Business & Office News
Age Discrimination Grounds for California Labor Lawsuit
Even though California is an “at will” state (meaning that you can be fired at any time, for any reason, unless that reason is illegal), under California and federal employment laws employers cannot fire someone for age discrimination if the person is at least 40 years old.
Suzy says that her supervisor started asking her a few years ago when she was going to retire, even though everyone told her that she was the best organizer the union had. “I was an external organizer, I knocked on doors to get people to join the SEIU local 521 union,” she says. “The union comprises 2.5 million members nationwide and here in the valley about 80,000 members. I recruited service employees, from social and mental health workers to child care providers to janitors.”
Suzy was involved in a car crash at work and was diagnosed with whiplash, but after just a week off she was told in an e-mail from her supervisor that if she didn’t return to work by a certain date she would be terminated.
“Unbelievably I got into another car crash just a few weeks after returning to work. I was driving but I wasn’t at fault either time and that is on the record. This time I asked for PTSD treatment because I was afraid to drive. To make a long story short, Workers Compensation sent me to their doctor who said I was ready to go back to work, against my doctor’s orders.
“I wasn’t expecting at all to be fired. I just got a letter that said my position was terminated and I had to move my belongings from my desk or they would do it for me. And they said my health insurance was soon to be terminated; all I could do was sign up for COBRA, which would cost me $3,000 per month. I still have to figure out how to get my pension.”
Suzy believes she was fired because of her age and her medical bills. On top of her Workers Compensation claim for back and neck injuries and now PTSD, she is also diabetic: combine that with her age and Suzy believes her union now considered her a liability rather than an asset.
“What organizers do is very hard work and I typically worked 60-80 hours per week; I was paid salary and never got paid California overtime, nor was I expecting to get compensated because I signed a contract. I expect my union to follow their contract and the California labor code - they should know better. I heard that I was replaced by someone in her 30s and that is a sure sign of age discrimination.”
After Suzy found out that she was replaced by someone more than 30 years younger, her next step was to file a California Labor Lawsuit. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, age discrimination charges have soared since 2008, up to 25,000 more complaints a year.
Age discrimination claims have been referred to as “a vampire lawsuit - an emotional energy eater.” But filing a wrongful termination suit can hold former employers liable for their illegal behavior and get the compensation you deserve.
Recently a former maintenance worker (over 55 years of age) filed a California wrongful termination suit. He suffered an injury at work - where he had been employed for 25 years - and his doctor restricted his lifting to less than 50 pounds. The company was OK with that but a few years later his hours were cut. In his lawsuit, the employee said he was fired based on his age and disabilities. He claims that age discrimination was the only reason he was terminated from his job. The company, on the other hand, denies any wrongdoing. The man is asking for damages for lost wages, punitive damages, cost of the suit damages, attorney’s fees and other unspecified damages.
In February 2014, a 66-year-old man was awarded $26 million by a Los Angeles jury that determined he was discriminated against and harassed based upon his age by his supervising managers at Staples. Bobby Dean Nickel was 64 when Staples fired him, despite receiving excellent job reviews for nine years. In his lawsuit Nickel claimed that his mangers wanted to discharge older, higher paid employees, and that he was the butt of jokes at staff meetings, often called an “old coot” and “old goat.”
Nickel stuck to his guns and refused to resign. The situation worsened: false accusations and more harassment came from his manager and co-workers, and he was suspended for taking a 68 cent bell pepper from the company cafeteria, according to the lawsuit. And a receptionist told Nickel she was ordered by management to provide a false statement about his conduct but she refused to do so. Nickel’s lawyer, Carney Shegerian, said, “This verdict and the justice served will hopefully put employers on notice that they cannot discriminate against employees based on age.”
Suzy is looking forward to her day in court…
Pregnancy Discrimination Still Violates California Labor Law
Ashley returned to work from maternity leave to find that she had been demoted. “I worked at this company for six years, the first four of which I was part time,” says Ashley. “It was a struggle to get full-time status, but with it came job security and benefits so I was thrilled to be in this position, especially with my third child on the way.” Ashley has been “reclassified” back to part time, which means that she loses her medical benefits and of course, less hours. “My full-time job has been filled by someone who barely has any training, but she is young and doesn’t have any kids,” says Ashley. “I am certain that the company looks at me as a liability now that I had my third child and this is so wrong.”
If Ashley is right in assuming she lost her full-time position because she was discriminated against for being a mother, she should probably talk to an employment attorney.
