California Employment Lawyer Blog

Rancho Cucamonga Employment Lawyers Discuss FMLA

Sun, 20 May 2012 04:39:18 -0800

Rancho Cucamonga employment lawyers know that for most people, work ethic is important.

Rancho Cucamonga employment litigation lawyers also know, however, that life circumstances sometimes get in the way of your ability to do your best. For example, if one of your parents requires kidney dialysis or maybe your child needs regular physical therapy.

If you find yourself consistently ducking out of work for these type of medical issues, you may want to consider taking some time to regroup.

Many people know that when a woman has a baby, she is entitled to three months of unpaid leave through the Family Medical Leave Act to care for her newborn. What they may not be aware of is that almost everyone is entitled under this federal law to take that leave, provided their circumstance falls under the guidelines.

Here are some of the other circumstances that also apply:

-An employee who has recently had a child placed with them through foster care or adoption.

-An employee whose child, parent or spouse has a serious health condition.

-An employee who has a serious health condition that renders them unable to complete the essential functions of his or her job.

-An employee whose spouse, child or parent is an active military member for whom certain conditions exist that require extra attention.

There is also a stipulation for 26 weeks of work leave for an employee whose spouse, parent or child is service member who is either ill or injured and requires additional care.

All of this time is allowed within a single one-year period. Employees can choose to take it all at once, or have it broken up over of the course of 12 months.

What is encouraging is that it appears more employees are becoming aware of this benefit. According to a Towers Watson survey, the improving economy resulted in more people feeling comfortable to take time away from their jobs to deal with personal matters.

However, it's important to note that just meeting this criteria is not enough. There are certain employment conditions you have to meet. Those include having worked at your company for more than a year and having put in at least 1,250 hours of time during that year.

Additionally, you must work for a company that has 50 or more employees.

It's also worth noting that while your health coverage will continue while you're on leave (although you will be responsible to continue paying for it), you probably won't continue to rack up your retirement benefits or vacation time.

You need to make sure before you take advantage of this leave that it is something you are able to afford. That means taking serious stock of your bank account. You can use your vacation time first, but you'll probably need to have several months' worth of savings stored up in your emergency fund.

If your relative may only need care here and there, you will probably want to take the leave sporadically, which you are entitled to do.

If it's you who is sick, you may want to instead use up all your own sick days and then ask about short-term disability.

Something else to keep in mind is that your employer can't fire you for taking the leave. If the agency tries to do so, you should contact Rancho Cucamonga employment litigation attorney Houman Fakhimi, as your employer may have acted in violation of federal employment law.

However, there are things you can do to mitigate the impact on your company. For example, while you are entitled to take the leave whenever it is necessary, if at all possible, try to take it on a basis that is consistent. For example, if it's at all possible, schedule your child's appointments at the same time and day every week. That will allow your co-workers and bosses to know what to expect.

Also, you'll probably want to be upfront with your co-workers, as well as your superiors, about the reason behind your leave. Some people don't like divulging personal information to those they work with, but this action will foster understanding among your peers and reduce any resentment that may arise from your repeated absences.

San Bernadino Employment Discrimination: Transgender People Included

Thu, 03 May 2012 06:04:34 -0800

San Bernadino employment discrimination has long been known to cover aspects such as national origin, religion and gender.

But what if the person alleging the discrimination is transgender? San Bernadino Employment Discrimination Attorney Houman Fakhimi is happy to report they are now explicitly included as well, thanks to a landmark civil rights case.

This may have seemed like a no-brainer, but until just this month, the rules, as laid out by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, weren't clear in this regard. That led to denial of a claim of California transgender discrimination brought about by a woman (previously a man) who was applying for a law enforcement ballistics position.

This decision is critical because it opens the doors for other transgender individuals who are so often misunderstood, and therefore frequently discriminated against.

This case involves a former police officer and soldier who had make the transition from male to female. She had previously worked as a police officer in Phoenix, AZ, and had applied for a law enforcement position at a ballistics laboratory run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Walnut Creek, near San Francisco.

She applied, and was hired, pending a background check. When she had first applied for the job, she did so as a man. In the meantime, however, she continued with her transition to female, and she notified the ATF of this change.

She and her wife even went so far as to move to the Bay Area. It was then she received a devastating blow: the job had been eliminated, due to budget cuts.

Except, it wasn't. In fact, it had actually been filled by someone else.

