California Employment Lawyers Blog

EEOC Sues Wendy's Franchisee for Disability Discrimination

Fri, 11 May 2012 03:28:12 -0800

As Vincent Howard recently discussed in a Carson, California labor and employment lawyers blog, under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) it is against the law to discriminate against qualified disabled employees or job applicants in the workplace. Employers are expected under the federal law to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled individuals, unless the employee's disability creates a significant expense, or hardship on the business operations of the employers.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency in charge of enforcing federal employment discrimination laws, recently filed a suit against a Wendy's fast food franchisee, claiming that the restaurant violated federal employment laws by denying employment to a job applicant due to his disability.

According to the lawsuit that Vincent Howard has been following, Michael Harrison, Jr. applied for a cooking position in a Wendy's franchise in Killeen, Texas. Despite being qualified for the job, with over two years of experience working for a different fast food restaurant franchise, Harrison was allegedly refused employment by the general manager, based on his disability--a hearing-impairment.

Harrison claimed that after applying for the cooking position, and having a successful interview with the shift manager at Wendy's, an interview was set up with the general manager, in order to complete the job interview process. Harrison reportedly used a telephonic system to facilitate the interview with the general manager, which is utilized by people with hearing impairments. During the phone interview, Harrison claims that the general manager informed him that there wasn't a place at the Wendy's franchise for a person that they could not communicate with.

DOL Launches Los Angeles-area Restaurant Enforcement Initiative to Combat FLSA Violations

Thu, 03 May 2012 09:41:00 -0800

In recent Los Angeles employment news, the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has launched an education and enforcement initiative geared around the Los Angeles-area restaurant industry--to ensure that employers are complying with the minimum wage, overtime payment, child labor, and record-keeping provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA).

In the DOL's Los Angeles-area enforcement initiative, that Vincent Howard has been following, the WHD will reportedly conduct unannounced restaurant investigations in West Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, among other areas within Los Angeles County.

According to the WHD's Los Angeles office, over the past six years, 72 percent of all restaurants that were targeted within the division's jurisdiction were found to have violated the FLSA--resulting in $2.2 million in overtime and minimum back wages that were owed to over 1,400 workers. During the same time period, the division reportedly conducted over 1,800 investigations along the West Coast and found that 71 percent were engaging in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which resulted in over $12 million in back wages that were owed to over 9,500 workers.

The division's investigations found that many restaurants, especially low-cost ethnic restaurants, often use low profit margins as incentive in order to keep labor costs low by using employment tactics that are against the law. Many common violations include failing to pay employees for all hours worked, forcing employees to work off the clock hours, and engaging in employee misclassification by incorrectly classifying employees as exempt from overtime laws.

Teacher Sues Catholic School for Discrimination, Wrongful Termination over IVF

Wed, 02 May 2012 10:29:26 -0800

Our Costa Mesa-based labor and employment attorney Vincent Howard has been following a recent discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former teacher, who claims that she was fired from her position at a Catholic school in Indiana for trying to achieve pregnancy through in-vitro fertilization (IVF).

In the employment lawsuit, Emily Herx accuses St. Vincent de Paul School and the Diocese of Fort Wayne and South Bend of discrimination and for wrongfully terminating her employment last year due to her use of IVF--after eight years as a language arts teacher where she reportedly received excellent performance reviews.

Herx claims that she discussed her IVF treatments with her employers only after she used sick days for the treatment, and wasn't informed that IVF was an issue with her employment until a later date. When her employment was terminated, Herx claims she was told that by using IVF, which mixes an egg and sperm outside the body and transfers the embryo into the womb, she had violated the doctrines of the church--which frowns upon fertility treatments such as IVF.

According to Vincent Howard, this case sparks the ongoing debate over the separation of church and state in employment issues. In January, the Supreme Court ruled that religious employees are not permitted to file lawsuits against employers for discrimination in the workplace--after a former religion teacher in Michigan claimed she was fired for pursuing a discrimination claim over a disability. The Supreme Court stated that religious groups can dismiss their employees without interference from the government--and because the teacher was considered a "ministerial employee," she was exempt from anti-discrimination laws. However, the definition of who is or isn't a "ministerial employee" still remains unclear.

