The workers were vision center managers or asset protection coordinators whose positions were misclassified, according to the Labor Department. Although all workers are entitled by law to earn overtime pay for working more than 40 hours per week, some salaried managerial positions are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The vision center managers and asset protection coordinators were filed under this classification prior to 2007, even though they shouldn't have been.
]]> As a result of the Labor Department's investigation and resulting decision, the vision center managers will receive about $2,300 each, while the asset protection coordinators will get an average of $290 per person.This isn't the first instance of mass complaints and lawsuits about Walmart's overtime policies. In 2007 the retail giant paid $33.5 million in 2007 to more than 86,000 workers, including many managers who were denied overtime pay. It also agreed to pay $640 million in 2008 to settle 63 federal and state class action lawsuits alleging it refused to pay overtime. And in 2009, the company paid another $40 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of not just refusing to pay overtime, but of tampering with timesheets and prohibiting employees from taking breaks. The Massachusetts case was the largest wage and hour class-action settlement in the state's history.
The wage theft claims aren't limited to overtime pay. Several employees of Walmart's warehouses have filed lawsuits over stolen wages, alleging that they were paid for fewer hours than they worked.
All of these settlements demonstrate that no company is too large to avoid litigation when it comes to wage issues. If you're concerned that you aren't being fairly compensated for the hours you put in at work, it might pay to talk to an attorney who focuses on employment law. No matter what the position, every worker has the right to demand fair wages without fear of retaliation.
Source: The Huffington Post, "Walmart Fined By Labor Department For Denying Workers Overtime Pay, Agrees To Pay $4.8 Million In Back Wages," Alice Hines, May 2, 2012
]]>It's not the first time a federal court has reached such a conclusion, and in Nevada, a law already exists to protect transgender people from job, housing and public accommodation discrimination. But the EEOC's decision is significant because it establishes a national standard of enforcement and offers clear guidance for employers on the issue of gender identity.
]]> The ruling stems from a case involving a woman in California who applied for a contractor position with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Army veteran and former police detective applied for the job as a man and was told then that she qualified for the position. But after she told the contractor she was changing her gender, she was notified that funding for the job had been cut. She learned later on that someone else was hired for the position.When she complained to the ATF, she was told federal job discrimination laws didn't apply to transgender people. She found representation through the Transgender Law Center, which led to the EEOC's unanimous decision.
The agency's ruling doesn't determine that she suffered discrimination, nor does it create a new cause of action. But it does allow her to bring a charge of discrimination against the ATF. It also clarifies that complaints of gender stereotyping fall under claims of sexual discrimination under the law.
Transgender men and women are those who identify with or express behavior associated with their opposite gender. Many transgender people have undergone sex change operations, while others have undergone hormone replacement treatment. Nevada's transgender discrimination law does allow employers to require appropriate workplace clothing and grooming standards consistent with their preferred gender.
Although Nevada is an "at-will" state, meaning employers usually don't need to give a reason to fire an employee, state law prohibits job discrimination of protected classes. Transgender people now fall under that class, both statewide and nationally.
Source: Las Vegas Sun, "Federal agency says transgender people protected," The Associated Press," April 24, 2012
]]>An example of this is the case of a former Las Vegas TV news anchor whose contract expired last May. When it wasn't renewed, the anchor, who had been working for the TV station for 22 years, sued her employer, alleging that she was a victim of age, race and gender discrimination. The TV station denied the claims and as the lawsuit continued, its attorneys pressed for the claims to be settled through private arbitration.
]]> Arbitration is a process in which one party submits a dispute about another outside of the court system. Instead, one or more arbitrators, who are neutral third parties -- often lawyers or retired judges -- hear the parties' arguments and make a decision on the issue. The disputing parties can also be represented by an attorney, but it isn't necessary. Although an arbitrator's decision is usually binding, it must be confirmed by a court. The losing party can also try to overturn the arbitrator's decision in court.The U.S. District Court judge presiding over the case agreed with the TV station. It was a setback for the anchor and her attorneys, who wanted to litigate the suit in federal court with a jury trial. That's because although the woman's employment contract contains an arbitration clause, it only applies to state law issues, while her discrimination claims fall largely under federal law.