Then last year, she filed a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC. To her surprise, the EEOC - the agency charged with regulating fair practices in our nation's workforce - denied her complaint. In fact, the agency said, transgender people weren't qualified under the complaint procedures.

It seemed as if that might be the last stop, but her attorney kept pushing, which ultimately resulted in the EEOC doing an about-face.

A ruling was issued just this month that now specifically allows that the law to apply to transgender people. A spokeswoman for the federal agency wrote to an L.A Times reporter, saying that the change means that the agency will apply this change to all enforcement activities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That means San Bernadino employment discrimination is forbidden on the basis of color, religion, national origin, race and sex - regardless of whether a person's sex is transgender.

Although federal courts have reached similar conclusions in recent years, the standard wasn't uniform until the EEOC came out with this ruling. That gives employers a very clear idea of what's expected on their part in this regard.

This doesn't mean the plaintiff automatically wins. The facts of the case will be decided later. What it means is that she has been given a chance to present it.

Riverside Employment Lawyers Watch Overtime Case

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:50:10 -0800

More than ever, Riverside employment litigation cases are being filed against companies that try to skirt their overtime responsibilities, as spelled out by federal law.

Now, our Riverside employment law attorneys are keeping a watchful eye on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that deals with this very issue.

The case before the court is Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., and it's a class action suit that deals with whether salespeople fall under the category of individuals who are entitled to overtime pay, and whether the pharmaceutical company in this case violated the law by refusing to grant that pay.

It's expected a decision will be handed down sometime in June.

This case is important because it gets to the heart of an issue that's become quite contentious in our modern workforce. There have been some high-profile cases in recent memory - think Mario Batali, the celebrity chef who paid some $5.2 million in a settlement with his employees over unpaid overtime and tips. There was also a $99 million class action settlement that Norvartis, a Swiss drug maker, paid on the issue of unpaid overtime for its salespeople.

However, Riverside Trial Lawyer Houman Fakhimi knows the scope of the issue is even bigger than that.

The U.S. Department of Labor, which oversees complaints of unpaid overtime, have increased by nearly 40 percent in a single year. In 2010, there were more than 8,780 cases overtime complaints. Jump to the following year, when they spiked to nearly 12,000. The stakes were higher too - $107 million in 2010 compared to $140 million in 2011.

Those figures also don't include the increasing number of overtime lawsuits filed in federal court. It's estimated those increased by 15 percent last year and by a whopping 325 percent since the beginning of 2000.

So what's going on? Are employers really getting worse about paying their employees a fair wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act?

To some degree, yes. These are tough economic times, and companies are trying to cut corners in any way they can. That includes trying to find as many ways as possible to get around the law, which requires that employees be paid for the hours they work. Since the measure was passed in 1938, executives and companies have tried to argue that this act was detrimental to industry. Of course, it's not. They even go so far as to say that labor laws passed in 1938 have no bearing on the modern workplace of today. However, it really just comes down to the simple matter of fairly paying workers for the hours they put in.

At the heart of these increasing number of cases, though, is a greater awareness among workers. They are taking more time to learn what their rights are and what actions can be taken against those employers who try to take advantage of them.

California Lunch Break Issue Decided By High Court

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:07:56 -0800

In a case that could impact some current and future Santa Ana employment litigation suits, California's Supreme Court has ordered that employers don't have to make sure their workers take mandated lunch breaks.

Santa Ana Employment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi knows that for decades, state law has required employers to provide rest and meal breaks to workers. However, in 2001, California became one of the only states to hand down monetary penalties for companies that violate the meal and rest break laws. In fact, employers who break the law must pay affected employers one-hour's wages for every half-hour break that was missed.

Federal law, meanwhile, doesn't require a break.

What the lawsuit - Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego - questioned was whether employers have a responsibility to ensure that employees take those breaks that employers are required to give. The court said no, employers do not have to ensure that employees who are given meal breaks actually take them.

However, the court did decide that a class action suit regarding the proper issuance of rest breaks could move forward. Parts of the case have been sent back down to to the lower court.

This was a critical case with far-reaching implications. Many other cases were in limbo in waiting to see how this was decided.

The case was first filed nearly a decade ago against the Brinker Restaurant Corp., which owns Chili's and other chain restaurants. Workers had complained that they missed their mandated breaks because their bosses weren't ensuring they took them.

