Articles Tagged with Los Angeles Employment Lawyer

Published on:

A female Google Cloud platform engineer is suing her employer based on sex discrimination. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Google paid her less than male colleagues with fewer qualifications and that she was passed over for promotion.

Gender-Discrimination-105366239-001Ulku Rowe holds a BS in computer engineering and an MS in computer science. For 22 years, she was employed as an executive on Wall Street, providing her with experience in the financial field. In May 2017, Rowe took on a new job at a New York office of Google.

Google hired her at Level 8 compensation even though Rowe noted to HR personnel that someone with her education and experience typically would be brought on at Level 9. HR explained that technical director positions usually hired on at Level 8 and that with annual equity awards, Rowe would earn more than she had at JP Morgan.

After accepting the job, Rowe learned that male counterparts with similar backgrounds were hired as technical directors at Level 9. According to the lawsuit this compensation package pays hundreds of thousands of dollars more per year than Level 8. Rowe discovered that several of these men could not match her experience and did not have the academic background that was required for the position.

Rowe complained to HR. Google investigated her claims but said they were without merit. Then, Rowe was directed to report to a different boss, one who she says repeatedly refused to meet with her, kept her off of important email chains and did not include her in meetings and off-site trips.

Later, Google initiated a search for a candidate to fill a vice president position in its financial services unit. Rowe was in line for the promotion, but her complaint alleges that she was passed over in favor of a man with fewer qualifications. Rowe complained again, but Google found no wrongdoing. The computer engineer was then given the option of choosing among three new roles, all of which were effectively a demotion as alleged in the complaint.

Google is facing several similar lawsuits, a critical reminder for employers to review their compensation practices.

Published on:

When the Chicago Tribune commissioned tests on smartphones made by Apple and Samsung to determine whether or not the devices exceed radiation safety standards, they probably already had a good idea of the outcome. The tests showed an excess of radiation being emitted by many of these devices. Within one week, a class action lawsuit had already been filed.

cellphone-radiation-117524087-150x150The Tribune reported that the test results on the iPhone 7, which is one of the best selling cell phones of all time, showed that the device exposes people to radio-frequency radiation that “measured over the legal safety limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators from its own testing.”

Three Samsung models that were tested by the newspaper returned results within legal safety limits unless they were used with two mm of the body. Then, the exposure well exceeded the accepted standard.

On August 23, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California alleging that cell phone owners using their devices in a shirt or pants pocket may be exposed to radiation at a rate of as much as 500 percent of the legal safety limit.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs lay out the risks associated with prolonged exposure to radiation in excess of the limits set by the FCC. Such exposure may lead to increased stress on a cellular level, more cancer diagnoses, damage to genetic structures and harm to the reproductive systems. Additionally, exposure to radiation may lead to neurological disorders and learning and memory problems.

Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of these phones have deliberately misled consumers into believeing that there was no risk of excess radiation exposure through use of these devices.

Concurrently, the FCC is launching an investigation into cell phones to determine whether or not they do in fact emit radiation in excess of their standards.

Apple says that the testing carried out at the behest of the Tribune was not conducted at appropriate laboratory standards. Samsung issued a similar statement, claiming that all devices that they sell in the US comply with all applicable safety standards.

Published on:

One of the questions I hear frequently is about whether we are accepting new clients.

While the short answer is “Yes”, here is some additional information which many people find interesting.

Great%20Fit%20Gears%2039896521-001.jpgOur law firm, Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde is committed to client service and quality legal representation for each and every client. That means that we only accept clients who we feel are a good match for our expertise, experience and areas of practice.

I learned a long time ago that we can’t be all things to all clients, but we can be all things to some clients: and those are the ones we welcome and serve in an exemplary manner.

The purpose of this blog is to provide helpful information to anyone who reads it. On our website, you will find another example of our “Be of Service” mind-set by reading our Home Page Article “Eleven Questions to ask BEFORE Hiring a Business Attorney“. You will also find a list of our practice areas on that page.

Our clients tell us that they appreciate our honesty, accessibility and guidance. And we appreciate our clients.

Back to the question. The answer is: “Yes, we are always looking for one or two new good clients.” If you have a legal issue, I invite you to call and let’s find out whether we are a great fit for each other. I can be reached at 818-461-8500 or via the Contact form on this page.

