The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in this case brought forth a claim of discrimination and harassment under California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FHEA), hoping to seek redress for the wrongs she alleged to have faced in her workplace. However, her claim was not substantively addressed by the trial court.. The primary reason for the rejection of her case was the fact that the defendant, her employer, did not meet the minimum requirement of having five or more employees, a criterion essential for the employment law under which she filed her complaint. The FHEA clearly stipulates that it applies only to employers with a minimum number of employees, and as such, her employer did not fall within the scope of entities covered by the law.

The Court’s Decision on Appeal

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that despite the employer not meeting the employee threshold, they had voluntarily agreed to abide by the employment law’s provisions. She contended that this voluntary agreement should subject the employer to the law, and therefore, her claim should be considered valid under its terms. However, the appellate court found no legal precedent or authority to support the extension of liability under this employment law to entities that do not qualify as employers under its clear definitions, even if they may have voluntarily agreed to its terms. The court noted that while such an agreement might suggest a different legal theory, such as a breach of contract, it did not suffice to bring the employer within the statutory requirements of the employment law in question.

Furthermore, the appellate court emphasized that the plaintiff did not assert a breach of contract claim or seek to amend her complaint to include such a cause of action. The court highlighted that her evidence, although potentially indicative of a breach of an express or implied agreement, did not align with the legal theory she pursued. Legal principles dictate that a party cannot oppose a motion for summary judgment based on a theory that was not initially pleaded, and the plaintiff failed to amend her complaint to reflect any alternative legal theories. This procedural oversight further weakened her case, as the court could not evaluate her claims under a legal framework that was not properly presented for consideration. As a result of the rulings, the plaintiff will be unable to obtain relief for her claims.

The Takeaway

This case underscores the critical importance of understanding and adhering to the specific legal and procedural requirements when bringing forth employment-related claims. Discrimination and harassment are serious issues, and it is crucial for individuals facing such circumstances to seek the guidance of skilled and professional counsel. An experienced attorney can ensure that the case is brought under the correct legal provisions and that all procedural requirements are met. This diligence not only ensures that the claim is evaluated on its merits but also maximizes the chances of achieving a fair and just outcome in the court of law.

Finding an Experienced Employment Law Attorney to Carefully Pursue Your Case

If you have questions about a potential California employment law claim, the skilled and knowledgeable employment law attorneys at Hardin Law Group have the experience for you to be comfortable with them handling your case. With our help, you can be confident that your claims are being pursued in the proper way, and that procedural mistakes will not prevent you from obtaining relief. If you have any questions, reach out and contact our experienced employment attorneys at Hardin Law Group to learn how to proceed with your claim. Contact us at (949) 337-4810 or reach out through our online form to schedule a free consultation.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the employer hired the employee as a dentist. The employee alleged that she experienced various instances of harassment. The employee also alleged that her employer retaliated against her for raising a health and safety issue when her colleagues wore their lab coats into the bathroom. Around this time, the employee received a written evaluation citing dozens of performance issues, including insubordination and failure to meet her job description.

The employer warned that additional performance concerns could result in termination. Due to the stress of the alleged harassment, the employee was diagnosed with “Delusion Disorder” and requested to only come into work if she felt well enough to manage her stress. The employer denied her request, finding that her requested disability accommodation was not reasonable. Shortly thereafter, the employer fired the employee. The employer filed a lawsuit for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including wrongful termination. Even though she was not a lawyer, the employee represented herself in the lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the employee appealed. Once again, she represented herself.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the employee challenged the summary judgment ruling and attempted to submit unauthenticated documents to support her appeal. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. First, the court explained that the employee failed to present admissible evidence. The employee attached several documents to her complaint, but she did not explain why the court should admit them into evidence or why they were authentic copies. When a party wants to introduce evidence but fails to assert a reason for admissibility, they cannot argue on appeal that the evidence was admissible. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to provide specific reasons why the trial court erred.

The court further held that the employer met its initial burden for summary judgment. The employee’s evidence of harassment was not admissible because it relied on hearsay, which is an out-of-court statement by someone else that a party asserts as true. The court also found that the employer presented sufficient evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing the employee. Specifically, there was no evidence that the termination resulted from the employee raising health or safety concerns about wearing lab coats to the bathroom. On the remaining counts, the court also affirmed summary judgment. Even if the employee’s evidence was admissible, it was insufficient to prove her allegations sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Speak with an Los Angeles Employment Attorney Today

If you have questions about the evidence required to succeed on a claim of employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, contact the Hardin Law Group to discuss your case.

