Employment Attorney Services' Blog

Age Discrimination Impact Discussed in Senate Committee Hearing

In a Senate Committee hearing on aging that was hosted by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis), an individual who spoke as a witness discussed the unpleasant situation of older workers who have lost their job during the economic recession in the past few years.

Although older workers have a lower risk of losing their jobs than younger ones, when they do, it becomes doubly hard for them to find a job in an instant.

In a news report following the hearing, an investigational arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, said that age discrimination is a major predicament for older job applicants seeking to get back to work after losing their job.

For older workers, long term unemployment could definitely mean delayed medical care, financial obstacles, loss of retirement, and even loss of self-worth.

However, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, did not agree that age discrimination is a huge problem. Furchtgott-Roth said that although she agrees that older workers today are experiencing difficulties in finding a job during the economic downfall, she does not believe with the report’s implication that the problem facing older workers need targeted policies that treat them differently than any other workers. Furchtgott-Roth added such policies would unnecessarily set one generation against another.

She further noted that although the unemployment rate for workers older than 55 is higher now than it was before with 6.3 percent, the same is lower than the national average of 8.1 percent. Meanwhile, the employment force participation rate for baby boomers has firmly increased since the 1990s as it has dropped overall.

Workers and their advocates usually admit that in most cases, it is impossible to prove age discrimination. Nevertheless, many old job seekers aren’t sure what’s going on. Several jobless elderly claimed that they have experienced rejection and emotional distress after being surpassed by other applicants in recent job applications.

Meanwhile, the Committee on Aging heard another testimony from the president of a Connecticut company, Joseph Carbone, saying that he is currently implementing a state drive to link the long term jobless to job opportunities. Also, the director of the National Employment Law Project, Christian Owens, is now targeting age discrimination and discrimination against jobless.

On the other hand, in a Los Angeles discrimination attorney’s point of view, he agrees that age discrimination takes part in the problems experienced by older workers today based on the inconsiderable number of workers that have sought for a lawyer’s advice regarding age discrimination in the workplace complaints. 

California Workers Compensation Board Declines Former NFL Player’s Complaint

On May 1, a former NFL player’s workers’ compensation complaint was declined by the California Workers’ Compensation Board.

After handling down the ruling, the California Workers’ Compensation Board said that players should not take advantage of California’s employee-advantageous workers’ compensation laws. The board also anticipates that the said ruling should be noted by other NFL players who wish to file complaints at the Golden State.

The ruling was handed down to the NFL retired defensive end, Vaugh Booker’s compensation complaint. Booker played one game in California in 2001 under the Cincinnati Bengals and recently, he had been suing the Bengals and the Green Bay Packers in California based on workers’ compensation claims.

Within the past few months, the NFL and the NFL Players Association have been battling over workers’ compensation benefits with California lying at the center of the battle.

Several NFL players had filed compensation complaints against the NFL in California since the state accommodates the said complaints as long as the players played at least one game in their entire career within the state.

More than any other states, California provides higher workers’ compensation benefits. Moreover, the state has a longer statute limitation — meaning, employees may still file a compliant even years after their retirement. This is the main reason why most NFL players opted to file a complaint in California.

However, although the state had allowed other NFL players’ workers’ compensation complaint, Booker’s case becomes isolated. It is actually the first lawsuit that the state declined due to several grounds.

According to the board, it cannot adopt subject matter jurisdiction over the case due to Brooker’s contract with the Bengals, which included a forum selection clause. Quoted below are several statements included at the contract’s addendum:
"As a material inducement for the Club to employ Player's services, Player promises and agrees that any workers' compensation claim, dispute, or cause of action arising out of Player's employment with the Club shall be subject to the workers' compensation laws of Ohio exclusively and not the workers' compensation laws of any other state. Player further agrees that any claim, filing, petition, or cause of action in any way relating to workers' compensation rights or benefits arising out of Player's employment with the Club, including without limitation the applicability, or enforceability of this addendum, shall be brought solely and exclusively with the courts of Ohio, the Industrial Commission of Ohio, or such other Ohio tribunal that has jurisdiction over the matter."
The board stressed out that the contract was not an agreement contract wherein the player has little or no ability to arrange terms more favorable to him or her. Furthermore, the board also pointed out the reasonable nature of requiring the use of an Ohio forum.

