Legal News Blog (310) 396-7714
World Class Representation in Employment Law, Consumer Rights, Class Actions & Personal Injury
Starting a job is a significant moment that marks the transition into adulthood. It brings new responsibilities and opportunities. Research has shown that having these experiences, whether working in a restaurant, mowing lawns, or working in a family business, can have many benefits. Teenagers can gain independence, valuable job and life skills, and experiences that can help them transition into adulthood.
However, what should be a positive step can take a harrowing turn when the workplace becomes grounds for abuse. Today, the alarming reality is that sexual harassment is not just a risk confined to corporate settings but is increasingly common in the first job scenarios that many teenagers find themselves in.
Your child’s excitement for that first day of work is often matched with the anxiety of a million parental what-ifs. But in the shadows of those concerns looms a particularly distressing question about their safety from the risk of harassment. Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal, yet it continues to stain the environment our teenagers enter with trepidation and expectations.
The first shield against workplace abuse is parental guidance. Preparing your kids for their first job means more than just providing your teen with a packed lunch and a pat on the back. It means giving them the tools to recognize and confront inappropriate behavior. Open and honest conversations about what constitutes harassment and how to respond can significantly empower them. Make sure they understand that anything that feels uncomfortable should be addressed. Building a trusting relationship with your teenager is crucial, and letting them know they can come to you with any concerns or questions.
We want to send a clear and opposing message: every worker has a right to a workplace free from sexual harassment, and the EEOC will hold employers accountable. Nancy Sienko, director for the EEOC’s San Francisco District. In the realm of a teenager’s first job, power dynamics are often skewed, anchored in age, experience, and position. A young manager, though closer in age, holds a significant degree of authority and influence over a teenager stepping into the workforce. This relationship, ideally meant to mentor and guide, can sometimes devolve into a complex web of control and vulnerability. The subtle or overt exertion of power by a young manager can be intoxicating, sometimes leading to abuses of authority. The teenager, eager to impress and fearful of repercussions, may find themselves in a precarious position—torn between standing up for themselves and threatening to lose their job or face workplace ostracism. Understanding and acknowledging these dynamics is crucial for teenagers and their guardians, setting the stage for preventive measures and support systems to safeguard against potential abuses.
Parents need to educate themselves on the issue of workplace harassment and assist their teenagers in recognizing inappropriate behavior. We equip them with valuable tools by teaching them about boundaries, consent, and respect. The EEOC created a website dedicated Youth@Work to helping educate young people about discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
Teachers can play a significant role in preparing teenagers for any professional scenario. Teachers preparing students for their first job include warnings about the potential abuse teens might face and foster a culture of understanding and dialogue in their educational environment — giving them the power of anticipation and the power of voice.
Ultimately, employers shoulder direct responsibility. A thorough understanding of the laws governing harassment is more than a legal requirement; it’s the means to cultivate a safe working environment. Proper training and transparent policies, particularly for management, are essential in protecting teen employees. For business owners, staying vigilant about the interpersonal dynamics within their establishment is critical to maintaining a safe and respectful work environment for all, particularly for teen employees. Warning signs that may indicate a potential problem between a manager and a teen employee include noticeable changes in the employee’s behavior, such as increased anxiety, withdrawal from team interactions, or a sudden dip in job performance. Other red flags could be a manager spending excessive time alone with a teen employee, showing favoritism, or engaging in communication outside of work hours without a professional pretext. Employers need to create a culture where these signs are observed and acted upon with discretion and urgency, ensuring that the workplace remains safe for young workers to thrive and grow professionally.
Recent legal battles have brought to light egregious situations where teenagers have been subjected to abhorrent behavior despite legal protections. These cases not only highlight the vulnerability of young workers but also the stark reality that job-related abuse isn’t solely a point of concern for corporate environments. The responsibility of ensuring a safe and respectful work environment falls on everyone, from parents and educators to business owners and employers. By working together and taking preventive measures, we can protect our teenagers from job-related abuse and create a better, safer future for all.