It gets worse.
On the very last day Suzanne worked before taking maternity leave, she was fired! “I was told by HR that I was approved for Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) for 12 weeks but I won’t be eligible for short-term disability benefits,” says Suzanne, who worked at this company for more than 12 months and therefore qualifies for FMLA. “And on top of that, I want to file a California wrongful termination claim against my employer.”
Suzanne has called an attorney who specializes in Employment Law. Even in a right to work state, if there is any appearance of discrimination (i.e., firing you without cause just before you go on maternity leave and therefore NOT having to pay you for sick leave or vacation time), you may be protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Angela was laid off two weeks before her son was born. “My boss told me that they had to downsize but I found out from a co-worker that just a week after I was terminated that a young man took my place,” she says. “Although he didn’t come right out and say so, I think my former employer considers women with children as liabilities. And that is infuriating.”
Fortunately for these women, California has the strongest parental leave programs and protections in the US. The California “at will” employment policy does not allow employee termination for time off for family leave or maternity leave. As well, Suzanne, Angela and Ashley are pro-active: they are all taking steps to file a California labor lawsuit against their employer.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act explicitly prohibits employers from harassing, demoting, terminating or otherwise discriminating against any employee for becoming pregnant, or for requesting or taking pregnancy leave. The Act applies to all employers that regularly employed five or more full-time employees in the preceding year.
The California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) is part of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and requires employers who employ 5 or more employees to provide employees who are disabled by their pregnancy a reasonable period of leave, not to exceed four months. An employee who is disabled by her pregnancy and entitled to PDLL leave may take the leave all at once or in increments. An employer is not required to pay wages to an employee taking PDLL leave, unless it has a policy of continuing the payment of wages for other types of temporary disability leaves.
California Labor Lawsuit Gets Former Employee $2.1 Million Award
According to CBS 8 News, the plaintiff, David Bryant, worked for SDG&E (San Diego Gas & Electric) but was allegedly fired when he complained that the company targeted low-income households to increase profits from late fees. Specifically, Bryant alleged employees were told to hand-deliver delinquent notices in highly dense, low-income areas of San Diego. Hand-delivered delinquent notices can include a charge against the customer for $9 per note.
Bryant argued in the lawsuit that when he complained that the company was targeting low-income customers, he was fired.
California Current (6/3/11) reports that Bryant had worked for SDG&E for 22 years, starting out in the billing department and working his way up to position of senior collector by the time he was fired. Among Bryant’s concerns were that high-density, low-income areas were targeted because more delinquent notices could be delivered in a shorter time.
SDG&E maintained that Bryant was fired for inappropriate conduct and violation of company policy, but Bryant claimed he was fired in retaliation for speaking out against SDG&E’s practices.
In an interview with ABC 10 News (2/19/14), Bryant said that in one day in January 2011, approximately 2,000 households were visited with delinquent notices, earning more than $17,000. Of those, more than 80 percent were in southeast San Diego, Bryant said. With SDG&E focusing on high-density, low-income areas, higher-income households got a break, and were less likely to have to pay the $9 hand-delivered delinquent note fee.
A jury agreed with Bryant and awarded him $1.3 million punitive damages and $860,000 in compensatory damages. The jury found that SDG&E was liable for wrongful termination and retaliation.
According to a media statement released by SDG&E (3/26/14), the company plans to appeal the jury’s decision. “We believe that the evidence presented at trial showed that we reached the decision to terminate Mr. Bryant’s employment after a comprehensive investigation of allegations that he conducted himself at work in a manner that violated company policies,” the statement said.
Jury Finds for Plaintiff in California Denied Disability Insurance Lawsuit
In a report published by The Press Democrat (2/18/14), it was revealed that plaintiff Cassaundra Ellena was healthy when she was hired as a redevelopment manager by the Community Development Commission of Sonoma County (the Commission). While the 51-year-old plaintiff was diagnosed with Lupus in 2008, there were no outward signs of the disease when she applied to the Commission and was subsequently hired at a salary of $102,000 in 2009. The report indicated Ellena worked for the Commission from 2009 through 2010.
According to the denied ERISA disability report, the plaintiff soon after began exhibiting symptoms consistent with the auto-immune disease, including fever, chest pain and shortness of breath. Her worsening symptoms precluded Ellena from continuing in her job, and she applied for disability benefits according to California Insurance Law.