Nevertheless, the board’s resolution does not stand as a compulsory decision on any other court or tribunals even on the board’s own future decisions. However, it apparently provides the NFL a powerful victory that it can use in its future cases.

Workers compensation statutes in each state vary. Each state has its own governing board supervising varying public and private combinations of workers’ compensation systems. Moreover, the federal government has its own workers’ compensation program, subject to its own requirements and statutory parameters for federal employees.

Even a Los Angeles Employment Lawyer can explain each of the state’s workers’ compensation laws since it is their forte. Therefore, they are familiar with all employment laws and other statutes related to employment.

 

• Severel lines in this blog post were quoted from an article written and posted online by David Fucillo of SB Nation as a readers' ready reference.

California Court Rules False Harassment Complaint as Legal Ground for Wrongful Termination

In a recent wrongful termination case heard by the California Court of Appeal, the jury ruled that an employee who was fired for false harassment complaint could not claim that the employer’s reason for termination was merely an excuse for retaliation.

The said court resolution shows clarification regarding how employers can manage an employee’s false harassment claim, particularly exaggerated sexual complaints.

Initially, the California Court of Appeal determined that the issue here is whether an employer has the right to discipline or terminate an employee upon learning that the employee has made false sexual harassment claim or whether such a compliant is exempted from discipline even if the employer determines that the complaint was fabricated.

In other words, the question here is that should an employee be protected from the consequences of a sexual harassment report that an employer found out to be just threaded lies?

Eventually, the court concluded that an employer have the right to discipline an employee for making fabricated charges – even sexual harassment allegations – just as long as the employer’s stated reason for discipline was not simply an excuse. Necessarily, an employer must truly believe that the employee’s claim was purely fabricated and not just an excuse for wrongfully terminating an employee for filing a complaint.

The final resolution simply goes like this: An employer may discipline or fired an employee for threading lies, even when there is a sexual harassment allegation involved.

Unlike discrimination based on age, race, national origin and other protected class that fall under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act, fabrication does not belong to a protected class.

To gain the maximum protection under the said resolution, you may contact a Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyer before mounting an investigation into an employee’s allegedly false claim to avoid wrongful termination charges. Although the court already ruled that a termination can be mounted once an employee was found guilty for fabricating workplace harassment claim, it is important to maintain clean records.

This recent court decision was appreciated not only by the city of Los Angeles but by all the State of California employers since this will be a very helpful resolution in the employment industry.

Protect Yourself from Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

It might be disappointing but the ugly truth can’t be denied —sexual harassment in the workplace is very common, and can happen to anyone at any given time and place. In fact, it is a growing problem in the workplace.

Below are several ways how you could protect yourself against any nature of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Be fully aware.

Having the right knowledge definitely makes one powerful. People should be aware about the existing laws addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. For additional information about sexual harassment in the workplace, quoted below are several provisions stated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):

•    Harassing an applicant or an employee based on sex is illegal. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors and other verbal or physical abuse of a sexual nature.

•    Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and of same gender as well.

•    Although simple teasing, offhand comments or isolated incidents are not prohibited under the law, when the gestures become frequent and severe, creating a hostile workplace environment for the abused or when it results in a hostile employment decision, it becomes illegal.

•    Harasser can be the victim’s immediate supervisor or a supervisor in another area, a coworker, a client, or a customer.

Dress appropriately

One can gain respect from others by dressing modestly. Always look professional. Admit it or not, women are the first ones to be blamed when someone gives a lustful look on her cleavage or in her legs when they dress in an inappropriate way.