The Chipotle case (EEOC v. Chipotle Services, LLC and Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00279) unearthed a sordid tale of degradation where a male colleague at a Florida outlet not only engaged in sexually explicit comments about a female teenage co-worker but escalated to a physical act. The implications point to corporate culture failures that allowed such an incident to occur and persist.
This case involves workers in their teens and early 20s. These are their first impressions they will they form about the workplace, and it is devastating when an employer permits sexual harassment to continue despite repeated complaints.
Similarly, Shane’s Rib Shack (EEOC v. RSPS Holdings, et al., Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-00049)franchisees in Georgia chose to act in blatant defiance of what is right when they subjected a female employee to daily, unwanted advances from a manager that fabricated a workplace environment of fear, degradation, and ultimately, career sabotage when she was fired for complaining.
Teenagers must be prepared if they face workplace harassment, even if employers have taken precautionary measures. If harassment occurs, the first step is to report it immediately to a supervisor or HR. Reporting will begin the documentation process and often results in a quicker resolution.
If internal channels fail to provide resolution, it may be necessary to seek external help. Sexual harassment lawyers are experienced in navigating the complexities of such cases. They can provide the support needed to ensure that the legal weight of sexual harassment laws is used to protect young victims.
Parents, educators, and employers must work together to create a safe and supportive environment for teenagers. By taking a unified stand, we can ensure that our teenagers are not only unscarred by their first job experience but are also armed with the resilience and wherewithal to face the complexities of the working world, no matter the odds.
In 1872, Charlotte Ray became the first black female attorney in the United States. She was active in the NAACP and the suffragist movement.
Fun fact: she applied to and was admitted to Howard University Law School under the name “C. E. Ray,” in a possible attempt to hide her gender. #BlackHistoryMonth
The social tapestry is intricately woven with various threads of identity, each deserving respect and validation. Gender identity, in particular, has been at the forefront of many societal debates and struggles for rights and recognition. Nevertheless, gender identity discrimination and harassment continue to fabricate a corrosive environment that not only strips individuals of their dignity but also inflicts long-lasting damage that echoes through their personal and professional lives.
In this extensive analysis, we will dissect the multifaceted consequences of gender identity discrimination and harassment. Our journey will delve deep into the physical, emotional, and social repercussions, as well as the legal landscape providing protection and recourse for victims. By illuminating these issues, we aim to instigate meaningful change and fortify the supportive scaffolding that individuals in the gender-diverse community need.
Gender identity discrimination occurs when an individual is treated unfavorably because of their gender identity or because they do not conform to traditional gender stereotypes. This form of discrimination can manifest in various settings—be it the workplace, educational institutions, healthcare environments, or within our communities. It chips away at the foundation of an individual’s identity and can result in profound, systemic harm that transcends mere instances of prejudice.
As we unpack the layers of discrimination, the far-reaching implications will become evident. First, we will explore how the psychological and emotional toll can lead to severe mental health issues. Then, we will investigate the professional ramifications that stifle career growth and economic stability. Social repercussions will also be illuminated, outlining the devastating effects on personal relationships and community integration. Finally, we will navigate the maze of laws and legal precedents that serve as both a shield and a weapon in the fight against gender identity discrimination and harassment.
The mental health of individuals subjected to gender identity discrimination is significantly at risk. Research consistently shows that transgender and gender non-conforming individuals face an increased prevalence of mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety disorders, and even higher rates of suicide attempts. The perpetual stress of potential exposure to discrimination and harassment is a heavy anvil on the psyche, often leading to a diminished sense of self-worth.
The numbers paint a grim picture. A survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality revealed that 40% of transgender adults have reported attempting suicide. These alarming figures depict the gravity of the situation and the desperate need for societal change to provide a nurturing environment that fosters mental well-being. Disparities in healthcare access and the lack of support resources further compound these risks, leaving many to grapple with their emotional turmoil in isolation.
