Articles Tagged with Los Angeles EEOC lawyer

Published on:

A California law firm is being sued by three of its female associates. The plaintiffs, identified only as “Jane Does,” allege that Morrison & Foerster systematically discriminates against female employees, particularly those who are pregnant or have children.

Gender-Discrimination-105366239-001Representatives for the plaintiffs say they believe the case will become a class action lawsuit once other female associates at Morrison become aware of it. Plaintiffs are seeking approximately $100 million in damages, arguing that the firm pays them less and provides them with fewer promotions when compared with male peers.

The allegations came as a surprise to partners at Morrison & Foerster, a firm that provides several options for accommodating the needs of new parents. Some of these programs include flexible work options, reduced hours, parental transition time and 20 weeks of paid time off for primary caregivers.

However, the plaintiffs say that associates who take advantage of these programs are “set up to fail.” In January 2018, each learned that their peers who were in the same class year had been promoted ahead of them. Additionally, their salaries were no longer the same as their promoted peers. Their external billing rates had been raised, an error that management corrected when they were alerted to the issue.

One plaintiff described her performance review, which occurred during the same month. The plaintiff says that the partner conducting the review essentially informed her that she had not been promoted because she became a mother. She also revealed that her request for flexible scheduling, which would have allowed her to work full time with some of the hours being logged at home, was denied.

Another plaintiff was told that she was required to work more billable hours upon her return from maternity leave. However, when she requested additional work to meet this new standard, the partners were not forthcoming.

It’s unlikely that the management at Morrison intended to discriminate against any of their associates. However, sometimes even the appearance of gender and pregnancy bias is enough to cause legal problems. Working closely with an employment attorney is the best way to avoid these situations.

Published on:

When a corporation hires a coach for an executive, that executive probably expects to hone skills that enable her to take on a more advanced role. However, that was not the experience had by Denise Stilwell, a former executive at Twentieth Century Fox.

Gender-Discrimination-105366239-001Stilwell began her employment with Fox in 1999. By 2013, she had been promoted to a vice president position in enterprise rights management. The position came with a four-year contract, which included a promise of promotion to a senior vice president position within the first two years.

Her immediate supervisor accepted a voluntary retirement package in 2016, which meant that she began reporting to Fox CFO Dean Hallett. Shortly after the change, Stilwell was summoned to Hallett’s office. She expected to be given a promotion. Instead, Hallett informed her that she “smiled too much,” and that an executive coach was going to begin working with her.

That coach was Jack Zwissig from Zwissig and Associates. Zwissig allegedly told Stilwell that her “smile is fake,” that she laughed too much and that people generally didn’t like her. Most troubling of all is Stilwell’s assertion that Zwissig told her that she should “lift her skirt.”

Stilwell reported Zwissig’s comments to Hallett, calling them sexist and improper. Almost immediately, she was reassigned to another executive vice president, Joanie Wallace, who refused to meet with her for months. Abruptly in January 2017, Stilwell was fired because her department wasn’t moving in the right direction.

Recently, Stilwell filed a lawsuit naming her former employer, Zwissig and Zwissig’s firm as defendants. The complaint levels charges of gender discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment, among others. If she prevails, the plaintiff hopes to collect unspecified damages for loss of future earnings and benefits as well as emotional distress.

This situation acts as a vital reminder that all complaints regarding possible harassment and discrimination must be followed up on swiftly and thoroughly. Failing to do so often exacerbates the situation to a point that is difficult to control. Working closely with a qualified employment attorney is the best way to prevent these circumstances from occurring.

Published on:

A former employee of a Chicago-area Target store is suing the retail chain based on numerous claims. Perhaps most explosive among them is the accusation that Target systematically accuses Hispanic employees of using fake Social Security numbers.

Wrongful-TerminationEsmeralda Radek began working at Target in 2012. In 2014, the manager of the store where Radek worked received a letter that claimed that Radek was stealing from the store and selling the items on eBay. Moreover, the letter asserted that Radek had used a fake Social Security number during the hiring process.

Approximately one week after receiving the letter, human resources personnel at the store confronted Radek over the claim that she used a false Social Security number. Radek was requested to verify her Social Security information by providing the state in which the credential was issued. In response, Radek informed supervisors that she had been born in Texas, and that her mother had likely obtained the Social Security card for her.

Within a few days, Target terminated Radek’s employment on the grounds that she had used a fake Social Security number. However, Radek claims that she is not the only Hispanic employee at Target who has been accused of similar crimes. If these employees could later verify the authenticity of their credentials, they could be re-hired.

In April of 2014, Radek filed a complaint alleging that she had been fired based on her national origin. Additionally, the complaint alleged a negligence claim under Illinois state law, hostile work environment claims and asserted that Target had demonstrated a pattern of practice that discriminated against Hispanic employees.

Target filed a request to dismiss the case, and a U.S. District judge partially granted this request. Judge Lee dismissed the claims regarding the hostile work environment and pattern of practice, but said that Radek’s case regarding national origin discrimination may proceed.