Elevations Shoring to Pay Over $430K for Employee Misclassification, Overtime Violations

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:22:37 -0800

Employee misclassification continues to pose a national and California workplace threat, as Vincent Howard discusses regularly in our ongoing California employment lawyers blog. When employees are misclassified as exempt, or independent contractors, as opposed to non-exempt employees, they are often denied access to their legally entitled employee benefits and protections, such as overtime compensation, minimum wage payment, family and medical leave, and unemployment insurance, among others.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) there were roughly 6,800 wage and hour violation lawsuits filed last year, and the labor department collected more than $5 million in back wages from employee misclassification--where employees were misclassified as independent contractors, resulting in violations of the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

A recent case of employment misclassification has led to a payment of $430,956 in back wages to 186 former and current employees of Elevations Shoring LLC--after a DOL investigation uncovered that the company had violated the record-keeping and overtime provisions of the FLSA.

The DOL's Wage and Hour division (WHD) in New Orleans reportedly found that Elevations Shoring, a company employing workers who provide digging, lifting and shoring services in the New Orleans-area, misclassified workers as independent contractors, and paid them straight time for every hour worked, instead of overtime payment.

Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Taco Bell Operator Settled for $27K

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:12:01 -0800

In a previous Westminster labor and employment attorneys blog, Vincent Howard discussed a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in July 2011, on behalf of former Taco Bell employee Christopher Abbey--who accused his employer of religious discrimination and wrongful termination based on his religion.

According to an EEOC announcement released this week, Family Foods, Inc., the company that operates a number of North Carolina-based Taco Bell restaurants, including the restaurant that Abbey worked for, will pay a settlement of $27,000 to end the religious discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit.

Abbey, who was employed at the Taco Bell restaurant from 2004 until his termination in 2010, had not cut his hair since he was fifteen years old in order to observe his religious beliefs as a practicing Nazirite. The religious discrimination lawsuit stated that in April of 2010, Family Foods told Abbey that he must cut his hair, in order to comply with Taco Bell's restaurant grooming policy.

According to the EEOC, after Abbey explained that according to his Nazirite religious practices he could not cut his long hair, he was informed by the company that if he did not cut his hair, his employment would be terminated. Abbey claims his religious practices were not reasonably accommodated.

Landmark EEOC Ruling Protects Transgender Employees from Workplace Discrimination

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:33:26 -0800

In recent California labor and employment news that Vincent Howard has been following, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), responsible for enforcing federal discrimination laws, ruled on Monday that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender workers from workplace discrimination.

The California discrimination case involved a woman who claimed that she was refused employment as a contractor with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) last year, after they discovered that she had transitioned from a male to a female.

Mia Macy reportedly applied for the position of a ballistics forensic technician as a man, and was told that she was qualified for the job as she was an Army veteran and had former experience as a police detective. Macy claims that the job was perfect for her because it was the exact same job she was doing as a civilian, with the same kind of equipment--and only few people had been certified with this kind of equipment.

She was told the job was hers, pending a background check, which she passed--at which point Macy informed the ATF lab officials that she was transitioning her gender from a man to a woman. Five days later, she was reportedly told that the funding for the job was suddenly cut. Macy later learned that another person was hired for the same position, and Macy suspected that she had been dropped from the job consideration after revealing that she was transgender.

Human Development, Inc. Settles EEOC Lawsuit for $125K for Discriminating Against an Obese Employee

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:49:47 -0800

In a previous Santa Ana employment lawyers blog, Vincent Howard discussed a disability discrimination lawsuit filed against Human Development, Inc. (RHD) by the U.S. Equal Employment Commission (EEOC), that accused RHD of acting in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by firing an employee because of her obesity, which is considered a disability.

This month, the EEOC reported that RHD, conducting business as the Family House of Louisiana, will pay $125,000 to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit, filed on behalf of Lisa Harrison.

Harrison worked as a prevention and intervention specialist at the facility from 1999 until her termination in 2007, helping drug-addicted women as well as their children at the long-term residential treatment facility. The EEOC lawsuit, filed in September 2010, states that Harrison was fired in the fall of 2007 as a result of her severe obesity, despite the fact that she was able to perform all of the necessary functions in her role as a specialist.

According to Vincent Howard's Newport Beach employment attorney blog, under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA) employers are prevented from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in the job application process, hiring, employment advancement, compensation, training, job termination and other terms, privileges, and conditions of employment. Employers are also required, under the ADA, to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified job applicants and employees with disabilities, unless the accommodation brings undue hardship to the employer's business.

CA Supreme Court Decides on Class Action Rest and Meal Break Lawsuit

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:17:44 -0800

This week, the California Supreme Court ruled in a case revolving around a class of restaurant workers--who claim they were denied proper rest and meal breaks from Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's eateries, among other restaurants.

According to news that Vincent Howard has been following, the state's Supreme Court reportedly authorized the class of restaurants workers, who first sued the company in 2004 on behalf of nearly 60,000 hourly, non-unionized employees, to proceed with their class action claim that the restaurant managers forced them to skip their meal breaks--by threatening to cut back their hours, and failing to keep the restaurants properly staffed so they had the opportunity for breaks.

