California Employment Lawyers Blog

California Age Discrimination Lawsuits Pose Many Challenges

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:01:04 -0800

The president of Rutgers University was fervently working to tamp down public ire over alleged coaching abuses when he hired an administrator to serve as his chief of staff.

But as it turned out, that administrator was in the midst of his own legal troubles, having been sued by a handful of long-term employees in their 50s and 60s alleging systematic discrimination on the basis of their age. These actions, the plaintiffs allege, ultimately forced them to retire.

Los Angeles Employment Discrimination Lawyer Vincent Howard of HOWARD LAW understands that those who worked at the university were stunned to learn of the administrator's promotion, given the severity of the allegations against him.

Whether those will be proven in court remains to be seen. What we do know is that cases of age discrimination can present some uphill battles in the courtroom - but they certainly aren't impossible, particularly if you have a strong legal team at your side.

In fact, the number of age-related discrimination claims comprise an increasing number of cases filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in recent years. From 1997 through 2007, we saw an average of 16,000 to 19,000 age discrimination claims each year. Since 2008, however, that number has spiked to somewhere between 23,000 and 25,000 annually.

Per federal law, it is illegal for an employer with 20 or more workers to discriminate against employees who are older than 40 on the basis of their age. However, some recent court cases have made winning such a claim a little tougher.

In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Gross v. FBL that it must be proven that age was the sole reason for the discrimination that occurred. Prior that ruling, a business that based its actions on the discrimination as well as other factors could be successfully sued. Now, plaintiffs have to prove that discrimination is the motivating factor in the negative actions taken against the employee.

That said, there have been a fair number of successes.

In a recent case out of Hawaii, a 54-year-old woman won a nearly $195,000 judgment in U.S. District Court after her termination. The firing had been preceded with comments made by the firm's owner, describing her to other employees as looking like "a bag of bones" and sounding "old on the telephone." It was comments like this that bolstered her age discrimination case and allowed her to win.

Unfortunately, most employers aren't that bold or blatant in their discrimination. They know how to cover their tracks, even when age discrimination is indeed the motivating factor. That can make proving the case a little tougher.

In some cases, depending on the evidence, it may be beneficial to work with your attorney to make a persuasive argument to your former employer to negotiate a financial settlement prior to trial. Many companies don't want the negative attention that an age discrimination lawsuit can bring, and might be eager to work with you to resolve the issue.

In other cases, a lawsuit is your best form of recourse. Consulting with an experienced employment lawyer can help you determine what action might be in your best interest.

Refusal to Hire a Felon May be Grounds for Lawsuit

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:25:39 -0800

It's long been known that a criminal record could hinder one's chances of landing gainful employment.

But if a person is denied employment on the basis of a prior felony, is that grounds for a lawsuit?

Historically, our Los Angeles employment attorneys would have answered no. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against two employers whom they say screened out all job applicants with criminal records. This practice, the EEOC contends, amounts to a disproportionate amount of African Americans being denied jobs.

The agency is suing a BMW manufacturing facility in South Carolina on the grounds that it allegedly violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by utilizing and implementing a criminal background check policy where the end result was workers being fired and others never being hired. A separate lawsuit was filed against retailer Dollar General in Chicago for the exact same reason.

The government contends that the criminal background check policy of the company is not related to the job and it isn't consistent with necessity in the business.

BMW's policy has been in place since 1994. It denies job opportunities to employees and contractor employees with certain types of serious convictions. The suit was brought on behalf of contractor employees with criminal convictions that were more than seven years old. BMW's policy, the government contends, has no time limit, is a blanket exclusion and lacks any individualized assessment as to the gravity and nature of the crimes or how old the cases are and how they relate to the nature of the employees' work.

The case arose after a transitional period during which the contractor's agreement with BMW was terminated and workers had to re-apply for the positions they'd held at BMW for years. The contractor's criminal background check policy had only gone so far as to check convictions in the last seven years. During this re-application period, several workers were terminated after it was learned they had older felony convictions that nonetheless violated BMW's policy.

