Latest news with #FairEmploymentandHousingAct
Los Angeles Times
06-08-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
UC must reconsider policy barring undocumented students from jobs, court rules
In a key win for immigrant rights organizations, a California Court of Appeal ruled that the University of California has not provided sufficient legal grounds to justify its 'discriminatory policy' barring the hiring of undocumented students from on-campus jobs. A UCLA alumnus and a lecturer filed a lawsuit in October arguing that the UC system's hiring policy violates state law because it discriminates against students based on their immigration status. Plaintiffs said that, without access to campus jobs, many undocumented students struggle to meet tuition costs and cover basic needs such as housing and food. These students are often forced into the underground economy and miss out on career-advancing opportunities such as research assistant positions. Attorneys representing the UC system argued that its policy is justified because hiring undocumented students could run afoul of a federal law that bans the hiring of people without legal status and may provoke retaliation from the federal government. A three-judge panel, however, ruled that the system's policy violates California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and that fear of federal litigation is not sufficient grounds to uphold it. 'The University does not assert that it relied on the requirements of a federal statute or regulation in deciding to not to amend its policy — only on the risks associated with adopting a policy that the federal government might consider unlawful,' states the ruling. 'Accordingly, we conclude that the University abused its discretion by relying on an improper justification for continued application of its facially discriminatory policy.' The panel stopped short of ruling that UC must overturn its policy; rather, it ordered that the university system reconsider the policy based on proper legal criteria. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs consider the ruling a victory and are calling on UC to open jobs to undocumented students. 'The court's powerful opinion rejects the UC's attempt to justify its policy discriminating against undocumented students. It is wrong — both morally and legally — to bar our state's most talented students from access to crucial educational employment opportunities based on their immigration status,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of UCLA's Center for Immigration Law and Policy in a statement. 'We call on the UC to comply with state law and treat all its students equally, regardless of immigration status.' The UC system said it is reviewing the court's ruling but has not commented on whether it will change its hiring policy. 'To the extent it's compliant with the law, the University continues to believe undocumented students deserve the same opportunities as our other student,' said UC spokesperson Stett Holbrook in a statement. University officials have previously expressed fear that changing the system's hiring policy could result in civil fines, criminal penalties and the potential loss of billions of dollars in federal funding. Last week, the Trump administration announced it was freezing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding to UCLA, citing concerns over antisemitism and the university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests. Tuesday's court ruling comes after a years-long push to open campus jobs to students lacking documentation. The debate over whether it is legal to do so revolves around the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which bars the hiring of people without legal status. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that this federal law does not apply to government employers such as the UC system. Attorneys representing UC did not argue that the IRCA applies to public universities but said that the federal government might believe it does. In Tuesday's ruling, the three-judge panel noted that UC had the option to file a lawsuit against the federal government to secure a court ruling on whether the university system is subject to the IRCA. Under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy — better known as DACA — undocumented youth who were brought to the United States as children could get work permits. The UC system does allow the hiring of undocumented students with work authorization. President Trump, however, terminated the DACA program in 2017, and although courts have challenged that decision, the program is no longer accepting new applicants. There are now around 64,300 undocumented college students who are not eligible for DACA in California and, therefore, not eligible for work authorization — or campus jobs. 'As someone who was undocumented and a UC lecturer, I know firsthand the transformative power of on-campus work opportunities,' said plaintiff Iliana G. Perez in a statement on the court ruling. 'UC must now act with urgency to dismantle exclusionary policies and ensure all students, regardless of immigration status, can fully participate in their education, contribute to their campuses, and shape California's future.' Students and faculty began advocating for the UC system to open jobs to all students regardless of their immigration status in 2022. The UC regents established a working group to consider change its hiring policy in 2023, but the group suspended its work due to fear that doing so would violate the IRCA. A year later, the California Legislature passed the Opportunity for All Act, requiring state public universities to open up employment to all students, but Newsom vetoed the bill, citing legal concerns over the IRCA. This prompted the plaintiffs to file their lawsuit in October 2024 seeking a writ of mandate requiring the UC system to consider undocumented students for on-campus jobs. A court initially denied this request, but the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court, which then ordered the state Court of Appeal to rule on the merits of the case. The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in May and issued its ruling Tuesday.
