California Law Prohibits Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

After hearing the many stories from California employees, some are starting to wonder if California’s laws that prohibit religious discrimination in the workplace are enough to get the job done. One example of blatant religious discrimination follows.

A young Muslim woman went through the application process at a beauty supply store. During her interview she did not wear her hijab. After she was hired, she started her first day of work with the traditional hijab, a headscarf covering her hair, in place. She was told by her direct supervisor (in front of her coworkers and customers in the store) to take the hijab off or to go home.

She explained her religious beliefs and that the hijab held significant religious importance to the manager. The hijab is worn as an expression of devotion to God. It’s also a symbol of modesty and privacy. It’s not unique to Islam. After her thorough and careful explanation, she was sent home for not removing the hijab. She is allowed to keep her job, but her hours are cut back and she is asked to work in the back of the store. 

This is just one of many examples of religious discrimination in the workplace. Muslims face a number of difficult situations such as this, most of which are listed in the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) newest report regarding the civil rights of Muslims in California. The California offices of CAIR received 933 complaints in the last year. The Los Angeles branch received 444 complaints (the highest of any of the CAIR California offices).  

A 2012 California law prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace, but in spite of the intention of the law to provide protection, many are still reporting hostile work environments, alleged harassment, retaliation for political/religious beliefs, wrongful termination, etc.

Under California’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act, employees must provide employees with reasonable accommodations to suit religious beliefs and associated observances. The only exception is if doing so would cause “undue hardship.” To discuss the specifics of what constitutes an “undue hardship,” the meaning of “religious observance” and “religious belief” according to California law, etc. contact the employment law experts of southern California at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We can assist you in determining what rights you have and how you can protect yourself from hostile work environments. 

Undisclosed Settlement Amount Agreed Upon in Neiman Marcus Wrongful Termination Suit

Neiman Marcus recently settled a wrongful termination lawsuit. The suit was filed by former Neiman Marcus employee, Amir Peleg, who claims that he was fired for being gay and Jewish. Peleg asked for $40 million in punitive damages and $16 million in compensatory damages for economic loss as well as emotional pain and suffering. A Los Angeles County court clerk recently announced that the department store giant settled the wrongful termination lawsuit. The jury trial for the case began on September 2^nd, 2014. It was still in progress when both parties agreed to a settlement agreement. The details of the agreed upon settlement were not released to the public and neither attorney could be reached for comment regarding the settlement.

Peleg is 59 years old. He is a former salesman for the Neiman Marcus fragrance department located in Beverly Hills. He claims that he was harassed about both his sexual orientation and his religion by his supervisor. His supervisor, Miryam Emamian is an Iranian woman of Muslim faith. It was noted in court that she refused to approve time off for Jewish holidays and that she made derogatory comments when he requested vacation time to go visit Israel. Peleg also claimed that his direct supervisor, Emamian, kept portions of bonuses he was given for exemplary sales. (Bonuses were in expensive beauty products). She was fired in 2008. Peleg’s attorney said that his client was an exemplary employee and a top associate with close to $1 million in sales/year. After his dismissal from Neiman Marcus, Peleg had to move out of his home and file for bankruptcy.

Neiman Marcus claims that Peleg was dismissed because he provided thousands in free samples of expensive face cream product and that the product he gave away as “free samples” eventually made its way to a Chinese website where it was sold for profit.

For more information on wrongful termination contact the California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Settlement Story: House GOP Settles Wrongful Firing Lawsuit

There is, seemingly, always a new wrongful termination story popping up in the news. Recent headlines point towards Olympia, Washington. In this particular wrongful termination case, the legal battle has been ongoing for three years.

The wrongful termination lawsuit was brought against the House by the former House Republican staff members. The staffers’ names were: John S. Archer, John Charba and William Engelhardt. Claims made by the men included: age discrimination, allegations that staffers were put under pressure to work on members’ campaigns as well as attend fundraising events.

Last month, a judge dismissed all but one of the claims: age discrimination.

House Republican Caucus chief of staff, Lisa Fenton, stated that the settlement of $120,000 was reached in order to end the three year long battle between the House Republican leadership and the three previous staff members who filed. The settlement agreement bars additional legal proceedings/action. The Republican House leaders did not admit to any wrongdoing.

Wrongful termination lawsuits are typically founded on claims of discrimination (age, religion, sex, nationality, etc.), retaliation (for instance, filing of or participation in a discrimination claim), refusal to commit an illegal act, departure from posted termination process or procedures, etc. Employees are protected from wrongful termination by California labor law. Winning a wrongful termination case tends to result in one of two things: reinstatement of the employee at the place of employment they were wrongfully dismissed from or monetary compensation for the wrongfully terminated paid out by the former employer.

A proven wrongful dismissal will tend to lead to two main remedies: reinstatement of the dismissed employee, and/or monetary compensation for the wrongfully dismissed.