When questions arise regarding an employee’s identification and other credentials, it is always advisable to proceed with caution. Consult with a qualified business and employment attorney before this type of situation arises so that your organization is prepared to respond in line with the law.

Published on:

Sexual harassment and abuse in a wide range of industries has made major headlines in recent months. Heavyweights in Hollywood and the media, along with CEOs of major corporations, are all losing their reputations as allegations come to light. With more people being aware than ever before about the dangers of sexual impropriety in the workplace, now is an excellent time to introduce more stringent policies and to implement comprehensive training at all levels of any organization.

bribery4The recently passed federal tax law adds another layer of complication to the settlement of sexual harassment and abuse claims in the workplace. Previously, employers could deduct the cost of settlement payments made to the victims of sexual harassment. It also was possible to deduct the cost of severance packages that were given to at-fault employees. The new tax legislation appears to put an end to this practice.

This new tax law adds § 162(q) to the Internal Revenue Code as follows:

“(q) PAYMENTS RELATED TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ABUSE.—No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for—

(1) any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, or
(2) attorney’s fees related to such a settlement or payment.”

In other words, when the settlement of the sexual harassment claim involves a non-disclosure agreement, the employer will no longer be able to deduct the cost of those proceedings on their federal taxes.

As straightforward as the law’s wording is, its application promises to be complex. What happens if the plaintiff alleges other forms of harassment or discrimination in the same proceedings? Is the cost of settlement for those claims still deductible? If the employer disagrees that the payments should not be deductible, what means do they have to fight it? Going to court would all-but guarantee the publication of information that is subject to the non-disclosure agreement.

The new federal tax law gives employers one more excellent reason to train all employees regarding the dangers of sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace. Preventing these incidents before they happen is the best way to avoid complicated tax questions and litigation.

Feel free to contact me, Richard Oppenheim with your related legal questions. I may be reached at 818-461-8500 or by using the “Contact Us” box in the right column.

Published on:

Most company executives are aware of the FMLA benefits due to expectant mothers who work at their firm. Perhaps they even provide those mothers with extra benefits, like a few weeks of paid leave just before or after the birth. While mothers certainly appreciate these benefits, it pays to be aware that new fathers may want and even be entitled to similar benefits. Failing to provide gender-neutral parental leave benefits may provide employees with the basis for a lawsuit.

EEOC_cooltext396845518This is the situation in which cosmetics company Estée Lauder finds itself. The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against the company because it does not offer equal parental care leave to male and female employees. A pregnant female worker is eligible for as many as six weeks of paid leave and a flexible back-to-work benefit that may include shortened hours and the ability to work from home. Male employees receive just two weeks of paid leave and have no option to take advantage of the flexible back-to-work benefit.

The EEOC’s complaint says that the policy violates the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under these laws and others, the federal government requires that companies provide equal benefits and pay for the same work. This additionally means that these federal laws are gender neutral. In other words, both men and women are entitled to equal protection.

This is the second such lawsuit to be filed in recent memory. A J.P. Morgan Chase fraud investigator sued his employer because he was not offered the same parental-leave benefits as a female employee would receive. This earlier suit is still pending.

Employers are not legally required to provide paid parental leave for female or male workers. However, they are required to abide by federal laws like the FMLA that protect workers who want to take time to bond with their newborn child. Offering additional, paid-leave benefits for new parents can be a valuable perk that will attract outstanding talent to your firm. Nonetheless, it is critical to ensure that these benefits are offered on a gender-neutral basis to avoid lawsuits.

Published on:

Luxury retailer Burberry has agreed to a $2.54 million settlement with employees. The workers include retail store and warehouse employees in New York. Their class action lawsuit claimed that they were forced to put in extra hours without pay. This expensive lesson serves as a reminder to all employers that they need to be aware of wage and hour laws and related practices.

Timeclock-45269690-001Burberry employees filed the lawsuit in December 2015 after they say that they were routinely forced to work off the clock. Sometimes, the duties were performed before or after shifts, with employees filling out necessary paperwork or cleaning the store. On other occasions, employees were told that they would need to work through their lunch hour. Holiday seasons were particularly bad. Sales associates involved in the lawsuit claim that they frequently worked three to six extra hours a day without being paid for their time.

Like many similar cases, legal experts familiar with this lawsuit note that they do not believe that executive management at Burberry was directing lower level management to violate wage and hour laws. Instead, they believe that the lower level managers were simply trying to cover the needs of the organization without fully understanding the consequences of their actions or that they were violating the law.

Burberry has now agreed to a settlement that should put approximately $2,500 into the pockets of the 643 workers who were involved in the lawsuit. The $2,500 per worker is after attorneys’ fees and costs. For a big-name, luxury brand like Burberry, $2.54 million isn’t necessarily a devastating amount of money to have to redirect for a lawsuit settlement. Lawyers for the company likely made a wise decision when they agreed to a settlement that kept them outside of the courtroom where the outcome may have been a great deal more expensive, especially with court costs and attorney fees. Still, it would have been better if the situation had not occurred in the first place.

It is vital for companies to work closely with employment law attorneys who are looking out for their best interests. This is the most reliable method for avoiding wage and hour lawsuits.

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.