Gender identity discrimination can also manifest in physical health challenges. The chronic stress associated with discrimination can lead to an array of health issues, such as cardiovascular problems, compromised immune systems, and even a shortened life expectancy. The cumulative impact of discrimination on both mental and physical health underlines the urgent need to address these systemic issues and provide comprehensive care to those affected.
One of the most tangible consequences of gender identity discrimination is the difficulty in securing and keeping a job. Studies have shown that transgender individuals are disproportionately affected by unemployment and underemployment. Discriminatory hiring practices and hostile work environments force many to navigate a professional landscape fraught with barriers that others take for granted.
Job satisfaction and career advancement opportunities are often curtailed, even for those who manage to enter the workforce. Hostile or discriminatory work environments can erode an individual’s professional confidence and stifle their ability to grow and thrive. Limited job options and lower pay scales are remnants of a society still grappling with inclusivity and equal opportunity in the workplace.
The financial toll of gender identity discrimination is not to be underestimated. From losing one’s job to being unfairly compensated or not being offered promotions, the economic well-being of individuals is directly impacted. As a result, many face hardships in meeting their basic needs, which further exacerbates the stress and mental health struggles that are already prevalent within this community.
The aftereffects of discrimination do not stop at the office door. Individuals often experience profound isolation and alienation from their communities, especially when those environments are not supportive. This alienation can lead to a breakdown in social structures and supports, leaving individuals to navigate their identities in a hostile or ignorant social fabric.
The fabric of our lives is intricately woven with the threads of personal relationships. Yet, gender identity discrimination can lead to significant strains on these relationships. Be it within the family unit, amongst peers, or in romantic partnerships, the presence of discrimination can create discord, misunderstandings, and in severe cases, lead to the dissolution of these vital social bonds.
The sum of these social consequences is a diminished quality of life. As individuals experience discrimination and societal rejection, the very activities and interactions that typically bring joy and fulfillment may become a source of stress and dissatisfaction. This undeniably lower quality of life further underscores the importance of creating a more inclusive and supportive social environment for all individuals, regardless of gender identity.
In recognition of the pervasive discriminatory practices faced by transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, many jurisdictions have enacted laws specifically designed to protect their rights. These laws forbid discrimination on the basis of gender identity and, in some cases, require that individuals be afforded accommodations that allow them to express their gender identity.
When discrimination and harassment occur, it’s crucial for victims to know their legal rights and the avenues available for recourse. Legal action can range from filing complaints with government agencies to pursuing civil litigation against the perpetrators. Not only does this provide an opportunity for justice, but it also sends a clear signal that such behaviors will not be tolerated.
A critical element in preventing discrimination is education and awareness. By providing knowledge on gender identity and the challenges faced by the gender diverse community, we can dispel ignorance and cultivate greater empathy and understanding. Educational initiatives in schools, workplaces, and within the community at large can help to normalize discussions around gender diversity and promote inclusivity.
Organizations and institutions must take proactive steps to foster an inclusive environment. This includes developing and enforcing policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination and harassment based on gender identity, as well as providing training to employees on respectful and affirming practices. In addition, creating support networks and resources for individuals to seek guidance and redress is crucial in legitimizing the commitments made through policy.
For those who have experienced discrimination, support networks and resources can be a lifeline. Organizations such as the National Center for Transgender Equality and GLSEN provide a community and the resources necessary to navigate the challenges of discrimination. Access to legal counsel and other support services is key in empowering individuals to stand up against discrimination and seek remedies for the harm they’ve endured.
In conclusion, the consequences of gender identity discrimination and harassment are not just personal—they are societal, systemic, and wholly impactful. It is a call to action for all of us to stand in solidarity with the gender-diverse community, to champion their rights, and to ensure that discrimination and harassment have no place in our shared future. Let this be the catalyst for change, igniting a collective effort to create a world where every individual can live authentically and without fear of recrimination. For now, the ball is in our court to take the knowledge and insights from this discourse and transform them into actionable steps towards a more inclusive, equitable society.