With Dollar General, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of a worker who was denied employment after disclosing she had been convicted six years earlier of possession of a controlled substance. This was despite the fact that she had worked for four years with another retailer in the same kind of position as the one for which she was applying. The Dollar General store's policy was to deny employment to any worker with a criminal conviction in the last decade.

Convicted felons are not a protected class under Title VII. However, race is. The EEOC advised employers back in the 1980s that certain types of employment screening policies that deny employment to certain protected classes at a disproportionate level could be in violation of the law.

It's worth noting that the EEOC's anti-discrimination employment lawsuits have spiked dramatically under the Obama administration - from 50 back in 2006 to 600 as of 2011. Part of that has to do with priorities that were already outlined under the Bush administration, but were limited because funding had been cut by 25 percent. Obama restored that funding and the EEOC was allowed to continue pressing forward with its agenda.

There is nothing in the law that prevents employers from inquiring about a person's previous arrest record or prior criminal convictions. But the EEOC advises that the use of these records as an absolute - something that would inevitably limit employment opportunities of certain protected groups - does not align with the spirit of the law and can't be used that way.

The agency advised that rather than issue "blanket rejections" of anyone who has a history of crime, employers must give the individual a chance to explain the circumstances of the arrest and/or conviction. Based on that, the employer should make a "reasonable effort" to consider whether the explanation is reliable and whether such a conviction might affect the applicant or employee's ability to do his or her job.

Overtime Pay for California Home Health Aides Weighed in Washington

Sun, 02 Jun 2013 04:05:46 -0800

As the baby boom generation sails toward retirement and further into old age, the home health care industry is poised to see a boom.

But exactly what that will look like, our Los Angeles labor attorneys know, is a matter of speculation, as the White House weighs a recommendation by the U.S. Department of Labor to impose mandatory overtime and minimum wages for home health care workers, same as everyone else.

You see, in most parts of the country, home health aides fare about the same as babysitters in terms of legal wage protections. That's because in 1974, Congress passed a law that actually lumped them in with babysitters in terms of labor laws. The argument was that 80 percent of what these individuals did was offer companionship, which meant playing cards or sitting and watching television. Only 20 percent of the time was spent doing actual work such as cooking, cleaning and shopping, according to Congress at the time. That is usually no longer the case today, but still most aides across the country earn less than minimum wage.

California is one of 22 states that has enacted a law entitling home health care workers to minimum wage, which it did in 2010. The law requires that any home health care worker - regardless of whether they are employed by a non-profit or the county and regardless of whether their duties don't go beyond feeding, dressing and supervising a person and regardless of whether they receive overtime - are entitled to the minimum wage, which is currently $8.00.

Fifteen states require overtime pay for those workers as well. California isn't one of them.

Labor unions say that needs to change.

The opposition to this move is fierce. The argument, according to patient advocates, is that forcing the issue of overtime will mean one of several scenarios.

Elderly and disabled patients who need constant care will be the least unable to afford the change. As such, they may reduce the amount of care they receive, which could have serious consequences to their health. Alternatively, because there won't be enough funds to pay overtime wages, they will be forced to accept strangers into their homes to cover the rest of the hours. Or, they may need to simply enter a state-funded nursing home, which is ultimately more expensive and patients tend not to do as well.

Patient advocates say the scenario is also bad for workers because although they will be entitled to overtime, their employer may not offer it, instead opting to hire more people, which will result in a drastic reduction of hours. There will be more jobs, but the quality of those jobs would be questionable, they say.

Some argue that seniors will be forced to turn to undocumented, unqualified workers if the prices go up.

But this plays right into the other side of the argument: That the work of home health care workers does require hard work, skill and dedication. As such, they should not be treated merely as casual high school babysitters, particularly when they are pivotal to the well-being of a growing number of individuals.

While some would argue that those who stay overnight with patients don't do much during that time, people forget that is time the worker must spend away from their families. It is time during which they are not free to do whatever they please. And in many cases, it's important to the patient, who may need help going to the bathroom several times each night or who may require immediate medical assistance if they've fallen or for some other reason. The home health care aide can summon that help.

Clearly, there are some issues to iron out, and this is not a one-sided coin.

But fact that these workers form a strong bond and genuinely care about those whom they care for should not negate their need to be treated fairly in the eyes of the law.