But the judge cited case law that says if the court is in doubt over whether a case should be arbitrated, it should lean toward arbitration instead of litigation. The upside of the decision is that it may be more cost- and time-efficient to keep the matter out of the courts. But if there are perceived violations during the arbitration process, the case could ultimately wind up back in court.
Source: Vegas Inc, "Court rules against former Las Vegas TV anchor Manteris in dispute with station," Steve Green, April 2, 2012
]]>The teacher, who resides in a nearby state, indicated that the pregnancy occurred within the context of an ongoing committed relationship with her fiancé. Indeed, the couple had even made plans to get married the summer prior to the school year, but a few events forced them to postpone the wedding. The last thing she expected, she says, was that the school would meddle in her private life by firing her.
]]> She notified the school of the pregnancy based on her concern that it would require her to be absent from her role as the coach during a portion of the upcoming basketball season. The school responded by summarily firing her. She even offered to get married immediately, pointing out that she'd planned to get married anyway. The school administration refused to reverse or reconsider its decision.The fired teacher already is the mother of two children from a prior marriage. A lawyer for the fired teacher notes that terminating an employee for taking pregnancy leave is illegal and asserted that this amounted to "preventatively" firing a pregnant teacher for planning to do so.
Gender and pregnancy charges have been filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the teacher also plans a lawsuit against the school for her discriminatory termination.
Source: ABC News, "Texas Teacher Fired for Unwed Pregnancy Offered to Get Married," Christina Ng, April 11, 2012
]]>Violating your company's policy on personal computer use could result in a discharge in some cases, but it isn't a crime, according to a U.S. appeals court ruling this week. The decision came after federal prosecutors charged an employee of an executive search firm with several crimes, including a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for gathering information from a company database in order to start a business. A district court had already thrown out the computer fraud charges, and prosecutors appealed.
]]> In upholding the lower court's decision, an appeals court judge explained that the prosecutors' interpretation of the CFAA was too broad, and that employees who violate their company's computer policy are rarely even disciplined, let alone prosecuted under federal law. He cited the case of a Florida woman who sued her employer for wrongful termination. The company countersued, arguing that she violated the CFAA by checking Facebook and sending personal emails at work. But violating company computer policy isn't the same as exceeding authorized access, which the CFAA does prohibit.In other words, if people could be prosecuted under the CFAA just for disobeying their company's policy about online shopping on a work computer or updating their Facebook status, our federal prisons wouldn't be able to hold everyone. That said, you may want to take another look at your own company's policy on personal use of computers at work. You may not go to prison, but you don't want your last social media update at work to be "Just got fired for checking Facebook."
Source: Bloomberg, "Checking Facebook at Work Isn't Crime, Appeals Court Rules," Karen Gullo, April 10, 2012
]]>Before the Gross decision, an employee could have a claim for age discrimination if the employee's age was at least a motivating factor in an adverse employment action. This is the same standard that is applied to cases of race, national origin, sex, or religious discrimination under Title VII. The Supreme Court in Gross, however, held that because Congress did not amend the ADEA to include this specific motivating factor standard, as it had done for Title VII discrimination, this standard did not apply to age discrimination. An employee claiming age discrimination must instead show that their age was the only reason an employer took an adverse employment action - known as the "but for" cause. The "Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act," would codify the previously applied "motivating factor" standard for age discrimination and ease the burden on older workers.
]]> To show your support for the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, contact Nevada Senators Harry Reid and Dean Heller about this bill:Harry Reid: http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Dean Heller: http://heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form
]]>A Las Vegas man was unwilling to put up with the treatment he received at work by a younger employee, resulting in a sizeable award in a civil lawsuit he filed. The pharmaceutical sales executive sued his company in 2009, claiming that despite an excellent employment history and regular performance-based raises, he was subjected to disparaging comments about his age by his new manager beginning in 2006. The employee, who was 55 at the time, said his manager regularly called him "old school" and suggested he didn't belong in the "new environment."
