Category: discrimination

Posted on

Citizenship-Status Discrimination in Tech: The Hidden Injustice

Girl in flag scarf representing Citizenship-status discrimination lawyers Los Angeles.

Wage Suppression in the Tech Industry: A Hidden Injustice

In the heart of Silicon Valley, a narrative of innovation and meritocracy often masks a more complex reality. For years, whispers of wage suppression and citizenship-status discrimination have circulated, but a recent lawsuit against Tesla has cast a harsh spotlight on these allegations. This isn’t just about one company; it’s about a systemic issue that impacts thousands of U.S. workers and exploits foreign talent. The practice of favoring H-1B visa holders to cut labor costs raises serious questions about fairness, legality, and the very integrity of the tech industry’s hiring practices.

This article examines the growing problem of wage suppression and wage theft in the tech sector. We will explore the mechanisms behind it, using the Tesla lawsuit and other corporate examples as case studies. By understanding the legal and economic implications, we can see the full picture of how these practices harm both American and immigrant workers and what can be done to fight back.

The H-1B Visa Program: Intent vs. Reality

The H-1B visa program was designed to allow U.S. companies to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. Supporters argue it is essential for accessing a global pool of skilled talent, filling critical shortages, and driving innovation that fuels economic growth. The intention was to supplement the domestic workforce, not replace it.

However, critics argue that the system is being manipulated. Some firms allegedly exploit the program to drive down labor costs. They achieve this by heavily recruiting from visa-dependent channels and sidelining qualified U.S. applicants, particularly mid-career professionals who command higher salaries. This creates an environment where H-1B workers, often tied to their employer for their immigration status, may be paid less than their American counterparts for the same job. This practice, a form of wage suppression, not only harms the visa holders but also depresses salary standards for all employees in a team or company, amounting to what some plaintiffs call wage theft.

A Pattern of Discrimination: Tesla, Disney, and Beyond

The allegations against major corporations reveal a disturbing trend of using the H-1B visa system to undercut American workers and exploit foreign ones.

Case Study: The Tesla Lawsuit

A lawsuit filed against Tesla alleges the company engages in a systematic pattern of discrimination based on citizenship status. The complaint claims Tesla favors H-1B visa holders over U.S. citizens in hiring, promotions, and even during layoffs, all in an effort to reduce labor costs.

According to the lawsuit, Tesla hired approximately 1,355 H-1B workers in 2024 while simultaneously laying off over 6,000 employees, the majority of whom are believed to be U.S. citizens. Plaintiffs argue this demonstrates a clear hiring bias and a pattern of protecting lower-paid visa holders during workforce reductions. The case, which seeks class-action status, alleges violations of federal civil rights laws that protect against national origin discrimination and citizenship-status discrimination. While Tesla has yet to respond in court, the case could have significant ripple effects across the industry.

Other Notable Examples

The problem extends far beyond Tesla. Companies like Disney, FedEx, and Google have also been implicated in practices that degrade labor standards through the use of subcontracted H-1B visa holders. IT staffing firms, such as HCL Technologies, have been accused of exploiting visa holders by paying them less than their U.S. counterparts, a direct violation of H-1B statutes. One report suggests this illegal practice has led to underpayments of at least $95 million, affecting thousands of migrant workers.

This exploitation creates a two-tiered system. U.S. workers face depressed wages and are often replaced by lower-paid H-1B employees, while the visa holders themselves are trapped in a cycle of underpayment and dependency.

The Legal and Economic Fallout

Proving systemic discrimination is a difficult legal battle. According to legal experts, plaintiffs will need to produce extensive evidence, including detailed hiring and pay records, internal communications, and statistical analyses showing a clear pattern of bias. If successful, the consequences for companies like Tesla could be severe, including financial penalties, back pay orders, and court-mandated changes to hiring and recruitment processes. This could force a broad re-evaluation of how tech companies use “sponsorship-preferred” filters and recruit talent.

The economic impact on U.S. workers is significant. When companies systematically hire lower-paid visa holders, it artificially lowers the market rate for skilled labor. This wage suppression makes it harder for American workers to negotiate fair salaries and can lead to long-term career stagnation and financial hardship.

Holding Power Accountable

The exploitation of the H-1B system has been enabled, in part, by a lack of vigorous enforcement. Government agencies like the Department of Labor (DOL) have been criticized for failing to adequately enforce wage rules and close loopholes that allow for outsourcing and underpayment.