This became a particular issue in the restaurant business because employees who weren't ordered to take their breaks felt obligated to continue working. They said employers took advantage of workers who felt guilty leaving their co-workers during peak restaurant times - even if it was five hours into their shift, at which time they were required to be given a 30-minute meal break.

Despite the fact that the court ruled in favor of the employers, workers involved in the case were hopeful about pursuing the rest break issue, and hoped the entire ordeal would, at the least, spotlight working conditions for restaurant workers across the state.

A spokesman for the restaurant company was happy with the supreme court's decision, saying that workers should be given the flexibility to decide how they use their breaks. If they want to continue working through it, the spokesman said, they should be allowed.

However, an attorney for the plaintiffs said she will continue to fight in the lower court case in arguing that the company still violated state law with regard to breaks.

Attorneys who typically argue on behalf of employers were quoted as saying they expect this will reduce the number of employment litigation cases in Santa Ana and throughout the state.

Still, they may continue to be filed, particularly for workers in physically laborious work and in low-wage industries. That's because there are certain issues that may discourage them from requesting their breaks. What our Santa Ana employment litigation attorneys would have liked to have seen is a requirement for employers to take specific steps to ensure employees actually take their breaks - instead of simply saying that they declined them.

U.S. v. Nosal Would Have Set Dangerous Precedent For Orange County Employment Law

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:37:27 -0800

In U.S. v. Nosal, a federal appeals court in California has struck down an interpretation of computer hacking laws that would have made it illegal for you to Facebook at work - which ultimately no doubt would have led to a flood of Orange County employment litigation.

Orange County Employment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi is satisfied that the court has limited the scope of this federal law, as clearly this was not the intended purpose.

Here are the facts of the case:

A former employee of an executive search firm convinced some of his colleagues to join him in founding a competing business. The employees who still worked for the original firm used their company login passwords to squirrel away names, source lists, contact information and other confidential data. While the employees technically had legal access to the documents, the company had a policy in place that prohibited disclosing information that was confidential.

The former employee was arrested and charged with 20 federal counts of theft of trade secret, conspiracy, male fraud and other violations under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or U.S.C. 1030.

He, in turn, filed a motion for dismissal, saying that law was only applicable to computer hackers - not someone who had access to company files and misused them. At first, the district court rejected this claim, saying that when someone access that information with the intent to defraud, they could be found in violation.

But had this ruling held, it would have meant essentially that the courts were turning a violation of company policy into computer crimes - a big leap from the intent of the law.

This is where the Facebook issue comes into play. If you access your Facebook account on company time - even though it's a violation of company policy, you might rightly face some form of sanction from your employer. However, by no means should such an action be considered criminal.

This doesn't necessarily mean that what the former employee did was right - or that it was not a crime- but not under this statute.

The chief judge in his opinion noted that computers have become an integral part of our daily lives that are used for both work and play. In some instances, he noted, computers are used for play at work. To curb abuse of this during work hours, most companies have adopted some policy that forbids using work computers for non-work purposes. But does a worker who violates this policy also break federal law? Or, what about someone who violates the service terms of a social networking site, such as Facebook? Both of these questions would depend on how broadly the court would interpret the Computer Fraud Abuse Act.

And thankfully, the court has decided not to expand the scope of the law, which would have made criminal prosecutions for these actions a real possibility.

Burbank Retaliation Suit Victory Nets Former Officer $1.3 Million

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:02:08 -0800

A former deputy chief of police in a Burbank employment retaliation claim has been awarded almost $1.3 million after filing a civil lawsuit against the city in 2009.

The jury sided with his version of events: that he was fired for refusing to rubber stamp the termination of several minority officers, as well as raising concerns about how a sexual harassment incident was handled.

As this case illustrates, just because a person wasn't the direct target of sexual harassment doesn't mean they don't have a claim. There is what is known as a "hostile work environment," which can be created when someone makes lewd jokes or comments. No touching has to ever take place.

When some employees simply go along with this environment, they can be chastised, ridiculed or even retaliated against - as appears to be the case here.

Most employees conduct managerial training on these issues, so there really should be no confusion among upper-level staff about what sexual harassment is and the severe consequences for it. That means when it happens, it is a result of blatant disregard of the law.

This is especially troublesome when the agency involved is charged with upholding the law - in this case, the Burbank Police Department.

As Burbank Employment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands it, this is just one of a number of discrimination and sexual harassment claims working their way through the legal pipeline.