Always feel and look confident

Harassers love to assault the weaker ones or the ones that look vulnerable since harassers easily get intimidated by women with power or strong personality. Strength will serve as your biggest weapon against possible sexual harassment. Another thing is that people with confidence has the ability to pursue a harassment complaint to a higher authority.

Keep records

Maintain a record, like a diary detailing every single sexual advance that the harasser had done unto you. Consider it as your only form of proof should the harassment goes severe and you decide to take it to court.

Get surrounded by friends or colleagues

Always be with a group of trusted co-workers. Avoid being alone whether during meal break or rest break. Although colleagues may not be able to avoid a harasser in his advances, at least you will have witnesses if he makes unwelcome advances, which can make your claim stronger. 

Although sexual harassment in the workplace could never be avoided, victims may seek justice and recover compensation in employment sexual harassment case. An experienced Los Angeles employment lawyer helps such victim in seeking compensation for the abusive and illegal behavior and makes the responsible party accountable for its misconducts.

Iowa’s Largest Lawsuit of its Kind Dismissed

A Jury ruled on April 17 that the state of Iowa’s employment policies have not discriminated employees and job applicants based on race. The said case was in fact closely monitored by civil rights activists.

After reviewing Iowa’s largest lawsuit of its kind filed by approximately 6,000 African-Americans, Iowa District Court Judge Robert Blink resolved the case in his ruling by dismissing the complainants’ racial discrimination claim.

In the lawsuit, the complainants are requesting the city of Iowa to pay millions for lost wages and other damages. They further claim that the city of Iowa changes its hiring and promotion decisions which brought an adverse effect on their part.

During the litigation, the complainants called several experts to attest that blacks usually have lower chances of being interviewed, hired, promoted and given salary increase and employment benefits.

However, in Blink’s ruling, it stated that the complainants failed to provide reasonable proof that the state managers subjected its employees, as well as job applicants, to racial discrimination in the workplace.

The said lawsuit, which was referred to as the largest lawsuit of its kind against the civil service system of the government, strategically tested a legal theory that social science and statistics alone can mount widespread employment discrimination.

A spokeswoman from the complainants’ party said that the complainants are reviewing the court’s decision to determine whether or not they have the right to file for an appeal.

Figures show that the state of Iowa’s workforce is only comprised of 2.9 percent blacks while the rest are all white. Hence, one of the complainants’ lawyer is praying that the judge will consider taking a bold action that would make Iowa a leading state in providing fair employment opportunities without any prejudice.

Apparently, complainants need to understand that informing the whole world that they suffered from racial discrimination in the workplace is not sufficient. Necessarily, they still have to prove that the employer violated either the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA) in order to achieve a favorable court decision.

Best Buy’s Closure Announcement Opens Employment Issues

On Saturday, Best Buy announced that it is expected to close 50 of its stores this current year. The company, in its press release, further stated that three additional locations would close later this summer.

By May 12, most of the stores are scheduled to permanently close. The closures and lay-off plans indicate the company’s next step in the embattled electronics chain’s effort to stay afloat in the competitive industry.

Over the past years, Best Buy has faced difficulties when it comes to their sales, particularly in their pricey items such as electronic appliances and more. Many of the company’s customers turn to Amazon.com and stores like Target or Costco to save on huge ticketed items. Best Buy is striving hard to avoid the fate of its former competitor, Circuit City, which in 2009 filed for bankruptcy and then permanently closed all of its retail stores.

Around 400 corporate workers will be affected by the company’s lay-off plan. However, Best Buy said that the plan aims to cut cost and then use the money they can save from the said cost-cutting measures in opening 100 smaller Best Buy mobile stores in the future. 

Although the company’ announcement came as the worst news that the hundreds of affected workers ever had, the company compromises for sure job positions to the laid off workers once it open its news stores.  

