California Employment Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a gender employment lawsuit against Wal-Mart in what has become the largest class-action employment lawsuit in U.S. history.

Our San Bernardino discrimination attorneys understand the challenges faced by employees of big-box stores and other large retailers. Wal-Mart has grown to become the nation's largest employer and has been taken to court for previous allegations of unfair labor practices. Giant retailers have an obligation to treat employees fairly. In some cases, unfair labor practices may be company wide. In other cases, a discrimination lawsuit in Orange County, Riverside or elsewhere in Southern California may be filed as a result of working conditions specific to a single store or involving a single manager.

CNN reports the nation's high court has accepted the Arkansas-based company's appeal in a case of corporate versus workers rights. The 6-5 San Francisco circuit court opinion earlier this year permitted the multiparty litigation to move forward. A verdict could cost the company billions of dollars in damages.

The allegations are that Wal-Mart engaged in gender bias in pay and promotion of workers at its stores throughout the United States. The court will decide whether as many as 1.6 million current and former Wal-Mart employees can ban together to claim discrimination over the past decade. The lawsuit claims women were paid less and given fewer opportunity for promotions than the men employed by Wal-Mart.

Plaintiffs claim women make up more than 70 percent of Wal-Mart's hourly workforce but have made up less than one-third of its store management. The original lawsuit was filed in 2001 by a Pittsburg, California door greater and five coworkers.

Continue reading " High Court to decide Wal-Mart class-action gender discrimination lawsuit filed in California " »

A former Cal Poly dean has filed an employment lawsuit in Southern California, alleging religious and racial discrimination, defamation and wrongful termination, according to Cal Coast News.

Consulting an Orange County employment attorney or Riverside employment lawyer is critical to protecting your rights when unfair labor issues occur in a university setting. Frequently, an employee has invested years or decades earning the protection of tenure. When promotional or advancement issues arise under such a system, discrimination issues can result in an employee being unfairly passed over for a promotion or other recognition.

In this case the former dean of the College of Engineering filed the employment lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Dec. 7. The suit involves his unsuccessful effort in 2008 to assist a Saudi Arabia university in establishing an engineering program. The complaint lists as defendants Cal Poly's Provost and Vice Principal of Academic Affairs as well as an engineering professor and a blogger.

He is seeking an order forcing the university to reinstate him to his previous position, as well as unspecified monetary damages. He was hired as dean in 2005 and demoted in June of this year. The lawsuit alleges the defendants were responsible for a series of racist and defamatory attacks during negotiations with the University of Saudi Arabia.

The CalCoastNews reported in 2008 that the project with the Saudi Arabia university was itself discriminatory, indicating it would not welcome women, Jews or gays.

Other media reporting on the issue included the Los Angeles Times and NPR's California Report. A media report indicated that the dean was let go "after years of controversy, high staff turnover and faculty discontent."

He was also forced to step down as the head of the department of mechanical and aeronautical engineering at North Carolina State University, amid similar reports of dissatisfaction, according to media accounts. He held that position from 1999 to 2004.

The blogger is accused, among other things, of circulating a picture of Osama Bin Laden wearing a Cal Poly jersey. He contends it was in reference to Cal Poly's proposed relationship with the Saudi Arabian university.

Continue reading " Cal Poly professor claims racial discrimination over proposed partnership with Saudi university " »

Women hold fewer than 1 in 10 of the top executive positions at California's 400 largest companies, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Our Orange County employment discrimination attorneys have seen improvements in the wage and income gap between male and female executives. And we are seeing more women rise to hold top executive positions. But each time one of these surveys is conducted it is a reminder that sexual discrimination in the workplace is still an ongoing issue nationwide.

When women are passed over for promotions at work based on their gender, they can and should consult an experienced employment attorney in Los Angeles. Over the course of a career, promotion delays and smaller wages can have a drastic impact on your financial status, quality of life and peace of mind. And, cumulatively, such tactics in the workplace can even threaten your security in retirement.

The latest study by UC Davis found that women accounted for 12 percent of directors and 12.3 percent of the highest-paid executives at the 79 Los Angeles firms on the list.

Statewide, just 16 of the 400 companies had a female chief executive, although that is up from 15 in 2009 and 11 in 2006. The study did find, however, that the percentage of women on the boards of most company coincides with the percentage of women in top management positions, which at least suggests that discrimination is less likely to occur once an executive has reached the top.

"What this suggests is that once you make it into top management, the chances of getting appointed to the board are roughly the same whether you're a man or a woman," said Donald Palmer, a UC Davis profession involved in the study. "If discrimination is taking place, and I think it is, it's likely taking place at the many lower levels in an organization."

The survey found that one-third of California's 400 largest public companies had no women among directors or top executives. Silicon Valley tech companies had the worst record of selecting women for these positions.

Continue reading " Lack of female executives points to discrimination against women in the workplace in Los Angeles " »

The government's largest contract provider of security services has agreed to pay $1.26 million to 26 female employees for pregnancy discrimination, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Our Los Angeles employment attorneys represent women in the fight for fair treatment in the workplace. Whether the charge is pregnancy discrimination, age or gender bias or sexual harassment, women have the right to work in an environment free of such issues.

Akal Security, which provides contract security guards at U.S. military bases, was accused of forcing pregnant employees to take leave and discharging them because of pregnancy. The company was also charged with subjecting pregnant women to less favorable terms and conditions of employment, including preventing them from taking annual physicals or firearms training or forcing them to take such tests before their certification expired.

The company also reportedly retaliated by filing criminal charges against an employee who complained of the discrimination.

Akal is one of the nation's largest contract security companies and operates in 40 states and 20 countries. It was accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits gender discrimination in employment.

“This is a very important settlement that will help protect an entire class of women from discrimination on account of pregnancy,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “This agreement reinforces the EEOC’s commitment to securing fair and equal treatment for all women in the work place.”

In addition to the monetary settlement, the company must report to the EEOC when an employee is required to take a leave of absence while pregnant or is terminated while pregnant. It must also report any testing of pregnant employees and provide additional training for managers.

“Akal operated its business without regard to federal law,” said Barbara Seely, an EEOC attorney. “Employees who become pregnant and can continue to perform their jobs should not be pushed out of traditionally male jobs just because they don’t fit the employer’s image. We are confident Akal now understands the price of allowing this type of illegal stereotyping to drive employment decisions, and that it will ensure pregnant employees are treated fairly going forward.”

Continue reading " Security firm must pay $1.26 million to settle allegations of pregnancy discrimination " »