Los Angeles Top Attorneys Blog: (310) 826-6300 » Discrimination

President Obama Racial Discrimination in Employment Cases Still High

Los Angeles Lawyer — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:57:53 +0000

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King, Jr., the well-known leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement, has been immortalized as President Barrack Obama inaugurated the civil rights leader’s granite memorial statue Sunday at the West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C.

King is widely recognized as one of the prominent figures of initiatives to end racial segregation and racial discrimination in the United States in 1960s. His efforts were realized when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted.

Although King’s influence is being felt so much in today’s society, still many employers commit racial discrimination in the workplace. According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in 2010 alone, the agency has received nearly 35,890 racial discrimination complaints nationwide.

Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees and/or applicants based on their race or color. In California, Title VII is supported by a state law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), in eliminating racial discrimination practices in the workplace. However, despite implementations of the said laws, discrimination is still prevalent in the workplace around the country.

California employers who will be proven to have violated the Title VII or FEHA, may face legal charges or may be penalized and be asked to compensate the employee for back pay, and economic and non-economic damages.

For more information about racial discrimination in the workplace, you may consult with a Los Angeles employment attorney. Your lawyer will guide you throughout the litigation process. You may dial our toll free number at 1-866-772-2889, or email us at info@mesriani.com for free case analysis.

Disability Discrimination, Retaliation and other Employment Claims

Los Angeles Lawyer — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 04:42:46 +0000

Disability is often determined on a case to case basis. Based on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition, to be considered disabled, one must be substantially limited by his condition or disability and because of this, the employee cannot work or unable to perform his duties in a broad range of jobs. However, a disability that only affects an employee’s ability to perform a few specific jobs is not covered by the ADA definition.

Therefore, an employee cannot be presumed disabled unless his condition is evaluated and certified by a doctor. Similarly, it is illegal for an employer to simply say that an employee is disabled based on certain assumptions or allegations.

Just as the case of a Milwaukee-based metal manufacturing company who reportedly fired a female employee who was suffering from migraine headaches after she incurred two consecutive days of absence. The employee confirmed she had migraines but the company regarded it as seizure.

The EEOC filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against the company, including retaliation charges for unlawfully dismissing the employee. The agency said the termination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects employees from discrimination based on real or perceived disabilities.

A worker who experiences discrimination and harassment in the workplace has to go though a several traumatic experiences while at work. He may be subjected to unfair treatment, derogatory remarks and physical and verbal abuse, among others.

To get yourself

If you are a victim of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, you can consult with our skilled Los Angeles employment and labor law attorneys. Call us 1-866-325-4529 or email us at info@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Derogatory Remarks as a Form of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

Los Angeles Lawyer — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:51:10 +0000

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), may include the following acts:

• unwelcome sexual advances
• requests for sexual favors
• other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature

All these acts “ constitute sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.”

Can derogatory and offensive sexual remarks be counted as an act of sexual harassment?
Definitely – as it falls under the category of verbal and physical conduct of sexual nature based on the EEOC definition.

Similarly, this is what occurred when DynCorp International, a private military contractor and aircraft maintenance company, was sued after it allegedly subjected to a male employee to a hostile work environment based on his sex, and by transferring him after he complained.

According to the lawsuit, the harassment included daily derogatory sex-based comments with accusations that the employee is gay and engaging in homosexual acts despite knowing that the employee is married and is not gay.
When the worker complained about this unwelcome and offensive conduct, he was transferred to another site.
The worker therefore filed a lawsuit through the EEOC.

If you believe you are a victim of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, consult with our experienced Los Angeles employment and labor law attorneys. Call our toll free number at 1-866-772-2889 or email us at info@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

New Methods to Detect Employment Discrimination

Los Angeles Lawyer — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:58:59 +0000

Can erring employers escape prosecution for their discriminatory policies? Not anymore.

The announcement by the US Department of Labor on its plan to develop a new data that will be used to analyzed information regarding salaries, wages and other benefits received by employees of federal contractors and subcontractors is welcome news to everyone.

The agency said the new tool will help them gather data to detect discrepancies which are often indicators of discrimination such as disparity in pay faced by female and minority workers.

According to the statement, the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program will take charge of enforcing the law as mandated by Executive Order 11246, which prohibits companies that do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment practices including compensation, on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin or religion.

If this is not enough to deter some employers for allowing this, there is the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination.
Bureau of Labor statistics report that women were only paid an average of 77 cents for every dollar paid to men in 2010. In addition to this gender gap, race and ethnicity-based pay gaps are also prevalent, which affects workers of color including men.