The Facts

The plaintiff in this case was an employee living with a physical disability. She had taken several leaves of absence, including one that lasted over one year. According to the employer, the employee indicated that she did not know when she could return to work, nor did she contact her doctor. Eventually, the employer terminated the employee. In response, she brought a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and wrongful termination, among other claims.

She also alleged a failure to engage in the interactive process, which refers to a conversation between the employer and employee to arrive at reasonable accommodations for the employee’s disability. At trial, the judge read special instructions to the jury, which stated that an employer did not have to provide an indefinite leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation. When a juror asked if an employee could be terminated if they are “fully disabled,” the court said yes and referred them to the jury instructions. The jury then found in favor of the employer, and the employee appealed.

The Appeal

On appeal, the employee challenged the jury instructions and the court’s response to the juror’s question. She argued that they gave the jury the false impression that she was “fully disabled,” a term that lacked legal meaning and prejudiced the jury toward the defense. Additionally, she claimed the jury instructions incorrectly stated the law, arguing they made no reference to the employer’s burden of demonstrating that indefinite leave would impose “undue hardship.”

The appeals court disagreed. First, the employer did not asset an undue hardship defense, nor was it required to do so under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Therefore, providing jury instructions on undue hardship would have been inappropriate. Moreover, the court cited a previous case holding that indefinite leave was an unreasonable accommodation as a matter of law. Because an accommodation does not have to present an undue hardship to be unreasonable, the trial court did not err in its jury instructions to that effect.

Additionally, the appeals court found the court did not err in answering the juror’s “fully disabled” question. Here, it noted that the trial court’s answer did not imply that the employee was “fully disabled.” Instead, it merely stated that an employer could terminate a fully disabled employee in general. The court thus properly responded to the juror’s question. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the employer.

If you are seeking to hold an employer liable for failing to provide reasonable accommodations, contact the Hardin Law Group for assistance.

The Facts

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the employee began working at Kat Von D’s Wonderland art gallery. In 2014, shortly after beginning her new position, the employee signed an agreement with the company to arbitrate all disputes related to her employment. A few months later, the gallery closed, so the employee sought work elsewhere. In 2017, Kat Von D hired the employee to work at her new business, a tattoo parlor. She did not sign a new arbitration agreement at that time. Two years after she was terminated, the employee filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation and other claims related to her employment at the tattoo business. The employer filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the previous agreement the employee had signed. The trial court denied the employer’s motion, reasoning that the agreement only applied to the employee’s position with Wonderland in 2014. The employer appealed.

The Court’s Decision on Appeal

On appeal, the employer argued that the arbitration agreement applied to the employee’s employment with the tattoo business. It argued that the agreement had no expiration date, expressly applied to “future disputes,” and defined “the Company” to include entities affiliated with Wonderland, including the tattoo parlor. The appeals court rejected these arguments. As the court explained, ambiguities about the scope of an arbitration must be resolved in favor of arbitration. However, the court cannot force a party to arbitrate if they never agreed to do so. Here, the appeals court held that the previous agreement did not cover the employee’s position with the tattoo parlor. While the agreement did not contain an expiration date, it solely referred to the employee’s period of employment with Wonderland.

Second, relying on general principles of California contract law, the court found the meaning of “employee’s employment. . .with Company” to refer to a single period of employment with Wonderland and not the tattoo parlor or any other affiliates. Additionally, the court interpreted “future disputes” to be limited to future disagreements arising from the employee’s employment with Wonderland. Finally, the court cited several cases to demonstrate that its reading of the agreement was consistent with state and federal contract law governing arbitration agreements. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the trial’s court denial of the employer’s motion to compel arbitration.

Do You Have Questions for a Dedicated Employment Lawyer in California?

Agreements to arbitrate can interfere with employees’ ability to recover compensation for acts of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. If you are seeking to bring a lawsuit against your current or former employer, contact the California employment lawyers at Hardin Law Group for assistance.

If the defendant satisfies this burden, known as prong 1, a California court will dismiss the lawsuit unless the plaintiff can show prong 2: a probability of success on the merits of their claim, meaning a jury could find in their favor later on. In the employment context, an employer may file an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss after an employee alleges discrimination or retaliation based on employment decisions such as hiring, firing, or promotions. Recently, a California appeals court denied a County’s motion to dismiss a former employee’s retaliation claim under California’s anti-SLAPP law.

