According to the facts in the opinion, the plaintiff was working as a nurse and was terminated in 2017 after almost 20 years of employment. In her complaint, the plaintiff described her work in patient care and listed the dates during which she began taking medical leave for an undisclosed illness. The medical leave started in 2015 and occurred sporadically through early 2017.

In January 2017, the plaintiff received what is called a “Corrective Action Level 4 write-up,” which included allegations and complaints against the plaintiff dating back to 2015. Two weeks later, she was suspended, and three months after the suspension, her employment was terminated. The plaintiff argued in her complaint that her disability and time on medical leave were substantial motivating factors for the termination and that if it had not been for her disability, she would not have been fired. The lower court denied the plaintiff’s request for relief, and she promptly appealed.

On appeal, the higher court took into consideration the complaints listed against the plaintiff in her employer’s reports. According to the employer, the plaintiff had made significant mistakes in communicating with both staff members and patients. For example, when one patient reported that he was suicidal, the plaintiff failed to notify medical personnel that there was an urgent issue in the patient’s medical records.

When considering the mistakes described by the employer alongside the plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not met her burden of showing that her disability was a substantial motivating factor in the termination. Despite the fact that the plaintiff was fired soon after she began taking medical leave, said the court, the timeline of the events was not enough to support a claim of discrimination.

Putting significant weight into the employer’s allegations, the court denied the defendant’s appeal. The lower court’s original verdict was thus affirmed.

Retaining Your California Employment Law Attorney

If you have faced or are facing discrimination in the workplace, you may have a claim for relief. In order to put the strongest possible case forward, the best thing you can do for your case is to hire a qualified, hardworking California employment law attorney that can advise you on possible strategies and help you choose what works best for you. At the Nourmand Law firm, we are standing by and ready to speak with you in a free, no-obligation phone consultation. Give us a call today at 310-553-3600.

One such remedy comes through applying California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which gives workers a separate cause of action to address unfair labor practices. The California Court of Appeals recently heard a case in which a plaintiff brought a claim of unlawful business practices under the UCL against their former employer, alleging that the defendant’s failure to pay the plaintiff’s due wages was a violation of the law. In the recently decided case, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for failing to pay sufficient wages under an employment agreement. According to the procedural history discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff made legal claims for breach of contract based on unpaid wages and failure to reimburse business expenses and brought up equitable claims under the UCL with the same complaints.

The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s lawsuit by seeking to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims as agreed to in the employment contract. The parties’ employment contract contained a provision that legal claims for wage loss would be handled in arbitration; however, the contract specifically stated that equitable claims under the UCL were not subject to mandatory arbitration. The plaintiff agreed to dismiss their non-UCL claims but sought to have the UCL claim heard in court, not at arbitration. Based on the language of the arbitration agreement in the employment contract, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, triggering the appeal.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s UCL claim was really just a wage loss claim that was dressed up as a UCL claim. The defendant claimed that the types of UCL claims that were meant to be exempt from the arbitration agreement were not those that the plaintiff was bringing. The appellate court was not persuaded by the defendant’s arguments, ruling that the language of the arbitration agreement was clear that UCL claims were not subject to mandatory arbitration, while finding that the plaintiff’s claim for equitable relief under the UCL was legitimate and different from the legal breach of contract claims that had also been made. As a result of the appellate ruling and the plaintiff’s decision to seek relief under the UCL, the plaintiff will be able to have their claims heard in court instead of at arbitration (which tends to favor employers in this context).

Do you Have Questions About California Employment Law?

If you or a loved one has been treated unfairly at work, you may have a claim against your employer. Employment law in California can be complex, and claims based on the same sets of facts may proceed very differently depending on how your case is made. The experienced California employment law attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm understand the complexities of U.S. and California labor laws, and we know the best strategies for obtaining relief for our clients. Whether you have been the victim of workplace harassment, unpaid wages, physical injury, or some other harm at the hands of your employer, we are here to help. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today. You can also complete our online form to get started.