Reuters
16-07-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Understanding California Employment Laws: Camron Dowlatshahi of MSD Lawyers Offers Expert Insight
LOS ANGELES, CA, July 8, 2025 (EZ Newswire) -- Camron Dowlatshahi, opens new tab, partner at MSD Lawyers, opens new tab, today shared insights on how to navigate California's employment law landscape, one of the most dynamic and complex in the United States. Staying informed about these regulations is not just a matter of best practice but a legal necessity for employers and employees. Navigating this intricate web requires a comprehensive understanding of state mandates, ranging from wage and hour laws to anti-discrimination statutes. Compliance is paramount for all businesses operating in the Golden State to avoid legal pitfalls and foster a positive work environment. Employees must also know their rights and protections under these laws to ensure rightful and fair treatment so they can advocate for themselves when necessary. Key Aspects of California Employment Law California employment law is unique due to its progressive nature and robust employee protections. Unlike federal law, which sets a baseline, California often goes further to safeguard workers' rights. For example, California's minimum wage consistently exceeds the federal level, and the state provides more expansive leave entitlements. These differences highlight the importance of focusing specifically on California law for anyone working or employing individuals within the state. Employers must be vigilant to ensure their current policies and practices align with these stringent state requirements, as non-compliance or complacency can lead to significant legal, reputational, and financial repercussions. Employees also benefit from understanding these enhanced protections, empowering them to recognize and address workplace violations. Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 2025, the new mandated minimum wage for all employers is $16.50 per hour, opens new tab. Additionally, fast food workers will earn $20.00 per hour, opens new tab starting April 1, 2024, under AB 1228. Certain healthcare workers earn between $18 and $25+ per hour, opens new tab in phases under SB 525. These sector-specific increases underscore the state's ongoing efforts to address wage equity across industries. Employee Protections California offers broad employee protections through the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which is now enforced by the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), opens new tab. FEHA covers various employment practices, including anti-discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination safeguards, ensuring that workers are treated fairly regardless of their status, background, or identity. Leave Entitlements California provides more generous leave entitlements than those required under federal law. For instance, SB 616 expands paid sick leave, opens new tab to five days or 40 hours annually. Additional leave provisions exist for circumstances such as family care, pregnancy, and issues related to domestic violence. Retaliation Protections Employees in California are legally protected from retaliation when they report workplace misconduct. This includes retaliation for reporting discrimination, harassment, unsafe working conditions, and wage violations or exercising their rights under various leave laws. These protections are critical to ensure employees can speak out without fear or danger of losing their jobs. Wrongful Termination Protections Under FEHA California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), now administered by the Civil Rights Department (CRD), is a cornerstone of employee protection against discrimination, harassment, and retaliatory termination. FEHA prohibits employers from wrongfully terminating employees based on several protected characteristics, ensuring a workplace free from bias. Protected categories include race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, medical condition, genetic information, pregnancy, religion, age (over 40), marital status, and more. California is an at-will employment state; hence, employers can terminate employees without cause, provided the reason is not illegal. However, FEHA offers essential limits for this doctrine. Discriminatory or retaliatory terminations are unlawful, and protections also extend to employees engaging in protected activities such as filing complaints or participating in lawful investigations. California law further recognizes "implied contracts," meaning that employer actions or assurances may create a reasonable expectation of continued employment, even absent a written contract. Additionally, the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows employees to rightfully file lawsuits on behalf of themselves and others for Labor Code violations, which may arise after reporting wrongful termination, opens new tab or other workplace misconduct, reflecting the state's strong commitment to labor rights enforcement. Expanded Protections: Cannabis, Intersectionality, and Safety As of January 1, 2024, under AB 2188, California prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees for off-duty cannabis use, opens new tab, provided it does not impair performance or safety-sensitive duties. Exceptions apply to federal contractors and safety-related roles. FEHA already protects against discrimination based on multiple overlapping characteristics (intersectionality), and recent CRD enforcement emphasizes this. Meanwhile, SB 553 (2023) requires California employers to implement written workplace violence prevention, opens new tab plans by July 1, 2024, highlighting a new era of proactive safety in employment law. Reimbursement and Remote Work California Labor Code §2802 requires all the state's employers to reimburse their employees for incurred necessary business expenses. For remote workers, this includes partial reimbursement of internet and phone expenses if essential for work. Resources for Employers and Employees Employers can access compliance resources from the California Chamber of Commerce and use HR management software like Gusto to automate payroll, track labor law updates, and maintain accurate employee records. The Society for Human Resource Management's (SHRM's) study notes that integrating HR tech can