Berenji Law Firm, A Professional CorporationEvery Worker Deserves TO BE TREATED FAIRLY2024-02-22T05:45:35Zhttps://www.employeejustice.law/feed/atom/WordPressOn Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480592024-02-22T05:45:35Z2024-02-22T05:45:35ZWorsening working conditions
Flight attendants say that the current labor agreement does not require airlines to pay them when they perform some of their most stressful duties. They also say that working conditions have worsened in recent years because more flights are sold out, aircraft have more seats and passengers are becoming increasingly unruly. Airlines claim that a new agreement is not needed because most flight attendants are guaranteed one hour of paid flight time for every two hours they spend on duty. The APFA is seeking a new agreement and a 33% pay rise. According to data from the U.S. Department of labor, flight attendants earn between $38,000 and $100,000 per year.
Industrial action is unlikely
The APFA organized picketing at dozens of U.S. airports on Feb. 13 to draw attention to the pay dispute, but more aggressive industrial action is unlikely. This because the APFA must obtain permission from the federal government before they can ask flight attendants to go on strike. Flight delays and airport chaos attract a great deal of media attention, so permission to strike is unlikely to be forthcoming. Most hourly workers in the United States are paid according to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws.
Arduous duties
This dispute reveals that even well-paid workers are sometimes expected to perform arduous duties for little or no pay. Flight attendants, like all workers, deserve to be paid for all of the time that they spend on duty, but they are unable to go on strike without permission from the federal government. This gives airlines a negotiating advantage that groups like the APFA think is unfair.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480572024-01-25T03:48:29Z2024-01-25T03:48:29ZAbsenteeism and sick days
The AI algorithms used by American employers often identify job candidates who are frequently absent or take a lot of sick days as undesirable. This could lead to pregnancy discrimination because pregnant women have frequent doctors’ appointments and are sometimes unable to work. To help organizations to avoid these missteps and comply with federal employment laws, the EEOC offers guidance on algorithmic impartiality and technical assistance.
Proxy discrimination
However, following EEOC guidelines may not be enough to eliminate unintended discrimination in the hiring process. When AI algorithms are adjusted to not eliminate candidates because of absenteeism or frequent sick days, they use other criteria like gaps in the applicant’s employment history. When this also leads to applicants being treated unfairly, it is called proxy discrimination. U.S. privacy laws do not currently protect data dealing with reproductive health, which is why experts think proxy discrimination against pregnant job candidates will become a thorny problem in the years ahead.
Unfairness in the hiring process
Federal law requires prohibits most companies from discriminating against pregnant job applicants and workers, but the increasing reliance on AI algorithms during the hiring process may be causing unintended discrimination. These algorithms often identify undesirable candidates by sorting them according to the number of sick days they take or how often they do not show up for work, but these criteria may also eliminate pregnant candidates and new mothers. Changing the criteria may not solve the problem because of a phenomenon called proxy discrimination, so the EEOC has launched an initiative to keep hiring processes fair in the age of AI.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480552023-12-27T03:30:17Z2023-12-27T03:30:17ZUnpaid shifts
The case involved a woman who was employed as a bartender at an Orange County nightclub. In 2014, the woman reported to her employer that she had not been paid for three of her shifts. The nightclub owner responded by firing the woman and threatening to report her to the immigration authorities. The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement determined that the nightclub had violated several Labor Code provisions, but a trial court and an appeals court ruled that the woman was not entitled to whistleblower protections because her employer already knew that she had not been paid. Based on their interpretation of the language of Californioa’s whistleblower law, these courts determined that protections were only granted to employees who reveal something new.
The Supreme Court of California rules
The Supreme Court of California cleared up any confusion about whistleblower protections when its justices unanimously ruled that section 1102.5(b) of the Labor Code protects workers even when they report misconduct or violations that their employers or government agencies already know about. The ruling brings the California whistleblower law into line with federal laws that protect individuals who report wrongdoing. These laws include the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Whistleblower Improvement Act.
Whistleblower laws
Whistleblower laws are important because they protect workers who have been treated unfairly and encourage employers to comply with state and federal laws. When legislation contains language that is unclear, it is up to the courts to determine what lawmakers intended.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480532023-11-26T22:02:11Z2023-11-26T22:02:11ZMake use of assistive technology
Those who have difficulty seeing may not be able to fill out a traditional job application. They may also struggle with tests that require them to read from a page or screen. Companies can make it easier for those individuals by giving them access to screen readers or other tools that allow them to process and convey information.
Allow service animals on the job
It's not uncommon for people with visual impairments to use service animals to help guide them through various environments. It may be necessary to allow the use of a service animal as a reasonable accommodation even if animals wouldn't normally be allowed at the office to avoid a disability discrimination claim. At a minimum, companies should consider allowing those with visual impairments to use canes or other tools even if they wouldn't typically allow them on the job.