In 2012, the employer hired the plaintiff to work as an “additional services” employee to provide janitorial services at a location. About a year later, the employer-provided written confirmation that the plaintiff was a “permanent employee.” In 2014, the plaintiff took leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to care for his terminally ill wife. A day after returning to work, his supervisor informed him that he was terminated because another employee had filled the position. Shortly after his termination, the plaintiff filed a discrimination and retaliation charge against his employer and the Union.

In response, the employer argued that they unintentionally and erroneously issued the plaintiff a “permanent employee” letter. Further, they explained that another employee was next in line to obtain the position according to their seniority scheme. The Union argued that their actions were not motivated by discrimination but solely their responsibility to enforce their seniority hiring protocols.

At trial, the Union moved to exclude all evidence that it violated the CFRA, arguing that they were not the plaintiff’s employer. In return, the plaintiff failed to amend his complaint to add the Union as his joint employer or in the alternative, if the Union was not his employer, they aided and abetted the employer’s discrimination.

Under California’s Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), it is illegal to aid and abet a discriminatory employment practice. Further, a non-employer can be vicariously liable for an employer’s violation. In this context, the plaintiff must establish that the Union functioned as an employer’s role under the law. Here, the plaintiff’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts to establish that the Union knew that the employer granted the plaintiff’s leave or that they knew of any CFRA violation. As such, because the Union did not make a “conscious decision” to aid in the commission of wrongful acts, they cannot be liable. Ultimately, the plaintiff cannot hold the Union liable for the employer’s employment decision.

Have You Suffered Employment Discrimination or Retaliation?

If you have experienced an employer’s discriminatory treatment or retaliation, contact The Nourmand Law Firm. The attorneys at our office fight for the rights of California workers who are experiencing discrimination or other unlawful practices. Our firm has successfully represented various California truck drivers, hospital employees, production employees, food industry workers, airport employees, and farmworkers. We handle claims stemming from California employment law, including those arising from employment discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, and wage and hour law violations. Our experienced attorneys can help you understand your rights and effectuate your remedies. Contact our law firm at 800-700-9243 to schedule a free initial consultation with a highly-rated employment lawyer on our team.

While the statute provides many benefits, it also has significant implications for California employees wishing to pursue employment discrimination or retaliation against their employers. Anti-SLAPP statutes permit defendant employers to present a motion to strike causes of action that stems from “any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution; in connection with a public issue.”

Following a California Supreme Court case, the Court held that the anti-SLAPP statutes do not include an exception for retaliation or discrimination claims. As such, a plaintiff’s allegations against an employer’s motives will not protect the claim from preliminary screening for merit.

Most recently, a California appellate court addressed the anti-SLAPP statute in a plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim. The woman alleged that she was fired after complaining of workplace misconduct, including violations of company policy and mistreatment. The employer terminated her based on various actions, including theft, fraud, and dishonesty. The defendants moved to strike the employee’s claims based on the anti-SLAPP statute. In response, the plaintiff dismissed the causes of actions she believed fell under the anti-SLAPP statute. She argued that the defendant’s motion became moot when she dismissed the relevant claims. However, the employer argued that the remained claims stemmed from their protected activity of reporting the plaintiff’s suspected fraud and theft to the police.

The appeal focused on whether the remaining claims stem from protected activity. In evaluating anti-SLAPP motions, the court engages in a two-step analysis. First, the defendant maintains the burden of showing whether a claim is based on protected activity. If they are successful, the plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of prevailing. In this case, the court concluded that the employer’s conduct was designed to prompt action from law enforcement and is thereby protected. However, the court found that although the plaintiff’s discrimination claims may be weak, they do not involve the employer’s protected activity. As such, the court remanded the case and ordered the plaintiff to file an amended pleading removing allegations relating to the employer’s report to law enforcement, alleging sufficient facts for the remaining employment discrimination claims.

Have You Experienced Retaliation by Your California Employer?

If your employer has engaged in California employment law violations, contact The Nourmand Law Firm. The attorneys at our office have been fighting for employee rights for more than 20 years. The firm handles California employment lawsuits involving class actions, defamation, employment discrimination, wage and hour violations, and wrongful termination. Our highly experienced attorneys have a high rate of success defending workers’ rights. Contact our office at 800-700-9243 to schedule a free consultation with a California employment discrimination attorney on our team.