However, Sonoma County’s long-term disability (LTD) carrier - Standard Insurance Company (Standard Insurance) - denied Ellena’s claim on grounds that the plaintiff’s symptoms were partially alleviated through the use of special medications. The carrier also claimed doctors were of the opinion that Ellena could, indeed, continue working.
Undaunted, Ellena contacted a California denied disability insurance lawyer and litigated in an effort to prove her symptoms as valid and to reverse the carrier’s denial. During a seven-day trial, it was revealed that the professional opinions of medical experts consulted by the disability carrier were not universally shared. To wit, other doctors testified that Ellena was, in fact, debilitated by the disease. Sharing that view was the head of the Lupus Clinic at UC San Francisco.
In their view, jurors determined that Standard’s underwriters focused solely on the information leading to the denial of the claim, and did not take into account the bigger picture. To that end, the jurors found for the plaintiff.
Ellena was awarded a total of $873,000 - less attorney’s fees - which represented the collective sum of her disability payments from the time she first applied for California insurance claim help, through to her 67th birthday. The money was to be paid in a lump sum.
At the time of the California ERISA-denied claim report, it was not known if Standard Insurance planned to appeal. Sonoma County employs a total of 3,000 persons, the majority of whom are represented by Standard for LTD benefits. The case is Ellena v. Standard Insurance Company et al, Case No. 3:2012cv05401, California Northern District Cou
Burbank Attorneys Turn the Tables and File California Labor Lawsuit
According to the Burbank Leader (2/21/14), the Burbank City Attorneys Association (BCAA) alleges that the City of Burbank had agreed some time ago to pay a portion of the employee’s retirement contributions. However, the lawsuit alleges that Burbank failed to live up to that commitment.
The BCAA is comprised of 10 attorneys and a paralegal who are employed by the City of Burbank to perform and undertake various legal functions on behalf of the well-known California city. The association, according to the report, was formed about a year ago.
The California labor lawsuit, however, doesn’t appear to be singularly about the BCAA. Rather, the action could reach farther, philosophically at least, into the various employee groups within the City of Burbank, with an issue that has roots as far back as 1985, long before the BCAA was formed.
According to court documents, the Burbank City Council had previously committed to the payment of the employee contribution on behalf of members of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). The lawsuit holds that there was “no sunset provision” in the agreement.
That all apparently changed in 2011 when the city manager, according to the lawsuit, announced that the contractual perk was coming to an end. To that end, since July of 2011 city employees have been required to pay part of their employee contribution, with the city’s goal - or so it is alleged - to have employees pay the full amount, which is eight percent. Presumably, Burbank would pick up the remaining 92 percent as the employer.
The city has defended the change, noting that municipalities across California continue to seek ways to find savings in a state still reeling from debt and economic pressures. Burbank City Manager Mark Scott told the Burbank Leader such a practice is becoming standard in the public sector. “Being able to make these agreements with virtually all our bargaining units has allowed the city to stay solvent to the point where we haven’t had to reduce service levels like so many other cities have,” Scott said.
The City was surprised and unhappy over the lawsuit, and apparently didn’t see it coming. However, the BCAA was formed, according to the report, only after the City suggested to its legal team that they should organize in order to negotiate salary increases. The attorneys complied, and entered into salary negotiations this past summer as an association after their salaries had been frozen for five years. Talks broke down as the two sides were too far apart. An arbitrator appointed by the state in October recommended a pay increase of 1.6 percent for the current fiscal year, while also requiring association members to pay half of the employee pension contribution. Currently, association members pay two percent.
In its lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that the City’s requirement is illegal and constitutes a breach of contract, among other allegations of circumvention around California labor employment law. “Once the city attorneys performed services in reliance on the city’s contractual promise to provide the PERS benefits on retirement, the city is contractually bound to honor that obligation,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit seeks recovery of the “wrongfully deducted monies,” plus interest, along with a declaration that the city’s action is illegal and injunctive relief prohibiting the practice in the future, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit lists five causes of action, including breach of contract.
It is not known if any agreement or settlement stemming from the BCAA lawsuit would also affect the fortunes of other Burbank city employees who would otherwise also be affected by the city’s policy on employee retirement contributions, which could be a contravention of California labor law.
Kaiser Faces Retaliation Lawsuit
According to the lawsuit (case number CIVDS1311690), the two plaintiffs were employed by Kaiser at the Kaiser Permanente Fontana Medical Center in their Environment Services (housekeeping) department, and when the department was outsourced to Xanitos in August 2010, began taking direction from both Kaiser and Xanitos.