California Discrimination Case Results in $7.5M Settlement

Tue, 28 May 2013 08:09:58 -0800

Foothill Ranch-based teen clothing retailer Wet Seal has recently agreed to pay $7.5 million in order to settle a claim of racial discrimination.

The company was accused of firing a host of black workers so that it could present blond-haired, blue-eyed employees as the front of its brand.

Los Angeles Discrimination Attorney Vincent Howard of HOWARD LAW has been appalled by the alleged actions of the company, but not necessarily surprised. Such actions aren't even all that unique.

Consider an interviews given by Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries, who kicked up a firestorm affirming that his company doesn't cater to anyone larger than a size 10. Employees are hired on the basis of their looks, and it's been reported that some undergo regular measuring sessions and must adhere to a certain fitness regime to get back in shape if they fail to meet the appropriate physical standards - or face being fired.

That company has faced numerous lawsuits alleging discrimination in hiring.

And now, a federal court judge in Colorado has ruled that the 250 Abercrombie and subsidiary Hollister stores failed to provide appropriate for disabled customers, per the regulations outlined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. A number of complaints were compiled into a class action, specifically targeting the faux-porch steps at the entrance of many stores. These entryways bar limited-access customers from entry.

In the case of Wet Seal, the lawsuit alleged that top executives at the firm denied both equal promotion opportunities and pay to black store managers. In many cases, they were outright removed without cause and subsequently replaced with white workers.

In December, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission wrapped up a three-year investigation, concluding that the company actively sought a "Barbie and Ken" look for its workers, and thus ousted workers who failed to meet that standard of beauty - i.e., those who were black.

At least $5.6 million of the settlement will go directly to cover damages to current and former black Wet Seal managers. Additionally, the firm has agreed to make a number of changes to its employment process. Those include the promise to track applications that will ensure diversity in hiring and an expansion of the company's human resources department, which would ultimately allow for more thorough investigations of any similar claims in the future. A council of advisors on equal employment will also be maintained.

California law prohibits employers from discriminating against workers or job applicants on the basis of:

Race;

Color;

Religion;

National origin;

Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or any related medical condition);

Disability (either physical or mental);

Age (40 and older);

Genetic information;

Sexual orientation or identity;

Marital status;

Medical condition;

AIDS/HIV;

Political affiliations or activities.

Although still refusing to admit fault, Wet Seal released a statement saying it was "appreciative of the insights gained from the plaintiffs' counsel and the EEOC."

California Workers Have More Social Media Protections Than Most

Fri, 24 May 2013 07:33:46 -0800

A recent column in The Boston Globe questioned an employer's tactic of "friending" job applicants on social media sites, prior to the individual being hired.

This of course puts applicants in a tough position. Los Angeles Employment Lawyer Vincent Howard of HOWARD LAW knows most would generally prefer not to allow a prospective employer access to a page that contains private life photos and messages, even when he or she has nothing to hide.

California is ahead of the curve compared to most states on the issue of employers' legal right to access or demand information of workers or job applicants. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1844 and Senate Bill 1349 to prohibit both universities and employers from demanding e-mail and social media passwords from employees and applicants.

AB 1844 prohibits employers from mandating that employees or job applicants provide their username and password combination for social media accounts. SB 1349, a companion bill to the first, focuses on barring universities and colleges from demanding the same information of students and prospective students.

California was among the first to pass such measures, and there are now 10 states that have enacted similar legislation. The federal Password Protection act of 2012 would have introduced many of those same protections to all Americans, but it sputtered out in the Senate last year.

Other states are currently considering similar measures.

It's not clear how many employer have demanded this kind of information from workers, but we do know that more than 100 cases currently before the National Relations Labor Board involve workplace policies on social media. Facebook has also reported an increase of employers demanding inappropriate access to user profiles and private information contained therein.

However, even the California law has exceptions. For example, an employer can pursue information on a worker's social media account if there is "reasonable belief" that the information could be relevant to an internal investigation involving either employee misconduct or a violation of law.

Also, workers can be required to disclose passwords that are necessary for accessing employer-issued electronic devices.