Consider flexible scheduling options
Employees who can't see may not be able to drive, which means that they rely on friends, relatives or public transportation to get them where they need to go. Therefore, it may be worthwhile to provide someone with a visual impairment with a flexible schedule to take this into account. Alternatively, they may be allowed to work at home to avoid the need for a potentially unpredictable commute altogether.
If you feel as if you've been mistreated at work because of a visual impairment, you may have grounds for legal action. Depending on the circumstances of the case, it may be possible to file a lawsuit directly or after filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480432023-10-23T17:22:19Z2023-10-23T17:22:19ZA recent case
In McCray v. WestRock Services LLC, Lowry McCray, an employee of the cardboard packaging company, alleged that he was terminated unfairly due to his mental disability. He claimed the company also failed to address his discrimination-related complaints.
He accused WestRock of failing to accommodate his disability, not engaging in an interactive process with him and neglecting to take any actions to prevent disability discrimination. He also claimed his firing was his employer’s retaliation for taking medical leave.
The jury awarded Mr. McCray $9.5 million as follows:
$1.5 million for future economic loss
$1.5 million for past non-economic loss
$1.0 million for future non-economic loss
$10k for past economic compensatory damages
$5.451 million for punitive damages due to the company’s malicious behavior
ADHD’s impact on employees
Unmanaged ADHD can lead to discrimination because of the disability's symptoms, causing individuals to lose an average of $8,900 to $15,400 in wages each year. It can also cause them to lose up to three weeks of workdays annually, negatively impacting their productivity.
Approximately 24% of employees on long-term sick leave for stress-related illnesses meet the ADHD criteria, highlighting the connection between stress-related illnesses and ADHD. These individuals also suffer a 60% higher risk of termination, are 30% more likely to have chronic unemployment and are three times more likely to quit jobs on impulse.
Impact on employers
ADHD-related disability symptoms, such as interpersonal conflicts and tardiness, can hinder organizational performance. Turnover due to ADHD can impact employees and employers negatively because of the constant need to retrain and acclimate to new cultures. Individuals with ADHD typically develop high resilience, humor and other unique skills but often remain underutilized at work, which is a loss for the employees and their organizations.
Productivity and burnout
Workers with untreated ADHD deal with distraction and difficulty in planning and organization. Other challenges include procrastination, emotional sensitivity and impulsivity, which significantly affect an individual’s productivity at work. Many workers with untreated ADHD suffer from burnout, highlighting the need for employees and employers to develop strategies and organizational skills to manage stressors at work.
Employers can reap benefits from accommodating employees with ADHD. With awareness and appropriate strategies, employees with ADHD can thrive and contribute positively at work.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480412023-10-19T17:08:37Z2023-10-19T17:08:37ZDisability defined
To avoid disability discrimination, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 encourages covered entities to interpret disability guidelines broadly to protect as many individuals as possible. However, the ADA does apply specific guidelines to define disability in terms of gaining ADA protection. If any one of the three points below is satisfied, the person fits the ADA’s disability criteria. A disabled individual should meet at least one of the following conditions:
A mental or physical impairment that significantly limits at least one significant life activity
A perception by others as having an impairment, such as a blind individual using a white cane, or
A record or history of an impairment, such as cancer in remission
Physical impairments
The ADA defines physical impairments as body systems affected by an anatomical loss, physiological condition or disorder or cosmetic disfigurement. Impairments that fall under these categories include muscular dystrophy, hearing or speech impairments, epilepsy, drug addiction, diabetes and many others.
The ADA does not provide an all-inclusive list, but affected body systems include:
Neurological
Musculoskeletal
Digestive
Endocrine
Skin
Cardiovascular
Special-sense organs
Mental impairments
The ADA defines mental impairment as any mental or psychological disorder; the regulations do not provide an all-inclusive list of impairments. It is challenging to compile an all-inclusive list, and keeping flexible guidelines allows for the inclusion of new disorders that may come up in the future. The following are some of the covered mental impairment categories:
Mental retardation
Emotional or mental illness
Organic brain syndrome
Learning disabilities
Impairments not recognized by the ADA
Not all serious impairments are considered disabilities by the ADA. It typically does not consider temporary ailments as disabilities, such as a broken leg that heals within a few months. However, if the broken leg did not heal properly and the individual developed a permanent impairment that significantly restricted at least one significant life activity, the individual would meet the ADA’s criteria for disability.
Other temporary conditions the ADA does not consider disabilities include:
Sprains or broken limbs that heal normally
Short bouts of depression or irritability
Gender disorders
Height, weight, age, hair or eye color
Stress not linked to an underlying mental impairment
Each individual should have a specific assessment of their condition. Complications from non-covered conditions may result in ADA eligibility.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480212023-08-19T20:42:51Z2023-08-19T20:42:51ZCalifornia Whistleblower Protection Act
California Labor Code Section 1102.5, also known as the California Whistleblower Protection Act, protects individuals who report misconduct or other violations of law in their workplace. Under the CWPA, it is unlawful for employers to retaliate against employees who report any violation or suspected violation of state or federal laws to a government or law enforcement agency. This includes information pertaining to civil rights violations, employee health and safety issues or financial fraud.
