In a November decision, the Chicago-based 7th Circuit US court of Appeals made it clear that the business community can no longer simply rely on its policy and procedures in place to avert liability for sexual harassment claims. In EEOC c. V & J Foods 507 F.3d 575 the court held that an employer regularly hiring teenagers and young first time employees has the responsibility to make sure that its policies on sexual harassment are understandable to the young employees. In a 2006 decision of Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, the same court had held that a minor's consent to sex does not operate as a complete bar to a Title VII sexual harassment case. According to the court the age of consent will have to be considered when the issue of consent is raised. These cases underline the fact that sexual harassment claims are on the rise especially when comes to younger workers. Orange County and Los Angeles employment and discrimination attorneys of Employment Law team have handled many cases on behalf of younger female and male workers and have had many significant settlement representing workers who were subjected to sexual harassment by their supervisors, www.employmentlawteam.com.

Both sides are declaring the ruling a victory; however, even a possibility of having of having witnesses allowed to testify as to discriminatory conduct related to age discrimination is a victory for plaintiffs. In this case, Plaintiff sought to introduce the testimony of witnesses who had seen spreadsheets with the ages of employees targeted for layoff or had heard managers make age-biased remarks.

The client involved had filed a complaint alleging that after she reported her boss to the Human Resources for making sexual comments to her she was retaliated against and eventually fired. The case lasted just under a year and was settled in a mediation session attended by parties. Terms of the settlement are to remain confidential; however, our client went home very happy. Feb 2008.

Attorneys of Employment Law Team were able to settle a very emotional whistle blower case originally filed in Alameda County. The case also involved allegations of disability discrimination and non-payment of overtime wages.

Effective as of October 14, 2007,Assembly Bill 632 amended Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, which provides protections for "whistleblowers" against health care facilities. The statute as amended prohibits such facilities from discriminating or retaliating against any patient, employee, facility medical staff, or any other health care worker of the facility because that person (1) presented a grievance, complaint or report to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility or to any other government agency; or (2) initiated, participated, or cooperated in an investigation or administrative proceeding related to the quality of care, services, or conditions at the facility. The statute provides that a rebuttable presumption of discrimination is established if: (i) responsible staff at the facility or its owner-operator had knowledge of the actions, participation or cooperation of the employee; and (ii) the discriminatory action occurred within 120 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint by the employee. A prevailing employee in any lawsuit is entiled to : reinstatement, reimbursement, attorneys fees and legal costs and any other previously available civil penalty. 2008

In Mokler v. County of Orange, the court of appeals determined that three instances of offensive behavior over a five-week period, did not demonstrate the continuous, pervasive harassment necessary to show a hostile work environment. In Mokler, one of the male Supervisors called plaintiff an “aging nun” when he learned she was not married. A week later, when plaintiff greeted the Supervisor at a social function, he took her arm, pulled her towards him so that the sides of their bodies were touching and asked her if she was there to lobby him. When she responded in the negative, the Supervisor pointed to two women standing next to him and asked, “Why not? These women are lobbying me.” He also looked her up and down and told her she had a nice suit and nice legs. A month later, when plaintiff went to the Supervisor's office, he told her she looked nice and put his arm around her; he then pressed her to tell him where she lived and put his arm around her again, rubbing her breast in the process. During this same meeting, the Supervisor made a derogatory remark about Mexicans. In a decision that surprised and pleased many employers, the appellate court held that the three incidents, though “rude, inappropriate, and offensive,” were not sufficient to create a hostile work environment as a matter of law because they did not show “a pattern of continuous, pervasive harassment.”

An appeals court ruled that a former Google Inc. executive should be allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against the Internet search giant for age discrimination. Brian Reid has alleged that the internet giant NASDAQ: GOOG) fired him because of his age, and the California Sixth District Court of Appeal said Thursday that a Santa Clara County Superior Court that rejected his claims was wrong. In finding that Brian Reid--who was age 54 when he was terminated from Google--presented sufficient evidence of age bias to proceed to trial, the appeals court pointed to frequent age-related remarks made to Reid by younger workers, plus statistics showing that younger employees tended to get higher bonuses and performance ratings. In addition, when Reid was stripped of his director duties, those duties were reassigned to younger employees and Reid was moved into a brand-new position without the benefit of a job title, budget, and staff--and that new position was allegedly eliminated just four months later. Oct 2007.

A jury decided Tuesday October 2, 2007, that New York Knicks coach Isiah Thomas sexually harassed a former top team executive, subjecting her to unwanted advances and a barrage of verbal insults, but also said he does not have to pay punitive damages. The jury did find that Madison Square Garden committed harassment against the woman, and decided that she is entitled to punitive damages from MSG. Thomas, who is married with two children, acknowledged trying to kiss Browne Sanders in December 2005, asking her "No love today?" Associated Press.