In this situation, the case arose following a robbery at a local bakery. Following that incident, there were multiple allegations of excessive force. That started the ball rolling with complaints of many other alleged wrongdoings within the department.

It came out that the deputy chief in this case had raised concerns about the handling of a sexual harassment case within the department. And what was more, he refused to sign off on the firing of several minority officers.

Amid the turmoil from these investigations, the chief said he was "restructuring" the department. This ultimately led to the deputy chief, as well as 10 other employees, being "let go," some of those with allegations of misconduct.

What the deputy chief needed to prove in this case was that he was pushed out in retaliation for his protection of minority officers and outspokenness with regard to sexual harassment within the agency.

The jury found that the internal investigation into the allegations of excessive force on the bakery robbery case were riddled with inaccuracies that appeared to protect the city. That cast doubt on the city's other claims that their intentions regarding the deputy chief's firing were entirely pure.

City witnesses said they did not know of the deputy chief's stance on the minority firings or the sexual harassment.

The jury decided otherwise. They awarded him $1.29 million for lost wages and another $250,000 for pain and suffering. He is also seeking to have his badge back so can honorably retire.

In the numerous other cases that are awaiting trial, the deputy chief may be called to testify. Having won this case, he now may be considered a more credible witness.

All employees - but especially those in the law enforcement field -have a responsibility to stand up for what is right. They must be protected against retaliatory acts when they do.

Torrance Sexual Harassment Settlement Indicates Larger Problem at University

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:17:59 -0800

In what appears to be a disturbing pattern at El Camino College, the university has agreed to a settlement in their second Torrance sexual harassment case.

Torrance sexual harassment attorney Houman Fakhimi is well-versed in California Civil Code 51.9, which outlines the state's sexual harassment laws. It covers a large range of professions and situations, and if your case meets the criteria, you may be entitled to compensation.

In this case, The Contra Costa Times reports that a 53-year-old administrative assistant at the college alleged that she endured sexual harassment for six years from the previous vice president, who also served as dean.

The harassment encompassed a range of behaviors, according to court records. Her boss, she said, stared at her chest, touched, kissed and groped her without her permission and even made demands for sex. The former vice president reportedly threatened to give her poor job evaluations or even fire her if she didn't have sex with him.

In the end, rather than take the case to court, the university settled with the administrative assistant for a sum of $750,000. Perhaps the decision had something to do with another case that had been filed little more than a year before this one.

In the previous case, another former administrative assistant was awarded a sum of $2.5 million for her sexual harassment suit - against the same official, who is now in his mid-70s. Her allegations included not only harassment, such offering her hundreds of dollars to have sex with him, but an actual sexual assault in which the elder administrator reportedly raped her in a locked office.

The administrator didn't deny he had a sexual relationship with the 34-year-old secretary, but says it was consensual.

Even one claim of sexual harassment is enough to tarnish any employer. Two would signal a serious problem. However, the allegations of sexual harassment at El Camino don't stop there.

In fact, the most recent settlement marks the fourth case of alleged sexual harassment lobbed at school administrators in a single year. The two other cases went to trial, with the college coming up on the winning side. Still, it seems indicative of a greater culture at the university that this type of behavior - some of which is outright criminal - was allowed to thrive. Multiple allegations of sexual harassment tend to bolster one another, and can lead to an employer who is eager to reach an outside settlement, rather than have the case drag on in court.

In both cases, the women say they were afraid to complain for fear they might lose their jobs. In fact, the aggressor in this case told at least one of the women that he was close with the union president, who would believe him over her if she ever mentioned a word of the harassment to anyone.

In the most-recently settled case, an internal university investigation cleared the dean of wrongdoing. But this just goes to show why you need an experienced Torrance sexual harassment attorney at every step of the way in these cases. Just because the employer dismisses wrongdoing doesn't mean nothing happened - and it doesn't mean you aren't entitled to compensation.

In both cases, the college paid about a third of the money, while insurance covered the rest, according to the newspaper.

"Desperate Housewife" Claims Wrongful Termination in Los Angeles

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:19:04 -0800

"Desperate Housewives" Actress Nicollette Sheridan knows how to carry out a good cliffhanger - though the scene isn't usually a drama played out in a real-life courtroom. At issue in this Los Angeles wrongful termination lawsuit. She is alleging her character, Edie Britt, was killed off in retaliation following a complaint she made about a writer who she said struck her on the head over an argument about the script.

