant Labor Code violations by not paying their employees as required by law. "This lawsuit not only seeks restitution for their employees, but should also send a strong message to all employers that we won't stand for a company that cuts corners at the expense of their workers."

CA Labor Commissioner Files $17.5 Million Lawsuit Against FLM Law Center, Reuters, September 15, 2009


Related Web Resources:

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, California Department of Industrial Relations

Continue reading "California Wage and Hour Lawsuit--Labor Commissioner Sues FLM Law Center for $17.5 Million" »

Bookmark and Share
September 18, 2009

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Kobe Bryant by Orange County Housekeeper

In Orange County Superior Court yesterday, Judge Kirk Nakamura ruled that Maria Jimenez, former full-time housekeeper for California NBA basketball star Kobe Bryant and his wife Vanessa, can continue pursuing a wrongful termination claim against the famous couple--but not sue for emotional distress.

Jimenez, who worked full-time as a housekeeper at Bryant's Newport Coast home filed the suit in March of this year, claiming wrongful termination. She alleged that while employed by the Bryants from September 2007 to March 2008, she endured harassment, humiliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In the widely publicized suit, Jimenez contended that she was driven to quit after being reprimanded by Vanessa for washing an expensive blouse, and humiliated by being forced to dig through a bag of dog excrement to find the blouse receipt. Jimenez also claimed an invasion of privacy, from being video taped on the home surveillance cameras, and complained for not being provided with health insurance or overtime compensation.

Judge Nakamura pared down Jimenez's lawsuit in court yesterday, throwing out her claims of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. According to the Orange County Register, the judge ruled that suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress is 'superfluous' as Jimenez already seeks emotional distress damages under the wrongful termination argument. Nakamura also ruled that the Bryants' did not "violate any basic duty imposed by law on all employers," and that Jimenez cannot sue for invasion of privacy because she already had knowledge of the extensive surveillance cameras within the house throughout her employment.

Nakamura also ruled that Bryant and his wife can pursue their countersuit against Jimenez, for violating a confidentiality agreement by talking openly to the press about the celebrity couple. The trial date has been scheduled for April 12.

Judge in Kobe Bryant Case Throws out Part of Ex-maid's Suit, The Orange County Register, September 17, 2009

Judge: Maid's Suit Against Kobe Bryant Can Proceed, Associated Press, September 17, 2009

Judge Kirk Nakamura rulings, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, September 17, 2009

Kobe Bryant's Attorneys Seek to Dismiss Maid's Lawsuit, Wave Newspapers.com, August 22, 2009

Related Web Resources:

California Department of Industrial Relations

Continue reading "Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Kobe Bryant by Orange County Housekeeper" »

Bookmark and Share
September 17, 2009

Orange County Courts to Shut Doors Once a Month

In Southern California, and throughout Orange County, courthouse doors were closed yesterday as part of the State Judiciary's plan to close the courts once a month addressing the California state budget crisis. This week marks the start of the court closure--to be done the third Wednesday of every month.

Announced in July, the California Judicial Council decided that closing the largest court system in the country once a month would be among the best ways to address the Judiciary's budget cut of $414 million, that came from this year's $26 billion state budget crisis.

As California Employment Lawyers, we have been following the Judicial Council's decision carefully, as these closings could result in delays of trials and proceedings. According to the council's decision, legal matters will be rescheduled for newly assigned dates, and court closure dates will be classified as official court holidays, for the purpose of calculating state court deadlines. Case filing deadlines will also be pushed back for one day.

The Judicial Council is the constitutionally created body that administers California's court system. Created in the 1920's to make government more efficient, the Council's mission today is to promise the public consistent, impartial, and accessible state justice.

In an article in the Los Angeles Times earlier this week, California Chief Justice and Chairman of the State Judicial Council Ronald M. George commented that closing courthouses once a month can slow down the judicial system--with approximately 3 million case delays, 150 trial interruptions, and 250 child custody cases left unheard.