The California Supreme Court handed workers a major victory Thursday, allowing them to bring class-action lawsuits alleging labor code violations even if they had signed agreements with their employers requiring them to arbitrate such disputes. This ruling is a major victory for employees seeking back pay for overtime, missed breaks and non-payment of wages. According to the L.A. Times some of the primary beneficiaries of the ruling could be thousands of white-collar workers in industries such as retail, food service, insurance, technology and banking who are called managers or assistant managers but who spend much of their day ringing up “sales, stocking shelves or sweeping the floor alongside the workers they supervise” and therefore don’t qualify as “exempt.” The high court’s ruling was 4-3 ruling. LA Times, Aug 31, 2007. "Corporations are trying to wipe out their employees' ability to hold them accountable" by barring

Attorneys of Employment Law Team prevailed in their efforts to have a local tribe held subject to California laws and to the judicial system of California. The tribe had argued that it is subject to immunity from suits in State and Federal courts. The San Diego Superior Court however, disagreed. The court ruled that the tribe had waived its immunity by signing an agreement with our client which had a choice of law clause, and designated San Diego as the proper venue for any dispute resolutions. Aug 2007.

Employment Law Team attorneys were able to reach a settlement on a discrimination lawsuit filed against a major local national company. As per both sides' agreement, terms of the settlement are to remain confidential. Employment Law Team's client however, is very happy with the result. Aug 2007.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. agreed to pay more than $3.9 million to about 50,000 current and former employees in California who were underpaid overtime and other wages, the state's labor commissioner said on Tuesday. The world's largest retailer also agreed to pay $198,900 in civil penalties to the state of California, Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet said in a statement. Source Yahoo News. Aug 2007

A federal jury in Portland, Ore., has ruled that Target Corp. must pay almost $1 million to a National Guardsman the retailer fired after he returned from a two-week service. The jury found that Target demoted James Patton when he tried to come back to his old job and that they ahd retaliated against him when he complaine dof being demoted. Patton’s complaint had alleged that Target hired him in the summer of 2000 as part of its "executive team" and assigned him to its distribution center in Albany, Ore. He claimed that he had consistently received positive reviews while he was with the company and that he joined the National Guard after Sept.11 attacks. After returning home from active duty, Patton was demoted and eventually fired in July of 2003. While jurors agreed with Target that Patton's demotion had nothing to do with his military service, it did find that the company retaliated against him for involving the National Guard in the employment dispute. Patton v. Target Corp., No. 03-1722 BR, verdict returned (D. Or. June 15, 2007).

According to Secretary of Labor, after an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor, a Houston based company agreed to pay over $1.1 million in back pay and promised to properly compensate employees for overtime wages in the future. The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked more than 40 per week, unless otherwise exempt. Employers must also maintain accurate time and payroll records. The FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain job duty and salary tests. For further information please refer to Department of Labor's site at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA20070628.htm.

In Dumas v. New United Motor Mfg. Inc. Slip Copy, 2007 WL 1223806 N.D.Cal.,2007.decided on April 24, 2007, the district court held that an employee’s claim that the employer violated the CFRA because it terminated him in retaliation for taking protected family medical leave is barred because the employee released this claim when he signed the DOL settlement agreement. The court said that the language of the DOL settlement document is broad and states that by accepting the settlement plaintiff is giving up his right under the FMLA to bring suit for “lost or denied wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation.” The FMLA is the federal counter-part to the CFRA and FMLA is incorporated into the CFRA. Pang v. Beverly Hospital, Inc., 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 993, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 643 (2000). Accordingly, plaintiff released all FMLA and CFRA related claims when he signed the settlement and his claim here that defendant violated the CFRA is therefore barred. May 2007.

California Court of Appeal upheld a $1.55 million sexual orientation and discrimination lawsuit that was filed by a former employee of The Lodge at Torrey Pines. Plaintiff testified that the manager at one of defendant's divisions would direct graphic "gay-bashing" jokes at him and female employees. He further testified that the director of human resources for the company advised him to simply quit as these "types of situations only get worst." Upon resigning due to the ongoing acts of harassment, plaintiff filed suit against The Lodge and was awarded damages against the manager and the company. Although the trial judge had issued a new trial ruling and an order to reverse the judgment, court of appeal found that the original judgment should stand. Feb 07. You can see a copy of the court of appeal's decision at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D046600.PDF.

A unanimous California Supreme Court on April 16 ruled that employees who have been denied state-mandated rest and meal breaks have up to three years to file claims (John Paul Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.) Any current or former employee who feels that he or she was denied these state rights shoudl contact the Employment Law Team. Apr 07. A copy of the opinion can be viewed at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S140308.PDF.

Employment Law Team was able to preocure a quick settlement for a client who was owed overtime wages denied to him by a local employee. We were able to ensure that our client recovered his attorney's fees and the waitign time penalties under the labor code as well. February 2007.

According to Rueters news agency, Morgan Stanley a major Wall Street firm has agreed to settle claims in a lawsuit alleging that the brokerage firm discriminated against thousands of female financial advisors by paying them less than male financial advisors. Six former Morgan Stanley female brokers last June filed a suit that is now estimated to have more than 3,000 claimants who worked at the brokerage from August 5, 2003, to the present. A formal settlement and request for preliminary approval will be filed in court in four to six weeks, the status report said. March 2007.

On August 22, 2006, D.C. circuit Court of Appeal ruled that compensatory damages awarded to an ex-employee against her former employer for emotional distress are not taxable. The Court reasoned that such payments are paid in “lieu of” loss of good mental health and not earnings and as such no taxes are applicable to them. Employees who are thinking about settling their claims must keep this ruling in mind when wording their settlement agreements.

In the case of Syverson v. International Business Machines Corp, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that releases signed by former IBM employees were not enforceable to release ADEA claims since one section of the release released all ADEA claims while another section seemingly preserved those same rights. The court held that such language was vague and confusing.