The Facts

As the opinion explains, the dispute arose when an assistant district attorney, who was acting as the interim district attorney for the County of Placer, believed he was bribed into hiring a County supervisor’s spouse in exchange for a position as the permanent district attorney. Without providing an explanation, the County then placed the employee on paid administrative leave and locked him out of his workplace pending appointment of the new district attorney. He then received a call from a County supervisor informing him that she knew he received a bribe. After interviewing and not receiving the district attorney position, he understood that the new district attorney would demote him, so he resigned. The employee then sued the County alleging whistleblower retaliation for complaining about the bribe. Notably, the County was also investigating the employee after a complaint of discrimination, harassment, and intimidation against him and other managers. Based on this investigation, the County moved to dismiss the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP law. The trial court denied the County’s motion, and the County appealed.

The Court’s Opinion

On appeal, the court found that the County failed to meet its burden under the anti-SLAPP law to show that the employee’s claim arose out of protected activity. The County claimed that the employer’s retaliation claim arose from the County’s investigation, which it argued was protected activity. First, the court found that the investigation did not constitute “protected activity.” The anti-SLAPP statute defined protected activity to include “any written or oral statement” made before an “official proceeding authorized by law.” Although the internal, government investigation was an official proceeding, the County failed to show it made a written or oral statement during the investigation that prompted the employee’s allegations.

Second, the employee’s complaint did not reference the investigation at all but rather solely concerned the bribe. Because courts determine the protected activity underlying a claim from the plaintiff’s allegations, the fact that the employee did not make any allegations about the investigation was fatal to the employer’s motion to dismiss.

Additionally, the court explained that where the defendant succeeds in meeting prong 1 in the employment context, the employer’s alleged adverse action must itself be the speech or petitioning activity. Therefore, the mere fact that the County placed the employee on leave after its investigation does not mean that the employee’s retaliation claim “arose from” the investigation. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court properly denied the County’s anti-SLAPP motion, allowing the employee’s lawsuit to go forward.

Speak with an Experienced Los Angeles Employment Attorney Today

If you are seeking to hold your employer accountable for retaliation, discrimination, or harassment, contact the California employment lawyers at Hardin Law Group and learn how to prevent an anti-SLAPP motion from ending your case.

FEHA Provides Greater Protections than Federal Law

The Fair Employment and Housing Act is known for its broader scope and stronger protections compared to federal anti-discrimination laws, making it a cornerstone of civil rights legislation in California. FEHA enhances worker protections beyond those provided by federal law in several important ways:

Broader Coverage of Employers: While federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to employers with 15 or more employees, FEHA lowers this threshold to include businesses with five or more employees. This expansion means that more workers in smaller businesses are protected under California law.

Wider Range of Protected Classes: FEHA includes all the protected classes covered by federal law, such as race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Additionally, it covers some categories not explicitly protected under federal law, like sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and genetic information.

Harassment Protections for All Employees: Under FEHA, all employees, regardless of the size of the business, enjoy protection against harassment based on any of the law’s specified categories. This includes employers with fewer than five employees, a protection not offered by federal law.

Stronger Pregnancy Discrimination Protections: FEHA provides greater protections for pregnant employees. For example, California law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers and prohibits discrimination against pregnant employees, which is more comprehensive than the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

More Comprehensive Disability Accommodations: FEHA mandates employers to engage in a timely, good-faith, interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. This requirement is more robust than under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Stricter Anti-Retaliation Provisions: While federal law prohibits retaliation against employees who file discrimination claims, FEHA imposes stricter penalties and broader definitions of what constitutes retaliation, offering more comprehensive protection for employees who exercise their rights under the Act.

Higher Damages and Penalties: Under FEHA, there is no cap on compensatory or punitive damages, unlike federal laws, which caps damages based on the size of the employer. This means potential higher payouts in discrimination and harassment lawsuits.

Mandatory Training Requirements: California’s FEHA requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide at least two hours of sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees, which is not a federal requirement.

Language Discrimination: FEHA includes provisions against language discrimination, requiring employers to justify any “English-only” policies and prohibiting language-based discrimination unless it is necessary for the operation of the business.

In summary, California’s FEHA provides broader protections and coverage, includes more categories of protected classes, imposes stronger obligations on employers regarding harassment and discrimination, and allows for greater penalties and damages compared to federal law.

Has Your Employer Violated Your Workplace Rights?

If you believe that your employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices, the Hardin Law Group is here to help explain your rights and what you can do to enforce them. Attorney James Hardin is a dedicated Los Angeles employment lawyer who exclusively represents employees in all types of employment cases, including wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination and wage and hour violations. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation with Attorney Hardin today, call (310) 606-2122 or connect with us through our secure online contact form.