But there doesn't appear to be any law against a company attempting to "friend" an employee or applicant. However, an argument could be made that there was undue pressure on the employee to comply. If the company retaliates against the worker for refusing to accept the friend request or for certain information or images contained therein, there might be potential grounds for employment litigation.

Companies recognize that social media can provide them with a wealth of information that might not otherwise be accessible to them - information that the employee is unlikely to reveal on his or her own. The question is where do they find a balance, and how can employees protect themselves.

Our best preemptive advice is, aside from private messaging, put nothing on your social media outlets that you wouldn't want your employer to see. That's not to say that you don't have the right to do so or that the firm isn't crossing the line by making a "friend" request or other demand. But in general, limiting the amount of information you share about yourself online is a good idea.

House Passes PTO Alternative to Overtime Pay

Tue, 21 May 2013 07:05:07 -0800

The Working Families Flexibility Act has passed its first major hurdle with a 223-204 approval in the House of Representatives recently, meaning employers are one step closer to being able to get out of paying mandated overtime, if they offer workers paid time off instead.

Our Los Angeles employment lawyers are deeply concerned for what this bill would mean for the working families after whom it's named. Certainly, there may be some who would rather have the time off than the money. Our problem is that it appears the worker isn't the one being given the option.

As it now stands, current labor laws require that employers pay time-and-a-half for every hour a worker puts in over 40 hours in a given week.

The problem, say opponents, is that H.R. 1406 fails to protect lower-income workers from collecting overtime pay, if that's what they actually prefer. Under the guidelines of the bill, companies are given enough latitude to pressure workers into taking comp time instead. There is also no guarantee in the bill that workers are going to be able to use that compensatory time when they want to do so. In effect, it doesn't guarantee that workers can use that time they earn when they want or need it most, which may render it far less invaluable to them.

It's not even the first time the bill was proposed. A similar measure was introduced back in 1997, though it wasn't painted as a "family friendly" measure. The packaging has changed, say political analysts, as the Republican party attempts to portray itself as more friendly to families and women.

Opponents of the measure argue that the concept of overtime pay has been a mainstay in the American workforce, and it's there to ensure employers don't abuse their workers.

An editorial penned in The New York Times called the bill the "Family Unfriendly Act." The writer goes so far as to call the measure a form of "fraud."

The bill contains no real incentive for companies to give workers a clear choice - and no deterrence for forcing them to do as the company wishes. The only real recourse at that point is filing an employment lawsuit.

For employees who refuse to work overtime for no extra pay, the end result is likely to be that they will receive fewer hours and less pay overall. For those who accept it, the arrangement is likely to mean there will be a great amount of unpredictability in their scheduling. That's going to lead to more stress and higher costs for work-related expenses - i.e., child care. However, there won't be any additional funds to cover those expenses.

If Congress were truly interested in improving work-life balance and employee pay, there are a number of other, clearly effective ways they could do it. Those might include boosting the minimum wage, instituting paid sick leave for more career fields, longer paid maternity leave schedules, and end to gender discriminatory pay practices, promoting advance notice for employment scheduling and easing the formation of unions.

Measures like won't do workers any favors.

Unpaid Internships in Los Angeles a Slippery Legal Slope

Sat, 18 May 2013 12:30:52 -0800

Many students eager and even recent graduates eager to get a leg up in their career field are embarking on internships this summer, and many of those positions will be unpaid.

While Los Angeles Employment Attorney Vincent Howard of HOWARD LAW recognizes that this can be a golden opportunity for those just breaking into competitive fields.

However, what it shouldn't be is free labor. In fact, one of the primary legal tests to determine whether an unpaid internship violates the law involves the benefit to the employer. If the firm is benefiting a great deal from your work and services, chances are, they're overstepping their bounds.

Historically, few of them were ever reported. Interns had viewed it as some punishing right of passage, and they worried that going up a powerful firm or well-connected colleagues so early in their careers might stunt their ability to find work after graduation. That's still a concern for some, but the culture is changing.

