Discrimination News
Jury Awards $186 Million in California Labor Lawsuit
The $186 million award was given by a jury to a former female employee of AutoZone. The employee alleged she was discriminated against because of her gender, demoted after her employers discovered she was pregnant, and later fired. According to The Wall Street Journal (11/19/14), Rosario Juarez was awarded more than $800,000 in compensatory damages, and $185 million for punitive damages.
AutoZone said it would fight the award. Juarez alleged she was demoted in 2006 and filed a lawsuit for sexual discrimination. She was later fired in 2008. AutoZone argued Juarez was fired after $400 in cash went missing from a register. A jury disagreed with AutoZone and found the firing an act of retaliation for Juarez’s complaints about sexual discrimination.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer announced a lawsuit against Makone Development and five subcontractors, alleging violations of wage and overtime laws including prevailing wage rules. According to a press release from the city attorney, the violations were related to construction of the South Los Angeles Animal Care Center facility. Among the allegations are that one subcontractor, Pak’s Cabinet, was required to pay a prevailing wage rate of $49 per hour, but paid workers as low as $8 an hour. The lawsuit also alleges that KCC General Construction was required to pay the prevailing wage of $45 an hour but paid some employees a lump some that equaled $5 an hour.
“The impact on workers was significant; not only were they and their families severely damaged financially, but many were subject to overt harassment and intimidation as part of the Defendants’ efforts to conceal their illegal schemes,” the lawsuit states.
The city attorney alleges that hundreds of thousands of dollars in proper wages and overtime was not paid to employees. The lawsuit seeks restitution to the employees and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.
The AutoZone lawsuit is Juarez v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., case number 08 CV 0417, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Home Depot Faces California Labor Lawsuit
Courthouse News Service (10/4/13) reports that plaintiff Hardy Housh filed the lawsuit alleging Home Depot discriminated against gay employees in response to financial hardships. The goal, Housh alleges, was to lower the payroll and the benefits the company was financial responsible for. For example, Housh alleges, Home Depot was concerned about medical benefits because of the costs associated with HIV and AIDS viruses.
Housh was reportedly 57 years old and had been with Home Depot for 25 years when he was fired. He was an assistant manager at one of the company’s California stores. When the chain had financial difficulties, it allegedly sought certain employees to fire on the basis of age and sexual orientation to lessen the company’s payroll and financial obligations.
According to the lawsuit, Home Depot allegedly wrote up fake write-ups on employees who were targeted. Furthermore, managers reportedly harassed Housh, including sending sexually explicit pictures to his e-mail. The harassment reportedly began after Housh included his partner in his insurance plan.
Home Depot has denied the allegations. The lawsuit reportedly seeks $100,000.
Meanwhile, The Hollywood Reporter faces a lawsuit of its own, alleging violations of the California Labor Code and other employment laws. The lawsuit, filed in September by David Simpson, names Prometheus Global Media LLC as the defendants and alleges that the company willfully misclassified their freelancers as independent contractors, denying them wage and hour rights under the California Labor Code.
“With the exception of their status as independent contractors, ‘freelancers’ are indistinguishable from employees in all material respects,” the lawsuit alleges. This includes being in the office from 9 to 5 Monday through Friday, attending mandatory work meetings and supervision identical as that given to employees. The only reason for classifying these workers as independent contractors is to deny them overtime pay, rest and meal breaks, and reimbursement for business expenses.
The lawsuit, case number BC522638 seeks class-action status.
Target Faces California Labor Lawsuit Over Multicultural Memo
Courthouse News Service (7/8/13) reports that three employees, Robert Gonzalez, Bulmaro Fabian and Pedro Garcia-Ayala, filed the lawsuit with allegations of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. They claim they were subject to racist comments and racial slurs from management at the distribution warehouse. When Target provided an anti-racism document on multicultural relations, that document reportedly included information about Hispanic employees, including:
“a. Food: not everyone eats tacos and burritos;
“b. Music: not everyone dances to salsa;
...
“d. Mexicans (lower education level, some may be undocumented)”
The employees further claim that they were retaliated against by managers, most of whom were white, when they complained about working conditions to human resources, including having managers attempt to humiliate them, and were fired for discriminatory reasons, including their race and age.
