In the case at issue, a former cook at a Long Beach restaurant was awarded more than $84,000 in lost wages after demonstrating that she was wrongfully terminated due to her age. The employer argued that she should not receive damages for any time following his alleged discovery that she was not authorized to work. The court rejected that argument, finding no reliable evidence that he had actual knowledge of her status. California law is clear: if your employer engages in discrimination, they cannot escape liability by relying on assumptions about your documentation.

Immigration Status Does Not Block Lost Wage Claims in California Discrimination Cases

The employee in this case was repeatedly subjected to offensive comments about her age. She was told she was “used” and “old,” and she was denied raises and tips that younger employees received. She also worked unpaid overtime, missed legally required breaks, and was paid entirely in cash. These actions violated multiple California labor and civil rights laws.

Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers are prohibited from terminating or discriminating against workers based on age, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The court reaffirmed that employers must prove actual knowledge of a worker’s undocumented status if they want to limit the damages awarded. In this situation, the employer requested documents years after hiring the employee, accepted others’ paperwork without verifying its authenticity, and provided no clear evidence that he was aware the employee lacked authorization to work. The judge properly refused to reduce the award based on unsupported claims.

Federal Law Does Not Automatically Block California Employment Claims

Employers sometimes argue that federal immigration law prevents undocumented workers from recovering lost wages. That argument was considered in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., 59 Cal. 4th 407 (2014), where the California Supreme Court held that state claims could still proceed unless the employer could demonstrate that it had learned of the worker’s undocumented status and that continued employment would violate federal law.

In this case, the employer cited Salas to try to avoid paying the full amount awarded. The appellate court rejected that argument, explaining that the record did not compel a finding that the employer knew the employee’s work status. Without solid proof of that knowledge, the preemption defense failed. The result? The full amount of damages stood.

This decision highlights that undocumented workers can still hold employers accountable for discrimination and wage violations in California. Employers who try to shift the blame or raise legal defenses without proof will not succeed if the facts and testimony support the employee.

How Documentation Issues Are Handled in California Employment Cases

Courts reviewing claims involving immigration issues closely examine the timing, documentation requests, and whether the employer took action only after a conflict arose. If the employer accepted inconsistent or missing documentation for years without objection, they cannot later claim they acted in good faith once the worker raised concerns about discrimination.

The employee in this case worked for several years, was paid under the table, and was only asked for a Social Security card after the employer was sued by someone else. Even then, the employer did not verify the authenticity of the documents from other staff members. This behavior undercut any claim that he acted based on federal requirements, rather than as retaliation or due to age-based bias.

Stand Up for Your Rights No Matter Your Status

If you have been fired, harassed, or denied fair pay because of your age, gender, race, or background, you have the right to fight back. California law protects every worker, regardless of immigration status, from illegal treatment on the job. At The Nourmand Law Firm, we help employees hold employers responsible for discrimination, retaliation, and wage theft. You deserve a legal team that puts your rights first and refuses to back down in the face of employer pressure or delay tactics. Call The Nourmand Law Firm today at (310) 553-3600 to speak with a California employment attorney. We represent employees only. Let us help you recover what you are owed.

An employee alleged that their employer discriminated against them due to age by failing to promote them to higher positions. The employee also asserted that they were retaliated against for raising concerns about misuse of workplace funds and complaining about discriminatory practices. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the employer, finding that the employer had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, finding that the employee presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding discrimination and retaliation.

What Constitutes Age Discrimination Under FEHA?

FEHA prohibits employers from discriminating against workers aged 40 and older based on age. Discrimination can take many forms, including denying promotions, imposing unfavorable work conditions, or terminating employment due to age. To succeed in a discrimination claim, an employee must establish a prima facie case by showing they are part of a protected class, suffered an adverse employment action, and were treated less favorably than younger employees with similar qualifications.

In the recent case, the employee met this burden by showing they were part of the protected age group and were passed over for promotion in favor of a younger, less qualified candidate. Evidence included test results indicating that the employee performed better than the promoted candidate in key evaluations. This evidence raised a presumption of discrimination, requiring the employer to provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision.

