Articles Tagged with Los Angeles EEOC lawyer

Published on:

In general, most employers are happy to grant reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This does not mean that there aren’t limits to which an employer is willing to go. What’s more, employers are by no means obligated to grant every request for ADA accommodation that they receive.

ADA-138029727-001

As an example, consider the case of a librarian employed at Florida Atlantic University. The librarian had suffered from epileptic seizures since childhood, and she had long known that stress aggravated her condition. In an EEOC claim and a lawsuit that she eventually filed against her employer, she asserted that the university had failed to acquiesce in her requests for reasonable workplace accommodations. It seemed that the librarian thoroughly disliked her supervisor’s management style, and that the stress she suffered on the job caused her to have more frequent seizures.

Although her employer accommodated some of her requests, such as ensuring that there were no sharp corners in her cubicle, they declined to grant other requests. They denied requests related to the “rough or harsh” treatment that she alleged came from her supervisor. She demanded that he be ordered to cease the “series of hostile confrontations,” which she said that he repeatedly used with her and that the university find a way to “sensitize” him to the needs of women with epilepsy.

The university did not feel compelled to grant the requests that they believed were vague and difficult to define, and the courts agreed with them. In testimony, the plaintiff could not cite specific instances of confrontational behavior. Moreover, the court argued that it was not the responsibility of the employer to provide a work environment that was free of stress, and that it was not possible for the plaintiff to “immunize herself from stress and criticism.”

This outcome demonstrates that employers are well within their rights to refuse requests for accommodations under ADA when they are not specific and reasonable. Nonetheless, it is crucial that all such requests be thoroughly investigated, preferably under the guidance of legal counsel, to ensure that a legitimate request is not ignored.

Published on:

The question of whether or not a franchisor is a joint employer of the workers at a franchisee’s location was at the heart of a class action lawsuit in California. In the federal case, the judge ruled that a franchisor could be held accountable for the misdeeds of its franchisee.

Dollar and paragraph sign on a brass scale , 3d illustration

The complaint was filed in a federal court in San Francisco in 2014. Plaintiffs were a group of current and former employees at McDonald’s restaurants in the Bay Area. All of the restaurants were owned by a franchisee, which is known as The Edward J. Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited Partnership. Workers leveled charges at the franchisee for violating California wage and hour laws. These allegations included consistent errors in payroll calculations, failure to pay overtime, not providing rest breaks and meal periods and neglecting to reimburse workers for the time they spent keeping their uniforms clean and ready to wear.

Along with the wage and hours issues, the lawsuit also questioned whether or not the McDonald’s corporation was a joint employer with the Smith partnership. The corporation ultimately agreed to a $3.75 million settlement, but maintains that it is not a joint employer with its franchisees. Instead, they agreed to the settlement in order to avoid the ongoing costs and disruptions of lengthy litigation.

Workers hail the settlement as a major victory that may allow other parent corporations to be held responsible for the actions of a franchisee. However, business owners take a grim view of the development. They are concerned that a trend toward holding parent corporations responsible for the actions or misdeeds of franchisees may be detrimental to entrepreneurism.

At this time, the National Labor Relations Board is making similar arguments that McDonald’s should be considered a joint employer in a worker retaliation case in New York. If this case receives similar treatment, then it may establish a precedent for holding parent corporations responsible as joint employers.

Whether you are a franchisor or a franchisee, it’s vital that you seek legal counsel so that you are aware of your rights and responsibilities as an employer.

Published on:

With approximately 60,000 employees participating in its 401(k) program, Morgan Stanley should be positioned to offer an outstanding retirement investment package. However, a group of employees is now seeking class action status as they sue the investment firm for mismanagement of the company’s 401(k) plan.