The Facts

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the plaintiff worked as a lead agent and supervisor at a freight company. She claimed that her supervisor sexually harassed her by calling her names, inappropriately touching her, and messaging her using suggestive emojis. Around the same time, several employees accused the plaintiff of bullying, yelling, lying, and other objectionable behavior. Another supervisor placed the plaintiff on leave while they investigated these complaints, during which she presented her allegations of sexual harassment. When she returned from leave, she was transferred to a different floor with a different supervisor. The plaintiff believed her new position lacked the same opportunities to advance within the company, so she resigned. A year after her resignation, three more women complained that the same supervisor sexually harassed them. The employer then fired the supervisor.

The plaintiff sued her former employer for failure to prevent sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Before trial, the plaintiff moved to exclude the evidence of her colleagues’ complaints on her, arguing they were too prejudicial. The trial court allowed the employer to admit the evidence, and the jury found in the employer’s favor. The court further denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court’s Opinion

The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. It found that admitting the complaints against the plaintiff constituted prejudicial character evidence suggesting she was rude and dishonest. The court agreed with the plaintiff that the prejudicial effect of the evidence far outweighed its probative value, meaning it had little relevance to the key legal claims. In particular, it found that the evidence did not suggest any motive to lie about her supervisor’s harassment or affect her perception of the harassing behavior. Moreover, the trial court erred in providing the jury with vague limiting instructions that did not dispel the prejudicial implications of the evidence. Therefore, the court reversed the verdict in favor of the employer and sent the case back to the trial court.

Are You Experiencing Workplace Discrimination or Harassment?

Employers may try to introduce bad character to absolve themselves of liability. If you are considering whether to bring a claim of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, reach out to our skilled legal team at Hardin Law Group to learn how to bring a strong case against your employer.

The Facts

The plaintiff worked for Permanente for over 26 years. In 2011, the plaintiff was promoted to Director of Strategic Business and Development. His performance evaluations were consistently positive until 2016, when Monica A. became his supervisor. Monica A.’s review marked a stark negative shift in the plaintiff’s performance assessments.

Key Events: In 2017, the plaintiff was demoted and given a new title, “Practice Specialist,” with a reduced salary and prestige. He was replaced by a significantly younger and less experienced employee, which led him to believe that his demotion was due to age discrimination. Upset by his recent demotion, the plaintiff resigned a few months later, feeling as though he was being forced out.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Permanente and Monica A., bringing multiple claims, including age discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination. The trial court initially granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, but upon appeal, the appellate court reversed this decision in part.

The Appellate Court’s Holding

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff’s age discrimination claim. More specifically, the court held that the change in the plaintiff’s employment position was considered an adverse action, affecting his career prospects. The court noted discrepancies in performance evaluations before and after Monica A.’s supervision, suggesting potential bias.

The reversal also extended to the claim of failure to prevent age discrimination. The court explained employers have a proactive duty to prevent discriminatory practices, and because the plaintiff’s age discrimination claims survived summary judgment, so too did this claim.

The court also reversed the decision on the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, finding sufficient grounds to consider this claim based on the actions of Monica A.

However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims of harassment and constructive discharge, suggesting that the circumstances did not meet the “severe or pervasive” requirement for these claims.

This case illustrates the complexities of employment law and the robust protections offered under FEHA against age discrimination. It also highlights the importance of performance evaluations and the need for employers to be aware of the potential for bias in managerial decisions.

Have You Been Fired or Demoted for an Unfair Reason?

If you were recently demoted or fired for reasons that seem questionable, your employer may have violated your rights under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. If so, you may be entitled to damages designed to put you back in the position you would be in had your employer not engaged in unlawful employment discrimination. At the Hardin Law Group, we proudly represent Los Angeles employees in all types of employment law cases, including those involving discrimination, harassment, wage and hour violations and wrongful termination. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation with Attorney Hardin today, call (310) 606-2122 or connect with us through our secure online contact form.

In the complex and ever-changing landscape of employment law, understanding what constitutes an “adverse employment action” is crucial for both employers and employees. As a leading Los Angeles employment law firm, the Hardin Law Group wants to clarify these often misunderstood aspects of employment law. This is particularly important in California, where the definition and implications of adverse employment actions are significant under both state and federal employment laws.

What is an Adverse Employment Action?

