Employment Attorney Services' Blog

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.

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.

US Insurance Company to Settle Disability Discrimination after Cancelling a Job Offer

The United Insurance Company of America is facing a two–year consent decree and is required to pay monetary relief to resolve its disability discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC in Aug. 2011 at the office of the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina after a due process.

In the said lawsuit, the EEOC claims that the insurance company cancelled its job offer to an applicant who was formerly a drug addict after learning about the applicant’s disability.

Craig Burns is a recovering drug addict and since 2004 has been enrolled in a methadone treatment program. In January 2010, the United Insurance offered Burns a job position in its office in Raleigh in the condition that Burns has to pass a drug test. However, Burns’ drug test results still showed a presence of methadone in his system. Burns submitted a letter of explanation to the United Insurance noting that he was participating in a supervised methadone treatment and is currently taking lawfully prescribed. The United Insurance just notified Burns that they are cancelling their job offer to Burns due to his non–eligibility.

Such conduct is considered as a violation to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Said act prohibits disability discrimination against employees and applicants.

In addition to the monetary relief amounting to $37,000, the United Insurance is required to conduct trainings regarding disability discrimination and to conduct an individualized assessment to determine if an employee or applicant is disabled under the provisions set by the ADA. Furthermore, like any other company who underwent settlements with the EEOC, the United Insurance Company is required to post a copy of its anti-discrimination policy at its head office in St. Louis, Missouri as a protocol.

People with disabilities should not be treated with discrimination, most particularly when it comes to hiring. Apart from the ADA, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also prohibits either private and government employers or agencies from discriminating employees based on their disabilities.

The different provisions regarding the disability law aim to protect applicant and employees with the defect against employer harassment. An employment law attorney could explain in detail each and every provisions set therein.

Guidelines for a Healthy and Safe Working Environment

The health and safety of workers should always be considered first. Employers must ensure that their employees are in a healthy condition and safe workplace during working hours. Employees are also expected to follow few simple guidelines to help their employer achieve a healthy and safe working environment.

Regulations for a healthy and safe environment are created to avoid employees from sustaining personal injuries and other health threats from work.

Below are some health and safety guidelines that both employers and employees should strictly observe in a work place:

•    Wear protective mask, gears and safety glasses and other protective equipment during working hours, most specially when in a dangerous work site. Take note that personal protective equipment should be provided by employers free of charge.

•    It is the duty and obligation of an employee suffering from illness, sustained personal injuries, during working hours or discovered that she’s pregnant or going through a medication to immediately inform the employer. Employers must be aware of the employee’s condition immediately to give way on how the employee can carry out his or her job.  

•    Employees operating machineries or driving should avoid wearing jewelry during working hours and if an employee has long hair, he is required to tie his hair properly to avoid the risk of getting them stuck into machineries.

•    Employees are also responsible for taking reasonable precautions not to put other people at risk by actions they commit or fail to commit during their work.

•    Apart from the preventive measures, employers are also required to conduct a special training for employees about the correct use of safety equipments and other health and safety trainings.

•    The most important part here is that, employers and employees should coordinate with each other in ensuring a healthy and safe working environment.

Employers are the first to be held liable in case of accidents and health threats during working hours. Therefore, employers are expected to implement strict workplace health and safety regulations which the employees should religiously obey.

In the event that the employer fails to follow these few simple guidelines for the health and safety, employees can try to discuss it with the supervisor, manager or the employer first and if they fail to accommodate your concerns, then maybe it’s time for you to consult to an employment lawyer near you to hear all your concerns.

Same Sex Military Couple Sues Veterans Affair for Denied Disability Benefits

Since 2001, same sex marriage has been allowed in several countries like Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden, Mexico and some parts of United States.

Though it was recognized in many countries, it was still widely unaccepted in most parts of the world. Same sex marriage recognition is an issue in civil rights, political, social, moral and religious in many countries.

The most frequent argument in support of same sex marriage is that denying legal access to marriage and its entire attendant benefits portray discrimination based on gender orientation.

See Carmen Cardona’s case. She was rated eighty percent (80%) disabled by the Veterans Affairs. She is an 18 - year Navy veteran but after she married her wife in 2010 and applied for an increase in her benefits, the Department of Veterans Affair rejected her application stating a federal decree defining a spouse as “a person of opposite sex”.

Under the Veterans Affairs policy, dependents spouse, children or parents of a disabled service member are entitled for supplemental payments. However, the Department of Foreign Affairs ruled that same sex marriage similar with Cardona’s case is not entitled to the common typical spousal increase in disability benefits.

Apparently, the federal laws’ should be triggered to do some modification on their constitution regarding same sex marriage.

Cardona together with her labor attorneys intend to appeal to the Court of Appeals for an increase in her disability benefits. Her case is currently handled by a special federal court in Washington debating over veterans’ benefits. According to reports, Cardona together with her team will argue that the definition of the federal government violates her Fifth Amendment right to due process and will debate the lawfulness of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Labor lawyers said that this case would be the first time a claimant has taken on Defense of Marriage Act in a veterans’ appeals court.

If you are quite sure with such employment claims, don’t hesitate to contact and have the best labor lawyers to guide you all through out the litigation to help you win the claims you are aiming for.

Have You Found the Perfect Employment Lawyer to Rely On?