The first plaintiff, Leah Wilbur, began working for Kaiser in 1999, and in 2011, reported injuries sustained as a result of using poorly designed carts that were brought into use by Xanitos. After filing a workers’ compensation claim and speaking with other employees about her injury, Wilbur was allegedly approached by a manger and warned to never speak of her injuries to anyone. Furthermore, when meetings were held to improve working conditions at the Kaiser facility where Wilbur was employed, complaints brought to the meeting were allegedly ignored by managers.
The lawsuit also notes an incident in which sewage flooded a basement in the medical center. Wilbur alleges she and other employees were told to clean up the spill - which included “raw sewage and other bodily fluids” - with blankets and other available material, but with no protective gear. Wilbur complained and a hazardous material cleaning company was brought in to finish the cleanup. On June 13, 2013, Wilbur allegedly brought up issues about having safety gear such as gloves and goggles on site for such occurrences. On June 14, 2012, Wilbur was placed on suspension and then fired on June 22, 2012.
The second plaintiff, Sandra Purnell, began working for Kaiser in 1996. She also reportedly complained to management about poorly designed carts. In 2011, she filed a workers’ compensation claim due to injuries resulting from using the cart, but was not allowed accommodations so that she could use a smaller cart. She complained about rooms not being properly cleaned because employees were not allowed to use proper tools to clean the walls. Purnell also alleges she was written up for absences that had already been excused. Finally, she alleges that she complained repeatedly about actions on the part of co-workers and management that resulted in employees being exposed to hazardous working conditions.
The lawsuit alleges Kaiser and Xanitos discriminated against Wilbur and Purnell because they were disabled employees who were qualified to perform their duties but were subject to “adverse employment action by Kaiser and Xanitos, including failure to provide reasonable accommodations for their disability.” It also alleges retaliation for engaging in an activity that is protected under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Finally, the lawsuit alleges wrongful termination.
When Does Drug Testing Violate the California Labor Law?
California labor employment law allows an employer to test a prospective employee after a job offer is tendered but before the employee goes on the payroll. But how long after an employee is hired, can they legally be fired?
Colin (not his real name) thinks his employer is using the drug test to legitimize Colin’s termination. Otherwise, Colin could have grounds for a California wrongful termination. According to the drug test, Colin admits that he shouldn’t have been hired in the first place.
“I did a prescreening drug test prior to getting hired,” Colin says. “Initially, I turned down the position but the president called and asked me to join so we negotiated a salary and I accepted. I am a computer technician and understood my job would be IT work, but from the first day, I realized my job was not at all technical. I had to work on a phone- exchange system and I was quite miserable; the president had pulled the wool over my eyes but I showed up for work each day and delivered.
“Two months later, my supervisor said the drug screening test came back positive for pot and had to let me go. I didn’t get to say anything. It was quite easy for me to walk away but at the same time I felt burned. I was head-hunted by this company: it had pulled me from another job; I hadn’t entertained any other prospects.”
Colin was given his last paycheck, in accordance with California employee labor law. Then he went home and re-read the drug consent form. “It said that I have accepted employment and can be tested at their facility or clinic by submitting a urine sample. Declining will mean they will rescind their offer. I signed the form.
“The form goes on to say that I would be notified of the results. But I wasn’t given the opportunity to explain anything or the opportunity to retest. Even if I failed the test, they were supposed to (1) ask me why I failed and (2) give me the opportunity to retest the same day at the company clinic. I was not offered that and I never saw the test results.”
Colin, age 42, and African-American, believes they are using the positive drug test as a smoke screen because the real reason for his termination might mean that he has a legitimate wrongful termination claim.
“I was blindsided - I have never been fired in my life,” Colin adds. “I was a good worker and got along well with everyone, but when I was fired at their corporate office, I got the cold shoulder from everyone
“As well, I am legally able to buy medical marijuana. I was in a car accident and I take marijuana tablets. I hadn’t had any pot at least a week or more before this test but it could have been positive.”
According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an applicant or employee who is taking medication for a disability is protected, so if an applicant’s drug test is positive and turned down, and the medication was legally prescribed for a disability, the company could be liable - unless the medication is medical marijuana. But in the state of California, the jury is still out when it comes to pot.
California’s “compassionate use” law allows residents to use marijuana for medical purposes, as long as they have a doctor’s written authorization to use marijuana. A patient who has a valid prescription may not be prosecuted under state law for crimes relating to the use, possession or cultivation of a certain amount of marijuana. But this is the gray area: California’s Supreme Court has held that an employer may refuse to hire an applicant who tests positive for marijuana, even if the drug is legally prescribed for a disability.