]]> The man said complaints to the manager's superiors didn't go very far, and that the higher-ups failed to conduct a thorough investigation. Furthermore, his lawsuit said, he suffered retaliation for complaining. Believing his employers' violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, he sued the company and was awarded $168,000 for lost pay and $1.7 million for mental or emotional pain and suffering. The company says it plans to appeal the ruling.A statement from his attorneys at Esteban-Trinidad Law said the verdict sends a message to workers about speaking up about discrimination, as well as to employers that might retaliate against employees for doing so. Whether you're surrounded at work by younger employees, people who are mostly older than you or a diverse mix of various-aged workers, you have the right to expect a workplace free of discrimination. Anyone who feels singled out for their age, race, gender or other reasons should feel free to address the matter without suffering harmful consequences.
Source: Las Vegas Sun, "Las Vegas man wins $1.868 million in employment age, retaliation suit," Steve Green, March 18, 2012
]]>Facebook requires its members to keep their passwords secret and not share them with another person. The American Civil Liberties Union recently blasted the trend based on a news report that a Maryland state agency was browsing through job applicants' Facebook pages to vet them for employment.
]]> Some employers attempt to get around Facebook's prohibition on members sharing their passwords by requiring an employee or job applicant to log onto their personal account on a computer at the workplace, and then have management or supervisory personnel look over the person's shoulder to read the screen. Critics say that looking at a Facebook member's posted messages, photos, videos and lists of friends is hardly different from searching their homes or private mail.Both current employees and job applicants face a dilemma when confronted by such employer demands. Is being denied a job, or losing one that they already have, worth protecting the privacy of their communication with their friends?
Legislators in a number of states have proposed laws that would prohibit employers from requesting access to social media website passwords and profiles, and at least one U.S. senator says that he is in the process of drafting a similar proposed federal statute.
Source: PCMag.com, "Facebook Condemns Those Requesting Passwords of Interviewees, Employees," Leslie Horn, March 23, 2012
]]>Advocates of this view claim that their religious belief has a scientific basis; they argue that life is far too complex for evolution, by itself, to account for the variety of living species.
]]> The former employee, who did some work on NASA's mission to explore Saturn and its moons, says he was demoted from his "team lead" job in 2009 and two years later was fired. He asserts that the true motivation for these actions was conversations he had with fellow workers about intelligent design, as well as his distribution at work of DVDs concerning the concept. He had worked for NASA for 15 years.His religious discrimination claim is supported by a Christian religious civil rights group as well as an institute devoted to promoting the concept of intelligent design. The National Center for Science Education, on the other hand, believes that the employee was not discriminated against for his views, but merely laid off since the particular mission he had been working on was "winding down," with far less remaining to be done.
The plaintiff employee also states that his vocal advocacy of a state ballot measure limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and his attempt to have a workplace holiday party renamed a "Christmas" party may also have been factors in the loss of his job.
The man's attorney says his client "did not go around evangelizing or proselytizing," but had no legal need to hide his religion at work. "He's not apologizing for who he is," the attorney said. "He's an evangelical Christian."
Source: The Washington Post, "NASA's JPL computer specialist alleges discrimination over his belief in intelligent design," The Associated Press, March 11, 2012
]]>Is it ever OK to expect people to work for free, or are unpaid internships an unfair labor practice? A number of unpaid interns have filed lawsuits recently, including those working for Hearst Corporation, Fox Searchlight Pictures and TV talk show host Charlie Rose. The plaintiffs all say their internships violated labor and wage laws because they weren't paid, yet they contributed to the companies' operations.