Finding the right employment lawyer can be a too tough and confusing task. Looking for an employment lawyer is like dealing with a tough and strenuous job situation.  Combining these is the major problem of finding a well-experienced and knowledgeable lawyer who can absolutely guide and help you.
It is very important to find the ideal lawyer for you since the law is too complex and it will be impossible for you to interpret by yourself.  There are actually both federal employment laws and California employment laws which sometime overlap. Therefore, you’ll never know which one to apply. You will need an experienced professional lawyer to rely on. The good news here is that you can have a free consultation if you might have a case simply by calling their law offices and you can talk to a lawyer who will listed to all your queries and concerns as well as to advice you for the best.
California has a lot of great lawyers. Do not waste your time explaining your situation to someone who can’t even understand or help you with your problem.  Talk directly to a California employment lawyer who can give you the best advice. Sometimes, possibly succeeding case, evidences is not enough if you don’t have a professional employment lawyer.
 If you originally had a valid case, don’t take any chances. Be sure enough that you are dealing with the best employment lawyer in your locality.

AT&T Faces Suit after Refusing to Accommodate Blind Worker

US' biggest telecommunications company, AT&T Inc., has faced lawsuit after refusing to grant accommodation to an employee who has gone blind, according to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports on Thursday.

Reports said AT&T has refused to provide technological aid to a longtime worker who has gone blind from diabetes. The worker could have continued employment should the administration grant the special computer software request.

Miguel Melendez began working for Centennial de Puerto Rico Inc. as a switch technician in November 2001. He had a history of diabetes retinopathy, which led to blindness in November 2008. He then requested for technological aid until AT&T acquired the company in January 2010. The employer refused to grant accommodation, which caused Melendez to lose his job, reports said.

Reports said Melendez filed the complaint to EEOC, explaining that he should have continued his work if the computer applications were given.

The federal agency filed the disability discrimination in US District Court for Puerto Rico after initiating a conciliation process. EEOC is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the aggrieved employee, reports said.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation to a worker who has a disability is a violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers have the responsibility to provide technological aid to assist blind employees in fulfilling their work duties. Depriving the disabled worker of this right violates his or her right to earn a living. 
The employer should have purchased the computer software especially if its cost will not cause undue hardship for the company. In this way, the employee could have overcome his disability and excel in his career.

The employer should have also thought the valuable contribution of an experienced employee can bring to the company.
  
Discriminating against blind workers pushes them into poverty instead of helping them become productive members of the society. This strains the community as well as the workforce, which needs skilled laborers regardless of physical limitations.

For more information on disability discrimination lawsuit, you may consult with an employment lawyer in Los Angeles. Your attorney will help you throughout the process of litigation. Dial 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Pregnant Worker Sues Employer for Discrimination

Firing an employee because she is pregnant is a violation of federal law and may cause the employer to face stringent penalties.

Consider the case of Greystar Management Services, L.P., which has faced lawsuit after terminating a pregnant worker. 

According to reports on Wednesday, Amada Lucero, housekeeper for Greystar, informed her superior that she is pregnant. The management responded by requiring her to present medical certificate and terminating her employment contract.

Lucero filed a complaint with US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stating that though she was medically cleared to resume working with cleaning chemicals, the employer removed her from her post. She asserted that she had performed her job satisfactorily, and the termination was unfair, reports said

As stated in the lawsuit Lucero reported the misconduct to EEOC, in which the federal agency filed the lawsuit in US District Court of the District of Maryland. EEOC is seeking compensatory, punitive, and injunctive damages on behalf of the aggrieved employee.

Firing an employee just because she is pregnant is a violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers are prohibited from committing acts of discrimination against workers who have temporary disability or medical condition.

Employers also have the responsibility to provide accommodation to pregnant workers. Some examples are adjustment in work schedule and tasks to assist their pregnancy. Firing the pregnant employee is an act of discrimination and assaults her right to earn a living.

The employer should have discussed with the pregnant employee on how she can be assisted through her pregnancy instead of firing her. The employer should have also sought medical advice from the doctor on the safe levels of cleaning chemicals. In these ways, the employer has cleared his or her doubts on keeping a pregnant housekeeper.

For more information on pregnancy discrimination, you may consult with an
employment lawyer in Los Angeles. Your Labor attorney will help you go through the process of litigation.  Dial 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Workers of Hampton Inn Franchise Files Race Discrimination Suit

Employees of Hampton Inn Franchise in Colorado, operating as Century Shree Corporation and Century Rama Inc., have filed a class race discrimination suit against the owners, according to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Monday.

Reports said a group of employees who were White and non-Hispanic were wrongfully terminated by the owners of company.

As stated in the lawsuit, the employers believed that non-Hispanic and White employees were lazy. As a result, they fired a group of workers belonging to the above mentioned race regardless of their work performance.

Dewetta McKnight, Wendy Buckley, and Ashlee Flannery initiated the filing of complaint to EEOC. They reported how the owners discriminated against them just because they belong to a particular race, reports said.

Reports said the federal agency filed the race discrimination lawsuit in US District Court for the District of Colorado. The EEOC also filed mishandling of employment records charge against the employers.

The EEOC is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the aggrieved employees.

Discriminating against workers on the basis of race or ethnic origin is a violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers have the responsibility to promote equal work opportunities and create a discrimination-free workplace.

Firing employees just because they belong to a particular race is unfair. More so, labeling a group of workers as lazy based on stereotypes is unreasonable.

The owners of the company should have based employment decisions on work performance and not on workers' race. The management should have implemented reasonable ways to detect indolent workers rather than succumbing to hearsays.

Being lazy is not in the blood, but in the person's decision not to perform well at work.

For more information on race discrimination lawsuit, you may consult with an employment lawyer in Los Angeles. Your attorney will guide you throughout the process of litigation. Dial 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.