To bring a claim under the EPA, the employee must only show the following:

• A man and a woman
• Working at the same place
• Doing substantially the same job (equal work) but receiving unequal pay

If you are a victim of pay discrimination in the workplace, you can consult with our experienced Los Angeles employment law attorneys. Call us 1-866-772-2889 or email us at info@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Identifying Signs of Sexual Harassment: 6 Facts

Los Angeles Lawyer — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 03:53:52 +0000

When does an act or gesture become an act of harassment? What constitutes sexual harassment?

Among the countless cases of sexual harassment cases in the workplace, one was recently brought by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against a Michigan-based employer and Burger King Franchise owner for sexual harassment and retaliation.

According to the federal lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, TSW Management, Inc. had violated Title VII when it subjected a group of female employees, including minors, to sexual harassment and retaliation.

Based on the record, one of TSW’s managers harassed the employees which acts included “lewd comments, unwanted touching and proposals for sexual relations”. It was further worsened when the manager retaliated against those who complained by reducing their work hours or altering their paychecks. One of the employees was even terminated from work for insubordination.

There are several ways on how employers can prevent sexual harassment acts in the workplace and avoid the escalation of issues from becoming a full-blown lawsuit.

One way is to identify some signs or facts that could lead to potential sexual harassment suit.
Here are the six facts on sexual harassment in the workplace:

• The Victim and the harasser. Both victim and harasser in a sexual harassment case can be a man or woman, although the victim does not have to be of the opposite sex
• The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a colleague or co-worker or a non-employee
• The victim does not have to be person being harassed, but anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
• It may occur even without economic injury or even without the victim being discharged from his/her job
• To be considered sexual harassment, the harasser’s conduct must be unwelcome
• Sexual harassment acts may include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, physical or verbal conduct of sexual nature that may affect an individual’s employment, interfere with work or performance, and create hostile or intimidating work environment.

Victims of sexual harassment or other employment disputes can consult with our experienced Los Angeles employment attorneys. Call us at 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Billion-Dollar Discrimination Suit against Wal-Mart Comes to a Halt

Los Angeles Lawyer — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 02:28:06 +0000

The Supreme Court ruled out the class action lawsuit filed by over 1.5 million former employees of Wal-Mart in the biggest discrimination suit of the decade.

The sex discrimination suit, which potentially amounts to billions of dollars in damages, was filed by female employees who worked in Wal-Mart’s 3,400 stores across the United States from 1998. Plaintiffs complained that the company has been discriminating against female workers.

Some instances that are considered gender discrimination include unequal pay between male and female employees and the lack of promotions for women.

While the Supreme Court has not made a decision whether Wal-Mart has indeed taken discriminatory actions against its female workers, it would not allow the plaintiffs to file a class-action suit against the company.

According to the SC, class action lawsuits are only allowed if the company or employer has made a policy or taken an action that is considered discrimination. However, in this case, there are thousands of managers and supervisors who are in-charge of Wal-Mart’s individual stores. Hence, SC suggests that the complainants file individual gender discrimination suits against Wal-Mart or their store managers.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act (EPA), all employees should receive fair benefits, privileges, and compensation based on their positions and skills. If you were subject under similar circumstances by your boss, seek legal assistance right away.

Searching for an experienced Los Angeles employment attorney is crucial in case you want to take legal action against the responsible party. If so, just call our toll free number at 1-866-772-2889 or email us at info@mesriani.com. Our skilled litigators and legal representatives will help you fight for your employee rights and pursue your supervisor, manager, or employer.

EMPLOYMENT LAW: The Effect of Arizona Law on Discrimination Issues

Los Angeles Lawyer — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 05:46:28 +0000

The US Supreme Court has recently voted 5-3 (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting) which upheld an Arizona law that penalizes employers who “unknowingly” hires unauthorized foreign workers.

According to the High Court, the federal immigration law “does not pre-empt the Arizona statute”, specifically the Legal Arizona Workers Act which says that “the state can revoke the licenses of businesses that intentionally hire illegal aliens”. In addition to this, the Court also upheld the provision requiring companies to use the federal E-Verify system to check the immigration status of job applicants.

How will this affect workers and employees?

According to workers’ rights groups, the Arizona law encourages ethnic stereotyping and discrimination in the workplace, which will result in rejection for a job applicant so that an employer can avoid state sanctions or out of fear that he may be hiring an illegal worker. Or will this result into further stereotyping of workers who are suspected to be working illegally?

Businesses under the Chamber of Commerce said companies that hire in different states may have difficulty with hiring workers because of state regulations.

The Supreme Court however assured the parties involved that the federal immigration law continues to provide regulation on the issue and does not give the states a blanket authority with regard to illegal aliens.

Both state and federal anti-discrimination laws apply in discrimination issues that any worker or employee may encounter, regardless of whether he is an illegal or a legitimate member of any workforce.