At its core, an adverse employment action refers to any action taken by an employer that negatively impacts an employee’s job or working conditions. This broad definition includes a range of actions from demotions and pay cuts to less obvious forms such as unfavorable job assignments or changes in job responsibilities.

In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) sets a high standard for protecting employees against adverse actions, especially when they are linked to discrimination or retaliation. California courts have adopted a broad interpretation of what constitutes an adverse employment action, ensuring extensive protection for employees.

Below are some of the most common examples of adverse employment actions under California law:

• Termination or Firing: The most clear-cut example of an adverse action, where an employer fires an employee.
• Demotion: A reduction in rank, responsibility, or job title, often accompanied by a decrease in salary.
• Reduction in Pay or Hours: Any significant cut in an employee’s salary or scheduled working hours.
• Negative Performance Evaluations: Unjustifiably poor performance reviews may be adverse if they affect promotions, raises, or continued employment.
• Denial of Promotion or Advancement Opportunities: Failure to promote an employee can be an adverse employment action if the employer’s decision is based on discriminatory reasons.
• Hostile Work Environment: Creating or allowing a work environment that is intimidating, hostile, or offensive.
• Retaliatory Actions: Any negative action taken in response to an employee exercising their legal rights, like filing a discrimination complaint.

Proving Adverse Employment Action

To establish an adverse employment action in a Los Angeles employment lawsuit, you’ll typically need to demonstrate that the action had a material and detrimental effect on the terms, conditions, or privileges of your employment. It’s not just about showing that the action was unfavorable but that it significantly altered the employee’s job status or career prospects.

Key Take-Aways

Adverse employment actions go beyond just firings or demotions. They encompass a range of employer decisions that can negatively impact an employee’s job. In California, the broad interpretation under FEHA provides substantial protection to employees.

Speak with an Experienced Los Angeles Employment Lawyer About Your Situation

If you’ve been subjected to an adverse employment action, consulting with an experienced LA employment law attorney can provide you with the information you need to decide how to move forward. The Hardin Law Group offers thoughtful advice and representation, ensuring your rights and interests remain protected. To learn more, and to schedule a free case evaluation with Attorney Hardin today, call (310) 606-2122 or connect with us through our secure online contact form.

Even with most job applications incorporating a disability disclosure to prevent discrimination, courtesy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in some cases the preemptive request for private information can feel alarming. For those living with a disability whether it is visible or invisible, deciding to disclose it to an employer or future employer can feel conflicting for many reasons.

And even though discrimination is illegal, it still occurs every day and to some disclosing a disability may seem like a way of jeopardizing a career. Fortunately, with the ADA in place, every individual with a disability has the choice of whether or not to disclose this information to their employer.

Telling your employer about your disability is completely up to you. However, it is important to know what is at stake if your employer is not aware of your disability. In many cases, it can be in the best interest of the individual to disclose their disability to their employer if it affects their essential job performance that way a reasonable accommodation can be requested.

Can an Employer ask if I have a disability?

A potential employer has no right to ask during the interview or hiring process if a potential candidate has a disability. However, it is important to note that there are ways that they are able to get around asking this question outright. An example of this is the question, are you able to perform the essential functions of the position without accommodation?

How do I disclose my disability to my employer?

There are many ways for you to disclose a disability to your employer and the choice of if and when is up to you. The first option would be to disclose during the application process in order to offer full transparency to your potential employer. However, this course is not always taken due to fear of discrimination or unconscious biases that can occur as a result.

The second option would be to disclose your disability after you receive the company employment offer. If your disability does not interfere with your capability of performing the essential responsibilities of the role, then notifying your employer once you receive an offer can alleviate stress for the individual disclosing the information. That way the interview process is focused on a candidate’s qualifications without any potential for biases.

A third option is disclosing this information once you are employed. Waiting to reveal information about a disability to your employer may feel more comforting once you are able to establish a relationship with your coworkers and supervisors. Making the decision to tell your employer about your disability is an important one and under the ADA you are able to disclose this information in any way that you choose. Although it can be verbal, disclosing your disability in writing may be the most beneficial for you and your employer.

If you feel as though your rights have been violated, contact our team today to learn what options are available to you.

Perhaps there has been a time at work when you felt as though you were experiencing unfair treatment from a supervisor and the path to overcoming these obstacles seemed impossible. In order to figure out the best course of action for you, it is important to know what type of discrimination you may be facing.

How to Know if You Are A Victim of Discrimination

The Fair Employment and Housing Act protects people in the workplace; including interns, volunteers, contractors, and employees. In order to prevent unfair treatment like discrimination, FEHA has a list of protected classes to outline what is illegal when it comes to employment discrimination.