A number of high-profile cases have spotlighted the issue in a way that it's never been before. Recently in Los Angeles, a former fashion design intern filed suit against a fashion powerhouse where she had worked unpaid, alleging that the terms of the agreement had violated the regulations set forth by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. Those laws mandate that workers be paid no less than $8 hourly and time-and-a-half for the hours they work over 40 each week. The firm also failed, she says, to provide rest and meal periods.

A recent survey conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that approximately half of all college seniors had held an internship at some point. That's more than double the rate that reported the same just 20 years ago.

However, legal protections for interns have been slow to keep pace. But as cases like the one above continue to be filed, that is changing.

It's a misconception that receipt of school credit alone makes an unpaid internship legal. In fact, the U.S. Labor Department does not consider that to be one of the core factors it considers when weighing the legality of an internship. Rather, the agency holds that the following six criteria must be met in order for an unpaid internship to be legal:

Even though it takes place at the employer's facilities, the internship should provide similar training to what might be offered in an educational environment;

The experience is to benefit the intern;

The intern should not displace regular employees, but rather works under the close supervision of the staff who is already there;

The employer gets no immediate advantage from the work of the intern. In fact, operations may be impeded;

The intern isn't guaranteed a job at the end of the internship;

Both the employer and the intern are at an understanding prior to the beginning of the work that the time spent will be unpaid.

We hope that if you are taking on an internship this summer that it will be a fulfilling experience that will help bolster your future opportunities. But if you believe you have been advantage of, contact one of our employment lawyers to discuss your options.

Usher Sued by Former Nanny for Wrongful Termination, Overtime Violations

Fri, 17 May 2013 08:18:33 -0800

In a recent Los Angeles California employment lawyers blog, Vincent Howard discussed two Hollywood wrongful termination lawsuits involving movie star Sharon Stone--who was recently sued by her former housekeeper and her former nanny, for violations of California and federal labor laws.

This week, pop star Usher made employment news headlines after his former nanny filed a wrongful termination and overtime lawsuit against the music icon, claiming that she was not paid for overtime hours while taking care of this two small children. Cecelia Duncan claimed in the wrongful termination lawsuit that she was hired as a part time nanny for the singer's children in 2010, but that she often worked over forty hours a week, with no overtime compensation.

Duncan reportedly told Usher in 2011 that she was being overworked without receiving proper overtime compensation. One year later in 2012, Duncan claims in her wrongful termination lawsuit that she was fired and never paid the extra overtime compensation for the hours that she worked while being employed by Usher.

The former nanny is suing Usher for wrongful termination, failure to pay proper overtime wages, and damages, although the damages were reportedly not specified in the lawsuit. Usher, according to the Hollywood Reporter was paid $7 million from hosting the wildly popular NBC show, "The Voice" in 2012. Usher's representative's made a statement that this lawsuit is completely without merit.

Study Shows Increase in Wage and Hour Lawsuits for Five Consecutive Years

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:14:11 -0800

According to new wage and hour lawsuit data from the Federal Judicial Center, the number of employees who have sued their employers over wage and hour issues in the workplace has substantially increased. Costa Mesa-based attorney Vincent Howard has been following an analysis of the data that reports that over the past year, the number of wage and hour lawsuits have increased ten percent. This is the fifth year in a row that the lawsuits have increased, according to the study.

The analysis concludes that the first major increase in cases occurred in 2003, when the number of federal wage and hour lawsuits almost doubled from around 2,000 to 4,000. This number has continued to grow over the past five years, from over 5,000 lawsuits in 2008 to over 7,000 lawsuits filed in 2012.

These federal wage and hour lawsuits that allege violations of the FLSA are typically separated into three categories: hourly workers who claim that they have not been compensated for all of their work hours, salaried employees who claim that they are owed overtime pay, or have experienced employee misclassification, and restaurant workers who claim that their rights have been violated, when employers fail to pay additional wages after their tips combined with regular pay do not total the federal minimum wage.

CNN Money reports there has been a nearly 400 percent increase in wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) since 2000. In a related Orange County employment lawyers blog, Vincent Howard reported on a 2008 study entitled "Wage Theft and Workplace Violations in Los Angeles" that surveyed low wage workers in Los Angeles County. The study found that low wage workers were consistently robbed of their wage and hour rights, by being forced to work through rest and meal breaks, being exposed to tip stealing, and subjected to a lack of payment documentation, late compensation and retaliation.