The lawsuits seek punitive damages.
In a response sent to The Huffington Post (7/12/13), Target said the memo only went to one distribution center and was not part of official training curricula. The company apologized for distribution of the memo.
Both California labor law and federal labor law prohibit discrimination and harassment based on race. Harassing comments can be seen to contribute to a hostile work environment for employees, while job decisions - including hiring, firing and disciplinary actions - cannot be made for discriminatory reasons, such as race, national origin or age.
Meanwhile, Apple Inc. faces a lawsuit alleging its employees were not properly paid for overtime. The two plaintiffs allege they were forced to stay during unpaid breaks and after they had clocked out from their shift to have their bags searched. According to court documents (found online at gigaom.com), those bag searches could take between 10 and 15 minutes each, time for which employees were not compensated. Because the searches were done solely for Apple’s benefit, employees say they should have been paid for their time. One of the plaintiffs alleges the extra time adds up to around $1,500 a year.
The Apple lawsuit, case number 3:13-cv-03451-EDL, seeks unpaid wages, overtime and penalties.
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.
Fired for Pregnancy against California Labor Law
.jpg)
Disney Worker Launches California Labor Lawsuit Alleging Religious Discrimination
The wearing of a hijab is an important aspect of the Muslim faith. Disney, which operates the iconic theme park in the state (as well as Disney World in Florida), is known for its attention to detail. That detail encompasses the dress and deportment of all its employees in an effort to complete the look and feel that becomes the Disney experience.
One can well imagine the conflict that could--and did--ensue for Boudlal.
According to the Huffington Post (8/13/12), Boudlal managed to land a part-time job two weeks after moving to California in 2008. While she did not wear her hijab, or headscarf initially, Boudlal realized while studying to become a US citizen that the US constitution provided freedoms for expressions of religious faith.
That freedom will now be entrenched in California labor code as of next month, but it was not in 2010 when??"having worked at the Storyteller hotel restaurant for over two years??"she finally approached her employers to seek their permission to wear her hijab in the workplace.
Following a two-month wait, Boudlal was finally given permission to wear a headscarf, but only one designed and approved by Disney. Eventually fitted with a scarf that encompassed the look and feel of Disneyland, Boudlal was not provided with a date as to when she could begin wearing the customized scarf. She was also told, according to the report, that she would not be allowed to wear her own hijab over the interim.
With the onset of Ramadan, and in the absence of further word from Disney, Boudlal went ahead and wore her hijab to her job. That's when the trouble started. At the time there was nothing in California labor law to protect her.
In her California labor lawsuit, Boudlal said that in August 2010, when she began wearing her hijab for work, she alleges to have been told by Disney to either remove the hijab, or work "backstage" where she would not be seen by patrons. On seven separate occasions Boudlal was allegedly sent home without pay for wearing her hijab to work.
Disney's eventual solution was to offer Boudlal a substitute headdress that Boudlal found unacceptable. In an interview with KTLA Los Angeles, Boudlal is reported to have said: "The hat makes a joke of me and my religion, and draws even more attention to me. It's unacceptable. They don't want me to look Muslim." Boudlal was soon suspended from her job at Disney.
Boudlal is reported to have filed a complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2010 and finally received a notice of her right to sue in August of this year. After getting the go-ahead from the feds, Boudlal filed her California labor lawsuit later that month.
The new California labor law allows more protections against such discrimination allegedly suffered by Boudlal. AB 1964 clarifies that religious dress and grooming practices are covered by existing and updated protections against religious discrimination.
According to the new California labor employment law that comes into effect next month, employers are required to reasonably accommodate employees observing the traditions of their respective religions, including dress.
That said, the new California employee labor law specifically notes that segregating an employee is not interpreted as a reasonable accommodation.
California Labor Law and Pregnancy Complications
“I’ve heard stories about companies firing their employees because they say women put their children first and think we can’t do business at the same time,” says Katherine, “but I never thought it would happen to me." Katherine was fired by her employer, Bank of America, when she came back to work from mat leave.
“I was a banking center manager and the bank first demoted me to a banker, which meant a drop in salary of about $7,000 per year,” explains Katherine. “They didn’t give me a reason; they just said I was needed more in this area.” But Katherine believes they had a reason.