In Colin’s case, because he was given a drug test and unfairly suspended or demoted because of it, his labor law attorney might argue that the testers did not meet with the strict requirements for form and procedure set out in the California labor code.
“I was fired last month and still dumbfounded,” Colin says. “I was so shocked that I didn’t even think about asking my employer about the test results. The only thing I can think of is ‘at will.’ As an employer, you can wake up one day and decide you don’t like someone and fire him.”
A California man was fired after testing positive for marijuana, despite the fact that he had a prescription for the drug. The man filed a wrongful termination claim against the company, but the California Court ruled that the company was justified in firing him because it is against federal law to possess or use marijuana despite state rules allowing him to do so. An appeals court upheld the ruling. The man’s case is now before the California Supreme Court.
Salvation Army Faces California Labor Lawsuit
According to court documents, Kimberlea Rea is employed as a bookkeeper/human resources assistant by The Salvation Army at the Modesto Citadel and has been since March 2006. Her job reviews have been favorable, including praise for being “a valuable employee.”
But the lawsuit alleges that one of The Salvation Army’s captains began approaching Rea and asking for her home address. Despite her refusing to give her address, she later saw the captain driving by her home. Eventually, he began asking for hugs and kisses on the cheek, leering at her body and telling her she “looked hot.” The situation allegedly escalated to the point where the captain talked to Rea about his sex life, inappropriately touched her and followed her around the office.
During December 2012, the lawsuit alleges, Rea complained to supervisors about issues with the captain, but the captain was not moved to a different location and no action was initially taken against the captain. In February 2013, after further alleged instances of harassment, the captain was moved to a different section of The Salvation Army. At the time, Rea noted that she was experiencing humiliation, degradation, embarrassment and sleeplessness as a result of the captain’s actions.
Rea was reportedly told by The Salvation Army that some of her complaints were supported by its investigation and that she was not found to be responsible for the captain’s behavior. But the lawsuit alleges Rea was never given a public apology from The Salvation Army, nor were her claims ever publicly acknowledged. She was also reportedly told by The Salvation Army that they would prefer she simply leave her position with them. Furthermore, according to the lawsuit, The Salvation Army’s policy regarding the captain’s conduct was zero tolerance, which meant the captain should have been fired for his actions. Instead, The Salvation Army publicly called his transfer a reward for a “job well done.”
“TSA [The Salvation Army] never provided Rea with a written confirmation of its findings or what actions would be taken to prevent future harassment from occurring,” the lawsuit states. “Rea concluded TSA wanted to merely appease Rea while maintaining a public persona that there was no problem within TSA concerning sexual harassment.”
Following Rea’s complaints and the captain’s transfer, Rea has reportedly been subjected to critical comments and remarks about her job performance.
The lawsuit seeks damages of $1 million, as well as compensatory damages.
Collecting California Labor Law Settlements Remains a Challenge
Su has been aggressively trying to bring that number down - a number, according to a 2010 UCLA study, estimated to be $26 million in lost wages each week affecting workers in Los Angeles County alone.
But it’s a tough go. And in spite of impressive California labor code victories during Su’s tenure, the majority of assessed penalties and wage claims are never paid by the perpetrators. According to the Los Angeles Times (6/27/13), a study undertaken by the National Employment Law Project and the UCLA Labor Center discovered the collection rate remains painfully low.
The report, covering a three-year period from 2008 to 2011 and entitled, “Hollow Victories: The Crisis in Collecting Unpaid Wages for California Workers,” found that only 17 percent of court-ordered claims for back pay and penalties under California labor employment law are ever collected. Even with signed judicial orders and settlement agreements in place, less than half of penalties and unpaid wages - $165 million out of $390 million so ordered - were ever successfully collected.
Su is aware of such lax compliance with California and labor law orders, and in June, issued citations against an LA-based garment manufacturer after it was discovered the company had changed its name to avoid paying previous citations assessed for non-compliance. The most recent citation, in response to the alleged attempt to avoid compliance with a previous California labor law violation, will cost the company $300,000 in new wage and hour violations.
But will they pay?
The Times article told the story of a worker who won a $20,000 California prevailing wage judgment against her employer in 2009. However, plaintiff Anita Herrera never had a chance to enjoy her windfall. Rather than pay the court-ordered judgment, Herrera’s former employer changed its name, acquired new business licenses and moved into new offices. “I feel very defrauded,” Herrera told the LA Times, in Spanish. “The company continues with its contracts and continues doing business.”