The American auto dealership industry, boasting a backbone of shiny cars and robust sales pitches, hides an alarming and corrosive problem under its hood – sexual harassment. Despite being a cornerstone of America’s retail economy, auto dealerships have become notorious battlegrounds for gender respect and workplace equality.
In this probing examination, we will delve deep into the personal stories that shed light on the struggle many female employees face, survey the bleak statistics that run rampant across the industry, and provide concrete steps and resources for those affected by such improper conduct in their workplaces.
Personal accounts bring the shocking reality of workplace harassment out of the shadows. In a Utah auto dealership, a former employee recounts days filled with anxiety and fear as her supervisor would casually assault female staff members, dealing out demeaning acts like smacks on the buttocks as casually as if he were giving out office memos.
The situation in Texas paints an equally grim picture, with managers at South Austin Nissan openly and relentlessly parading their predatory behavior. Women working there faced an ongoing onslaught of unwanted touching, lewd comments dissecting their appearance, and invasive inquiries into their private lives.
Moving west to San Francisco, the narrative continues with former employees, all women, who weathered unwelcome sexual advances, offensive remarks, and physical contact—all undermining not only their sense of security but their professional worth.
Behind these personal stories lies a staggering trail of data:
This data paints a sobering picture: the car sales floor, rather than being a place of negotiation and commerce, is often an arena of gender-based violation and abuse.
These harrowing accounts and disheartening figures cannot fade into mere statistics. Change is imperative. To catalyze this transformation, advocacy must be a community affair – everyone is a stakeholder in making dealerships safe environments that uphold gender respect and equality. Here’s what can be done:
Empower yourself with knowledge and support:
Making our workplaces safe sanctuaries of productivity and respect demands courage, persistence, and unity. If you or someone you know is enduring sexual harassment within an auto dealership or any workplace, remember that silence benefits only the perpetrators. It’s time to revamp the industry not just from a business standpoint but from a foundational perspective that respects and values all employees equally.
Now is the time for action, for support, and for change. Stand up for a harassment-free workplace, and navigate the road ahead with the dignity and equality every person deserves.
Labor Day is just around the corner, which means it’s time to break out the grill, gather your loved ones, and have a blast. But do you ever stop to think about the history behind this awesome holiday? If you’re curious and want to impress your friends and family with some fun facts, check out this quick rundown of Labor Day.
Labor Day is an epic celebration of the achievements of American workers, observed every year on the first Monday in September. The roots of this holiday go back to the late 1800s when labor activists worked tirelessly to establish a federal holiday recognizing the incredible contributions that workers make to America’s strength, prosperity, and well-being.
But before it was a nationwide holiday, Labor Day was recognized by individual states and passionate labor activists. The movement to secure state legislation began with municipal ordinances in 1885 and 1886. New York was the first state to introduce a bill, but Oregon was the first to pass a law recognizing Labor Day on February 21, 1887. And the momentum only grew from there – by the end of the decade, more than half of all states had adopted the holiday. It wasn’t until 1894 that Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September a legal holiday.
The question of who founded Labor Day is a hotly debated one. Some believe it was Peter J. McGuire, a co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, who suggested the idea of a “general holiday for the laboring classes” back in 1882. But others argue that it was actually machinist Matthew Maguire who proposed the holiday while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York. Recent research seems to support Maguire’s claim, and the Paterson Morning Call even declared him the “undisputed author of Labor Day as a holiday.” Regardless of who came up with the idea, both McGuire and Maguire attended the country’s first Labor Day parade in New York City in 1882 – a historic moment that would pave the way for generations of hardworking Americans to celebrate their contributions to this great nation.