Russell Stover's Outdoor Sales Representatives Sue for Employee Misclassification

Wed, 15 May 2013 12:38:12 -0800

In this week's wage and hour news, employees for the well-known candy company Russell Stover Candies filed a federal lawsuit against the company, accusing the candy maker of employee misclassification and failure to pay overtime compensation.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, nine workers claim that Russell Stover erroneously classified them as sales representatives, making them exempt from overtime compensation--where their actual responsibilities did not involve sales. The lawsuit claims that most of the candy company's direct sales are preformed by other employees.

The sales representatives claim that the majority of their duties include receiving candy shipments, inspecting them, unpacking, cleaning, stocking, driving to stores, repairing display fixtures and processing credits. One plaintiff who worked for the company from 2005 until 2012 claimed that her duties included manual labor, and that she regularly worked over forty hours in a workweek but was never paid overtime. The company is also being accused of creating an erroneous calculation of hours on the plaintiffs' paychecks, to show that they only worked forty hours, when in reality they worked more overtime hours.

As Vincent Howard frequently reports in Howard Law PC's Huntington Beach employment attorney's blog, the FLSA enforces that most employees are paid with the federal minimum wage, $7.25, for all hours worked, plus overtime payment totaling one and one-half their regular payment rates for all hours worked over forty hours in a week of employment.

E! 'Fashion Police' Writers File Overtime Lawsuit, Claiming $1M in Unpaid Wages

Mon, 13 May 2013 15:23:05 -0800

The writers from E! Network's popular show Fashion Police, starring Joan Rivers, have recently accused the network of violating their California wage and hour rights, alleging that E! owes them back wages that total over $1 million.

According to the Los Angeles, California wage and hour news, that Vincent Howard has been following, eight writers from the show recently filed a claim with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DSLE), claiming that E! has broken California law by failing to compensate them for all of their regular and overtime work hours they have accrued since writing for the show.

Fashion Police is being accused of ignoring the California wage and hour laws requiring that employers compensate hourly employees with their normal wage rate for all hours worked in an eight hour day, along with overtime compensation for any hours worked beyond forty hours in a week of work.

One of the writers claimed that the most she has been paid on the show was for eight hours of work, even though she consistently worked anywhere from twelve to thirty-two extra hours on the show. The writer claimed that the writing team was often required to work as many as sixteen hours at a time, with no additional overtime compensation.

Former Starbucks Barista Sues Starbucks for Sexual Harassment

Fri, 10 May 2013 12:10:15 -0800

In a previous Orange County, California employment lawyers blog, Vincent Howard reported on a sexual harassment lawsuit settlement involving coffee giant Starbucks and a teenage barista--who accused Starbucks of failing to neglect her from sexual harassment and discrimination by a store manager.

In recent news, Starbucks is being sued again by a former employee for sexual harassment. According to the lawsuit, Kari Smith was constantly harassed and ridiculed by her co-workers at Starbucks. Smith claims that male baristas would hold her against the wall and grind against her with their bottoms. The lawsuit also states that her colleagues joked about the dark basement of the Starbucks café, calling it the "rape room" because there were no cameras there. Smith also claims that she was ridiculed for her tendency to faint, and her co-workers would make jokes about her disability in a derogatory and sexual manner.

According to the lawsuit, after Smith filed a complaint with her supervisors, she was fired abruptly in April without any explanation. She is seeking damages for discrimination and sexual harassment.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment in the workplace is against the law. According to Vincent Howard, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines sexual harassment as any verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature, sexual requests in the workplace environment, any sexual advances that are unwelcome, and can also include any offensive remarks about a person's sex. Retaliation against employees who stand up for their workplace rights is also against the law.

Jury Awards Intellectually Disabled Workers $240M for Poultry Plant Abuse and Harassment

Thu, 09 May 2013 09:42:32 -0800

In a landmark U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) disability discrimination lawsuit verdict issued last week, an Iowa jury awarded the EEOC damages that totaled $240 million--reportedly the largest in the EEOC's history for disability discrimination and severe workplace abuse.