When the said lay-off plan takes place, employees should be aware about their legal rights under the employment law even after being terminated. Employees’ rights include separation pay, unemployment benefits, continued health coverage, and others.

Meanwhile, in some instances, employees may also have the right to negotiate their separation pay in order to get the best deal for their termination. However, when an employee’s termination is part of a mass lay-off, oftentimes, it is usually harder to negotiate separation pay. Therefore, having someone, like employment law attorneys, to provide you with sufficient information regarding employment law and legal advice is a good option.

Aircraft Retailer and Service Provider Agrees to Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

The aircraft retailer and service provider, Aviation Concepts, Inc., has agreed to settle a discrimination lawsuit after an approval of a federal judge.

The said religious discrimination lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) way back in September 2011 following a complaint of the aircraft company’s former employee, Armando Perez. The agency first reached a pre-litigation settlement through conciliation process before ending up in filing a lawsuit.

Allegedly, Perez was wrongfully terminated from the said aircraft retailer after he informed his seniors that he cannot perform a particular job for some religious reason. Perez is practicing Jehovah’s Witness as his religion.

According to court papers, a company manager ordered Perez to raise the US and Guam flags in the workplace in June, 2010. Although Perez tried to explain to his senior that the same would violate his religious beliefs, he was eventually fired by his manager the same day for insubordination.

Discrimination based on gender clearly violates the provisions stated under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Both the Aviation Concepts, Inc. and the EEOC agreed to enter into a two and a half year consent decree to settle the lawsuit. The aviation company agreed to appoint an EEOC consultant, modify its policies and procedures to include the reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs, as well as to provide an annual anti-discrimination training and others to all employees. The aviation company will also post a notice regarding the matter on its every facility while the EEOC will do the monitoring. Furthermore, the aviation company is also required to pay monetary reliefs to Perez.

One of EEOC’s employment law attorneys for its Los Angeles District Office said that all workers have the right to request for a reasonable accommodation or exception to work tasks or practices that may conflict against their religious beliefs and practices.

The EEOC reminds employers that they can’t simply ignore or concisely decline religious accommodation requests by employees. The EEOC has its own employment law attorneys who are more than willing to discipline employers who violate federal laws.

Largest Telecommunication Service Provider Sued for Employment Discrimination Based on Disability

A leading provider of telecommunication service, AT&T, is currently facing employment discrimination lawsuit for failing to provide reasonable accommodation to a former employee.

AT&T was sued by the EEOC after its former employee filed a complaint at the agency regarding the employment discrimination based on disability that the latter experienced from the said company.

Lupe Cardona has been employed at AT&T since 1984 as a customer service representative until she was fired. Allegedly, Cardona filed a request for leave of absence to receive interferon to treat her Hepatitis C, since if she doesn’t undergo such treatment, her disease could be fatal.

The company approved Cardona’s request for leave of absence from June 24 to Oct. 24, 2012. When Cardona’s physician declared that her medical treatment has been successful, she was permitted to return to work without restriction. However, a couple of days later, Cardona was terminated by AT&T, claiming that she violated its attendance policy after she used her approved leave to receive medical treatment.

AT&T declined to provide reasonable accommodation to Cardona’s disability through exempting her leave of absence from its no-fault attendance policy. Such misconduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The EEOC, after seeing a reasonable cause to file for a complaint and following a pre-litigation settlement though conciliation, decided to file an employment discrimination lawsuit before the office of the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The said lawsuit is seeking for back pay and other damages, as well as reinstatement and injunctive relief. Also, the lawsuit prays for a court order prohibiting AT&T from such further misconduct.

One of the EEOC’s employment law attorneys, Patrick Holman, stated that the refusal of AT&T to make a reasonable exception to its cruel attendance policy to accommodate the known disability of an employee violated not only the federal law, but also common sense and common decency.

In such employment discrimination case, the success of the claim vastly relies on the ability of a claimant to prove the employer’s wrong deeds. The employee must prove that the actions taken by the employer were a result of their disability, and not for other reasons.