To George, closing California courthouses represents yet another tragedy in the state's economic crisis. George stated that the mission of the Judicial Council is to protect access to justice for the people, so it was a difficult decision to make. George claims that although the decision was taken with great reluctance, court closure was the only rational option in helping to avoid massive layoffs, protect experienced court employees, maintain consistency of court services for the lawyers and public, and preserve "equal access to justice."

According to the Judicial Council, closures are expected to total about $94 million in savings. Legal closures will affect each of the California Superior Courts in 58 counties, as well as the California Supreme Court, and the six regional appeals courts. These courts will be closed once a month for the next ten months until the end of the fiscal year in June 2010. This is the first closure of court access in California's history.

California Courts To Close Once A Month, KSWT.com, September 15, 2009

Monthly Court Closures Start Wednesday, The Desert Sun, September 15, 2009

Full Text of Chief Justice George's State of the Judiciary Address, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, September 14, 2009

Judge Speaks Out on Budget Related Court Closures, SFAppeal.com, September 14, 2009

In California, Justice Takes a Day Off, Los Angeles Times, September 14, 2009

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Decries Forced Court Closures, SDNN.com, September 13, 2009

CA Courts Have First Budget Related Closure This Wednesday, The Alley.com, September 13, 2009


Related Web Articles:

California Supreme Court Justice: Ronald M. George

Bookmark and Share
September 8, 2009

Financial Discrimination for Low-wage Workers in Los Angeles

Low-wage workers in Los Angeles, California are routinely paid less than minimum wage, denied overtime compensation and access to workman's compensation, a recent study revealed. The survey uncovered systematic violations of employment and labor laws in low-wage industries throughout Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

The study, "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers," was released last week and surveyed over 4,000 low-wages workers in 2008, exposing serious financial discrimination as well as violations of the very rights most Americans take for granted--the right to receive minimum wage, overtime compensation, health and safety protection in the workplace, and the right to be treated fairly.

Funded by the Joyce, Haynes, Ford, and Russell Sage foundations, the mission of the survey was to obtain statistically accurate estimates of violations in low-wage industries often overlooked by standard surveys--reaching the "front-line" workers who cover a population of around 1.64 million workers, or fifteen percent of the workforce in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

The survey was based on interviews with 4,387 workers in a wide variety of low-wage industries including apparel manufacturing, private households, construction, food service, car washes, and childcare. Thirty-nine percent of the workers were illegal immigrants, thirty percent were U.S. born citizens, and thirty-one percent were legal immigrants.

According to the surprising results, sixty-eight percent of workers experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous workweek. The average worker in a low-wage industry, who earns $339 per week, is reportedly robbed of $51 each week by employers committing wage violations. Assuming a full-time, full-year work schedule, the low-wage worker estimates a loss of $2,634 a year--a theft of wages equaling fifteen percent.

Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis discussed the findings with the New York Times, stating that this disregard of federal labor standards was inexcusable--that these laws are, "designed to protect the neediest among us." Solis is staffing over 250 additional investigators to get to the bottom of the wage-and-hour issue. She claimed that the Department of Labor will not rest until employers follow the law, and each worker is compensated and treated fairly.

The report reveals a magnitude of wage violations--employers paying less than minimum wage, demanding off-the-clock-work, refusing payment for overtime hours, and persuading employees not to file for workman's compensation.

• In California, Illinois and New York, workers are required to receive documentation of their earnings used to verify the legality and accuracy of payment. The study found that fifty-seven percent of workers had not received mandatory pay documents.

• Only eight percent of workers who were seriously injured in the workplace filed for compensation to receive medical treatment. One-third of the injured paid for the healthcare bills themselves to avoid getting fired, whereas twenty-three percent used insurance.

• Over a quarter of workers who worked more than forty hours weren't compensated for the time during the previous week. Of these, seventy-six percent of workers were not paid the legally required rate by their employers. Over two-thirds of workers were forced to work through their legally entitled lunch breaks.

• Twelve percent of workers who received tips, claimed that employers or supervisors had stolen their tips, which is illegal.