reduce compliance violations by up to 20 percent. For up-to-date guidance, employees should consult the official channels of the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) websites. Legal aid organizations provide support to workers facing wrongful termination or wage violations. Employees facing discrimination or retaliation should consult employment law attorneys early to understand their options. Stay Compliant and Empowered: Your Next Steps in California Employment Law California's employment laws are comprehensive and strongly favor employee protection, requiring careful attention from employers and workers. Understanding key factors such as wrongful termination protections under FEHA, minimum wage obligations, leave entitlements, expense reimbursements, and new safety mandates is essential to maintaining compliance. Now is the time to assess your workplace policies, update your employee handbooks, and consult with qualified legal counsel to ensure you're compliant and prepared for what's ahead. You can foster a compliant, equitable, and safe workplace by utilizing available tools and staying informed on legislative changes. Staying proactive is the best strategy to thrive in California's dynamic legal environment. About MSD Lawyers MSD Lawyers, based in downtown Los Angeles, is a litigation-focused law firm representing clients across the city's most dynamic industries. Our attorneys handle matters involving business litigation, employment disputes, real estate, and intellectual property. With experience representing everyone from Fortune 500 companies to individuals, we combine the resources of a high-level litigation team with the personalized service of a boutique firm. From case inception to trial, we aggressively protect our clients' interests at every stage. For more information, visit opens new tab. Media Contact Camron Dowlatshahi camron@ ### SOURCE: MSD Lawyers Copyright 2025 EZ Newswire See release on EZ Newswire
NDTV
24-06-2025
- Business
- NDTV
Fired For Natural Hair? Ex-In-N-Out Employee Sues Burger Chain For Rs 25 Crore
A former In-N-Out Burger employee has sued the fast food chain for at least Rs 25 crore ($3 million) in damages, alleging he was fired for his natural hair. Elijah Obeng, a California native, claims that he was racially discriminated against and terminated for his natural hair and texture. According to the court documents, Mr Obeng started working at an In-N-Out restaurant in June 2020 after graduating from high school and continued to work till he was terminated last year. Mr Obeng went to work in accordance with In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy. However, when his hair got longer, the management instructed him to cut or alter it to fit under the required uniform hat. In an attempt to comply with the policy, Mr Obeng braided his hair. Despite this, the management told him, in front of other employees, that he needed to cut his sideburns, which Mr Obeng found "humiliating and discriminatory". Upon not cutting the sideburns, court documents state, he began experiencing different treatment. He was punished for minor policy violations, like not attending work meetings, which Obeng claims his colleagues did not face, the lawsuit reads. 'Emotional distress' Mr Obeng is now seeking damages for "emotional distress, loss of employment, and punitive damages" due to the discriminatory practices he experienced at the workplace. "The complaint alleges that Obeng faced adverse employment actions due to his natural hair and cultural identity, which were in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and the CROWN Act," read the lawsuit. "This policy disproportionately burdened Black employees whose natural hair may not conform to such grooming standards." The CROWN Act, which is an official law in 27 states, including California, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of an employee's hairstyle or hair texture. In-N-Out, however, claims that Mr Obeng's employment was terminated due to prior write-ups.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ex-Costco worker who took leave to care for wife with cancer may proceed with disability bias claim
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A former Costco hourly sales employee may proceed with his lawsuit alleging that the retailer violated California's Fair Employment and Housing Act when it failed to accommodate his need to care for his wife, who had cancer, a federal judge held June 5. The plaintiff in Head v. Costco Wholesale Corp. took 'continuous leave' between March 2021 and June 2022 to care for his wife as well as his own medical condition. He exhausted all leave available under the Family and Medical Leave Act, California's Family Rights Act and Costco's own leave policies. He then asked that his leave be further extended to continue care for his wife, but Costco denied the request and ordered him to return to work in July 2022. The plaintiff ultimately resigned rather than return on the specified date. He sought reinstatement after his wife died but was denied. He filed several claims against Costco but, in a split verdict, the court held that only some of his claims could survive summary judgment, including failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The case highlights the complexities involved when state and federal leave laws intersect with an employer's own leave policies. Per the court, Costco's employee agreement with the plaintiff specified that the maximum continuous total amount of leave an employee may take — inclusive of both federal- and state-mandated leave, as well as Costco's own personal medical leave policy — is 12 months, except as required by law. The plaintiff's first block of continuous leave began in March 2021 and ended June 2021, when he took FMLA and CFRA leave to care for his wife and exhausted his leave allotment under both laws in the process. He then took approved personal medical leave to care for his own health condition from June 2021 to February 2022. Costco reached out to the plaintiff in February to inform him that his leave of absence was set to expire after one year. Per the court, the plaintiff responded by requesting an extension of his return date to February 2023 so that he could take care of his wife. Costco informed the plaintiff that he was not eligible for additional leave because he had