Employment Attorney Services' Blog

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.

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.

Closing Arguments for Sheridan’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit More Likely to Happen

A closing argument for the former Desperate Housewives’ cast, Nicolette Sheridan’s wrongful termination lawsuit, is more likely to happen in the next hearing.

A surprising disclosure of a mystery man favoring Sheridan’s allegations against Marc Cherry and ABC has made a great twist in the actress’ wrongful termination lawsuit.

Allegedly, a mystery man affirmed that the Desperate Housewives show officials tried to cover up agreement related to Sheridan.

In the previous hearing, a jury ordered the man to appear in Court on Tuesday morning to determine if he will become one of the primary witnesses that judges will consider to hear during the final litigation.

The mystery man, who was identified as Michael Reinhart, left a message to Sheridan’s lawyer for wrongful termination last Sunday afternoon saying that he accidentally received an e-mail message suggesting to remove messages concerning Sheridan’s departure.

The man also noted in his message that he didn’t like to be involved in the case. However, Sheridan’s lawyer is anticipating that Reinhart would be their primary witness, while the opposite party just sees Reinhart as Sheridan’s last-ditch effort to save her lawsuits that have been once reduced by a jury during pre-litigation.

On Tuesday, if both parties will be able to present their final witnesses, a closing argument will possibly start.

Sheridan is fighting for her legal rights in her wrongful termination and battery lawsuit filed against Marc Cherry and the ABC network. In her lawsuit, she  claims that she was hit by Cherry during a set and then kills off her character at the Desperate Housewives’ show upon showing her disapproval to Cherry’s misdeed.

In her lawsuit, Sheridan is seeking for a monetary relief of $6 million for damages.

Cherry and ABC denied Sheridan’s claims and presented numerous witnesses opposing Sheridan’s testimony. Therefore, Reinhart might be indeed Sheridan’s best shot for the case once Reinhart show up in court on Tuesday.

Unfortunately, in this modern society, employees are still in an uncertain situation. Despite the important role that employees play in the employment world, the benefits due them still do not correspond with their hard labor.

Experiencing wrongful termination is probably the worst part of an employee’s life. Nevertheless, there are still lawyers for wrongful termination that could guarantee employees with a settlement that would promote justice and assure due benefits in the end.

A Company Agrees to Pay Former Employee $120,000 to Settle Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

The DXP Enterprise Inc. or known as a DXP Safety Alliance Inc. in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has finally agreed to pay monetary relief to a former employee to settle a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The said company is about to pay $120,000 and other relief to Connie Brooks after the EEOC filed a wrongful termination lawsuit the firm from illegally firing Brooks. 

According to the allegations which the EEOC deemed valid, Brooks was fired from the DXP a few days after she was hired. EEOC investigations found out that Brooks was terminated from the company due to her back injury and age.

Apart from the monetary relief, DXP is also required to follow the EEOC’s usual protocol to settle the foregoing lawsuit. Reliefs include provision of trainings and changing of policies to avoid further discrimination practices, posting a notice about employees’ rights as stated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and a letter reference for Brooks.

Every now and then, the EEOC is reminding employers that under the Title I of the ADA, it is illegal to discriminate employees based on disabilities. Furthermore, under ADEA, discrimination based on age (over 40 years of age) is prohibited. The DXP clearly violated said acts.

The EEOC’S Regional Attorney for Phoenix District Office in a press release has encouraged employers to be more vigilant in coming up with employment-related decisions. Additionally, decisions should not be based on myths, fears and stereotype regarding the applicants’ age or disability. 

Wrongful termination claims may be hard to prove but still, employees should not be discouraged from pursuing a claim especially if there are valid reasons for filing. Lawyers for wrongful termination can provide an advice and legal assistance on how to resolve an employee’s claim.

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.

EMPLOYMENT LAW: Religious Employee Sues Employer after Rejecting Her Sabbath Day-Off Request

Firing a worker because she refuses to report on a certain day is unfair.

What makes it all the more unfair is when such day is her “Sabbath”.

Interestingly, the EEOC considers such act also unfair. The federal agency upholds the Title VII Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination or illegal termination on the basis of religion. So when an employer refuses to accommodate the “sacred” day off request of an employee, it triggers legal trouble.

Consider the case of Medical Specialties, Inc. operating as Gaylord Inc. which was involved in a discrimination lawsuit after firing a devout worker.

Gaylord Inc. in North Carolina branch, a manufacturer of orthopedic and sports medicine equipment, has faced suit after its worker complained of non-accommodation of her “Sabbath” day-off petition.

According to reports, Evelyn Lockhart started working for Gaylord Inc. as a sewing machine operator in September 2006. In October 21, 2008, her employer asked her to report on Tuesday. Lockhart refused to show up, explaining that her religion considers Tuesday as a holy day or the "Last Great Day". The employer responded by terminating her employment contract.

The aggrieved employee filed a complaint at EEOC, explaining that she has observed Tuesday as a sacred day as a follower of “Holiness” faith for 33 years. She reiterated that working on such day offends her faith.