• Only one in five workers reported complaints to employers last year, and of these, forty-three percent experienced one or more forms of illegal retaliation as a result--firing, suspension, or threats to call immigration. Another twenty percent of workers who experienced dangerous working conditions or wage violations reported that they did not issue complaints out of fear of losing their job.

• Women were much more likely, according to the report, to endure a minimum wage violation than men, with female illegal immigrants at the highest rate. African-American workers born in the United States had a violation rate that tripled that of whites.

Annette Bernhart, an author of the study and policy co-director of the National Employment Law Project estimated on NPR that in a given week, around 1.1 million workers in the three major cities experience at least one violation with payment. That estimates nearly $56 million of lost wages in one week. This income is lost--money stolen from families, communities, and government. "This problem is not going away," Bernhard said, "if anything, we think it's just going to escalate"

The authors of the study advise that the best solution for preventing workplace violation is to educate workers about workplace rights, to make sure the workers have access to legal resources, to improve government monitoring of the workplace, and encourage workers not to have fear over employer retaliation--a sound plan for legal immigrants and U.S. residents, however difficult for illegal immigrants. The authors stated that any policy initiative aimed to reform workplace violations must also place national immigration reform at the top of the list, ensuring equal protection with the enforcement of employment and labor laws.

This study was published by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California at Los Angeles, the National Employment Law Project, and the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says, New York Times, September 1, 2009

Solis Pledges Employment Law Crackdown, ForexTV.com, September 2, 3009

How the Lowest Paid Workers Get Ripped Off, U.S. News and World Report, September 3, 2009

Low-Wage Workers Suffer Financial Discrimination, NPR, September 3, 2009

Working Without Laws, The Nation/NPR, September 8, 2009

Related Web Resources:

U.S. Department of Labor

OSHA

Continue reading "Financial Discrimination for Low-wage Workers in Los Angeles" »

Bookmark and Share
September 4, 2009

Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against AT&T

An age discrimination lawsuit has been filed recently against AT&T, Inc., by The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The suit accuses the telecommunications company of discriminating against AT&T employees who took voluntary severance and retirement packages by denying the possibility of reemployment.

According to the EEOC press release, John Yates and a class of other retired AT&T workers who took early retirement plans, are being denied the opportunity to reapply for employment-- violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The lawsuit, filed by Yates and the EEOC in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claimed that the AT&T workers are being denied the opportunity for reemployment because of participating in the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP), the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program (ERP) or other forms of retirement plans.

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 protects individuals from age-based discrimination who are forty years of age or older. For employers with twenty or more employees, including state and local governments, the ADEA prohibits employers from using age as a basis for hiring, firing, promoting or compensating.

In the state of California, age discrimination is a violation of the state's Labor law. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also protects workers over the age of forty from age discrimination by making it illegal to use age as a basis to make decisions on hiring, firing, pay, and promotion.

The EEOC stated that the organization is focused on reevaluating age discrimination, and enforcing the ADEA. All employees should be allowed to compete for job opportunity equally regardless of age, and the EEOC commits to taking action when the ADEA has been violated. The New York Times reported that the AT&T early retirement programs have affected more than 50,000 people, though it is not yet known how many of these employees have been discriminated against. The EEOC is asking the court to pay unpaid wages to the employees who have experienced age discrimination.

AT&T is based in Dallas, and operates as the world's largest telecommunications company.

U.S. Lawsuit Accuses AT&T of Age Bias, New York Times/AP, August 20, 2009

EEOC Files Age Discrimination Suit Against Telecommunications Giant AT&T, EEOC Press Release, August 20, 2009

EEOC Sues AT&T, Alleging Age Discrimination, Washington Post, August 21, 2009

Federal suit charges AT&T with Age Bias, Phoenix Business Journal, August 25, 2009


Related Web Resources:


The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)

California Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC)

The Age Discrimination Act of 1967, EEOC.gov

EEOC

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against AT&T" »

Bookmark and Share