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Lawyer Houman Fakhimi has come across many cases in which an employer retaliates against an employee for raising concerns or complaints about workplace safety. Some employers simply don't want to deal with the hassle. Rather than addressing the core safety issue, they find it easier to rid themselves of the employee, often for made-up or exaggerated reasons.

One recent case that comes to mind was an AirTran Airways pilot, who was fired after filing numerous complaints voicing alarm about mechanical malfunctions on the aircraft. His termination followed a 17-minute hearing, in which the airline did little to provide even the appearance of fairness before giving him the ax. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ultimately ordered not only that he be reinstated, but be paid $1 million in back pay, interest and damages.

In Sheridan's case, the jury is deadlocked, though the judge is ordering them to continue their deliberations this week.

She and her legal team are alleging that following her complaint against the series creator and head writer, she was written off the show - her character killed - by ABC in an effort to cover up the alleged battery. The show's executives had wanted to protect their $1 billion cash cow and a powerful Hollywood colleague, Sheridan's lawyer said. They couldn't be bothered to address the safety and rights of its employees. Instead, they conspired to back the writer and rid themselves of someone who they felt made too many waves, according to the allegations.

The show, on the other hand, has argued that the demise of Sheridan's character had been in the works for months before the alleged incident. Their team has called Sheridan "desperate," and characterized the alleged assault as minor, saying that it was more of a "tap on the head" than a wallop. They say Sheridan initially only wanted an apology and a bouquet of flowers. When she didn't get it, tensions bubbled over and resulted in this lawsuit, in which Sheridan is suing for $5.7 million in lost wages and damages. Her salary had been $4 million annually.

Generally, California Law, specifically Cal. Lab. Code § 2922, states that either employer or employee can terminate employment at-will - that is, for any reason that isn't forbidden under federal law. However, there are some exceptions to this, though they depend solely on the facts of each individual case. This is where having a skilled Los Angeles employment lawyer is going to be critical. Also, it could be beneficial if you are considering filing a wrongful termination suit to keep all records that may be of relevance. This includes phone logs, e-mails, employee hand-outs and performance evaluations. These can all be valuable tools that an employment attorney can use to help bolster your case.

Capsolas v. Pasta Resources Inc. Forces Restaurant Owner to Pay Back Tips

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:37:37 -0800

A celebrity television chef must fork over more than $5 million after employees said he stiffed them on their tips, thereby violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Orange County employment attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that the case - Capsolas v. Pasta Resources Inc. - pitted chef Mario Batali against a hot of workers who said he cheated them out of tips made specifically on wine sales.

According to Bloomberg Business News, Batali and his associate pocketed tips that equaled about 5 percent of each night's wine sales at upscale restaurants. The class action lawsuit that encompasses more than 1,000 bartenders and servers at eight restaurants.

One former bartender explained it like this: About 4 percent of the wine sales from each night was deducted from the tip pool to cover the cost of the restaurant's wine experts and broken glasses. This was a standard policy at all of the restaurants, according to the suit.

Batali and his business partner had previously been quoted as saying they intended to fight the allegations tooth-and-nail, as they believed they were in the right.

However, dipping into the tip pool earned by hardworking employees is not only a show of poor ethics, it is likely a violation of the law.

The case didn't make it to trial, however, as the chef and his business partner agreed to settle the case for $5.25 million. The workers will receive a share of the settlement, depending on how many hours they had worked.

While not everyone in the restaurant industry works in fine dining, there are laws governing how tipped employees are to be paid by their employer. A tipped employee is one who, in the course of his or her regular job duties, receives more than $30 monthly in tips. The U.S. Department of Labor is very clear in its policy regarding what an employer can do with employee tips:

"The employer is prohibited from using an employee's tips for any reason other than as credit against its minimum wage obligation to the employee..."

It goes on to state that a tip is the sole property of the employee. In fact, the Fair Labor Standards Act forbids an employer from arranging a situation where any part of that tip is funneled to the employer.

Employers who violate this act could face government fines of up to $50,000 for each violation and even a criminal prosecution. The labor department could also require the establishment to pay back pay and damages if it's found that the law was blatantly violated.

Rare Prosecution of Professor in Los Angeles University Workplace Death

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:43:36 -0800

In an exceedingly unusual case of Los Angeles workplace danger, a chemistry professor at UCLA is facing criminal charges following a lab fire that resulted in the death of a 23-year-old assistant.

Orange County employment attorney Houman Fakhimi has been closely following the developments of this case, which stem from an incident in 2008. The professor is facing an upcoming arraignment on several counts of willfully violating the standards set forth by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

Here's what reportedly happened, according to the L.A. Times:

The assistant was in the lab in late December 2008 handling a syringe to transfer a chemical from one container to another. She apparently was not wearing a protective lab coat. The syringe somehow came apart in her hands. The chemical compound, known as t-butyl lithium, catches fire when exposed to oxygen. The assistant suffered severe burns over half her body and died less than a month later.

The chemistry professor, who was overseeing the program, as well as several others within the chemistry department, have been accused of not reporting unsafe working conditions, not requiring appropriate safety gear and clothing and not offering enough safety training.

The 42-year-old professor is facing nearly five years in prison, while the regents of the program could be fined as much as $4.5 million.

The case has raised a host of concerns about safety at the university, as well as the training and supervision provided by the professor, considered a prominent figure in the field. He had joined the school just a few months prior to the incident.

The Times reports that this is the first case of its kind, in which someone in the academic field is charged criminally as the result of a death in the lab. Our Orange County employment attorneys realize that all employers have a responsibility to do everything possible to protect workers. Usually, we don't think of fatal workplace accidents as happening outside of perhaps the construction industry. Clearly, though, that's not the case, and the legal system is now pushing for accountability.

Last year, the college was fined nearly $32,000 by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, saying the assistant wasn't properly trained and wasn't wearing the right gear.

The university defends the professor, calling the charges "outrageous" and "appalling," and saying the assistant had been properly trained, and that the incident was simply an experiment that went tragically wrong.

An attorney for the family vehemently disagrees, saying that the failure of the professor and school as a whole to implement appropriate precautions led to an extremely painful death for the assistant, a Pakistani native and recent college graduate. Furthermore, the attorney said, the factors that led to her death were not accidental - they were negligent.

The professor is talking a possible plea deal with prosecutors, though it's not yet clear what the terms of that may be.

Newport Beach Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Settled by Steakhouse

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:26:43 -0800

While many cases of discrimination in Newport Beach relate to on-the-job issues, it is possible for a person in the public to face these same problems.

Newport Beach discrimination lawyers have seen examples of consumers who are denied service or rights based on an employee's bias or racism. Discrimination in public has no place in our society just like discrimination in the workplace. People have the right to be treated equally, regardless of how they look or talk.

In a recent case in Newport Beach, an upscale steakhouse printed receipts for a black customer with a racial epithet instead of the man's real name. The case was scheduled to be heard by a jury, but the two sides reached a settlement. The amount of the settlement hasn't been revealed.

According to news reports, the settlement came after the Newport Beach discrimination lawyers for the man were able to investigate the restaurant's receipts to look for other examples of widespread racism. After being allowed by the court to search the restaurant's records, attorneys allegedly found 12 other examples of blatant racist comments, the Orange County Weekly is reporting.

The restaurant's owners stated that the restaurant group doesn't discriminate against any group of people. While there may not be the view at the top, clearly some employees think otherwise. The newspaper reports that a bartender was responsible for the actions and that employee has been fired.

The customer apparently frequented the restaurant, had brought guests there and was even a generous tipper. But after noticing his receipt after a return to his home, the man confronted restaurant managers and other employees, who apologized and tried to downplay any notion of bigotry.

There have been other recent examples of employees who have printed receipts for customers using racial names. This type of bigotry has no place in our society. If immature workers think this sort of thing is funny, they shouldn't be working.

And sometimes the problem isn't just with the individual employee. The problem may start at the top and trickle down. If there is an environment of discrimination, where it is seen as acceptable or a joke, then employees feel more comfortable having these attitudes.

Consumers, like employees, have rights. They must be treated fairly and can't face discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, disability, national origin, sexual orientation or other bogus reasons. If they do, both California and federal laws are designed to protect them from these types of actions.

But the only way to stop these sorts of actions is to fight back. Filing a discrimination charge with the government is a start. Sometimes litigation is necessary to ensure that this wrong doesn't go unpunished. In either situation, the victim should have strong legal representation to ensure his or her rights are protected and the best possible outcome is reached.

Newport Beach Discrimination Settlement Reached for Mel Gibson's Arresting Deputy

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:44:45 -0800

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy who arrested actor Mel Gibson for DUI in 2006 has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with the sheriff's department for retaliation, the Los Angeles Times is reporting.

Retaliation in Newport Beach can be a problem in a variety of situations in the workplace. If a worker speaks out about discrimination and then starts to feel he or she isn't getting the same type of opportunities, accounts, training or promotion, this may be a classic case of retaliation. California employment laws are designed to protect employees who may need help being treated fairly.

Newport Beach employment lawyers understand that retaliation has no place in an employee-employer relationship. A person shouldn't be looked down upon for trying to do what is right. Whether it's reporting discrimination or following ethical guidelines that may ruffle some feathers, the law is designed to ensure those employees are protected.

According to the news article, the 2006 arrest, which made international headlines, has been causing the deputy problems ever since. The deputy alleges that his supervisors retaliated against him ever since he refused to remove the actor's anti-Semitic slurs from the initial police report.

It was those slurs -- more than the arrest itself -- that made the story such a big one. The deputy's Fullerton employment lawyer told the Times that the settlement wasn't done for the money, but rather the principle of the matter. The deputy said he was "constantly in fear" when he went to work.

The deputy, who was assigned to handling DUI arrests in Malibu at the time, said he included the actor's words, "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" to illustrate the level of intoxication.

A supervisor told the deputy that the material in the police report was "not acceptable" because the comments weren't relevant to the DUI arrest. He said bosses instructed him to remove the comments and include them in a supplementary report that wouldn't have been available to the public initially.

He eventually followed orders and created a separate report that was placed in a locked safe, along with recordings and evidence found in Gibson's car. But the report was leaked to celebrity news site TMZ.com and officials later discovered calls between the deputy's home and TMZ founder Harvey Levin.

The sheriff's department was criticized for its handling of the case, including allowing Gibson to leave the station without being fingerprinted and without signing a statement to appear in court. He was also driven to the tow yard by a sergeant.

The deputy did the right thing for standing up for the correct way of handling things. If law enforcement is going to be starstruck because of an actor, policies and personnel need to change. It appears from the article that deputy was placed in a difficult work environment after the fact, which qualifies as retaliation. No worker should have to deal with that.

Santa Ana Wage Violation Costs Company $99 Million

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:23 -0800

A pharmaceutical company was recently slapped with a $99 million settlement for not paying sales representatives overtime pay, Bloomberg Businessweek is reporting.

Orange County employment lawyers have seen many types of companies that try to twist rules and cut corners to maximize their profits. Sadly, executives -- making six or seven figures a year, plus stock options -- view low-level employees solely as a means to make this money.

In some cases, businesses will look at wages or overtime as a way to save money. Often, though, this leads to a wage or hour dispute in Santa Ana. If companies are directing supervisors to falsify time sheets or deny money for work done, it can lead to complaints and lawsuits. Sometimes, these matters require the skills of an experienced lawyer to ensure the employee doesn't get shorted.

In this case, according to the news article, the company found itself as a defendant in a lawsuit involving 7,000 former and current employees. A judge recently agreed to a $99 million settlement in the case, which goes back to 2006.

Workers settled the case before the U.S. Supreme Court was ready to decide if drug makers must pay overtime to up to 90,000 sales representatives. A drug company is challenging whether federal wage-and-hour laws protect sales employees.

According to court records in the case, sales representatives say they were denied overtime pay, in violation of federal wage laws. This federal law deals with most public and private employment and includes laws and rules for different types of industries.

A lower court has ruled that sales representatives should be allowed to receive overtime pay and now the nation's high court is set to hear arguments on the matter. These workers may be entitled to back pay and lost wages.

Businesses will try to save money any way they can and doing it through the hard work of their employees is certainly an option they consider. Sadly, this can lead to major financial problems for an employee who is working more than 40 hours a week and not being paid for it.

In cases like this, it's necessary to hire an experienced Orange County employment lawyer before you discuss the matter with your employer. If companies admit to fault, it can open up a wave of problems for them, so often when they don't pay a worker overtime, they will continue to deny it and defend themselves in court, if necessary. Don't let the company break the law and win.

LAFD Decides to Pay $500,000 to Firefighter Who Was Sexually Harassed

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:22:25 -0800

A firefighter recently settled his Los Angeles sexual harassment case with the Los Angeles Fire Department after it was proven co-workers harassed him at work over a church sex scandal, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Many people believe that sexual harassment in the workplace only happens to women from male subordinates, but this simple isn't the case. Orange County sexual harassment lawyers have seen many cases where men face harassment at work from female bosses or even male co-workers who aren't following company protocols and procedures.

The Catholic Church scandal and other sexual abuse allegations made against churches and religious organizations have brought forward a new crop of victims. And as these cases have become public, they have garnered much media attention. This unwanted attention from people who have grown up with dark secrets can lead to problems at work.

If co-workers find out that an employee has a pending lawsuit against a church for alleged sexual abuse, someone may inappropriately try to talk about it at work. If the victim tells co-workers or management they don't want to talk about the personal issue at work, but people persist, it could qualify as sexual harassment.

That's what happened in this case. According to the Los Angeles Times, the firefighter had filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Archdiocese over alleged sexual abuse. When a co-worker found about about it, it led to others mocking the man and using sexually explicit language.

The man filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2007 and the commission found in his favor that he was harassed. The department recently announced it would pay him $494,150 to settle the case. On top of the payment, the department must enforce policies against discrimination, retaliation and harassment. The department will also have to offer an equal employment opportunity complaint system.

Comments made to a person in a work setting should be work-related and not used to intimidate or harass another person. Certainly, people can form relationships that become friendly at work and that is fine. But as the barriers between co-worker and friend begin to blur, this can lead to possible examples of harassment.

This is also true in cases where two co-workers don't get along. If one outwardly shows that they don't like the other, their comments can more easily be seen as harassing in nature. Businesses and agencies must have policies and training in place to avoid these types of situations.

A worker should not have to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace. Any crude jokes, inappropriate stories or shared emails can make a person not only uncomfortable working there, but also make it so they are less productive. If the bosses and company aren't enforcing policies or they don't have policies in place, they can be held liable.

L.A. County Housing Inspectors Accused of Discrimination Against Minorities For Eviction

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:14:18 -0800

Los Angeles County officials recently decided to halt providing funds to pay for housing investigators in Palmdale and Lancaster after allegations were made that they were targeting minorities for eviction, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Our Westminster employment lawyers often blog about the issues associated with discrimination practices that happen in a workplace setting. But discrimination can happen in public and with the government as well.

California and federal laws that prohibit Westminster discrimination apply not only to workers, but also to those who are trying to obtain public housing.

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination for the following reasons:

-Race
-Color
-Religion
-Sex
-Sexual Orientation
-Marital Status
-National Origin
-Ancestry
-Familial Status
-Disability
-Source of Income

Additionally, the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination for all business establishments. This includes private businesses and people who are involved in selling or renting housing. So, people are protected from discrimination, even though it still can happen.

In the desert communities of Lancaster and Palmdale, people have accused housing investigators of targeting nonwhite recipients of federal housing subsidies for harassment and eviction. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in turn, have cut off funds to provide additional investigators there.

The move was made in a closed-door session recently in a move to try to avoid civil rights challenges and an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department. The sheriff's office is now barred from sending deputies on housing compliance checks without sound reason. The county also is aiming to preserve the confidentiality of people who participate in the Section 8 subsidy program to avoid future harassment.

Last summer, the NAACP filed suit against those cities, alleging that officials were using sheriff's deputies and other county resources to drive black and Latino residents from government-subsidized housing. Federal prosecutors then announced they were investigating the use of sheriff's deputies.

County taxpayers currently dish out $98,685 per year to Lancaster and $62,000 to Palmdale to fund extra inspectors for the Section 8 program. Officials in Antelope Valley claim they needed the money to provide extra resources to make sure landlords and tenants comply with program regulations.

County officials readily admit that they are making these moves in order to keep themselves out of any type of discrimination lawsuit. But perhaps they should have begun taking these steps earlier to try to be proactive in avoiding discrimination.

All people have the right to qualify for public housing and the decision of who is allowed to live in these low-income houses and apartments shouldn't be based on bigotry. But if that's how it happens, residents need to fight back. If people stand by and allow it to happen, it will continue. Without accountability, the situation lingers.

Westminster employment lawyers recognize that these are challenges people can face on a daily basis can be demoralizing. But meeting with an attorney is a good first step. If you have documented proof that you or a loved one has faced discrimination and your rights have been violated, you should consider all your options.