In the case before the Court, the Court considered whether rounding time was permissible in the context of a meal period. In the case of a named plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, the plaintiff’s employer used a timekeeping system that rounded the time punches to the nearest 10-minute increment. So if an employee clocked out for lunch at 11:02 and clocked in at 11:25, it would be recorded as 11:00 and 11:30. Thus, the employee’s meal period was only 23 minutes, as opposed to the full 30 minutes. An expert estimated that the use of the timekeeping system resulted in a denial of premium wages for short and delayed lunches amounting to over $800,000.

The Court maintained that employers could not round time in the context of meal periods. The court held that time rounding does not comply with the precise time requirements set out in Labor Code section 512 and Wage Order No. 4. The court reasoned that the relatively short length of a 30-minute meal period means that the potential incursion on that period is significant. The court held that the provisions concerning meal periods are intended to prevent even minor infringements on the meal period requirements, and rounding time does not meet that objective. The court held that even if the employer overpaid the members of the class for actual work based on the timekeeping, the issue is whether the rounding policy resulted in the proper payment of premium wages for meal period violations. The court also held that if an employer’s records indicate that no meal period was taken for a shift over five hours, there is a rebuttable presumption that the employee was not relieved of duty and no meal period was provided. Thus, the employer can assert this as a defense, and it is the employer’s burden to plead and prove that assertion.

Employees should document missed, short, or late breaks and the reasons for them to make sure that they are paid the wages they are due. They should also verify that their breaks are being properly recorded. California courts “liberally construe the Labor Code and wage orders to favor the protection of employees,” and employees should make sure their rights are being protected.

Consult with a California Employee Rights Lawyer

If you believe your rights may have been violated, consult with the Los Angeles employee rights lawyers at The Nourmand Law Firm, APC. At The Nourmand Law Firm, we have dedicated our practice to protecting employees in California for more than 20 years. We understand that the challenges you face in protecting your rights can seem insurmountable, and we will act as your advocate to ensure that your voice is heard. Call us today to discuss your case at 800-700-WAGE (9243) or contact us through our online form.

For instance, the Supreme Court of California recently decided two questions of law related to a class-action lawsuit against an employer for wage-and-hour violations. In this case, the defendant is a healthcare service and staffing company. The company assigned the plaintiff to work eight-hour days at various shifts. The defendant maintained a policy that the meal period was for an “uninterrupted” 30 minutes, and workers were relieved from job duties during and could leave the premises during this period. Further, the policy specified that supervisors should not discourage workers from using this meal period.

Although the policy seems to comply with the state’s wage and hour laws, an issue arose because the employees used an electronic timekeeping system that rounded their punched time to the nearest 10-minute allotment. For instance, if an employee clocked out for their break at 12:02 p.m. and returned at 12:25, p.m., the record would show a 30-minute break instead of a 23-minute break. This was most relevant when a nurse would take lunch at the end of their fifth hour of work. The defendants won their motions at trial on the basis that California’s wage-and-hour laws do not prohibit rounding.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed two significant issues involving rounding timekeeping and how it applies in the context of summary judgment. On the first issue, the court ruled that rounding timekeeping does not meet the state’s Labor Code which is to be “liberally construed in favor of the employee.” They found that even minor rounding errors can amount to a significant infringement of a worker’s right to their meal period. Secondly, the court found that “time records showing noncompliant” lunch periods raise a rebuttable presumption of an employment violation. The court clarified that shortened, delayed, or missed periods do not automatically impute liability on an employer, but instead, they can rebut the presumption by presenting relevant evidence. In sum, the court reinforced California labor laws in favor of employees.

Has Your Employer Engaged in Wage and Labor Violations?

If you believe your employer is violating California wage-and-hour laws, contact The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, to discuss your rights and remedies. For over 20 years, the attorneys at our law firm have solely represented employees in claims against their employers. We provide clients with the dignity, respect, and compassion that they deserve throughout these complicated claims. Our experienced attorneys have successfully represented California employees in their claims regarding wage-and-hour violations, discrimination, and other employment infractions. Contact our office at 800-700-WAGE to discuss your case today.