Beyond Labor Commissioner Su’s efforts to bring justice to bear against employers who skirt around court-ordered citations and penalties as mandated by California state labor laws, a new bill introduced to legislators in Sacramento would mandate the placement of wage liens against an employer’s property as a means to ensure that adequate assets are available to undertake payment of any settlement once a California labor law judgment is rendered. Dubbed the Fair Paycheck Act, AB 1164 is nonetheless getting a rough ride by business groups and lobbyists, and has stalled.
Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) vows to re-introduce the measure to state legislators next year.
Meanwhile, in addressing the issue of cited employers doing an end run around California labor law and court-mandated settlements and repayment orders, Su referenced her $300,000 order to the unnamed garment manufacturer. “This case demonstrates our commitment not just to addressing wage theft but also to cracking down on the shell games used to avoid detection,” said Labor Commissioner Julie Su.
In the meantime, disadvantaged workers must remain vigilant in holding their employers to account for violations to California prevailing wage law and other affronts to state employment statutes, knowing those charged with upholding labor laws will continue putting teeth into laws designed to hold employers accountable.
Racial Discrimination: Employee Stands Up for His Rights
Armen, a journeyman electrician who immigrated to the US from Armenia, was hired by a communications company that builds cell phone towers. The company’s policy included a 90-day trial period, and during that time, they promised Armen a foreman position once the training period was up.
Near the end of his training period, Armen was assigned to a crew and foreman that had an out-of-town job. Right away, the foreman- let’s call him Joe - and Armen clashed.
“Joe asked me if I had asked our mutual supervisor for a raise and I told him that I had,” says Armen. “Joe said, ‘I will give you a raise if you quit smoking. When you smoke on the job you are spending my time’. I told Joe that it wasn’t his position to give me a raise. He may have been kidding with me, but when we got to the job site, he called me a slave, in front of the other guys. I felt that I was being racially discriminated against. Some of the guys didn’t like the way I was being treated, but at the same time, they didn’t stand up for me. I think they were afraid of retaliation.”
(The reason Armen asked for a raise was because the same day he was hired, the company also hired an electrician without journeyman papers. Armen later found out that he was getting paid $18 per hour, which was $2 per hour more than Armen. When Armen asked his manager why he was paid less - as a journeyman he had a lot more responsibility - they said it was a mistake and they were going to fix it.)
“When we finished the job we had to drive to the hotel - the job was out of town so we were staying overnight,” Armen explains. “In the car I told Joe that he doesn’t have the right to call me a slave. I told him that I would report him to the office. He suddenly stopped the car, screamed and swore and kicked me out of the car, in the middle of nowhere. He said I have no right to tell him what to say or what to do. Then he said, ‘You came to the US, to my country as an immigrant and you have to do exactly what I tell you to do because you are working for me!’
“He drove away and I was left standing by the side of the road. The hotel was more than a 30-minute drive away and I had no idea where I was. Thankfully, the other crew (they were behind us in the second car) picked me up and we drove to the hotel together.
“Next day when we went back to the office I told my supervisor that I didn’t appreciate Joe’s racial slurs against me. My supervisor said he was going to investigate what happened. ‘Give me a week or two and I will do something about this guy - I will either reprimand him or fire him,’ he told me. So I waited, for three months.”
Armen was separated from that crew so he wouldn’t have to work with Joe anymore. Then he was made foreman.
“I had a crew of two guys that I supervised,” Armen explains. “I worked very well and had no problems with the company. My super and manager always had good things to say about me and a lot of guys said I was a hard worker - I liked this job. But some people don’t like me being the foreman because of my accent and my nationality. Joe wrote something detrimental about me and I believe it was because he doesn’t like me being in the same position as him. He worked 10 years for the company and I was his peer right away, soon after the training period.
“Then I got demoted from electrician to a helper and I didn’t get the raise I was promised. And here is another wrong thing: they constantly took two hours from my timesheet. For example, if I worked 14 hours in one day, they paid me for 12 hours. They did this every single day, and not only with me. I complained because I know this is illegal and they told me it is a company policy. Then I got fired, because I tried to stand up for my rights.”
Armen believes he was wrongfully terminated and if not for Joe’s racial slurs, he would still be employed. Racial discrimination is not tolerated under California labor laws and Armen is pursuing a discrimination lawsuit against Joe and the company.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