Workers who believe they have been victims of citizenship-status discrimination can file complaints with the Department of Justice’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER). This agency is responsible for enforcing laws against unfair hiring and firing based on citizenship or immigration status. It is crucial for agencies like the DOL, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to take decisive action. This includes launching investigations, imposing significant penalties on offending companies, and closing the legal gaps that allow this exploitation to continue.

It’s Time to Fight for Fair Labor Practices

The allegations of wage suppression and pay discrimination in the tech industry are not just isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a systemic problem that undermines fair labor practices for everyone. Companies that exploit visa programs to cut costs are not only breaking the law but are also betraying the trust of their employees and the public. It is a form of wage theft that harms both the immigrant workers who are underpaid and the U.S. workers who are sidelined.

If you are a worker who has been denied a job, paid unfairly, or laid off due to what you believe is national origin discrimination or citizenship-status discrimination, you have rights. Speaking with an experienced employment law attorney can help you understand your options and hold these companies accountable. You are not alone, and help is available.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we are committed to fighting for justice for workers who have been wronged. If you have faced wage theft or citizenship-status discrimination, or if you have information about the misuse of visa programs, contact us for a free, confidential case evaluation.

Posted on

Understanding Employment Cases of 2024 and Their Impacts on Employees

High Court Ruling on employment cases.

1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis:

This case ruled that employees alleging a discriminatory job transfer do not need to demonstrate significant harm, only “some harm.” This decision simplifies the process for proving harm in discriminatory job transfer cases.

2. Murray v. UBS Securities:

The court emphasized that a whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act only needs to show that their protected activity was a contributing factor to an adverse employment action. This effectively lowers the burden of proof for whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

3. Okonowsky v. Garland:

This case concluded that a coworker’s social media posts can be considered when assessing a Title VII claim for a hostile work environment. This allows social media evidence to be used in harassment cases.

4. Rajaram v. Meta Platforms:

The ruling prohibits discrimination against U.S. citizens based on their citizenship status, extending protections to U.S. citizens.

5. Daramola v. Oracle America:

The court clarified that the anti-retaliation provisions of certain laws do not apply outside of the United States, limiting protections under anti-retaliation laws for employees working abroad.

6. Castellanos v. State of California:

This ruling upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which limits protections for workers classified as independent contractors.

7. Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office:

The case established that a single use of a racial slur can be actionable for creating a hostile work environment, thereby strengthening protections against racial harassment in the workplace.

8. Quach v. California Commerce Club:

This decision determined that a party opposing arbitration does not need to show prejudice to establish a waiver of their right to arbitration, which protects employees from unfair arbitration agreements.

9. Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors:

The court ruled that time spent on an employer’s premises for security inspections is compensable as “hours worked,” ensuring employees are fairly compensated for time spent on work-related activities.

10. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services:

The ruling stated that an employer is not liable for penalties under Labor Code section 226 if wage statements were provided in good faith. This sets a precedent for employer liability in cases relating to wage statements.

11. Vazquez v. SaniSure:

The court decided that an arbitration agreement signed during one period of employment may not apply to subsequent employment. This clarifies the applicability of arbitration agreements across different employment periods.

12. Mar v. Perkins:

Employees were found to be bound by an arbitration agreement if they continue working after a policy modification, establishing that continued employment constitutes consent to arbitration.

13. Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto:

This ruling protects employees from defamation claims related to HR complaints by defining pre-litigation statements made to HR as conditionally privileged protected activity.

14. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines:

The court mandated that plaintiff comparators need to be similar “in all relevant respects” for discrimination cases, strengthening the standard for using comparators in such cases.

15. Shah v. Skillz Inc.:

The court clarified that stocks are not considered wages under the Labor Code, elucidating the treatment of stocks in employment cases.

Are you being harassed or discriminated against in your workplace? At Helmer Friedman LLP, we have highly qualified employment law attorneys ready to fight on your behalf. Don’t suffer in silence; reach out to us for expert legal representation. At our firm, you’re not just a number—you’re a valued individual deserving justice and equity. Contact us today.

This post is based on information published recently in Advocate Magazine authored by Andrew Friedman and Erin Kelly. READ MORE…
Posted on

What Happens to Harassment Claims After a Business Is Acquired?

Celebrating a victory for justice.

What Happens to Discrimination and Harassment Claims When a Business Is Bought by a Larger Company?

