Garay Law
Free Initial Consultation
Call us at | 800-499-1341

Orange County Employment Law Blog

Raley's sued for pregnancy discrimination in California

Cailfornia-based supermarket chain Raley's is being sued by two women who claim they were discriminated against by the company for being pregnant. The lawsuit was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on April 9.

According to the civil complaint, one woman informed her managers that she was pregnant when she was five months along. She presented them with a note from her doctor that stated she should not be required to lift more than 10 pounds. The woman, who worked in the store's bakery decorating and boxing cakes, claims an accommodation of her condition could have easily been made, as the only things she was unable to do was to lift frozen dough boxes and boxes of chicken. Instead of accommodating her, she alleges the manager instead forced her to take unpaid leave due to her pregnancy.

Employee claims retaliation after termination

A California woman has taken her employment case to court, claiming the real reason behind her termination was retaliation. The woman had reportedly received excellent performance ratings for 4 years. However, she claims that the situation at her job changed when she reported fellow employees for a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

The woman became the subject of an investigation after she reported her fellow employees for allegedly releasing confidential medical files. After two meetings with compliance officers, she was called into a third meeting and told that her employment would be terminated. The woman claims that she was given the choice of writing a resignation letter on the spot or being fired and losing her right to unemployment benefits. Under alleged coercion and manipulation, she wrote the resignation letter.

Suit accuses Facebook of harassment, discrimination

While one ongoing discrimination suit in California names large social media company Facebook as the defendant, many suits may arise when there is a lack of diversity in the workplace. Companies in the technology sector largely lack a diverse culture of employees as statistics reported by companies like Facebook and Google report that an average of 70 percent of employees are male and white.

The suit against Facebook was filed on March 16 in San Mateo County Superior Court by a woman who worked at the company from June 2010 to October 2013, and she filed 11 claims alleging national origin discrimination and sexual harassment. Her suit names 51 employees that reportedly contributed to an environment of harassment, and the woman says that her opinions were ignored while coworkers made sexist comments. The suit contends that she was asked to serve drinks to male employees at a company event and was told to stay at home and take care of her children.

Supreme Court reviews discriminatory employment practice

Job applicants in California who are preparing for interviews may be surprised to find out that practices discriminating against religious attire are still being followed. A Supreme Court case being reviewed by the justices involves a job applicant who was refused a floor position with the company Abercrombie & Fitch because of issues that her religious headscarf presented to the store's dress code.

The federal statute at the center of the case, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, makes it illegal for an employer to engage in discriminatory practices when hiring or terminating an employee. In former court cases involving similar circumstances, the court sided with the employer, since the individual's appearance did not fit with the expectations of the place of employment. Counsel for Abercrombie & Fitch claim that the job would have been refused to any applicant who did not comply with their dress code, which indicates that the wearing of any headgear is not allowed.

Wrongful termination in California

Sometimes when a California worker is fired, the termination may have been in violation of federal or state law. In the event that the termination was made for an unlawful purpose, the employee may have grounds to file a wrongful termination claim against the employer.

There are several types of terminations that are prohibited. If the firing was done for a discriminatory purpose or as an act of sexual harassment, grounds may exist for a claim. Other actionable reasons include terminations that are contrary to the provisions of an oral or written employment agreement, retaliatory termination following the filing of a complaint by the employee and firings done in violation of labor and collective bargaining laws.

California woman sues employer for sexual harassment

A 23-year-old woman who worked for Starbucks at one of its locations in Chula Vista has filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging sexual harassment. She said that the harassment began after the store that she worked at got a new manager. The manager reportedly asked the woman if she had taken special education classes and called her derogatory names. However, the woman said that the harassment became physical over time.

According to the complaint, the manager grabbed her, physically restrained her and moved her. These actions caused the employee to feel violated, and she complained to the company's corporate office in accordance with the procedures it had established. According to the woman, the corporate office said that they would look into her complaint. In addition, meetings with the district manager to discuss the incident. However, he failed to show for the meetings according to the employee.

Employee civil rights violations in California

Although some actions may very be unfair, not every action is prohibited by civil rights laws. Discriminatory actions by an employer must be actions that occur due to a person's protected status. Protected statuses include race, religion, gender, national origin, color, disability, pregnancy, familial status and veteran status.

A discriminatory act is prohibited at all stages of employment, from advertising an open position to termination of a person's employment. Employers may not discriminate against a worker in its hiring decisions or in promotions, pay, or provision of benefits or bonuses, for example. If a person's civil rights have been violated, he or she may attempt to negotiate a settlement short of filing a lawsuit in court. In many cases, he or she may need to pursue the matter through litigation.

What is the ADEA?

Those who are employed in California or elsewhere in the country may unfortunately have first-hand experience with the concept of age discrimination, which is the act of treating an employee or a candidate to become an employee differently because of his or her age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act is a federal law that provides protection to workers who are over the age of 40.

In some cases, protections are available at the state level for those who are under the age of 40. It is also important to note that age discrimination can take place even if both the workers or applicants and the employer are over the age of 40. The law does not ban favoring a worker because he or she is older than another worker or applicant who may also be qualified to do a certain job.

McDonald's named as joint employer by NLRB

Workers in California may be interested to learn of a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board that McDonald's corporate may be named as a joint employer together with its franchisees in the labor law violations committed by the franchisees.

The ruling was issued on Dec. 19 and could potentially mean McDonald's may be held jointly liable for laws broken by any of its 2,500 franchisees. More than 86 claims have been alleged against both McDonald's and McDonald's franchisees in the past few years. Complaints include illegal actions such as retaliation against workers for attempting to organize in order to increase wages and protesting work conditions. The 86 complaints have all been found to have legal merit, and have all been filed since Nov. 2012.

According to the numerous complaints, workers who attempted to assert their rights under federal and state labor laws were subjected to retaliatory actions by McDonald's.Retaliation included reductions in hours, firing, surveillance, discriminatory workplace discipline, threats, interrogation and promises of benefits in order to quell employee attempts at organizing and forming unions.

The purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act

California employees may be interested in some information about the Americans with Disabilities Act and how it impacts the workplace. This federal law is integral in protecting the interests of employees with disabilities in order to counter and give redress for any workplace discrimination they may face.

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects employees who qualify from disability discrimination in the workplace. In order to qualify as a person with a disability, one must either have an impairment, either mental or physical, that impedes major activities in their life, or be regarded or recorded as having such an impairment. The types of discrimination that a disabled person may face at their workplace include discrimination with regard to hiring, payment and benefits decisions, among others.

Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.