In regard to the meal and rest break claims, California's highest court decided that under state law, an employer is not obligated to manage meal and rest breaks and ensure that workers take their legally mandated breaks, where no work is performed.

Vincent Howard has been closely watching this California labor and employment decision as it affects workers throughout Orange County, California and clarifies uncertain aspects of California's wage laws, that require more compensation for meal and rest break violations. Since 2001, California law has required that employers who violate meal and rest breaks must pay a monetary penalty that constitutes one hour of wages for a half-hour break that was missed.

Unpaid Internships Dwindle as Wage and hour Violations Increase

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:20:17 -0800

According to a recent USA Today article, many employers are changing the way they handle unpaid internships, as the number of wage and hour lawsuits filed by former interns have increased over the past few years--accusing companies of abusing unpaid internships in order to get quality labor for free.

The article reports that during the recession, unpaid internships became more popular as employers faced restricted budgets--and workers who experienced job loss turned to internships to expand their employment experiences. But this kind of arrangement can encourage employers to substitute low-wage employees with unpaid interns--a violation of the unpaid internship criteria under the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA).

As Vincent Howard reported in a recent Carson labor and employment lawyer blog, unpaid internships are legal under the Fair Labor Standards Act as long as for-profit employers comply with government's strict legal criteria regarding unpaid internships.

Under the Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD), in order to qualify for an unpaid internship: the training must be similar to what would be offered in a vocational or educational school, the training should benefit the intern, the intern's work responsibilities must not replace regular paid workers, the employer must not receive any immediate advantage from the intern's activities, and at the end of the training, the interns are not necessarily entitled to employment.

Los Angeles Thai Restaurants Sued by DOL for Overtime Violations, Retaliation

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:18:25 -0800

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has reportedly filed a lawsuit against two Thai restaurants and their parent company in Los Angeles, California, for violating provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA)--by failing to pay proper overtime compensation to employees, retaliating against employees through wrongful termination for speaking up for their FLSA rights, and failing to maintain proper wage records.

According to a DOL press release that Vincent Howard has been following, after a thorough DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD) investigation, two Chan Dara restaurants based in Los Angeles were found to owe a total of $104,807 in overtime back wages--$56,910 owed to 13 employees from the West Los Angeles location, and $47,897 due to 15 employees at the other East Los Angeles location.

The investigation revealed that from September of 2009 to September of 2011, the restaurants reportedly paid their employees straight time for all hours worked, and failed to pay a premium overtime rate for hours worked beyond forty in a workweek--a violation of the FLSA. The workers claimed to frequently work 10 to 16 hours per day in double work shifts, with no overtime payment. The employer also admitted to keeping two versions of the payroll records--one with the accurate record-keeping information, and the other with misleading information.

The restaurants were also found to have retaliated against employees who stood up for their FLSA rights by wrongfully terminating their employment.

Novo Nordisk Sued in Another Employee Misclassification Lawsuit for $70M

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:37:30 -0800

Last year our Santa Ana employment attorneys blog discussed an employee misclassification lawsuit filed against the drug company Novo Nordisk. As Vincent Howard reported, the lawsuit was brought by a pharmaceutical sales representative who claimed that the company unlawfully classified the employees as outside salespersons and exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California law.

In a similar lawsuit filed in New York State last month, the drug company was sued again by current and former outside sales representatives who also claim that Novo Nordisk engaged in employee misclassification by classifying them as exempt from state and federal overtime laws.

The class action lawsuit is asking Novo Nordisk for $70 million in overtime pay and damages for willfully misclassifying the outside sales representatives, and failing to pay them overtime wages that are required by state and federal law.

As Vincent Howard has previously reported in our Azusa employment attorneys blog, the classification of exempt versus non-employees continues to be an important workplace topic, as employee misclassification can lead to federal and state wage and hour law violations. Over the past few years there has been an increase in the number of employee misclassification lawsuits filed by exempt workers from the pharmaceutical industry and other industrial sectors, claiming that they have been misclassified and should be entitled to overtime compensation.

Riverside Warehouse Workers File Second Wage Theft Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart Contractor

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:52:58 -0800

In a recent Orange County labor and employment lawyer blog, Vincent Howard reported on a class action wage and hour lawsuit filed last year against a Riverside California-based warehouse that handles goods headed to nationwide Wal-Mart stores. The lawsuit was filed by a group of workers who claimed that Schneider Logistics, the company that runs warehouses across the country, forced the Riverside warehouse employees to work under abusive and dangerous conditions, and failed to pay them their proper wages.