Richard Oppenheim

Published on:

A decision in a California lawsuit may have implications for retail employers who require workers to be available for on-call shifts. Under the decision, it may be wise for such employers to consider whether or not their employees are entitled by law to compensation for their time when they are requested to “report to work” by telephone.

clock-overtime-110616811-001Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. is a class action lawsuit filed by Skylar Ward, an employee of retail chain Tilly’s. The plaintiff alleges that her employer institutes a policy of on-call shifts in which employees are required to call in two hours in advance to ask the employer if they are needed. In the complaint, attorneys argue that such an obligation triggers an employer responsibility to compensate the employee for their time under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders.

The Wage Orders state that when an employee complies with a requirement to report for work, they are entitled to half of their usual pay or no less than two-hours’ pay. Tilly’s policy stated that employees should assume that they were scheduled to work up until the moment they were told that they weren’t needed. This meant that employees would have to schedule their time as if they were going to be working, leading to arrangements for childcare, giving up social engagements and being unable to schedule academic courses.

Under Tilly’s policy, employees could be disciplined for failing to call in or for refusing to work an on-call shift. Such actions received the same discipline as missing a regularly scheduled shift.

Ward’s complaint was refused by the trial court. An appeal brought the case before the Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court’s findings two to one. Appeal judges determined that reporting for work under the definition in the Wage Orders means “presenting oneself as ordered.”

The dissenting opinion argued that the Wage Order’s intent applied to the employee’s physical presence at the store. Nonetheless, the outcome of this matter demonstrates the need for employers to review their pre-shift call-in policy to bring it in line with the findings in Ward v. Tilly’s.

If you are an California employer or business owner with questions about any legal issue feel free to contact me, attorney Richard Oppenheim at 818-461-8500 or via the Contact form on this page.

Published on:

When a worker suffers an on-the-job injury, what sort of accommodation is her employer legally required to make to ensure her ability to return to work? The law is deliberately vague on this subject, generally stating that employers must make “reasonable” accommodations. Failing to do so can lead to legal headaches.

Wrongful-TerminationThat’s the case for Dignity Health in California. Dignity manages St. John’s Pleasant Valley Hospital. Virginia Hoover had been working at the hospital for approximately 24 years as a radiologic technologist. In 2014, she suffered an injury to her shoulder while moving some equipment. The hospital granted her a leave of absence for recovery.

By August 2014, Hoover was cleared to return, but she was given limitations. She wasn’t supposed to lift anything heavier than 15 pounds with her non-dominant left arm and she was not permitted to raise that arm above her head. However, Hoover claims that Dignity made no effort to accommodate these restrictions. She was fired in December 2014 after her employer concluded that she couldn’t perform her duties.

Hoover filed a lawsuit against Dignity in 2016. Recently, a jury awarded her just over one million dollars for lost wages and emotional distress. The plaintiff claimed that Dignity had wrongfully terminated her and discriminated against her based on her age. Among the claims, Hoover says that another employee with similar restrictions had been accommodated by the hospital to remain in their position.

Dignity argued that they accommodated Hoover by granting her a leave of absence and then working with her to return to her duties. However, supervisors ultimately concluded that she wasn’t capable of performing the essential functions of her job.

In such cases, the law states that employers must find alternative work for an employee, but no documents from the lawsuit indicate whether or not this was attempted.

If you are an employer and one of your workers gets injured on the job, do you know how to comply with the relevant laws? Failing to do so can result in a costly lawsuit and negative publicity. If you are an California employer or business owner with questions about on the job injuries or any legal issue feel free to contact me, attorney Richard Oppenheim at 818-461-8500 or via the Contact form on this page.

Published on:

Facebook is facing legal woes as a group of plaintiffs charges the tech giant with making it possible for companies to post employment advertisements in a discriminatory manner. The plaintiffs include the American Civil Liberties Union, a coalition for workers and three women who were seeking employment.

Smart-Phone-with-Apps-48915227-001In addition to Facebook, 10 employers are named as defendants in the complaint. Plaintiffs say that Facebook’s ad-targeting technology made it possible for these employers to direct their help-wanted ads exclusively to men. The jobs on offer included truck drivers, law enforcement officers and sales clerks at sporting goods retailers.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received the complaint, which argues that since an increasing number of job and housing applicants are conducting their searches online, it has been increasingly easy for employers and landlords to engage in discriminatory practices. Under federal law, it is illegal for employers and landlords to discriminate against people based on their race, religion, gender, national origin, disability status or other protected categories.