The federal agency filed the lawsuit in US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina after initiating a conciliation process. The EEOC asserted that firing Lockhart on the basis of her religious belief violated the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC is seeking reinstatement, compensatory, and punitive damages on behalf of the aggrieved employee.

The employer should have accommodated the employee’s request, especially if granting such will not cause undue hardship on the business. Firing the employee on the basis of her religion is misconduct and has corresponding penalties.

The next time your employee asks for accommodation on “Sabbath” day off, discuss how the required hours can be completed without terminating his or her employment contract.

For more information on religious discrimination, 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.

Diabetic Employee Sues Walgreens Management for Wrongful Termination

An employee with disability has filed a lawsuit against Walgreens management for wrongful termination, according to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website today.

Reports said Josefina Hernandez reported her employer misconduct to EEOC after Walgreens management fired her illegally.

As stated in the lawsuit, the aggrieved employee suffered a sudden attack of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) while on duty. She reached for a $1.39 chips and paid for it after her cashier shift. Her employer fired her in response for the incident though her superiors knew about her disability.

Hernandez has worked for Walgreens San Francisco branch for 18 years and had no history of violation, reports said. 

The aggrieved employee reported the wrongful termination misconduct to EEOC, in which the federal agency filed the lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of California. The agency is seeking unspecified damages on behalf of the worker.

Walgreens has a nationwide drug store chain and has average $1.9 billion annual net earnings.

The employer should have not fired the employee with diabetes. The management could easily provide accommodation for the loyal employee to help her overcome her disability and fulfill job duties. Instead of firing her, the employer should have shown her ways to survive a next hypoglycemia attack. The experienced employee is sure worth than a $1.39- bag of chips.

Such employer violation will not escape the eyes of EEOC and will surely contend legal rights for the aggrieved employee. Disability Discrimination is a violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has corresponding penalties.

For more information on discrimination in the workplace, you may consult with an employment lawyer in California. 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.

EMPLOYMENT LAW: St. Joseph Regional Hospital Faces Retaliation Lawsuit

In California, it is illegal to discriminate against employees. Employers are also prohibited from harassing or punishing workers who have reported misconduct to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Discrimination and retaliation are two violations under Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964. An example of such misconduct can be seen in Becky Thompson's recent discrimination lawsuit against St. Joseph Regional Medical Center.

According to the suit, Thompson was working at St. Joseph Regional Medical Center when she suffered from discrimination. She reported the misconduct to the federal agency, but was later on terminated and denied of severance pay.

Thompson also claimed that the hospital administration has a policy of withholding severance pay to workers who filed complaints to a federal agency.

The case was filed by EEOC in US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The federal agency is asking for punitive and compensatory damages as well as permanent injunction penalties.

St. Joseph Regional Medical Center is the daughter company of Trinity Health Corporation, which implements a national Catholic Health Care System.

Employers who discriminate and wrongfully terminate workers will face legal consequences. Employers who also punish employees when they report such misconduct to EEOC will have to deal with more damages.

Discrimination and retaliation are two acts that can cause employers to get trapped in a series of legal mishaps. These misconducts can be traced from a faulty policy. Companies which failed to include provisions that correspond with labor regulations can be sued by assertive employees.

For more information on discrimination laws, you may consult with an employment lawyer in California. 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.

J.A. Thomas & Associates Face Labor Suit after Rejecting a Disabled Worker

Employees with disability are entitled to reasonable accommodation for them to perform their duties well.

Employers are mandated to provide this assistance to help workers fulfill their tasks despite their medical condition.

Take the case of a double amputee worker in J.A. Thomas & Associates firm in Georgia who was illegally terminated and denied of rehire due to her medical condition.

According to reports, the worker requested a work-from-home status in accommodation for her disability. She claimed that she has difficulty of commuting from Georgia to Michigan to report to office each day. She also pointed out the availability of medical aid at home which can enable her to attend to her physical limitation.

The employer offered her an option to relocate in Smyrna, Georgia, instead of working at home. When the woman declined, the employer compelled her to resign, reports said.

Reports said the employer eventually made the post open for home-based. The woman inquired on re-hire, but was told that her impairment made the employer choose another candidate.

The discriminated worker reported the misconduct to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The federal agency then filed the lawsuit in US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. EEOC has sought damages on behalf of the victim.

Under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate against employees with disability. Furthermore, employers are prohibited from terminating or refusing to hire a worker on the basis of his or her medical condition. Employers are also required to provide reasonable accommodation to the employee. Failure to fulfill such obligations carries legal consequences.

Employers must be careful when making employment decisions on the basis of one’s impairment or physical limitation. Compelling the worker to resign due to his or her disability can be classified as wrongful termination. Rejecting the employee’s request for accommodation and re-hire is a double violation of labor law.

This employee is just one of the many people who have been fired or denied of employment opportunity because of their disability. The number of discrimination cases may increase the following months as employers become pickier when hiring candidates during this fiscally-troubled year.

For more information on disability discrimination lawsuits, you may consult with an employment lawyer in California. Your labor 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.