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

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.

California Labor Law on Workplace Safety Violations

Los Angeles Lawyer — Sat, 21 May 2011 05:35:00 +0000

How far can an employer continue with its operation despite workplace safety violations before he gets fined?

The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration could have answered this better as it had recently slapped a California construction contractor with over $235, 000 for willful violations of workplace safety rules.

According to the statement released by the state Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), the company was fined after it was found to have defied an earlier order prohibiting use (OPU) issued by the agency and continued to operate on at least 11 occasions despite the stop work order.

Was the fine a consequence of an investigation or a whistle-blowing act? Unfortunately, it was not.

The company was fined only after a tragic accident occurred in the Montebello workplace last year that resulted in severe burns to a worker. Only then did authorities took notice of the violations and penalized the company for its wrongdoing.

This resulted in the issuance of citation, classifying the violations as willful, and which eventually led to the payment of fines.

Under a California law (AB 2774) passed earlier this year, citations and proposed penalties to erring employers are issued when there is “rebuttable presumption that a serious violation exists or when there is realistic possibility that death or serious physical harm could result” as created by the violation.

This law has also defined serious physical harm when an injury results in the following:

• Inpatient hospitalization for purposes other than medical observation
• Loss of any part of body
• Serious degree of permanent disfigurement
• Impairment

This law also establishes the procedure before issuing a citation when a violation is made.

To help you address safety violations and other issues in the workplace, consult with experienced California employment and labor attorneys of Mesriani Law Group. For more information on workplace safety violations, dial our toll free number at 1-866-772-2889, or email us at info@mesriani.com for free case analysis.

Former Manager Sues Southern California Edison for Retaliation

Los Angeles Lawyer — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:39:39 +0000

Under the law, it is illegal for employers to fire, demote, harass, or otherwise “retaliate” against employees or applicants for filing or participating in a discrimination complaint, exercising their rights (ex. asking for reasonable accommodation for a disability), or for engaging in a protected activity relating to workplace safety and health.

There are several laws that prohibit retaliation against these brave employees or applicants who are generally referred to as whistleblowers. Despite the presence of these laws, there are still employers who willfully and maliciously retaliate against whistleblowers.

Take for example, a recent lawsuit filed by the former manager of Southern California Edison, who claimed he was fired for reporting safety concerns at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspector.

According to the lawsuit of Paul Diaz, who was then a manager of the business accounting and project services, in early 2010, there have been several complaints about alleged safety violations at the plaint which prompted letter to the head of the plant, encouraging openness about the employee’s safety concerns and tips.

Diaz allegedly came forward and reported some of his safety concerns to his boss but was ordered to stay quiet. But he later on forwarded his concerns to the NRC inspector and allegedly, a few weeks after his complaint, he was fired by the company.

The fired employee is now suing San Onofre for retaliation, wrongful termination, emotional distress, defamation, and even discrimination.

An employer is deemed to have “retaliated” if the motivating factor in the decision to take an adverse action against a covered individual is because the employee engaged in a protected activity. Thus, even if some complaints are later on considered unfounded, any negative action in employment (ex. reduction of pay, hours, benefits, or firing) is still considered as unlawful retaliation.

For more questions about protected activities and employment retaliation, you may seek the advice of expert Los Angeles employment lawyers from the Mesriani Law Group at (310) 826-6300 or send them an email at info@mesriani.com.

Charlie Sheen Files $100 Million Wrongful Termination Case Against Warner Bros.

Los Angeles Lawyer — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:24:47 +0000

Charlie Sheen is obviously a very troubled celebrity – with a reputation for drugs and alcohol abuse as well as domestic violence allegations – but it didn’t keep him from being television’s highest paid actor for his hit TV show, Two and a Half Men. Or at least it didn’t, until he was recently fired by CBS and Warner Brothers from his role.

Sheen, who’s earning $1.8 million per episode, has filed a $100 million lawsuit against Warner Bros. and the show’s creator/producer Chuck Lorre for wrongful termination. In his lawsuit, Sheen claims that he was terminated in violation of his contract and that he is seeking to recover unpaid wages as well as compensatory damages. In his complaint, he alleged that Lorre and Warner Bros. unilaterally decided not to pay him as well as the cast and crew for the remainder of the season. That further, Sheen not only sought to pursue payment for his compensation but as well as for the entire cast and crew who are supposed to be paid for 24 episodes.