Workplace harassment and discrimination are pervasive issues that affect millions of employees worldwide each year. From inappropriate comments and unfair treatment to deeply entrenched systems of bias, these experiences can leave employees feeling powerless and isolated. When a small business—your workplace—gets acquired by a larger company, questions often arise about what happens to ongoing or unresolved discrimination and harassment claims.

Do these claims disappear? Will the new company hold the previous owners accountable? Can victims expect their concerns to be addressed under a new management team? This blog explores the impact of corporate acquisitions on employee rights, providing clarity and actionable advice for navigating this complex scenario.

Workplace Acquisitions and Their Impact on Employees

Corporate acquisitions, where a larger company buys and takes over a smaller business, are commonplace in today’s business landscape. They often bring drastic changes for employees—from transitions in company culture to restructuring of roles and policies. While these mergers are marketed as growth opportunities for the business, employees may find themselves grappling with uncertainty and upheaval.

For employees who have filed discrimination or harassment claims prior to the acquisition, this uncertainty can turn into fear. Questions abound—is the new management obligated to honor pending claims? Will there be retaliation? Or will such complaints be swept under the rug, citing “corporate restructuring”?

An acquisition often leads to significant changes in Human Resources (HR) systems, policies, and responsible personnel. At times, it feels like the slate has been wiped clean for the incoming organization. However, this doesn’t mean previous claims are invalid—it’s a matter of understanding your legal protections and the process of maintaining accountability.

Legal Rights and Protections for Employees

Employees are protected by federal and state employment laws against harassment and discrimination under regulations such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These laws make it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, and other protected categories.

When a business is acquired, these protections do not disappear:

  1. Successor Liability:

Many jurisdictions enforce “successor liability,” meaning the larger company acquiring the smaller business inherits the legal responsibility for claims filed at the original organization. Employees should understand that their rights don’t evaporate just because ownership has changed hands.

  1. Pending Claims:

If a claim has already been filed with an external agency—such as the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)—the new owner is legally compelled to address it.

  1. New Policies:

While the new owners may implement new anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, this doesn’t absolve them of addressing past grievances under the prior management.

One critical point for employees to note is that the details of an acquisition agreement might stipulate whether discrimination claims are handled by the acquiring company or remain the responsibility of the previous owners. Understanding these provisions in the agreement is vital.

What Employees Can Do to Protect Their Rights

Filing or continuing a harassment or discrimination claim during a corporate acquisition can be intimidating. However, there are steps employees can take to ensure their rights are protected and their voices are heard amidst the upheaval:

  1. Document Everything:

Maintain records of incidents, including dates, times, witnesses, and specifics of any harassment or discrimination you’ve experienced. Documentation becomes even more crucial during an acquisition to preserve the context and details of your claim.

  1. Retain Claim Records:

If you’ve already filed a claim, make sure you have copies of all documentation, including communication with HR, legal filings, and correspondence with external agencies like the EEOC.

  1. Seek Legal Advice:

Consulting an employment attorney can help clarify how claims are addressed during acquisitions in your state. A lawyer can provide insights specific to your case and advocate for your rights if retaliation or dismissal occurs.

  1. Monitor New Policies:

Pay close attention to new codes of conduct and employee policies introduced by the acquiring company. If unclear, ask for explicit clarification on how prior complaints will be handled under these new guidelines.

  1. Continue Reporting:

If the inappropriate behavior persists, don’t hesitate to voice concerns to the new HR team. Just because the ownership or reporting structure changes doesn’t mean the behavior should be tolerated.

Remember, laws are designed to offer robust protection, but you may need to be proactive about ensuring they are enforced.

Real-Life Case Studies

Case Study 1: Accountability in the Workplace

In 2017, a teenage employee at Elite Wireless endured repeated sexual harassment from a sales manager, including unwelcome advances and requests for sex. The situation worsened when the sales manager sexually assaulted her during a holiday party. Despite the employee filing reports and a criminal complaint, Elite Wireless failed to take action, allowing the manager to continue working alongside her. In 2019, Wireless World acquired Elite Wireless and, according to the EEOC’s charges, became liable for the company’s failure to address these serious allegations. This case highlights the critical need for swift and decisive responses to workplace harassment to protect employees and promote accountability.

Case Study 2: Discrimination and Corporate Bias

Mr. Sizar joined Hatch Mott MacDonald (a predecessor to The Mott MacDonald) in 2013 and advanced through the corporate ranks, consistently earning praise for his strong performance through glowing reviews and evaluations. Despite his success, he observed a troubling pattern of bias within the organization, where younger white males were favored over more qualified non-white, female, and older employees.

For example, his supervisor, Daniel Tempelis, terminated two senior staff members in their early sixties—one of Chinese descent and the other of Asian Indian heritage—and replaced them with younger, less experienced white males. Mr. Sizar also reported that numerous other non-white and older employees were similarly dismissed and replaced by less qualified, younger white males.

This case underscores the pervasive issue of systemic discrimination in the workplace. It serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of fostering equity, addressing bias, and holding organizations accountable for the fair treatment of all employees.

What This Means for You

Discrimination and harassment should never be overlooked, whether under your current employer or a new corporate owner. If your workplace is undergoing changes due to an acquisition, remember that federal and state laws exist to protect you. Don’t hesitate to consult professionals, document your experiences thoroughly, and speak up if necessary.

Acquisitions might bring a storm of change, but your rights form the anchor. Stay informed, proactive, and engaged in ensuring your voice is heard.

Are you currently dealing with workplace harassment or discrimination during a corporate acquisition? Seek legal advice to protect your rights and review your options. The right support could make all the difference.

Posted on

How Your Data is Being Used Against You: The Privacy Risks of MAIDs

When websites sell your data it puts your life, your livelihood and your future at risk contact the lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In our digital age, privacy has become a paramount concern for everyone. Data anonymity is often the key to safeguarding this privacy. However, what if we told you that companies can de-anonymize your data?

Despite tech firms’ constant reassurances that mobile user tracking IDs are anonymous, an entire industry exists that links these IDs to real individuals and their addresses, effectively dismantling this veil of anonymity. This industry accomplishes this by correlating mobile advertising IDs (MAIDs) collected by applications with a person’s full name, physical address, and other personally identifiable information (PII).

Simply put, your data could be used to identify you, leading to significant privacy breaches. This is particularly concerning for those who trust that their information is secure when signing up for websites or apps. Consider, for instance, the implications for users of a dating app like Grindr. People have been ‘outed,’ resulting in serious harm and discrimination, and, in the case of one Catholic priest, his life and reputation were destroyed.

So how does this work? A MAID is a unique identifier assigned to each device by a phone’s operating system. Apps frequently capture a user’s MAID and share it with third parties. Companies like BIGDBM and FullContact then link this data to full names, physical addresses, and other PII—a process known as ‘identity resolution’ or ‘identity graphing.’

These revelations underscore the urgent need for greater transparency and enhanced privacy regulations regarding data collection and handling. As users, we must advocate for our rights and urge tech companies to prioritize the security of our data. Before signing up for any platform, it’s crucial to read their privacy policy carefully, although even that may not be sufficient.

In a world where data is the new gold, let’s ensure our ‘digital selves’ remain uncompromised.

Posted on

Persistent Workplace Discrimination and Retaliation

Sexual harassment causes long term damage to the victims psyche.

Discrimination in the Workplace Persists

Discrimination in the workplace is an ugly truth that still prevails despite the numerous laws and regulations designed to combat it. Companies that engage in discriminatory practices harm not only the affected employees but also the overall workplace environment. What’s worse, many of these organizations resort to retaliation against those brave enough to speak out or investigate discrimination. This article aims to shed light on these issues, providing valuable insights and actionable steps for workplace equality advocates and HR professionals.

Understanding Workplace Discrimination

Workplace discrimination manifests in various forms, each with unique challenges and consequences. Understanding these types is crucial for addressing them effectively.

Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination remains a significant issue in many workplaces. It includes unfair treatment based on one’s gender, which can lead to disparities in pay, promotions, and job opportunities. Statistics show that women, especially women of color, are more likely to experience workplace discrimination. For instance, according to a Pew Research Center study, 42% of working women in the U.S. have faced gender discrimination at work.

Racial Discrimination

Racial discrimination involves treating employees differently because of their race or ethnicity. This type of discrimination can severely impact an individual’s career progression and mental well-being. For example, a survey conducted by Glassdoor found that 61% of Black employees report experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination in the workplace.

Age Discrimination

Age discrimination typically affects older employees, who may be unfairly overlooked for promotions or forced into early retirement. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that in 2019, 21.4% of all discrimination charges filed were related to age.

The Reality of Retaliation

When employees report discrimination, they often face retaliation instead of support. This can take various forms, from demotion and job termination to subtle acts of intimidation, making it difficult for individuals to come forward.

Case Study 1: Pro Pallet

Pro Pallet, a Pennsylvania-based construction company, has been ordered to pay $50,000 to settle a lawsuit concerning discrimination and retaliation. The case arose when a human resources manager at Pro Pallet received a sexual harassment complaint against the company’s general manager. As she began investigating the matter, the president and owner of Pro Pallet reprimanded her for fulfilling her responsibilities, reallocated key job duties to other employees, and excluded her from company meetings.

Case Study 2: Hatzel & Buehler

In another case, Hatzel & Buehler, an electrical contractor, was mandated to pay $500,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit. The vice president of the New Jersey branch engaged in discriminatory recruiting and hiring practices by instructing recruiting firms to focus on younger candidates for project manager and estimator positions while outright refusing to hire older applicants who did not fit his preferred age range. The lawsuit also claimed that this vice president neglected to maintain records related to job applicants and hiring, violating federal law.

Case Study 3: Altman Specialty Plants

Altman Specialty Plants has been ordered to pay $172,000 to settle allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation. An investigation found that a supervisor at the company’s Austin, Texas, location subjected female employees to sexual harassment and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for an extended period.

Moreover, employees who reported the harassment faced retaliation, which created a chilling effect and rendered Altman’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policies and complaint procedures ineffective. Such conduct allegedly violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment, as well as retaliation for participating in protected activities.

The Impact on Employees

Discrimination and retaliation have far-reaching consequences for employees.

Emotional Toll

The emotional toll of discrimination can be devastating. Victims often experience anxiety, depression, and a sense of isolation. This emotional strain can affect every aspect of their lives, from personal relationships to overall mental health.

Financial Impact

Financial instability is another significant consequence. Victims of discrimination and retaliation may lose their jobs, face demotions, or be forced to take lower-paying positions. This financial strain can lead to long-term economic challenges.

Professional Damage

Professionally, discrimination and retaliation can derail careers. Skilled employees may find their career progression halted, and the stain of being “a troublemaker” can follow them to future job opportunities.

The Role of Advocates and HR Professionals

Advocates and HR professionals play a pivotal role in creating safer, more inclusive workplaces.

Support Systems

Establishing robust support systems is crucial. HR departments should have clear policies and procedures for reporting discrimination, ensuring that employees feel safe and supported.

Training and Education

Regular training and education programs can help prevent discrimination. These programs should focus on raising awareness about different types of discrimination and the importance of diversity and inclusion.

Open Communication

Encouraging open communication is essential. Employees should feel comfortable discussing their concerns without fear of retaliation. Regular surveys and anonymous reporting channels can help identify issues before they escalate.

Strategies for Change

Combatting discrimination and retaliation requires a concerted effort from both companies and employees.

Legal Obligations

Companies must understand and adhere to their legal obligations regarding discrimination. This includes complying with anti-discrimination laws and promptly addressing any complaints.

Ethical Responsibilities

Beyond legal obligations, companies have an ethical responsibility to foster a respectful and inclusive workplace. This involves creating a culture where diversity is celebrated and discrimination is not tolerated.

Actionable Steps

  1. Policy Development: Develop and regularly update anti-discrimination policies. Ensure these policies are clearly communicated to all employees.
  2. Training Programs: Implement regular training sessions on diversity, inclusion, and anti-discrimination practices.
  3. Support Systems: Establish strong support systems for victims of discrimination and ensure that they have access to necessary resources.

Conclusion

Workplace discrimination and retaliation are pervasive issues that require immediate attention. By understanding the different forms of discrimination, recognizing the reality of retaliation, and taking proactive steps, advocates and HR professionals can make significant strides toward creating more equitable work environments.

The responsibility to foster a safe and inclusive workplace does not rest solely on the shoulders of HR professionals and advocates. It requires a collective effort from all levels of the organization, from top management to individual employees. Together, we can break the silence, address these issues head-on, and pave the way for a future where everyone feels valued and respected.

Let’s continue this conversation. Share your experiences and strategies for overcoming discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Your insights could be the catalyst for change in other organizations.

Posted on

AB 2188: Protections for Off-site, Off-duty Marijuana Use

California employers cannot discrimination for legal cannabis use.

AB 2188 Protections for off-site, off-duty marijuana use beginning January 1, 2024

The legalization of recreational marijuana in 2016 led many to question the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications Inc., 42 Cal.4th 920 (2008), which held in part that, despite the legalization of medical marijuana in 1996, an employer could lawfully refuse to hire a job candidate who failed a drug test, even if it was the result of legal marijuana use. Although the passing of Proposition 64 in 2016 did not impact the holding in Ross (in fact, the law explicitly preserved its holding), societal attitudes towards marijuana have shifted significantly since the Court’s decision.

Starting on January 1, 2024, AB 2188 will amend FEHA to prohibit discrimination based upon an employee’s use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace, partially superseding Ross. The bill does not prohibit an employer’s use and reliance on pre-employment drug screenings that determine current impairment or active levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”). It also has some exceptions, including for workers in the building and construction trades and applicants and employees subject to federal background investigations or clearances.

Posted on

Spire Employee Awarded $8.5 Million in Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Spire gas company

ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis jury has awarded $8.5 million to a Danielle McGaughy, of St. Joseph, Mo., sued the gas company for racial discrimination.

After a two-week trial before St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer, jurors found Thursday evening in favor of Danielle McGaughy, 47, of St. Joseph, Mo., a black woman who has worked for the gas utility since 2004.

McGaughy sued Spire in St. Louis Circuit Court in February 2016, claiming a hostile work environment, including coworkers’ referring to President Barack Obama as a monkey. She also claimed she was passed over for a promotion to a supervisor position in 2014 in favor of a younger, white female coworker whom McGaughy said had less education and work experience.

McGaughy’s lawsuit included other claims of racial discrimination: that she was denied five other promotions and forced to commute to Kansas City instead working at an office in St. Joseph where she lives.

McGaughy testified that although she encountered no direct racist comments at work, her managers and colleagues questioned her competence, her attorneys E.E. Keenan and Sonal Bhatia said. The trial, they said, focused on subconscious workplace bias — that employers treat workers of color differently through subtle microaggressions.

Read more by By Joel Currier St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Posted on

Courtney Abrams – Lawsuit Against Trader Joe’s for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Courtney Abrams interviewed on KFI Radio about Helmer Friedman’s lawsuit against Trader Joe’s for sexual orientation discrimination.

Courtney Abrams interviewed on KFI Radio about Helmer Friedman's lawsuit against Trader Joe's for sexual orientation…

Posted by Helmer Friedman LLP on Wednesday, September 21, 2016

http://kfiam640.iheart.com/media/play/27333024/

Posted on

Denied Managerial Position with Home Depot?

Work for Home Depot? Are you a female employee of Home Depot who was denied a promotion to a managerial position? Are you a female job applicant who was denied a managerial position? If so, your rights to a workplace free of discrimination based on sex or gender may have been violated. For a consultation, please call Helmer Friedman LLP at (310) 396-7714 or email us at info@helmerfriedman.com.

Posted on

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Owner of Popular Los Angeles Restaurants Sushi Roku Katana and Boa

Former employee of Los Angeles based Innovative Dining Group, Inc. (“IDG”) filed a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Laura Holycross the Company’s former Director of Catering and Special Events; alleges that she was wrongfully terminated after she complained that IDG was engaged in illegal and fraudulent conduct including: (1) charging several of its clients for non-existent services and products; (2) hiring undocumented workers so that it could pay them less than it would have to pay individuals authorized to work in the United States and that it paid its workers “under the table” so that it did not have to pay federal, state, and local taxes; (3) refusing to allow its workers to take the meal and rest periods to which they were entitled under California law; (4) instructing its employees, including Ms. Holycross, to falsify and forge legal documents and information that was to be provided to its clients, their lawyers, their security companies, and various police departments; and (5) instructing its employees not to book events that would include African-American and Persian guests.

Commenting about her lawsuit, Ms. Holycross’ attorney, Andrew H. Friedman of Venice-based Helmer Friedman, LLP said “California law clearly prohibits employers, and certainly their highest level officials, from firing an employee for complaining about illegal conduct. We look forward to vigorously representing our client and obtaining the remedies to which she is entitled under the law.”

For additional information contact:
Gregory D. Helmer
Andrew H. Friedman
Helmer Friedman LLP (310) 396-7714 www.helmerfriedman.com