]]> The Fair Labor Standards Act provides a solid guideline on unpaid internships for both employers and interns. Although the FLSA's definition of employment is fairly broad, six criteria should apply to interns who don't earn at least a minimum wage:1. The internship must be similar to training that would be offered in an educational environment.
2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern.
3. The intern doesn't displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff.
4. The employer derives no immediate advantage from the intern's activities, and on occasion its operations may be impeded.
5. The intern isn't entitled to a job at the end of the internship.
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern isn't entitled to wages for work done during the internship.
In other words, unpaid interns should not be expected to make coffee or run personal errands for their supervisors, but instead perform duties that actually contribute to their educational experience. This isn't to say that an intern's work can't turn out to be valuable for the company. But if a business relies heavily on unpaid interns to do substantial amounts of vital work, they should either rethink their compensation policy for these workers or expect to be hit with a lawsuit.
Source: Reuters, "Intern sues TV host Charlie Rose for unpaid wages," Christine Kearney, March 14, 2012
]]>Las Vegas, Nevada - March 12, 2012 -- The law offices of Esteban-Trinidad Law in Las Vegas, Nevada and Bononi Law Group, LLC, in Los Angeles today announced that a federal jury in the United States District Court of Nevada unanimously rendered a verdict awarding their client Randy Dossat $1,868,000.00 on his claims for retaliation in the workplace and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
]]> With Judge Kent J. Dawson presiding, the eight members of the jury determined that Defendant Hoffmann La-Roche willfully retaliated against its employee, Mr. Dossat, for complaining about what Mr. Dossat reasonably believed to be age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and that the company's retaliatory actions caused Mr. Dossat damages for mental pain and suffering.Sometimes employers fear they might face legal action if a disabled employee can't do the job. But the law requires the hired person to be able to do the work with reasonable accommodations.
]]> Although states generally don't keep separate unemployment statistics for disabled people, the U.S. unemployment rate for people with disabilities in January was almost 13 percent, compared to 8.3 percent for people without disabilities. The rate for men ages 16 to 64 with disabilities was 15 percent, and for women it was 13 percent.Competition for jobs is exceptionally high these days, despite reports that the economy is improving. People are working longer hours, putting off retirement for more years and re-entering the workforce more often. And people with disabilities are competing against others who might have a higher skill level.
Yet people who hire workers with disabilities often find these employees are extremely dedicated and grateful to have a job. One restaurant owner has been hiring workers with disabilities for 25 years. One of those workers is a 27-year-old prep cook who's been with the restaurant for two years. "He has surpassed expectations," the owner said. "Not to downplay my other employees, but he truly values his job and the relationship he has created with me and his fellow employees."
Some disabilities are not outwardly apparent, though it can still be tough to find work. A man who suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder said he was terminated from his truck driving job because he apparently wasn't learning fast enough. Before he got on medication, he couldn't sit still and had trouble focusing. He said he still tries to be upfront with potential employers about his ADHD but they often react with confusion. "People are just really not sure what to think," he says.
If you do feel as though you're facing discrimination based on your disability, a consultation with an attorney who focuses on employment law may be able to help you make that determination and discuss your legal options with you.
Source: Coloradan.com, "Job market tougher on those with disabilities," Pat Ferrier, March 3, 2012
]]>A former teacher at a Las Vegas preparatory school has filed a lawsuit alleging that the school's principal treated him unfairly based on his race and age. The man, who is black, was hired in 2005 to teach ninth- and 10th-grade biology. And for the first three years, he said, things went well -- until a new principal took over.
]]> The teacher said requests for which he'd received approval in the past were suddenly rejected, including one to attend a science teachers' conference. The school's CEO had authorized the trip, but after the principal was hired, he was no longer allowed to go. He found out later that all of the new teachers who were approved for the trip were white. The same thing happened when he asked for lab materials for his classes. The principal denied his request, citing budget constraints, but he eventually learned that lab materials had been ordered for two white teachers, his lawsuit said.A few months after she was hired, the principal reassigned the biology teacher and replaced him with a younger instructor, explaining that his teaching methods were outdated and that he didn't know how to communicate with students. A few months later she assigned him to teach physics. His complaint alleges that he received negative evaluations and that another request for lab materials was denied.