• Age Discrimination: Discrimination based on age violates both state and federal laws. It can occur in many forms with respect to compensation, evaluations, benefits, wrongful termination, promotions, or even being hired in the first place.
• Race Discrimination: Discrimination based on race is a complete violation of your basic human rights and it is illegal on both a state and federal level. Whether you are an employee, contractor, intern, applicant, or volunteer discrimination on the basis of race is both demeaning and can affect the outcome of your career.
• Religion Discrimination: Discrimination based on religion in the workplace involves treating an individual differently due to their religious beliefs or practices. This is a direct violation of your constitutional right to practice religion freely and can lead to adverse effects on your career.
• Nation of Origin Discrimination: Discrimination based on nation of origin can occur because a coworker or supervisor holds prejudice against an ethnicity, ancestry, culture, or language.
• Pregnancy Discrimination: Pregnancy discrimination can occur when you are applying for a job or have been denied pregnancy leave.
• Sex and Gender Discrimination: There are many forms of sex and gender discrimination that create unfair treatment which can result in a wage gap, pregnancy discrimination, or wrongful termination.
• Sexual Orientation Discrimination: It is illegal to discriminate against an employee, intern, volunteer, or contractor because of their sexual orientation or assumptions about their sexual orientation.
• Disability Discrimination: Whether a disability is mental or physical, it is illegal for a company to discriminate against protected disabilities. This discrimination can occur through wrongful termination or even if a company does not reasonably accommodate a disability.

How to File a Claim

If the company you work for has discriminated against you, there are legal remedies available to you.

1. Discrimination Policy: The first step towards enacting justice is to review your company’s discrimination policy. There should be an internal process available for you to file a claim. Sometimes a company may not have a structured process to file a complaint, in this case it is best to notify them of the discrimination in order to proceed.
2. Internal Investigation: In most cases after a claim has been filed, an internal investigation will be conducted by the company and an outcome will be provided as a result. If the investigation does not yield positive results, there are other options.
3. Formal Complaint: You can file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity commission (EEOC) or the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and they will conduct their own investigation.
4. Negotiations: Once the investigation is concluded the EEOC and DFEH will bring together both parties for negotiation to reach an amicable solution.
5. Contact an Employment Attorney: If negotiations don’t go in the direction you expected, contact an attorney to learn the legal action available to you.

To discuss your employment discrimination case, contact the experienced employment attorneys at Hardin Law Group today.

Employee versus Independent Contractor

If you work in the state of California, it is important to know the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. Under both state and federal laws, employees are provided with significantly more protections in contrast to the independent contractor.

Independent contractors have a lot of freedoms when it comes to the job they are hired to do, whereas an employee performs under more strict conditions. Although the difference between an independent contractor and an employee may seem minimal, it is crucial to know the difference to ensure your rights are not being violated.

• sexual orientation;
• age;
• gender;
• race;
• color;
• physical or mental disability;
• medical condition;
• national origin;
• marital status;
• pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions;
• religious creed; or
• ancestry.

If you believe you were dismissed from your job because of any of the protected categories listed above, you need to contact an experienced employment attorney to discuss your legal rights.

Unlawful Dismissal Due to Sex or Gender

Again, it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss an employee from employment because of the employee’s sex or gender. A common way employers discriminate against an employee because of their gender is by gender stereotyping. In other words, an employer might have discriminated against you by saying that you failed to act like a typical man or woman. With gender boundaries being broken on a daily basis, it is unfair and illegal for your employer to dismiss you or fire you because you don’t conform to his or her stereotypes.

Unlawful Dismissal Due to Age

Another way Orange County employers often discriminate against their employee’s is because of the employee’s age. If you are over 40 years old, you need to know that California law and the experienced employment attorneys at Hardin & Associates are on your side. Do not let an employer terminate you or dismiss you because you are “too old” for the position.

Unlawful Dismissal Due to Pregnancy

Have you been discriminated against because you were pregnant? Some employers are not as happy about your coming bundle of joy as you are and show their displeasure by taking unlawful action, such as by dismissing you from your position. Pregnant women in the California workplace enjoy certain rights, do not allow your employer to take these rights from you.

If your employer has dismissed you for any unlawful reason, contact the Orange County employment attorneys at Hardin & Associates today to discuss next steps.