Court Presentation for Wrongful Termination Scandal against City of Colton Begins

Court presentations finally begin for a wrongful termination lawsuit that was filed back in 2008 on a messy scandal involving the city of Colton and its former city manager and now Covina City Manager, Daryl Parrish.

In May 2008, former Colton Police Chief, Ken Rulon filed a wrongful discrimination lawsuit against the city of Colton and Parrish after he was fired.

Allegedly, Rulon was terminated in April 2007 after he reported the misconduct and corrupt activities of several city officials to the District Attorney’s Office, Sherriff’s Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Included in Rulon’s report was the credit card misuse of the former city councilman Ramon Hernandez. In fact, in 2008, Hernandez admitted guilty for using the city-issued credit card to pay for his telephone sex and hotel room charges. The lawsuit also revealed that Hernandez was abusing methamphetamine, a drug used to enhance self esteem and increase sexual instinct.

Deirdre Bennett, who was then the city mayor, affirmed that he confronted Parrish about the city-issued credit card that was used for misconduct, but Parrish failed to immediately cancel it. Therefore, for the second time around, the credit car has been used again by Hernandez for wrong purposes before his said guilty plea. 

Aside from the messy scandal, Rulon also reported the conflict of interest that was then happening between a city developer and the then Assistant City Manager Mark Nuaimi. Also, Rulon attested that he was asked to use his political influence to affect criminal charges that were set against two former councilmen’s children.

Rulon, represented by his wrongful termination California attorney, claims that Parrish and the other city administrators conspired together with the city’s police union to drive him out of his political stand before he could expose the prevailing corruption in the city.

On the other hand, the city affirmed that Rulon is fully aware on the matter ever since, but he just sat on the evidences for sometime and did not even consider coming to the District Attorney until Parrish became aware of the situation.

Nevertheless, Bennett still testified that during Rulon’s time of employment, she never encountered a problem with his job performance nor received complaints from any Police Department employees or city staff.

Said wrongful termination California lawsuit is being heard by Honorable Judge Bryan Foster.

Though the city of Colton is opposing Rulon’s claims, he should take a lot of courage in pursuing his case, considering that he’s in an at-will state. He must be sure enough that he has reasonable cause to file for a claim under California and federal laws.

A Group of Law Firm Employees Wrongfully Terminated for Wearing Orange Shirt

Several law firm employees have been wrongfully terminated by a law firm in Florida, USA after wearing orange shirt.

Allegedly, fourteen employees that wore orange for the sole reason of celebrating pay day and the upcoming Friday group happy hour were wrongfully terminated by a Florida law office, Elizabeth R. Wellborn, P.A.

The employees claim that they were fired by the said law firm since it thought that their main reason for wearing the same shirt color is because they were in a protest against the office management.

Employees further testified that they just wore matching colors so that they would be easily identified as a group since they plan to go out for a happy hour after all day’s work.

Orange is actually considered as one of the most visible colors to the naked eye. In fact, hunters, security guards, traffic officers and prisoners wear orange color vest or shirt to be easily recognized.

Moreover, orange is arguably a color representing Florida since said “sunshine state” is best known for exporting orange juice.

The said law firm refused to provide comments regarding the dispute, while the complainants for said wrongful termination attested that there is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. They also claimed that they got no separation pay nor package and anything after the termination. They added that they felt like their human rights were violated.

Ironically, wearing orange even for the purpose of expressing protest could not be enough reasonable cause for firing employees. In fact, such act could be considered illegal.

The fired employees further stated that after they were fired, a company executive even asked for an explanation from the fired employees regarding their uniformed color shirt, to which the employees complied with. Nevertheless, they were still fired eventually.

Florida is an at-will state wherein employers can easily fire an employee who doesn’t have a contract for any reason as long as it is lawful.
One of the employment law attorneys said that there was no violation seen on the fired employees’ part.