According to the lawsuit, that Costa Mesa, California-based attorney Vincent Howard has been closely watching, the jury sided with the EEOC, who filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against Hill County Farms, doing business as Henry's Turkey Service--claiming that the company subjected a group of 32 male workers with intellectual disabilities to massive abuse and disability discrimination from 2007 until 2009, after twenty years of similar illegal abuse and mistreatment. The company is based in Texas, but the work abuse occurred in Iowa.

The EEOC reportedly presented evidence that Henry's Turkey exploited these disabled and vulnerable workers for years, because their disabilities made them completely unaware that their legal rights were being denied. The evidence reportedly showed that the staffers and owners of the company subjected the workers, whose job responsibilities included eviscerating turkeys for twenty years, to constant physical and verbal harassment and abuse, restricted their freedom of movement, subjected them to other harsh conditions of employment such as forcing them to live in isolated, cruel, and sub-standard living conditions, and failed to provide them with proper medical care when necessary.

Among the verbal harassment and abuses frequently administered, the workers were referred to as "stupid," and "retarded," and were reportedly subjected to physical abuse that included kicking, hitting, and at least one instance of handcuffing. The workers were also forced to carry heavy weights to serve as punishment, and when they complained of injuries or pain, their complaints were dismissed by the supervisors and workers' caretakers.

Hutco Staffing Agency Will Pay Around $2M in Overtime Back Wages to Workers

Mon, 06 May 2013 19:58:49 -0800

Costa Mesa-based attorney Vincent Howard has been following a recent U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) investigation, after the DOL's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) found that Hutco Inc., an industrial services staging company, violated the Fair Labor Standard Act's (FLSA) overtime requirements by using payment and record-keeping practices that were evasive.

According to the WHD investigation, the company was found to have engaged in massive overtime violations in six of the company locations. Hutco reportedly mislabeled certain wage payments as "per diem" payments, and failed to include these wages when calculating the employees' overtime premiums--denying the workers with overtime payment. This illegal pay practice resulted in record-keeping violations of the FLSA, regarding the accuracy of the actual hours each employee worked, and the actual wages paid.

The WHD's acting deputy administrator, Mary Beth Maxwell, stated that temporary workers often run the risk of failing to receive their legal right to proper wages and legal protections provided to them under federal law. According to the WHD, employers are not allowed to dismiss their legal responsibility to compensate workers with overtime by using improper practices that deny these workers their rightful wages, and break federal labor laws.

Under the settlement, Hutco has agreed to pay 2,267 workers with $1,916,850 of back wages and will comply in the future with federal law. The company must also take measures to avoid future violations, and identify and pay workers who qualify for actual per diem payments, pay proper overtime payments to workers, and ensure that the per diem compensation is not automatically taken out of overtime calculations. Employees must also be informed about their compensation and employment terms and conditions, and Hutco must keep accurate payment records.

Presrite to Pay $700K to Settle Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Sat, 04 May 2013 12:11:13 -0800

Presrite Corporation, a Cleveland-based industrial parts manufacturer, will reportedly pay $700,000 to settle a class action gender discrimination lawsuit, according to an EEOC press release that Riverside, California-based attorney Vincent Howard has been following.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, Presrite is responsible for widespread gender discrimination against female applicants. The EEOC found that the company consistently denied female applicants entry level positions at the company's three plants--instead giving the jobs to less-qualified male applicants. The commission also found that many women who were hired in entry level positions experienced harassment. One female employee claimed that her male colleagues told her that women should not work at the plant, drew pictures of her that were degrading, called her derogatory names, and told her she should open her uniform to show her chest for a photo.

The company was also charged with failing to keep employee data and applications--another violation of federal law. Presrite reportedly failed to produce more than a thousand employment applications for workers that the company hired, and also did not maintain information about the applicants that was accurate--making it impossible for the EEOC to properly identify the large number female applicants who were illegally denied employment because of their gender.

According to Vincent Howard, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination based on sex is against the law. Title VII also mandates that employers must create and keep employment records that are relevant to whether or not an employer has engaged in practices that are unlawful--which includes hiring discrimination based on gender.