Prior to being fired from the show, Sheen signed a 2-year contract to the sitcom on May 18, 2010, however, a series of incidents involving drugs and as well as rehabilitation has forced the show to go on hiatus. The last episodes of the show’s seasons were subsequently cancelled after Sheen made derogatory comments about Lorre and lashed out at the company – and he was then banned from entering Warner Bros. production lot. Was Sheen’s firing from the show, valid or void?

While most employment relationships are considered at-will, when the terms of the employment relationship is embodied in a contract, both the employer and the employee shall be legally bound to the terms of the contract – this includes the terms and conditions of employment such as the benefits, pay, and even the duration of employment. Thus, if an employee is fired contrary to the terms set in the contract, the employer may be held liable for wrongful termination.

Generally, most wrongful termination cases involve the payment of compensatory damages such as lost wages, back pay, and other expenses related to the employee’s illegal dismissal. However, there are instances when punitive damages may be given. Punitive damages are usually awarded to punish the employer for the alleged employment violation however, this is only awarded if the employer willfully and maliciously committed the illegal action.

Take note that aside from wrongful termination based on breach of contract, there are many other grounds for a valid wrongful termination lawsuit. Others grounds include discrimination, retaliation, and even violation of public policy and covenant of good faith and fair dealing. For more questions on wrongful termination, seek the advice of an employment law attorney.

Oprah Winfrey’s OWN Network Sued for Wrongful Termination and Discrimination

Los Angeles Lawyer — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:22:42 +0000

The Queen of Talk, Oprah Winfrey who incidentally also has a reputation for being a philanthropist, is being sued by a former employee who allegedly suffered in a “hostile work environment” and was wrongfully terminated.

Catherine Dunn, who has been working as an assistant in Oprah’s OWN Network since August 2008, claimed that her Multiple Sclerosis was aggravated because of the stress she experienced at work.

Allegedly, when she was forced to take a leave of absence because of stress, she came back to find out that her position has been given to a younger and non-disabled employee.

Dunn is suing OWN for wrongful termination and discrimination and is asking for an unspecified amount of damages.

A hostile work environment is usually based on discrimination. This occurs when an employee’s work performance is affected because of derogatory or unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race, disability or other legally protected characteristics. Aside from the victim, other employees can also suffer from an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Further, if Dunn’s allegations about getting fired because of her medical condition were correct, Oprah is clearly in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under this federal law, qualified individuals with disabilities are protected from employment discrimination – whether in hiring, giving of pay and firing.

Occasionally, because of their disability, some employees would ask for reasonable accommodation or take certain leaves which may be necessary in their condition. The ADA also mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodation to known physical or mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability. However, if the accommodation would impose significant difficulty or expense on the part of the employer, such is not necessary.

Failure of the company or the employer to provide reasonable accommodation and to protect their disabled employee from discrimination, hostile work environment, and terminate a disabled employee is against the law. An aggrieved employee who was wrongfully terminated and/or discrimination may recover not just lost wages but also damages against the employee.

Foster Farms Sued for Wrongful Termination and Pregnancy Discrimination

Los Angeles Lawyer — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 03:57:05 +0000

In Livingston, Foster Farms is now being sued by a former employee for wrongful termination as the poultry company allegedly fired her for being pregnant.

The suit, which was filed by Sara Supple, alleged that she first went to the company’s HR department to inquire about pregnancy benefits. She was told to return but 2 or 3 hours afterwards, she was called back into HR and was immediately suspended over time card violations.

When Supple was called back to work, she was suddenly terminated based on the problem with her time cards. However, Supple’s lawyer alleged that his client never received any warnings or had any issue about her time cards prior to the time she asked for information on pregnancy benefits.

Under federal and state laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against and treat employees unfairly on the basis of their pregnancy. It is unlawful for employers with at least 15 workers to:

Refuse to hire a pregnant woman
Fire or force an employee to resign just because she is pregnant
Refuse to give accrued benefits or leaves
Retaliate against an individual for filing a pregnancy discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation

Take note that when companies refuse to offer sick leaves, this can be considered discriminatory especially against pregnant employees. Further, under the Family and Medical Leave Act, eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks off without pay to give birth, adopt, or to care for a sick child or family member.