If you believed you have been discriminated in the workplace due to your race, national origin or ethnicity, you can consult with our experienced California employment law attorneys. You may dial our toll free number at 1-866-772-2889, or email us at eas@mesriani.com for free case analysis.

EMPLOYMENT LAW: The Effect of Arizona Law on Discrimination Issues

Los Angeles Lawyer — Tue, 31 May 2011 18:30:31 +0000

The US Supreme Court has recently voted 5-3 (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting) which upheld an Arizona law that penalizes employers who “unknowingly” hires unauthorized foreign workers.

How will this affect workers and employees?

Businesses under the Chamber of Commerce said companies that hire in different states may have difficulty with hiring workers because of state regulations.

If you believed you have been discriminated in the workplace due to your race, national origin or ethnicity, you can consult with our experienced California employment law attorneys. Call us at 310-826-6300 to avail of our free case evaluation.

Fisher Nut Company to Pay $150,000 in Retaliation Lawsuit Settlement

Los Angeles Lawyer — Thu, 12 May 2011 03:07:18 +0000

When an employer or a supervisor wants to retaliate, there’s nothing that’s going to hold them back and keep them from making trumped up charges or irrational warnings, like in the case filed against Fisher Nut Company for retaliation where one employee was even reprimanded for “laughing during the course of the work day”.

A retaliation lawsuit was against the California-based almond-processing company by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after it discovered that a group of Latina employees were subjected to unfavorable actions and retaliation because they participated in an informal meeting.

The EEOC found that several Latinas from the group were subjected to verbal threats and irrational warnings by their immediate supervisors. Most of the workers were also transferred to other jobs – they were given entry-level almond-sorting work, which is regarded as the least desirable position at the plant. Further, all of the women are fired in the span of 2 months after the informal meeting.

According to the EEOC, it is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to retaliate against an employee for reporting or complaining about employment discrimination. The case was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California but the company agreed to enter a consent decree settlement.

Under the settlement, while the company does not admit any liability for retaliation, it has agreed to pay $150,000 to the women. Further, that Fisher Nut has undertaken in the settlement to train its managers and supervisors on anti-discrimination laws and to inform and enforce its anti-discrimination policy to all employees.

EEOC’s San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado says this to employers, “Punishing an employee who participates in an EEOC charge will only multiple your problems.”

Aside from retaliating against an employee who participates in an EEOC charge, the following are also considered as retaliation and prohibited under the law:

• Retaliation for whistle-blowing
• Retaliation for taking leave under Family and Medical Leave Act
• Retaliation for exercising union rights
• Retaliation for taking time off for military service
• Retaliation for taking time off to vote in elections or serve jury duty
• Retaliation for exercising employee rights under the law (i.e. asking for reasonable accommodation for disability or religion)

For more questions about retaliation, go to the website of the Mesriani Law Group at http://www.mesrianilaw.com.

Department Store Chain Sued by EEOC for Retaliation and Discrimination

Los Angeles Lawyer — Tue, 03 May 2011 03:16:34 +0000

A major department store chain in Houston is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for retaliation after it fired an employee who complained about discrimination for alleged “excessive absenteeism”.

Dillard’s store in Port Arthur’s Central Mall employed Shontel Mayfield as the business manager of Estee Lauder’s counter. According to the lawsuit, when Mayfield complied with Jefferson County’s mandatory evacuation order because of Hurricane Ike, she was told when she returned to work on September 24 that her employment is being terminated because of her absences. She was accused of failing to maintain verbal communication to explain her absences to either the store manager or operations manager.

However, telephone records show that Mayfield called Dillard’s disaster recovery number several times during the evacuation period. Further, records also show that she placed several calls to the store manager and operations manager’s cellular phones.

Mayfield claims that the termination of her employment was motivated by a prior discrimination complaint in which she alleged that the management discriminated against her because of her race.

The EEOC said that it is every company’s duty to respond to discrimination complaints and not find excuses to fire productive employees who make such complaints in good faith. The agency is seeking back pay, as well as punitive and compensatory damages in behalf of Mayfield. A permanent injunction prohibiting Dillard’s from retaliation is also being sought by the EEOC.

Retaliation is any adverse employment action or decision committed against an employee because he or she complained about harassment or discrimination, is considered a “whistleblower”, or exercised his/her rights under the law. Retaliation is actually prohibited under several Federal and state laws but under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers cannot retaliate against employees who complain about racial discrimination or other employment discrimination based on color, religion, sex or national origin.

If you or a loved one is experiencing retaliation at work, you should get in touch with an employment attorney. For a free case analysis or for any concerns or questions about discrimination and retaliation, visit the Mesriani Law Group’s website http://www.mesrianilaw.com or call them at their toll free number at 1-866-325-4529 or email them at info@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.