For additional information on wrongful firing or wrongful termination please contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Netflix and Amazon Beat Blacklisting Lawsuit

Claims filed by Jerry Kowal against Netflix and Amazon included defamation and wrongful termination. The two companies, Netflix and Amazon, are competitors. They both provide online video content. But these two competitors got to share a victory together in court when the Los Angeles Superior Court judge Michael Stern dismissed claims against the two online video content giants. The claims were brought by Jerry Kowal, a former employee of both of the companies listed in the suit. He alleged that he had been wrongfully terminated by Amazon after Netflix blacklisted him.

Kowal worked at Netflix as a director of content acquisition. He had what he described as an exceptional reputation, but quickly noticed that the atmosphere at the company was cold, hostile and cutthroat. As a result, he decided to take a job at Amazon. He claims that shortly after he started at Amazon, Netflix attorneys sent a letter to Amazon accusing Kowal of unfair competition and insisting that they have access to search Kowal’s email accounts and computer/s for any business information belonging to Netflix. Kowal allowed that Netflix information could still be on his devices, but he adamantly denied using any of it for work at Amazon.

The burden of proof fell on Kowal. He needed to prove that there was a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claims. The judge decided that he did not meet the expected standard due to the fact that several of his allegations were based on speech protected by California Civil Code 47(b), which covers speech “made…in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law.” In this particular case, the letter Netflix sent to Amazon alleged unfair competition by Kowal.

For questions about wrongful termination, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, the southern California employment law experts. 

Unpaid Interns Now Protected from Sexual Harassment

Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill introduced by Berkeley Assembly member Nancy Skinner that protects unpaid interns and other unpaid volunteers from sexual harassment in the workplace. The governor signed the Assembly Bill on Tuesday. It expands Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights so that people in the workplace who are unpaid are included in the protection against sexual harassment in the workplace in California.

Skinner argues that basic civil rights should obviously be extended to all including interns and volunteers who are working it the workplace regardless of pay rate or no pay. They deserve the same legal protections against discrimination and harassment as paid employees. This was in response to a ruling last year by a federal district court in New York that ruled that the law doesn’t apply to unpaid interns because they are not technically employees. 

The New York case was based on allegations by a Syracuse University student that she was sexually harassed, i.e. groped and kissed by a supervisor on the job during her media company internship. She also claims that after she refused his sexual advances that he retaliated against her.

California is now the 3^rd state in the country to explicitly ban sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace specifically directed towards unpaid interns. Protection is also offered for gender-based discrimination through the new California law. Other states that have similar laws include: Oregon, New York, and the District of Columbia.

If you have any questions regarding discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace whether you are an employee or an intern, please get in touch with the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Ruling of California Supreme Court: Federal Aviation Authorization Act Does Not Preempt California Meal and Rest Break Claims

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court will affect truck drivers throughout California. The finding that the Federal Aviation Authorization Act does not preempt California meal and rest break claims means that any truck driver in or through California is entitled to take a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period prior to their fifth (5^th) hour of work. Drivers are entitled to this benefit regardless of the crossing of state lines during their route or the payment of overtime to the driver.

The issue originated with a meal break class action lawsuit filed against Penske Logistics that Penske won at the district court level. The panel of judges held that the meal and rest break laws in California are unrelated to Penske’s “prices, routes or services” and would therefore not be preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The appeals court also stated that it was never intended to preempt general state transportation safety, etc.

The meal and rest break law will add costs for motor carriers and motor carriers being affected are, of course, disappointed with the decision. The court defended their ruling stating that the law does not “set prices, mandate or prohibit certain routes, or tell motor carriers what services they may or may not provide, either directly or indirectly.”

The decision is excellent news for truck drivers on California roads.

For more information on California meal and rest break laws, contact your Southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Yahoo Executive Sued for Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Termination

Nan Shi, a principal software engineer for Yahoo filed against Maria Zhang, senior director of engineering for Yahoo Mobile on July 8^th. The complaint was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California. According to the complaint Maria Zhang, the Yahoo executive, sexually harassed a woman who worked under her, Nan Shi.

Nan Shi worked for Yahoo since February 2013. She alleges that Zhang coerced her into engaging in sexual acts on numerous occasions in Sunnyvale, California with promises of a “bright future” dependent upon her agreement to participate. Nan Shi is seeking monetary and punitive damages. Yahoo is also named as a defendant in the suit. A representative for Yahoo advised that they believe there is no basis for the claims made by Nan Shi and that Maria Zhang is an exemplary Yahoo executive. They intend to fight the allegations and clear her name.  

Zhang’s mobile company, Alike, was acquired by Yahoo in 2013. She had previously worked with Microsoft and Zillow. In the complaint filed, Shi accuses Zhang of downgrading her performance reviews unfairly. Further accusations are aimed at the Yahoo human resources department personnel who Shi claims refused to conduct an investigation when she complained about advances being made by her direct supervisor.  According to Shi, instead of conducting an investigation into the matter as she requested, they put her on unpaid leave and eventually terminated her from the company.

For more information on sexual harassment in the work place or wrongful termination suits contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.