California False Claims Act (CFCA)
The CFCA provides protections for individuals who report fraud or false claims against the state to collect government funds. It also offers protection to those retaliated against because they refused to participate in such activities. The CFCA enforcements allow whistleblowers to file a lawsuit on behalf of the state and receive back a portion of any money recovered from the fraudster(s).
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) is a federal law that bars publicly traded companies and their officers from retaliating against employees who report instances of fraud or illegal activity. This includes cases where the company is trying to hide misdeeds by falsifying documents or lying on financial statements. Like the CWPA and the CFCA, SOX also provides a private right of action for individuals to file civil suits if the people in positions of power punish them for whistleblowing.
In the face of unethical practices and illegitimate activities, whistleblowers serve as the first line of defense by sounding the alarm. The protection of these individuals is fundamental in promoting transparency and fostering an environment that upholds state and federal laws. Therefore, the existence of robust laws like these are crucial because they not only deter organizations from engaging in wrongful conduct but also offer whistleblowers the safety to voice their concerns without fear of reprisal.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480202023-07-19T00:43:43Z2023-07-19T00:43:43ZCivil rights and pregnancy
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, sex discrimination in the workplace is unlawful. This includes pregnancy discrimination, which by nature is intimately related to gender discrimination. Under this federal law, employers may not fire, transfer, demote or otherwise penalize workers based on their current, past or potential pregnancy, a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, abortion or birth control.
New federal rule in force
As of June 27, 2023, workers may now submit complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission related to an additional kind of pregnancy discrimination. Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, adopted by Congress as part of the annual Consolidated Appropriations Act, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees for limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions, unless the accommodations pose an undue hardship.
Reasonable accommodations at work
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, pregnancy itself is not recognized as a disability. With the PFWA in place, however, employers may not use this loophole to deny reasonable accommodations for pregnancy and related medical conditions. Some of the types of accommodations that workers have previously been denied include flexible breaks, changed work schedules, altered food and drink policies or medical leave.
In California, workers have additional rights under the California Pregnancy Disability Leave law, which provides up to 4 months of disability leave with a more expansive definition of disability than the federal model. The California Family Rights Act also provides leave to new mothers and fathers. It is important for pregnant workers to understand their rights under state and federal law to have all the tools they need to protect themselves and their families.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480132023-06-13T18:55:26Z2023-06-13T18:55:26ZWeight bias on the rise for women
While there has been discrimination against women who are overweight for decades, the preferential treatment of women who are of average weight has been on the rise in recent years. The irony of this is that this trend that results in lower wages for women who are overweight also coincides with a general uptick of obese people in the U.S. It's not definitively clear why there's such a rise in the bias against overweight women, but one reason likely is that people believe that weight is under the control of individuals, which is in contrast to race and skin color. Additionally, the rise in social media usage has also played a part in biases against overweight women.
The effect of age, gender, and weight combined
What is even more worrisome is that for women who are overweight, the pay gap only increases as they age. Over the years, women are paid less because they receive fewer promotions and raises. And as they climb the ranks, the pay gap between average-weight women and overweight women further increases.
No protections under the law
What further compounds this issue is that there are no government protections against discriminating against someone based on their weight. Someone who is overweight can be fired regardless of the quality of their work. In contrast, it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on a disability, and people are entitled to accommodations and protected against harassment and discrimination.
There are numerous reasons that women can be discriminated against, and the pay gap between overweight women and those of average weight is another trend that's worth watching.]]>On Behalf of Berenji Law Firm, A Professional Corporationhttps://www.employeejustice.law/?p=480112023-05-17T01:01:18Z2023-05-17T01:01:18ZWorkplace violations
The underpaid workers were hired to remove the bones from chicken legs at poultry processing facilities in La Puente and East Los Angeles. According to the Labor Commissioner’s Office these workers were paid less than the California minimum wage, denied rest breaks required by state law and not properly compensated when they worked overtime. Investigators also discovered that the poultry processing facilities failed to obtain or maintain workers’ compensation coverage. The Bureau of Field Enforcement launched its investigation into the facilities after a worker filed a wage theft complaint in 2017.
Client employers
The three client employers and their owner leased the processing facilities and provided them with chicken, but they did not hire workers directly. Instead, they hired contractors to operate the facilities. In 2018, the client employers were issued citations by the BOFE for wage and hour and workers’ compensation violations that occurred between 2015 and 2018. The client employers filed an appeal, but a hearings officer upheld the citations and ordered the client employers to pay $1.5 million. That money has now been paid, and the Commissioner’s Office is in the process of distributing it to the underpaid workers.
Workers must step forward
This settlement demonstrates that businesses in California can expect to be held responsible for wage theft even if they hire contractors to operate their facilities and manage their workforces. The investigation that led to this settlement was only launched after an underpaid worker complained, which shows how important it is for employees to step forward when they are not paid in accordance with state law.]]>