Women have the right to keep their jobs as long as they are able to perform it. At the most, even if they get pregnant and would have to take time off work to give birth or care for a new child, they must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees who are disabled.

If you are pregnant and lost your job or benefits because of your condition, you may rightfully file a complaint against your company or former employer. There is however, a time limit as to filing a claim so get in touch with a gender discrimination attorney or a pregnancy discrimination lawyer to help prepare your case.

Actress Nicolette Sheridan Sues Desperate Housewife Creator for Wrongful Termination and Abuse

Los Angeles Lawyer — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:13:45 +0000

Blonde bombshell and Desperate Housewife Nicolette Sheridan has dropped a huge bomb of her own. The actress has recently filed a lawsuit against the creator of the show, Marc Cherry and is suing him for assault and battery, gender violence as well as wrongful termination.

Sheridan alleged that Cherry was abusive towards the people working on the show and created a hostile working environment. She claimed that on September 24, 2008, she was physically assaulted by Cherry when she asked him something about the script.

The lawsuit described the attack as Sheridan getting hit by Cherry with his hand across her face and head. Although Cherry allegedly went to Sheridan after to ask for forgiveness, the actress reported the incident to ABC but no action was taken and the abuse only continued.

Teri Hatcher also allegedly complained about him and Cherry also said bad things about the actress. Aside from the physical assault charges, Sheridan claims that her character in the show was killed off unfairly hence her wrongful termination charges.

Sheridan is asking for damages worth more than $29 million.

While physical assault and gender violence is easier to identify, wrongful termination on the other hand, can be misunderstood by a lot of people. It is important to remember that while termination can be unfair but it doesn’t necessarily mean it is unlawful.

Often people would automatically label getting fired unfairly as wrongful termination but that is not always the case. Losing your job will always seem unfair but there are certain legal grounds that should be complied with before it is qualified as wrongful termination.

Under the law, the following are the grounds which would constitute wrongful termination:

• Terminating employee on the basis of discrimination such as nationality, religion, age, disability, gender and other protected characteristic

• Termination of employment as a form of sexual harassment

• Breach of oral and written employment agreements

• Firing an employee in retaliation for the employee’s having filed a complaint or claim against the employer, or participated in an investigation

In case they said grounds are present and wrongful termination is later on proven by the complainant, the fired employee may be awarded damages including lost wages and punitive wages. Also, the employee may also request to be reinstated to her former position.

Billionaire Exculpated in Wrongful Termination Case

Los Angeles Lawyer — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:54:01 +0000

A wrongful termination case filed by a former aide against the co-founder of Broadcom Corporation billionaire Henry T. Nicholas III was recently dismissed by the Orange County Superior Court jury.

The suit, which was filed last February 2009, alleged the Katherine Nichols was fired from her job after she testified in a federal investigation involving Nicholas. She previously worked at The Management Co., which is partially owned by Nicholas from
June 2007 to June 2008. Subsequently, the charges against Nicholas for federal securities fraud and drug distribution were dropped.

The jury however, in a vote of nine to three, decided against Nichols’ wrongful termination claim. Neither will the ex-aide receive any damages for her lawsuit as the termination of her employment appeared not to be based on her involvement and testimony in the federal investigation but on her failure to show up for work for at least two months.

Oftentimes, when an employee is fired from his job, the employee would often feel that it’s unfair or that his rights have been abused. While bitterness is a natural reaction to termination, there are certain instances when an employee can be considered to be illegally dismissed.

An employee can rightfully file a wrongful termination claim against his employer if he was fired because of discrimination based on his/her sex, race, color, religion, and disability; in violation or breach of his employment contract; or in violation of public policy (i.e. availing of FMLA benefits).

While most employers would anchor their defenses on “at-will employment” thus terminating an employee can be done at will and for any reason, the above-mentioned reasons are illegal and would constitute wrongful termination.

Also, aside from discrimination, breach of contract, and violation of public policy, an employee can also be considered illegally dismissed if he/she was fired because of retaliation, in contravention of implied contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealings.

But just like Nichols’ case, wrongful termination can be difficult to prove and oftentimes, it’s the employee’s word against the employer. Thus, it is very important to hire an expert employment attorney to assess your claim and handle your case. They would be able to determine, through documents and interviews in preparing your case, whether or not your claim would prosper. Otherwise, if there was too little groundwork later on in a trial, your whole case can collapse because of any evidence that might defeat your claim.