In recent Inland Empire labor and employment law news, a second lawsuit has been filed against Schneider Logistics, accusing the logistics company of wage theft by allegedly employing an illegal scheme that forced the employees to unknowingly waive their rights to receive fair wages and compensation--resulting in the alleged theft of thousands of dollars in wages.

As Vincent Howard reported in a previous Riverside employment attorneys blog, the term "wage theft" refers to some type of violation related to workplace compensation where money is stolen or payment is illegally kept from workers.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, filed last month, the warehouse workers are frequently paid less than minimum wage, with no overtime payment, and are often employed through temporary labor agencies, even though many of the workers are employed for years by the same warehouse facilities.

Another High-Profile Celebrity Chef Sued for Minimum Wage, Tip Violations

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:53:07 -0800

In our Newport Beach labor and employment blog, Vincent Howard continues to report on the latest developments in a series of high-profile wage and hour lawsuit settlements, where a number of celebrity chefs and restaurants have been accused of violating the minimum wage, overtime and tipping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

As our Carson labor lawyer blog reported yesterday, the well-known banquet hall in New York, Pier Sixty, agreed to settle a class action wage and hour lawsuit this week for $8.5 million, filed by restaurant workers who claim that the hall skimmed their tips and failed to compensate them with proper overtime pay. Last month Chef Mario Batali and Joe Bastianich, his business partner and judge on "Master Chef," the popular television show, agreed to settle a wage and hour lawsuit for $5.25 million, after also being accused of illegally skimming employee tips.

In a recent report that Vincent Howard has been following, another "Master Chef" judge, celebrity Chef Graham Elliot, has been sued in a similar wage and hour lawsuit filed in Illinois, after a waiter claimed he was denied minimum wage and made to participate in an illegal tip pooling share with other employees who would not customarily receive tips.

The former waiter, Gregory Curtis, claims in the lawsuit that as a waiter for the restaurant "Graham Elliot," one of Elliot's popular eateries, he was forced to participate a tip pooling arrangement with other staff members including bussers and bartenders, but also cooks and food runners--employees who do not customarily receive tips. Curtis claims that he was illegally forced to share tips with these cooks and food runners, and as a result of the tip pool, his minimum wage should have been higher than the tipped employee minimum wage.

Pier Sixty Banquet Hall Staff to Receive $8.5M in Settlement over Tips

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:17:43 -0800

Last month in a Santa Ana employment attorney blog, Vincent Howard discussed the settlement of celebrity Chef Mario Batali's class action wage and hour lawsuit for $5.25 million, which accused the chef and Joseph Bastianich, Batali's business partner of skimming a portion of the restaurant workers' tips in their New York restaurants.

This week in similar wage and hour news, Pier Sixty, the Manhattan banquet hall, has agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed by employees who claim that the hall skimmed their tips and failed to pay overtime compensation.

The Pier Sixty wage and hour lawsuit was filed in 2008 on behalf of the banquet hall's bartenders, servers, and busboys, who alleged that the hall charged a 20-22% service charge to customers, which customers believed to be for employee tips, without distributing this service fee to the employees.

According a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report, this wave of service fee-related lawsuits stemmed from a New York Supreme Court ruling from 2008, determining that the service fees usually added to large parties must be passed on to employees receiving tips, if the customer believes that the tip is for staff gratuity. This ruling also led to a new trend of litigation because it allowed for lawsuits to be filed retroactively for six years. The WSJ also reports that legislation was introduced this year in January, to amend the state labor law so that liability cannot be retroactive.

Former California CarMax Buyer Sues For Employee Misclassification, Overtime Violations

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:42:23 -0800

According to recent California employee misclassification news that our Riverside labor and employment attorneys have been following, CarMax, a nationwide used-car retailer has been sued in a class action lawsuit--alleging that the company failed to pay around 1,500 buyers overtime pay.

The lawsuit, filed by former car buyer Michael Luchini, claims that CarMax violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by engaging in employee misclassification by unlawfully classifying employees as exempt--failing to pay properly pay them for all overtime hours worked.

CarMax reportedly hires nationwide buyers to collect car information for the CarMax computer systems and calculate appraisal prices for used vehicles. The lawsuit claims that due to the heavy work schedule, the buyers frequently travel and attend auctions to bid on and inspect the vehicles that will be sold at CarMax's 103 used-car retail locations across the country--which adds a substantial amount of overtime hours per week.

According to the lawsuit, the employees should not be considered as exempt from overtime compensation and state and federal wage and hour laws, as the CarMax buyers must attend mandatory training sessions, and follow the company's strict procedures and detailed policies and practices in every step of performing their job duties as buyers.