“Genetic information,” as defined by GINA, includes:

• An individual’s family medical history;
• Results of an individual’s or family member’s genetic tests;
• Information that an individual or an individual’s family member sought or received genetic services;
• Genetic information of a fetus carried by an individual or an individual’s family member or an embryo lawfully held by an individual or family member receiving assistive reproductive services.

Be aware that if your employer requires you, the employee, to perform regular medical examinations, the questions the doctor is asking could put the employer at risk for a GINA violation. If you believe that your employer sent you to get a medical check up with the sole reason of using the information learned against you, contact an experienced employment attorney immediately to discuss your legal rights.

Additionally, GINA ‘safe harbor’ language should be given to you, the employee, and the health care provider in the following circumstances:

• When an applicant is sent for an ADA-compliant post-offer, pre-employment medical examination;
• When a current employee is sent for a medical examination that is job-related and consistent with business necessity;
• When an employee is getting certification of the employee’s own serious health condition under the Family and Medical Leave Act;
• When a potential or current employee is sent for a drug test;
• When an employee is sent for diagnosis or treatment for a workers’ compensation injury;
• When an employee is sent for an examination to determine whether he or she qualifies for short-term or long-term disability benefits;
• When an employee is sent for an examination to determine whether an ADA reasonable accommodation is needed, or what type.

This list is not exhaustive. If you have been subjected to questions or conduct that may constitute a GINA violation, your experienced Orange County employment lawyer can help walk you through GINA and its various requirements.

For more information on GINA, the ADA, and your rights as an employee, contact the employment lawyers at Hardin & Associates today.

What’s more, California employees are protected if their employer discriminates against them because they think that employee is a certain religion, when you are not. For example, it’s against the law for your employers to discriminate against you for wearing a headscarf because they think you are a Muslim, even if you are not actually Muslim.

Religious discrimination in the workplace

Religious discrimination involves treating employees differently because of their religion, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a change in a workplace rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. However, it can also include treating individuals differently in their employment because of their lack of religious belief or practice. The law protects all individuals who have sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.

Common examples of religious discrimination during the holiday season includes:

• an employer refusing to accommodate a religious leave request;
• an employer who only allows members of certain religious to display religious and/or holiday materials;
• an employer forcing an employee to attend a religious activity.

This list is not exhaustive. To discuss your situation, contact an experienced employment attorney.

Asking for time off

If you ask your employer for time off to celebrate a holiday practiced by your religion and he refuses, you may feel like he is discriminating against you and depending on the circumstances, you may be right. Typically, employers should grant religious leave requests unless doing so would prove an “undue hardship.” Undue hardship means the employer would incur significant costs or it would create a disruption for other employees by granting the request. In other words, he can’t deny your request just because he doesn’t agree with or believe in your religious practices.

Over the last several years, religion-based EEOC discrimination cases have increased significantly. Indeed, between 1997 and 2015, religion-based claims rose by 41%. If you believe that you were discriminated against at work because of your religious beliefs, contact the successful Orange County employment attorneys at Hardin & Associates today.

Most employers are aware that they cannot discriminate against employees and applicants based on their religion. Where many employers are not so clear is their requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee’s or applicant’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the business’s operations. Common religious accommodations in the workplace include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Workplace Policies that Could Discriminate

Perhaps your employer’s dress code policy is infringing on your religious beliefs. For example, if a business has a ‘no facial hair’ policy’ and requests that a job applicant who is a member of the Sikh faith shave his beard and refuses to hire him if he does not, the employee could have a potential claim for religious discrimination.

Another policy to examine relates to holy days, such as the Sabbath. If a key tenet of an employee’s faith is to observe Sabbath by refraining from secular work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for the person’s religious practices.

For more information on religious discrimination, contact the Orange County employment attorneys at Hardin & Associates today.

Sex & Gender Discrimination

Sex or gender employment discrimination involves treating a person unfavorably because of the person’s sex. While predominantly an issue for women, sex discrimination can also be directed towards men. This person could be a job applicant or a current employee. If you were discriminated against at work because of your gender or sexual orientation, know that California law is on your side. For example, if you have not been hired for a job, fired, or otherwise harmed in employment because of your sex or gender, then you may have suffered sex or gender discrimination. An experienced employment lawyer can explain more.

While the terms “gender” and “sex” are often used inter-changeably, the two terms actually have distinctly different meanings. According to social scientists, “sex” refers to a person’s biological or anatomical identity as male or female and “gender” refers to the collection of characteristics that are culturally associated with maleness or femaleness. An employee may be discriminated at work because of his or her sex (such as denying a promotion to someone because she is female) because he is genetically male, but identifies more as a female. Both types of discrimination in the workplace are against the law.

Some common examples of how sex and/or gender discrimination in the workplace can be taken out on an employee include:

• Hiring/Firing/Promotions;
• Unequal Pay;
• Job Classification;
• Benefits;
• Time Off;
• Shift Assignment.

For example, if you are a pregnant woman and you have a doctor’s note stating you cannot work certain shifts but your employer refuses to accommodate you, you may have a claim for discrimination.

Financial Recovery for Discrimination

If your Orange County employer has discriminated against you, you may be able to bring a claim for gender discrimination and recover back pay, front pay, damages for emotional distress, attorneys fees, fines, or punitive damages. Additionally, if you so desire, you may be able to be reinstated at your job or even promoted. You can discuss your preferences with your Orange County employment lawyer.

To discuss your discrimination case at no cost, contact the experienced Orange County employment attorneys at Hardin & Associates today.

Employment discrimination is illegal under state and federal law. This means that California employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, disability, age (for workers over 40), military status, financial situation, genetics, or citizenship. These rights are guaranteed by the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution and by state constitutions. For instance, the California Constitution provides explicit protections to public and private sector employees. This is unusual, because in most states protections are offered only for public sector workers. In other words, if you have a potential claim for discrimination at work, know that California and federal law are on your side.

Examples of workplace discrimination

The facts of workplace discrimination cases run the gamut, but in many instances, the employer (or those who work for him) discriminate in the following way:

1. The employer will decide the plaintiff is a member of a protected group because of a certain physical characteristic, belief, or other behavior;
2. The employer will then treat the plaintiff unfairly because of his or her membership in this protected group;
3. The outcomes for the victims of discrimination range from anxiety to lost wages and mental or even physical trauma.

If you believe you have an employment discrimination claim, you’ll want to document everything that has happened to you. Think of people who saw what happened and think of when and where it happened. These colleagues may act as witnesses down the road.

In general, a workplace discrimination case is proved with the following elements:

• The plaintiff was a member of a “protected group” as listed above;
• The plaintiff was qualified in all respects for the job, promotion, or advancement he or she sought;
• The plaintiff was rejected despite being fully qualified – Here, you will need evidence to show that the only reason you were not selected is because of membership in the protected group;
• The employer intended to treat the plaintiff differently from others because of actual or perceived membership in the protected group. One way to show an employer’s intent is to show how he or she treated other people in the same protected group; a pattern may be sufficient to show intent;
• After being rejected, the employer advertised for, interviewed, and sought applicants with the same qualifications as the plaintiff.

If you believe you have been discriminated against, consulting an experienced employment lawyer is a smart move. The remedies for discrimination in the workplace may include damages, such as back pay, or reinstatement to a previous job title. A judge could also order relief for all other employees at that workplace, including revisions to the company handbook or providing additional training.

To discuss your potential workplace discrimination case, contact Orange County employment attorney James Hardin at Hardin & Associates today.

What is racial discrimination?

According the the EEOC, race discrimination involves an employer treating an applicant or employee unfavorably because s/he is of a certain race. What’s more, a worker can be discriminated against of personal characteristics associated with a certain race (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Even if your supervisor or boss is of the same race or color as you, if he mistreats you because of your race, it is discrimination.

Examples of race-based discrimination in California can include:

• refusing to hire an applicant based on race;
• firing or disciplining an employee because of their race;
• paying an employee less or providing them fewer benefits on account of their race;
• failing to promote an employee because of their race; and
• improperly classifying or segregating employees or applicants by race.

This list is not exhaustive. To determine if you have been the victim of discrimination at your place of work, contact an experienced Orange County employment lawyer.

Laws against discrimination

If you have been the victim of racial discrimination at work, know that the law is on your side. In fact, both California and federal law clearly state that discrimination in any form, including because of race or skin color, is against the law. The primary federal law that addresses racial discrimination in the workplace is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces laws that protect you from illegal workplace discrimination.

How to file a racial discrimination lawsuit

Prior to filing a lawsuit in civil court for racial discrimination in the workplace, an employee must exhaust certain administrative remedies. This involves filing charges with the EEOC and/or with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing and obtaining a “right to sue” letter. These charges can be filed online or by mail, and your Orange County employment lawyer can review them with you to ensure that you are providing the necessary information.

If you believe you have been discriminated against at work because of your skin color or race, contact the employment attorneys at Hardin & Associates today to discuss your potential case and potential for financial compensation.