not worked the requisite number of hours in the previous year to qualify for additional leave under either the FMLA or CFRA. The plaintiff ultimately sued, alleging in part that Costco violated FEHA by discriminating against him based on his association with a person who had a disability, his wife. The court found that no reasonable jury could find that a discriminatory animus motivated Costco's termination decision nor its failure to rehire the employee. But it also determined that a jury could find the employee had proposed a reasonable accommodation by offering a return date from leave. A genuine dispute of material fact existed, the court added, regarding whether Costco failed to engage in a good faith interactive process with the plaintiff as required under FEHA. Similarly, the court pointed to language in communications from Costco staff to the employee that suggested the company was willing to engage in an interactive process with him if he had been asking for leave for his own health condition but not if he had done so for his wife's condition. 'To be sure, the Court acknowledges that, overall, Costco extended family leave to [the plaintiff] (and for his wife) for periods of time that exceeded the FMLA/CFRA and Costco's policy, and thus Costco may assert it engaged in a good faith interactive process,' the court said. 'But this is an issue for the jury.' Leave extension requests historically present thorny issues for employers, and the manner in which courts weigh on such decisions may be fact-specific. For example, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2020 that an employee's request for a four-week extension of a 16-week medical leave was not unreasonable within the definition of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Meanwhile, the 5th Circuit held in 2021 that an employee who exhausted FMLA leave and did not provide a return date was not entitled to additional leave under the ADA. Recommended Reading Movie theater chain settles lawsuit alleging it halted workers' health insurance at age 65
USA Today
04-06-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Judge dismisses multiple claims in Vin Diesel sex abuse lawsuit from ex-assistant
Judge dismisses multiple claims in Vin Diesel sex abuse lawsuit from ex-assistant Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk faces allegations of workplace harassment at SpaceX Elon Musk has been accused of pursuing sexual relationships with women at SpaceX, including a former intern 20 years his junior. unbranded - Newsworthy Over a year after Vin Diesel was sued by a former assistant, who accused him of wrongful termination and sexual assault, the judge in the case is dismissing some of its most potent claims. In a tentative ruling on June 3, Judge Daniel M. Crowley agreed to dismiss four different claims of harassment made by Diesel's former employee Asta Jonasson. Jonasson, who originally sued the actor in December 2023, has alleged he sexually assaulted her in the fall of 2010 during the filming of "Fast Five," the fifth installment of his brand-making "Fast and Furious" franchise. She was then unceremoniously fired, she alleges, a claim that lies at the center of the parts of the lawsuit Crowley opted to dismiss. USA TODAY has reached out to lawyers for both Diesel and Jonasson for comment. 'The Fast and the Furious' turns 20: Vin Diesel recalls fixing Paul Walker's 'goofy lines' A technical rather than substantive error, Crowley ruled that because Jonasson levied her claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, she would have been required to file a complaint with the state's Civil Rights Division within a certain time frame. She would have had to file the complaint within a year of the incident, a deadline which came and went in 2011, Crowley wrote, calling it an "incurable procedural defect" that required he dismiss Jonasson's claims of a hostile work environment, discrimination, retaliation and a failure to prevent harassment on the part of Diesel and his company. While this week's ruling notches a small win for the action star, he will continue to face Jonasson's six other allegations, which include accusations of sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Vin Diesel to stay with 'Fast and Furious' franchise after sexual assault lawsuit What is Vin Diesel accused of? According to the original lawsuit, Jonasson was hired by Diesel's production company, One Race (also named in the suit), to work for him in various capacities, including accompanying the actor to parties and ensuring she was nearby in photos if the actor attended events without his longtime girlfriend. After a late night in September 2010, Jonasson's lawyers allege she was asked to wait for Diesel in his suite at the St. Regis hotel while he entertained hostesses from a club. When the women left, Diesel grabbed Jonasson's wrists and pulled her onto the bed, according to the lawsuit. She escaped and asked Diesel to leave, but he allegedly began to grope her breasts, kiss her chest and run his hands along her waist and upper legs, including her inner thighs. Jonasson was afraid to "forcibly refuse her superior" for her personal safety and job security, but after Diesel moved to pull down her underwear, Jonasson screamed and ran down a hallway. According to the lawsuit, Diesel pinned her to the wall and placed her hand on his genitals and then masturbated, while "terrified, Ms. Jonasson closed her eyes, trying to dissociate from the sexual assault and avoid angering him," according to the suit. Hours later, Diesel's sister and president of One Race, Samantha Vincent, called Jonasson to fire her after fewer than two weeks on the job, the suit says. Though Jonasson signed a nondisclosure agreement when she accepted the position, she was able to file the claims because of the Speak Out Act, which prevents the enforcement of nondisclosure agreements in instances of sexual assault and assault and harassment, and California's AB2777, which temporarily waives statutes of limitations for sexual abuse allegations occurring in 2009 or later. Contributing: Melissa Ruggieri, Bryan Alexander, USA TODAY If you or someone you know has experienced sexual violence, RAINN's National Sexual Assault Hotline offers free, confidential, 24/7 support to survivors and their loved ones in English and Spanish at: (4673) and and en Español