Liability Under FCA Depends On Whether Defendants Believe They Lied
United States et al. ex rel. Schutte et al. v. Supervalu Inc. et al., 2023 WL 3742577 (2023)
The False Claims Act imposes liability on anyone who “knowingly” submits a “false” claim to the Government. 31 U. S. C. §3729(a). In some cases, that rule is straightforward: If a law authorized payment of $100 for “each” medical test, and a doctor knows that he did five tests but submits a claim for ten, then he has knowingly submitted a false claim. But sometimes, the rule is less clear. If a law authorized payment for only “customary” medical tests, some doctors might be confused when it came time for billing. And, while some doctors might honestly mistake what that term means, others might correctly understand whatever “customary” meant in this context—and submit claims that were inaccurate anyway. The cases before the Supreme Court involved a legal standard similar to that latter example: In certain circumstances, pharmacies are required to bill Medicare and Medicaid for their “usual and customary” drug prices. And, critically, these cases involved defendants who may have correctly understood the relevant standard and submitted inaccurate claims anyway. The question presented is thus whether the defendants could have the scienter required by the FCA if they correctly understood that standard and thought that their claims were inaccurate.
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held that the answer is yes: What matters for an FCA case is whether the defendant knew the claim was false. Thus, if defendants correctly interpreted the relevant phrase and believed their claims were false, then they could have known their claims were false.
Morales-Garcia v. Better Produce, Inc., 2023 WL 3749314 (9th Cir. 2023)
In 2014, California enacted Labor Code § 2810.3 to protect workers whose labor has been outsourced to a labor provider. Under the statute, the outsourcing entity, known as a “client employer,” is liable for the laborers’ wages if the laborers’ work is within the outsourcers’ “usual course of business.”
In the present case, the plaintiffs are agricultural workers hired by strawberry growers (“the Growers”) to pick the fruit that was then turned over to the defendants – Red Blossom Sales, Inc. and Better Produce, Inc. (“the Marketers”) for distribution. The Marketers cooled and sold the berries principally to large retail grocery chains. The Marketers conducted their cooling and distribution operations on premises that were close to but separate from the farms.
As happens quite frequently with agricultural workers (and, hence, the need for Labor Code § 2810.3) the Growers stopped paying the plaintiffs and later filed for bankruptcy. The plaintiffs sued the Growers and the Marketers as joint employers under California and federal law. The plaintiffs also sued the Marketers as client employers under California Labor Code § 2810.3. The district court ruled for the Marketers on all theories. The plaintiffs appealed only with respect to the Marketers’ liability under § 2810.3.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, explaining that because the plaintiffs were not performing labor within the Marketers’ “usual course of business” – which is defined as “the regular and customary work of a business, performed within or upon the premises or worksite of the client employer Labor Code § 2810.3(a)(6) – the Marketers were not liable as client employers under California Labor Code § 2810.3.
In Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic, 72 Cal.App.5th 158 (2021), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny arbitration due to the employer’s failure to satisfy its burden of proving that the employee signed the employer’s arbitration agreement. The employer provided the trial court with an arbitration agreement that appeared to be signed by a representative of the employer and an employee, along with a declaration from a human resources official indicating that the plaintiff had signed the arbitration agreement (but lacking any foundational facts such as that the official witnessed the plaintiff signing the agreement). The plaintiff, however, filed a declaration in support of her opposition, stating that: (1) she reviewed the arbitration agreement attached to the official’s declaration but does “not remember these documents at all”; (2) before this case, no one had ever told her about an arbitration agreement or explained what it was; and (3) if she had known about the arbitration agreement and had been told about its provisions, she would not have signed it. In affirming, the Court of Appeal stated: “By not providing any specific details about the circumstances surrounding the contract’s execution, the defendant’s declarant offered little more than a bare statement that the plaintiff entered into the contract without offering any facts to support that assertion. This left a critical gap in the evidence supporting the defendant’s petition.” (cleaned up).
In Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC, 64 Cal.App.5th 541 (2021), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny arbitration due to the employer’s failure to satisfy its burden of proving that the employee signed an arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal cited both conflicting evidence as to whether the agreement was electronically executed by the employee and the fact that there were no employee-specific usernames or passwords required for the execution of the agreement.