“Everyone says women are treated equal to men but the reality is we are not,” says Katherine. “Once I had a manager tell me that women prefer to work part time instead of full time because we prefer to stay at home. Well I disagree. We already do it all??"have babies and work full-time. And we do it well.”
Katherine had worked at the bank five years before she was told that she had 30 days to find a job anywhere else in the bank or she would be let go. “They didn’t give me a reason for that either,” she adds. “I had a high risk pregnancy and was out for almost a year. As soon as I found out I was pregnant I couldn’t go back to work. Then I had my normal mat leave of three months.
"I talked to HR; they had nothing in their records to back up these actions, no write ups, no negative reports. They just said there was no reason that I should be suffering these consequences. When I was first demoted I didn’t do anything about it: I figured the bank must know what it was doing. The second time I figured they were violating the California labor code and discriminating against me, because I was coming back from mat leave. But I know that pregnancy discrimination is against the California labor code.
"I was able to collect unemployment but it is ending December 23rd. And I have two young kids looking forward to their Christmas presents."
Jessica, 19 years old, is three months pregnant. She has worked at Subway for 18 months and during that time, she trained to become a supervisor.
“Ever since I told my boss that I was pregnant, he has cut my hours to where I can't pay my bills,” says Jessica. “And he said, 'I don't want you to become supervisor until after you have your baby because I don't want your hormones getting in the way’. I couldn’t believe it. Even though I am 19, I am very responsible and I have all the skills of a supervisor.
"When I confronted my boss, he said, ‘Down the road (meaning after I have my baby), if we think you can handle it, we will reconsider.’ Right now they are trying to train the new hires to be supervisor. And for the past few weeks I have worked just one day per week, and not even 8 hours, just 4 hours. Before I told them I was pregnant, I was working 8 hour shifts, 4-5 days per week. I had morning sickness and I think that is one reason why they cut my hours. But I feel fine now and I was hoping they could work a bit with me. Instead they figured I couldn’t handle my job.
"I think they are smart enough to know they can’t fire me because that would be discrimination so they are trying to get me to quit. They know I have to pay rent and bills. I have been on their case asking for more hours but they keep saying that I have to prove myself.”
Jessica says she has lost the motivation to work at Subway, but she doesn’t want to give them the satisfaction of quitting. She has never had any negative write-ups so there is no reason to fire her, other than the fact that she is pregnant. Her employer knows that the California labor law protects pregnant women. And now businesses must be ready to meet the challenges of implementing this new breast-feeding discrimination law.
Although the California Labor Code already requires employers to provide accommodations for women who are breast-feeding, this new law goes a step further by providing additional recourse for women who have encountered breast-feeding discrimination. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, employers should first consider updating their employee handbooks or implementing a breast-feeding policy. Second, employers should take seriously any complaints from employees relating to breast-feeding and should treat these complaints with the same seriousness as they would a complaint based on race or age discrimination.
“Subway has never said anything about my pregnancy on paper??"I guess they know that pregnancy discrimination is illegal."
.jpg)
California Labor Lawsuits Allege Failure to Pay Minimum Wage, Discrimination
One California labor lawsuit was filed by the EEOC against a security services company, alleging discrimination after a woman was denied her job when she tried to return from maternity leave. The employee reportedly worked at the company for a year prior to her maternity leave but was told there was no job for her when she tried to return. The company allegedly told the employee they would contact her if a position opened up, but failed to do so even though the company hired men as security guards just after the employee attempted to return to her employment.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California and alleges the security company violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Meanwhile, a farm contractor reportedly faces a million dollar California labor lawsuit alleging the contractor violated California labor law by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime to workers. According to California Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su, the defendant, Salvador Zavala Chavez dba Zavala Farms, did not pay minimum wage or overtime to approximately 150 employees over 10 locations from April 1, 2009 to April 1, 2012. Workers allegedly picked lettuce and worked in grape fields for 10-hour workdays without being properly paid for their time.
The lawsuit was filed after an investigation was conducted by the California Department of Industrial Relations' Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The investigation reportedly found evidence that Zavala Farms acted willfully in violating the California labor law. The lawsuit seeks $1.26 million in unpaid wages, overtime and penalties.