Things came to a head when he complained to the academy's human relations department about the principal. The teacher was fired soon afterward and replaced with a substitute teacher. The teacher's lawsuit seeks at least $75,000 in damages, though the school has said it plans to fight back aggressively because his claims are without merit.
Although employers rarely admit such wrongdoing when accused of it, workplace discrimination remains a very serious problem. Because it can be hard to prove, those who feel they've received unfair treatment for reasons outside of their work performance need the counsel of an attorney with success in handling discrimination cases.
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Ex-teacher files lawsuit alleging bias at Agassi Prep," Carri Geer Thevenot, Feb. 23, 2012
]]>It's against federal law for employers to penalize service members because of their military service. But in fact, some have had job offers from the U.S. government withdrawn because they couldn't be released from active duty fast enough. Others have been fired for duty-related absences. In 2011, more than 18 percent of the 1,548 complaints about violations of that federal law involved federal agencies.
]]> The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act was passed in 1994 to ensure that members of the military aren't put at a disadvantage because of their service. The act calls on the federal government to act as a "model employer." And in some respects, it is. More than a fourth of federal employees are veterans, and about 14 percent of current National Guard members and reservists have civilian jobs with the federal government.But the population of unemployed post-9/11 veterans tells a different story. The U.S. Department of Defense had 75 USERRA cases filed with the Labor Department in 2011. Veterans Affairs came in second place, followed by the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service.
Adding to veterans' frustration is the absence of a single agency that can monitor that compliance and take the government to task for USERRA violations. The government can be ordered to pay back wages for violations, but faces no other penalties. And if a service member is fired for missing work because of military service obligations, she's left with a black mark on her employment record that could affect her ability to find another job.
It hardly seems fair that those who risk life and limb to serve their country aren't welcomed back to their old jobs, especially when their employer is the government they were called to serve and protect.
Source: Mitchell Republic, "Returning military members: Feds not offering jobs back," Steve Vogel, Feb. 22, 2012
]]>Both women also say that when they objected to the manager's misconduct, the restaurant retaliated against them. Attorneys for the restaurant and the manager have denied the allegations of one of the women and haven't yet responded against the other woman's lawsuit. But an attorney for the women, who are being represented by the same law firm, said their stories have been corroborated by witnesses who no longer work at the restaurant.
]]> In addition to their denial of one of the women's claims, attorneys of the defendants have filed a counterclaim against her that alleges abuse of process. They say she's simply trying to get a financial settlement out of them. The general manager said in an affidavit that the second woman told him while she was still working at the restaurant that the first woman had asked her to get involved in her sexual harassment lawsuit. He claims that she told him then that she had no reason to join the lawsuit and that she was upset over being linked with the sexual harassment allegations.But in her deposition testimony, the employee recalled a very different version of that conversation. She said the manager asked her if he'd ever been inappropriate with her. "And I looked him straight in the face and said, 'Absolutely, you've been inappropriate.'" She said she only continued to work at the restaurant because she was pregnant, her husband was unemployed and she couldn't afford to quit.
The first woman to file the lawsuit said her working hours were cut after she complained about the harassment, and that she received several unwarranted warnings in an effort to set her up for an equally unwarranted termination. When she told the bar manager that she planned to sue the general manager, instead of directing her to the human resources department, he warned her that doing so would get her blacklisted from working at other restaurants.
No amount of sexual harassment is acceptable, nor are threats or warnings that an employee will be punished for objecting to inappropriate conduct. Workers whose attempts to stop the behavior are ineffective may want to contact an employment law attorney who can examine their case and determine the best next steps.
Source: Vegas Inc., "Celebrity chef's Vegas restaurant facing harassment lawsuits," Steve Green, Feb. 15, 2012
]]>