Balance in digital background / A concept of technology law or tIn the complaint, plaintiff Robert Patterson alleges that Morgan Stanley only made poorly performing investments available in its 401(k) program. The suit argues that instead of abiding by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which states that employers have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of plan members, Morgan Stanley routinely chose to include some of its least successful funds in the company 401(k).For instance, the available mid-cap fund was Morgan Stanley’s own Institutional Mid-Cap Growth Fund. Investment advisory firm Morningstar, Inc., gave this fund the worst rating for investors who held an interest in the fund over a period of several years. The small-cap fund that Morgan Stanley offered to its employees fared even worse. It underperformed 99 percent of all similar funds in 2014, and its performance didn’t improve much in the subsequent year.

Moreover, the lawsuit claims that Morgan Stanley was charging outrageous fees. Patterson and his co-plaintiffs allege that Morgan Stanley was charging their employees considerably more than outside clients were being charged. In some cases, employees were charged twice the going rate for outside clients.

In the complaint, lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the company “selected their proprietary funds not based on their merits as investments, or because doing so was in the interest of plan participants, but because these products provided significant revenues and profits to Morgan Stanley.”

Other financial management firms like Edward Jones and Franklin Templeton have been hit with similar lawsuits in recent months. Several high-profile educational institutions like Yale University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Johns Hopkins University have also been accused of similar mismanagement. With lawsuits like these on the rise, it is more important than ever before for employers to ensure that their 401(k) plans comply with ERISA and other applicable legislation.

Published on:

From outward appearances, the 56 campuses of the Marinello Schools of Beauty were profitable and successful. However, the Department of Education believed that school administrators had engaged in an ongoing and systematic program of misrepresentation that enabled the school to collect millions of dollars in federal financial aid. The schools have now been shuttered and a portion of the $11 million settlement is poised to be distributed among six whistleblowing employees while the remainder is being returned to the government.

WhistleblowerMarinello School of Beauty was founded in 1905. The school eventually boasted 39 locations in California with others found in Nevada, Utah, Connecticut and elsewhere. Programs offered included cosmetology, barbering and hair design. However, recent students knew that trouble was brewing. A Connecticut graduate received multiple notices from the school telling her that she owed several thousand dollars. She told the school that her tuition was supposed to be covered by federal aid, but to no avail. The school refused to release her transcripts so she cannot get a cosmetology license.

Her story is like many others, but it was a group of six former employees who brought the allegations of misdeeds to the federal government. They alleged that the schools did not provide adequate training. Moreover, they claimed that the school knowingly requested federal student aid for enrollees who did not have a diploma. Some of these students were maneuvered into a high school diploma completion program that was not accredited. Other students did not receive all of the federal funds that they were entitled to. Marinello was further accused of inflating its enrollment numbers, graduation rates and the earning potential of graduates.

The Department of Education withdrew federal financial support of the schools at the end of 2015, and the schools shuttered for good in February of the following year. The government will only be able to recoup a small portion of the many millions of dollars that had been distributed to the schools in the last year or two alone, but this case remains a cautionary tale for other institutions that receive aid from the federal government.

Published on:

Well-known clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has taken plenty of media heat thanks to its restrictive “look policy.” At one time, they dictated everything from the length of employees’ fingernails to the color of their hair. In addition, employees were required to purchase clothes from the retailer.

Lawsuit word breaking through red glass to illustrate legal action brought by a plantiff against a defendant in a court of law through opposing lawers or attorneys

Abercrombie & Fitch is now being sued for this aspect of their look policy. Judge Jesus Bernal recently ruled that a lawsuit that was originally filed by two former employees could move forward as a class action. The class could potentially have thousands of members, making this case much more significant, and possibly much more costly, if the plaintiffs prevail.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the store’s policy that required its approximately 62,000 employees to exclusively buy their work attire through the brand. The complaint, which was filed in California, notes that workers were expected to purchase clothes at least five times per year to coincide with the seasonal fashions found in the stores. Allegedly, all employees were given a “style booklet” outlining what they were supposed to buy and how it should be worn.

The complaint claims that this policy caused the hourly pay rate to fall below minimum wage. At the same time, the plaintiffs say that Abercrombie benefited from the policy. Although employees received a discount on their purchases, the retailer nonetheless made a substantial profit through requiring workers to shop there. Moreover, employees working on the sales floor were considered “models” who were displaying the store’s latest fashions. This enticed customers to spend more money to attain the same look that employees were wearing.

Abercrombie has already drawn fire for refusing to hire a Muslim female who needed to wear a hajib and for firing another worker who had a prosthetic arm. Their situation provides a helpful reminder for other employers that employee dress codes need to be well thought-out and reasonable. Most importantly, they should be in line with the law and all Constitutional rights. It is a wise idea to have an experienced attorney review a dress code policy to minimize the opportunities for litigation.

Published on:

An online charter school in Ohio filed a lawsuit against the state’s Department of Education in an effort to block an attendance audit.

School-Bus-43843684-001

The Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, known as ECOT, advertises that it enrolls more than 15,000 students. This means that the facility is larger than most of the traditional public school districts. The tremendous number of students entitles ECOT to approximately $107 million in annual funding from the state.

ECOT is unlike traditional schools in that students log on via the Internet. Officials from the Department of Education want to audit ECOT’s attendance records to determine whether or not they genuinely have 15,000 students and whether or not those learners are meeting the 920 hours threshold that is mandated by state law. This means that students would have to log in for approximately five hours each day.

ECOT consultant Neil Clark argues that students are not required to complete 920 hours of classroom time. He asserts instead that 920 hours of learning opportunities are required to be presented. Moreover, Clark says that the government never asked for “documentation of log-in durations” in prior audits to determine how much funding ECOT would receive. Clark also suggests that the government is trying to retroactively apply new standards that do not apply because of the contract between ECOT and the government.

ECOT is not the first charter school to experience political turmoil recently in Ohio. In 2015, a smaller online school was found to have misrepresented its attendance numbers, with the result being that they had to return 80 percent of the money they had received from the state.

Officials at ECOT may be trying to avoid a similar fate. However, they are wise to ask that the Department of Education live up to an existing contract. Neil Clark declares that the school “successfully passed audits in 2003, 2006, 2011 and ten other audits” that were conducted by a different accrediting body. According to his statements, ECOT is not against being audited, they simply want the government to do so within the terms of their contract.

Published on:

Home improvement retail giant Lowe’s has agreed to pay an $8.6 million settlement to disabled workers that the company fired. The agreement was reached after the federal government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against the company in California.

Gardne center worker in a wheelchair holding a flower pot in a greenhouse

The settlement money will be distributed to former Lowe’s employees who were fired from the company between January 1, 2004 and May 13, 2010. Eligible employees were terminated after exceeding the company’s 180-day or 240-day medical leave policy. All of the affected employees were either disabled, “regarded as” disabled or were associated with someone who was disabled.

While Lowe’s stipulated a maximum leave policy of either 180 days or 240 days, officials with the EEOC argued that the policy was not in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA. In fact, the EEOC charged that Lowe’s “engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination” against employees who were disabled. Moreover, the lawsuit argued that Lowe’s routinely failed to provide adequate accommodations for disabled workers.

Also as a part of the settlement agreement, Lowe’s is required to hire ADA consultants who can help to reshape the company’s leave policies and assist them to address accommodation issues. Lowe’s will be required to create a system for recording and tracking employee requests for accommodation and how those requests are dealt with. Additionally, staff and management members across the company will be asked to undergo training related to ADA issues.

Lowe’s executives argue that they revamped their leave policies and more closely examined their compliance with ADA in 2010. Nonetheless, they agreed to this settlement to further the effort to comply with all facets of the ADA.

Lowe’s situation acts as an important lesson to other employers who are not sure if they are in compliance with all applicable aspects of ADA. Hiring a consultant or seeking legal advice before a serious problem arises is the best way to avoid a costly lawsuit from the EEOC or a former employee. Proactive measures toward offering accommodations and not violating ADA medical leave policies are important for any company that is seeking long-term success.