And Hollywood interns have filed a lawsuit of their own against Fox Searchlight and other employers, alleging they should have been paid for their work for Hollywood studios. Although interns have long been accepted as standard practice in Hollywood, interns at for-profit employers should be paid for their work. The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of other interns who were not paid for their time working for Hollywood studios.
.jpg)
In-N-Out Burger Class Action Alleges Racial Discrimination in California
According to the Contra Costa Times (9/7/12), plaintiffs Alonzo Brown and Carlos Dubose applied for jobs with the chain, at various locations and for various jobs. Even though the firm was actively advertising for applicants, the plaintiffs allege in their California labor lawsuit they were repeatedly turned away. Both men are over 40 years of age, and both are African-American.
Arnie Wensinger, vice president and general counsel for the company, said in a statement the allegations in the lawsuit have no basis in fact. "In-N-Out Burger does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, race or age in our hiring policies or practices," Wensinger said. "We hire from our local communities and our restaurants reflect the demographics of that community."
Wensinger referenced the allegations as baseless and irresponsible.
Plaintiff Brown, according to the California labor lawsuit, applied for a store associate job in Oakland. Brown alleges he was told the company was hiring, but was denied a job two months later.
Dubose, as part of his California and labor law complaint, noted he applied for two jobs on two separate occasions at two locations: a cleanup associate position at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, and a month later for an advertised position in Oakland. According to the lawsuit, Dubose was denied both positions.
The California labor employment lawsuit alleges that Dubose was denied a job at the Oakland location in spite of the fact a manager at the restaurant told him at the time he applied the company planned to hire five individuals within two months.
The plaintiffs allege age and racial discrimination, noting they were both told the company was not hiring after all when the two were rejected for jobs, even though both men had been told at the point of application the company was, indeed hiring.
"These are not isolated examples of employment practices or individual decisions," the lawsuit states. "On the contrary, these incidents are representative of the Company's systematic discrimination against the Class and in favor of applicants who are under the age of forty and/or not African American."
California labor code has strict guidelines when it comes to areas such as California prevailing wage law, hours of work, meal and rest periods, and the correct computation of overtime. Discrimination against age, ethnicity and gender is also entrenched in California state labor laws.
The statement from In-N-Out Burger noted the company intends to "aggressively defend itself" against the allegations. It was noted in the statement that more than 23 percent of the workforce employed at the two identified locations, are African-American.
Plaintiff Sues Exclusive Golf Club for Alleged California Labor Law Violations
The California labor lawsuit alleges discrimination against Angeles National. As reported in The Daily News of Los Angeles (7/11/12)) plaintiff Carly Cooter??"a former employee at the facility??"alleges that a customer of the facility walked up behind her where she was working, squeezed her breasts and simulated sex. The lawsuit claims the customer was likely in a drunken state on the day of the incident, which is alleged to have happened in 2006 or 2007.
Following a complaint by the plaintiff, a supervisor who was apparently required to handle the situation instead made mocking comments towards Cooter. The plaintiff's shifts were reduced, and she was subsequently fired. One report suggests Cooter's confidential summary of the alleged assault was posted in the facility's Pro Shop where it could be seen by customers and other employees.
Her lawsuit alleges various violations to the California labor code, including wrongful termination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, a hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and breach of contract.
Another California labor lawsuit has been filed by a former employee of the facility who complained about a video camera mounted at the snack bar where she worked. The plaintiff in that action claims the camera broadcast footage of her posterior and those of other female employees working at the snack bar to various television monitors around the golf club. One report suggested the images revealed underwear. When the plaintiff complained, she was allegedly fired??"a violation of California employment labor law, if proven true.
The aforementioned lawsuit has yet to go to trial.
Defendant Angeles National, in a statement released through a public relations firm, called the accusations "ridiculous, salacious and unfounded.
"We trust the courts will recognize the cases for what they are," said Spokesperson Eric Rose, "an unconscionable and irresponsible abuse of the legal system by disgruntled former employees."
The California labor law trial is being conducted at Los Angeles Superior Court. The case is BC439058 Cooter v. Angeles National.
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:
