Author: Cody Bolce

Title VII Supreme Court case

03 Oct Court case on gay, transgender employment discrimination

The Supreme Court will decide whether discrimination against gay and transgender employees is illegal under federal law. The Court has agreed to hear three cases on the issues in the fall term. The cases involve Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on protected classes such as race, gender, and national origin. In these cases, the Court will decide whether Title VII makes sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes. Lower courts are divided on whether employment discrimination against gay and transgender workers is unlawful under Title VII Courts are split on whether Title VII protects gay and transgender employees. Most courts have found Title VII does not protect sexual orientation and gender identity. Where this is the law, employers can discriminate against gay and transgender people. For example, an employer can fire an employee for being gay. Some courts, however, say Title VII does protect gay and transgender workers. This means that gay and transgender employees can sue their employers for employment discrimination under Title VII. Therefore, whether federal law protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination currently depends on location. In some places it does, in other places it does not. The Supreme Court's decision will set the law for the whole country. Many states do not have laws prohibiting employment discrimination against gay and transgender people Title VII is federal law so it applies across the entire country. Because many states do not have strong employment discrimination laws, Title VII is very important. If you live in a state that does not protect gay or transgender employees, Title VII is your only protection. Therefore, millions of gay and transgender Americans will be left with no protection if the Supreme Court decides Title VII does not protect them. The Court will hear arguments on gay and transgender employment discrimination on October 8 The court will hear oral arguments in these cases on October 8, 2019. Next, the Court will issue decisions. This will likely happen in the next several months. However, it's possible the Court could dodge the issue and resolve the cases on procedural grounds. Accordingly, the Court may not definitely resolve the issues raised in these cases at this time. The Supreme Court will decide whether employers can discriminate against gay and transgender workers under federal law only Fortunately, California law does protect gay and transgender people from employment discrimination. Therefore, whatever the Supreme Court decides, California law will still protect gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination. If you believe an employer has discriminated against you, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For updates on these cases and more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram....

Read More
New Uber bill

30 Sep New bill that would make Uber and Lyft drivers employees

The California State Senate has passed Assembly Bill 5, a new bill that would make Uber and Lyft drivers employees, likely turning Uber and Lyft drivers into employees. If signed into law, the bill would restrict the use of independent contractors. Such a change would profoundly impact California's labor market. In particular, AB 5 would affect thousands of gig economy workers. This includes Uber and Lyft drivers and couriers for delivery apps such as Postmates and DoorDash. It could also affect Amazon warehouse workers and delivery drivers. New rules for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor AB5 codifies and expands the California Supreme Court’s groundbreaking 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Charles Lee. In that case, the court adopted a new test for determining when a worker is an employee. Under the new "ABC Test," a worker is presumed an employee and will deemed so unless the employer proves that: (1) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; (2) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (3) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. Uber and Lyft do not treat their workers as employees, but AB 5 would likely require them to do so Under previous law, employers could usually treat workers as independent contractors as long as they did not exercise direct control over workers’ schedules and tasks. This regime allows companies such as Uber, Lyft, Postmates, and DoorDash to treat their drivers and couriers as independent contractors. Under the rule codified in AB 5, companies must show that the worker performs work outside of the core of their business. Because transporting people is so central to Uber and Lyft’s business, it will be difficult for such companies to avoid treating their workers as employees. The effects of being an independent contractor are significant While it may see like a subtle distinction, the practical effects of being an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, are significant. Many labor and employment laws apply only to employees. For example, in some circumstances, companies can pay independent contractors below minimum wage. Additionally, employers must also carry workers’ compensation insurance to cover all employees, but not independent contractors. Perhaps most critically, much of the state and federal law that prohibits employment discrimination does not apply to independent contractors. Accordingly, independent contractors often have no legal recourse for harassment and discrimination. Unsurprisingly, misclassification is common in California. The Department of Industrial Relations estimates that misclassification costs the State $7 billion per year in lost payroll tax revenue. Even if the governor signs AB 5 into law, employers will undoubtedly continue to misclassify workers. Uber and Lyft say they wont classify drivers as employees Uber and Lyft have already announced that they do not plan to reclassify their drivers as employees if the bill becomes law. They argue that they are technology companies, not transportation companies. Therefore, they contend that their drivers do not perform tasks that are core to their business. If AB 5 becomes law, this argument will surely be tested in court. AB 5 now goes to Governor Newsom, who is expected to sign it into law AB 5 now goes to Governor Gavin Newsom for signature. Newsom has already announced his support for the bill and will likely sign it. AB 5 would go into effect on January 1, 2020. For updates on AB 5 and more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram. If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, contact the Khadder Law Firm for a free consultation....

Read More
New trial in preganancy discrimination lawsuit against the French Laundry

30 Sep Court grants new trial in French Laundry discrimination suit

The Khadder Law Firm is pleased to announce that the Honorable Judge Victoria Wood of Napa County Superior Court has granted a Khadder Law Firm client a new trial in her pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against renowned Chef Thomas Keller, The French Laundry, and the Thomas Keller Restaurant Group. For several years, our client worked at Per Se, a Keller restaurant in New York. During a 2016 visit to California, she became interested in transferring to The French Laundry in Yountville. After speaking with management at The French Laundry, our client believed she had secured a position there. Before starting at The French laundry, she discovered she was pregnant. After The French Laundry learned of the pregnancy, it told our client it had no position for her. The French Laundry then denied that it ever offered our client a transfer. She retained the Khadder Law Firm and filed suit in Napa County Superior Court in September 2016. After a month-long trial during May and June of 2019, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on each of our client's four claims. The Khadder Law Firm, along with our co-counsel, moved the court for a new trial. On September 5, 2019, Judge Wood ordered a new trial as to each of our client's four claims. Judge Wood’s order acknowledges significant irregularities in the jury deliberation process. Additionally, Judge Wood found multiple instances of attorney misconduct by the defense. Based on the strength of our client's evidence and the jury verdict, Judge Wood concluded that these irregularities were prejudicial and that “a new trial is most certainly warranted.” As of now, the court has not set a date for the new trial. For updates on this and more, follow us Twitter and Instagram. If you believe you have been the victim of pregnancy discrimination, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation....

Read More