Employer’s Burden to Rebut Discrimination Claims

Once an employee establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer must rebut the presumption by producing evidence of legitimate reasons for the adverse action. In this case, the employer cited poor performance in a temporary leadership role and specific weaknesses identified in the employee’s evaluations as justification for the decision. Employers are permitted to make employment decisions based on job performance, provided those decisions are not motivated by discriminatory intent.

However, presenting a legitimate reason does not end the inquiry. An employee may still challenge the employer’s explanation by showing that it is pretextual, not the true reason for the action. Evidence of pretext often includes inconsistent statements, deviations from standard practices, or discriminatory remarks.

Evidence of Pretext in the Recent Case

In this case, the employee presented substantial evidence suggesting that the employer’s stated reasons were a cover for discrimination. The key evidence included ageist remarks made by a supervisor, such as references to the employee as “the old guy” and comments suggesting that older employees were less capable of adapting to new technology. When considered alongside the promotion of a younger and arguably less qualified candidate, these remarks raised doubts about the employer’s motives.

The appellate court noted that these remarks could indicate discriminatory intent, particularly since the employer’s decision to bypass a more qualified candidate was described as unusual. The court emphasized that a jury could find the supervisor’s statements reflected bias and choose to disbelieve the employer’s justification for the decision.

Retaliation Claims Under FEHA and Labor Code Section 1102.5

California law also prohibits retaliation against employees who report unlawful practices or workplace violations. Retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse action against an employee because of their complaints or whistleblowing activities. To prove retaliation, an employee must show a connection between their protected activity and the adverse action.

In this case, the employee alleged retaliation after raising concerns about misuse of workplace funds and discriminatory practices. Although the employer denied these claims, the appellate court found that the employee provided sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Specifically, the timing of the adverse actions and the supervisor’s disparaging remarks supported an inference of retaliation.

The Role of Triable Issues in Employment Cases

When an employee presents evidence questioning the employer’s motives, courts are reluctant to resolve the case through summary judgment. Instead, these disputes are typically left for a jury to decide. In this case, the appellate court determined that the totality of the evidence—ageist comments, the promotion of a less qualified candidate, and the unusual nature of the decision—required further consideration by a jury.

This decision underscores the importance of examining all relevant circumstances in employment discrimination and retaliation cases. Courts must consider not only the employer’s stated reasons but also the surrounding context, including patterns of behavior, past practices, and the credibility of witnesses.

Protecting Employee Rights in California

California employees have strong protections against discrimination and retaliation. Workers who believe they have been mistreated due to age, race, gender, or other protected characteristics should know their rights under FEHA. Similarly, employees who report workplace violations are protected from retaliatory actions that could harm their careers.

When disputes arise, evidence is critical. Employees should document discriminatory or retaliatory behavior, including offensive remarks, changes in job responsibilities, and deviations from standard practices. Legal representation can also help employees build a strong case by gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and advocating for their rights.

Speak with a California Employment Lawyer About Age Discrimination and Retaliation

If you have been denied a promotion, subjected to unfair treatment, or faced retaliation after speaking up in the workplace, you have legal options. Employers often attempt to justify their decisions with seemingly neutral explanations, but California law protects workers from discrimination and retaliation. At the Nourmand Law Firm, APC, our experienced employment attorneys understand how to challenge pretextual justifications and hold employers accountable for unlawful actions. We will review your case, gather evidence, and advocate for the justice you deserve. Do not let an employer’s unfair treatment go unchallenged. Contact the Nourmand Law Firm, APC, today for a free consultation and take the first step toward protecting your career a

Facts of the Case

As an employee of the NUHW, the plaintiff was hired in September 2015 as an internal organizer. The NUHW employs external organizers, who encourage non-unionized employees to join the union, and internal organizers, who develop and organize members to be active participants in the union. Although the plaintiff had some union experience, she did not have experience organizing union members in hospitals or organizing workers in technical job classifications. Nevertheless, she was assigned as an internal organizer to two hospitals in Sonoma County, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (SRMH) and Petaluma Valley Hospital (PVH).

During the trial, the plaintiff’s former supervisor testified that the plaintiff initially performed well. When she was hired, NUHW was negotiating with SRMH for a successor contract, and the plaintiff was able to communicate with Spanish-speaking union members and organize them to support the contract. The contract was ratified, and the plaintiff was given a positive skills assessment.

Following the successful contract negotiations, the plaintiff was expected to take on greater job responsibilities, with the goal being that she would become the primary point of contact for SRMH and PVH. Over several months, the plaintiff’s supervisors concluded that her organizing work was not progressing appropriately. Specifically, they concluded that her organizing abilities, worksite organization, technical skills, and ability to support members in day-to-day operations were all lacking. On April 4, 2017, the plaintiff was called to a meeting and told she was being terminated because she was not a good fit. She was given the option of resigning and in exchange, receiving a severance package, or she could be terminated. The plaintiff asked that NUHW continue her medical insurance for 90 days and then put her resignation in writing. She then proceeded to the office of the finance director and signed a severance agreement. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiff wrote to NUHW, attempting to rescind her resignation. This lawsuit followed.

The Court’s Decision

The appeals court opinion addresses the trial court decision, fully affirming the trial court opinion. Regarding the plaintiff’s claims, the appeals court decision stated that it was well within the trial court’s discretion to strike the “Objections to Evidence” document. Additionally, the appellate decision points out that the plaintiff’s opening brief did not state what objections she made in her “Objections to Evidence” document and that the document was not in the appellate record. Finally, regarding the objections made by the plaintiff in her original filing, the appellate court held that the trial court did not err in declining to consider them as they were not made in a separate document as required by rule 3.1354, and regardless, the plaintiff did not demonstrate in her briefs what objections the court should have considered, why they had merit, and what difference it would have made in the outcome of the case, affirming the trial court decision.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Do you have claims against your employer but worry you signed away your right to sue or don’t have a strong enough case? Your claims may still be valid. Contact a California employment lawyer to discuss your situation. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will review every possible avenue for recovery. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

Facts of the Case

At Fox, the plaintiff had edited promotional videos since 1984. In 2018, his supervisor eliminated his and the oldest editor’s shifts. Later, Fox gave additional shifts to the youngest editor. A few months prior, Fox had informed employees of anticipated staffing cuts due to budgetary constraints. However, the plaintiff argued he was terminated because of his age. Fox countered by citing issues with his speed and tardiness. Several supervisors and editors testified that the plaintiff was one of the slowest editors in his department. The plaintiff countered that he produced meticulous, quality work, and Fox’s reported concerns were a pretext for age discrimination.

To support their claims, each party submitted several forms of evidence. The plaintiff claimed he heard a supervisor say that another editor was the slowest. He provided declarations from former Fox employees who attested to his high-quality work and punctuality. He also cited evidence of finishing editors’ average hourly wages to argue his above-average pay reflected strong performance. Fox objected to this evidence and provided its own pay data.

The lower court sustained Fox’s objections and granted its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.

The Decision

The appeals court affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence. First, it agreed with the lower court that the supervisor’s statement about another editor was inadmissible hearsay. The plaintiff failed to show the supervisor had the authority to speak for Fox, and he failed to allow the supervisor to refute this alleged statement at his deposition. Additionally, the court affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiff’s declarations because they were irrelevant. The declarations came from employees without a direct supervisory role over the plaintiff. Additionally, the declarations made general claims about the plaintiff’s work quality and punctuality without specifically countering his supervisors’ performance concerns. Finally, the court sustained Fox’s objection to the plaintiff’s pay data because the plaintiff could not prove a causal link between pay and performance.

On the merits, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Fox’s alleged legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating him were a pretext for age discrimination. The court cited his supervisors’ concerns about speed and tardiness, evidence that supervisors expressed these concerns to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s admission that Fox had emphasized speed over quality. The plaintiff also failed to show that Fox’s termination of two older employees, along with the assignment of extra shifts to a younger employee, had a causal link to age discrimination. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Fox’s motion for summary judgment.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

If you have suffered age discrimination from an employer, you may be entitled to relief. Contact an experienced California employment lawyer to discuss your case. Our attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will help present the evidence you need to make the strongest possible claim. To schedule a free, no-obligation consultation, contact us at 310-553-3600 today.

Glenn Kagan, 66, filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., and Quadra Productions Inc. claiming age discrimination.

Company said the plaintiff violated COVID protocols

“Jeopardy!” staffers began working remotely in March of this year due to coronavirus restrictions. In July, producers told employees they would receive personal protective equipment (PPE) when they returned to work.

However, the lawsuit says neither Kagan nor any other workers received PPE or masks, so he brought his own facial covering. Soon after, producers ordered him to take 20 contestants for COVID testing, even though he was one of the most vulnerable employees due to his age.

During this assignment, he says his mask slipped beneath his nose when he was talking to a contestant. In another instance shortly after, he briefly pulled down his mask because a security guard had trouble understanding him.

The next day, supervisors suspended him during a videoconference saying he had failed to comply with COVID protocols. Kagan raised concerns about the lack of PPE and masks and said employees had not been provided with any protocols or instructions.

The lawsuit says he was fired on Aug. 21 after more than three decades on the job after producers told him he had failed to wear a mask properly.

His job duties shifted to a younger employee

During his 34 years on the job, Kagan had stood in for Alex Trebek during rehearsals to help if contestants had any issues, such as using the hand buzzers. He also booked contestants for future shows and emailed forms to them. At times, he conducted auditions for potential contestants.

That changed in 2016 when producers promoted a man in his 20s to the contestant coordinator position. Afterward, more of Kagan’s responsibilities were passed along to the younger worker, including duties on taping days.

The lawsuit says Kagan’s supervisor told him that the staff wanted the younger man to appear in camera shots with contestants during commercial breaks instead of him. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for discrimination, wrongful termination and unpaid overtime.

In late August, the agency notified a group of ex-employees that IBM routinely ignored laws that protect workers from age discrimination in hiring and firing.

Discrimination was encouraged “straight from the top”

In a letter, the EEOC said its investigation uncovered messaging from top-level leaders at the company directing managers to aggressively reduce the number of older workers to make room for younger employees.

The agency’s ruling may apply to as many as 6,000 ex-IBM workers – a number expected to grow if the findings spur private lawsuits. The company faces millions of dollars in settlement payments related to the ruling, or a federal lawsuit if no agreement is reached.

Ruling backs up ProPublica investigation

In a report released by the nonprofit newsroom ProPublica in 2018, an investigation concluded 60% of IBM’s U.S. workers laid off over the previous five years were age 40 or older. Federal and state age discrimination laws protect workers in this category.

ProPublica says IBM systematically denied these workers information they were entitled to under the law to determine whether they had been discriminated against. Furthermore, the group says IBM used point systems stacked against older workers – even those rated as high performers.

Fighting age discrimination

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protect California workers over age 40. An experienced age discrimination lawyer can help workers whose rights are violated collect damages for lost wages and benefits as well as for pain and suffering.

Successful age discrimination lawsuits can result when the worker is part of the protected class and suffers adverse employment actions, such as being fired, suspended or demoted. Their rights are also violated when employers treat others outside the protected class more favorably or differently.

According to an AARP study, almost one in every four workers who are 45 years or older have received a negative comment regarding their age from fellow coworkers or even their supervisors.

Older workers face the highest rates of age discrimination

Among the older age group, three in every five workers reported that they had experienced age discrimination at work. Of these workers, 76% of them see this as an obstacle to finding new employment. Roughly 90% also believe this could prevent them from earning as much as they used to once ageism successfully pushes them out of a job.

Retirement savings are on the rocks

When older people get pushed out of employment too soon, whole families get upended. In America, people who are 55 years or older with no retirement plans head 29% of households. Even when they are not forced out of work, poor treatment can have terrible effects. People who begin to feel they do not serve a purpose are more likely to develop a disability or die prematurely.

Retirement age gets pushed later and later

All across the internet, there are people talking about retiring early and many have. Most people, however, plan to — and do — retire much older. CNBC estimates that more than 40% of current workers say they plan to keep working until 66 years old or older. Compare this to 30% saying they wanted to wait until 65 years or older in 2004 and just 12% in 1995.

The good news is that there are laws that protect employees who have been discriminated against because of their age. If you or a loved one has been subjected to age discriminated or employment discrimination visit our website or contact The Nourmand Law Firm, APC to determine if you or a loved one can receive the protection of the employment laws that may apply to your circumstances.