However, in the online world, it is routine for tech companies to use algorithms that fast-track certain ads to specific users. Facebook excels at “microtargeting” users for certain advertisements. Additionally, the social media platform allows users to click on a link that says “Why am I seeing this?” This feature is actually what prompted lawyers with the ACLU to file the complaint.

Outten & Golden, a Washington, D.C. law firm, performed an experiment in which people used Facebook to search for a job or otherwise indicate that they were engaged in a job hunt. Employment ads for the 10 employers named in the suit were displayed for the male job candidates but not for the female ones. The Facebook users then clicked on the “Why am I seeing this?” link, where it was stated that their gender played a role in the targeting of that particular ad to that user.

This is not the first such complaint that has been lodged against Facebook. An earlier EEOC complaint alleged that Facebook employment ads were targeted to unfairly exclude older employees. Both of these cases are pending.

Published on:

Employers don’t always have an easy time when it comes to accommodating the religious beliefs of workers. Understanding nuanced belief systems and balancing that with company objectives leads to legal friction. That’s the case in a lawsuit that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, filed against Memorial Healthcare in Michigan.

Employment-Contract-44108074-001According to the complaint, medical transcriptionist Yvonne Bair received an offer of employment from Memorial Healthcare. The prospective employer informed Bair of its requirement that all employees receive the flu vaccination. Bair refused the vaccination on religious grounds, saying that her belief in Jesus Christ led her to reject injecting or ingesting any foreign substances. The hospital suggested that Bair could take the nasal spray flu vaccine, but Bair again refused.

Memorial then rescinded its employment offer, despite the fact that Bair told them that she would wear a mask. According to the employer’s policy, it’s acceptable for employees to wear a mask when they cannot get a vaccination.

Bair took her complaint to the EEOC, which filed a lawsuit on her behalf. The EEOC charges that Memorial violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it rescinded the employment offer. According to the act, employers cannot discriminate against employees based on religious beliefs. Instead, employers must strive to provide reasonable accommodations that allow workers to observe personal religious practices.

Why did Memorial rescind the offer of employment when they have a policy allowing unvaccinated employees to wear a mask as an alternative? Bair would eventually have become a work-from-home employee, so the chances of her transmitting the flu to co-workers or patients would likely have been minimal.

Perhaps Memorial had other reasons for deciding to go with another job candidate. However, unless they used proper documentation to support their decision, they may find themselves in a continuing legal battle.

It is vital for all employers to understand anti-discrimination employment laws. Additionally, it’s critical that employers proceed with extreme caution when it comes to hiring, firing and disciplinary decisions. Work with a qualified business attorney to make certain you stay on the right side of the law.

Feel free to contact attorney Rich Oppenheim by phone or message by using the “Contact” box in the right column of this blog.

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:

It is vital for employers to understand any physical limitations that their employees have. Not responding appropriately can lead to serious legal trouble.

ADA-138029727-001It’s a situation that happened recently in Union City, Georgia where a police detective sued her former employer. Jacqueline Lewis is an African-American woman who had been employed by the department for 10 years when her career stumbled. Lewis suffered a heart attack in 2009 and was diagnosed with a chronic heart condition.

This condition didn’t render her unfit, so Lewis continued in her role until the department decided to require all employees to carry a Taser. As a part of the training, each employee was expected to submit to a five-second shock. Participants had to seek the consent of their physician prior to the training, but Lewis’ doctor refused permission because of her heart condition.

Lewis’ superiors placed her on administrative leave, and a series of mishaps appears to have worsened relations between Lewis’ doctor and the police department. By day 21 of her leave, Lewis had been terminated, with her employer arguing that she had exhausted her leave time.

Lewis promptly filed a discrimination lawsuit, citing disability, race and gender as the grounds. The complaint detailed the stories of two white, male officers who had been given considerably more time before they were terminated for not meeting the physical ability requirements.

A district court didn’t agree that Lewis had demonstrated her status as a qualified individual under ADA. Additionally, they said that the male employees she compared herself to were not “similarly situated.” Lewis appealed this decision, and the Eleventh Circuit found that Lewis’ heart problems did not make her disabled. However, the department’s decision to treat her as if she was gave her protection under ADA. The circuit court also argued that there may be evidence of gender and race discrimination. They ruled that the case should be decided by a jury.

This case illustrates how crucial it is for employers to treat their employees with care. That treatment may grant them some protection under the law to which they wouldn’t otherwise be entitled.