employment discrimination Tag

21 Nov Proving employment discrimination

Posted at 15:24h in California Law, Disability Discrimination, Employment Discrimination, Hiring Preference, Pregnancy, Race Discrimination, sex discrimination, Wrongful Termination

Proving employment discrimination can be challenging. Most employers won't openly admit to discriminating against you. But that doesn't mean they haven't done so. Nor does it mean you can't prove that they did. You can still use circumstantial evidence to prove discrimination in court. Unfortunately, employers can sometimes convince a judge to throw out a lawsuit before it gets to a jury if there's not enough evidence. So how do you prove your case to the judge when you don't have any direct evidence of discrimination? And how do you convince a jury your employer discriminated against you when the employer can deny they did? Proving employment discrimination through direct evidence The first way of proving employment discrimination is through direct evidence of discriminatory animus. If your employer fired you and explicitly said it was because of your skin color, that's direct evidence of discrimination. In this instance, proving discrimination would simply mean proving what the employer said. If you have direct evidence of discrimination, that should be enough evidence to get you to the jury. If the jury believes that evidence, you're in a good position to win your case. But this is not typical. Usually, the employer offers some legitimate reason for taking the action it took. This can be anything, but it common examples are performance or trying to save money on labor. Even if the reason the employer gives is obviously untrue, you still don't have the same direct evidence of discrimination. In these cases, the employer will often file a motion asking the court to dismiss the case because there's no evidence of discrimination. So how do you prove discrimination in such cases? McDonald Douglas burden shifting Fortunately, the second way to prove employment discrimination, called the McDonald Douglas test, is made for these types of cases. This Supreme Court created this test in McDonald Douglas v. Green, hence the name. The Supreme Court created this test to help analyze cases lacking direct evidence of discrimination. Here's how it works. Initially, the plaintiff has the burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must show (1) that she was the member of a protected class, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action (e.g. firing, demotions, etc.), (3) that she was qualified, and (4) that similarly situated employees not within her protected class were treated more favorably. For example, if you are an African-American who was terminated despite being qualified and performing adequately, while similarly situated non-African-Americans were not terminated, you would have a prima facie case of discrimination. This is a fairly easy standard to meet. You just need some evidence of each element. Once the employee has established a prima facie case, the employer has the burden to offer a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Once, it does, the burdens flips back to the employee to show that the employer's offered reason was not actually what motivated it. If you can provide some evidence that the reason the employer offers wasn't the real reason, the judge should let your case go to the jury. Proving discrimination to a jury Once you get to the jury, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence goes away. You simply use whatever evidence you have to convince the jury that the employer took action against you for an unlawful reason. Of course, direct evidence is best. But you wont have that in most cases. At this stage, there's all sorts of ways to convince the jury. How you do so depends on the facts of your case. For example, say the employer insists they fired you because you were not performing well. In that case, you could use a recent positive performance review to show that's not a credible reason. Likewise, if your boss made derogatory comments about you, that's evidence that the employer's decisions was based on a discriminatory motive. If you believe your employer has discriminated against you, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram....

30 Oct You’re Unlikely to Pay Defendant’s Expenses

Posted at 17:53h in Attorney's Fees, California Law, Federal Law, FEHA

You're unlikely to pay defendant's expenses, even if you lose your harassment, discrimination, or retaliation case. This is a concern many people have when they consider suing their employer. While it's not technically impossible, it's very unlikely in practice. In general, you're unlikely to pay defendant's expenses (at least their attorney's fees) in the United States Many non-lawyers assume that if you lose a lawsuit, you have to pay for the opposing party's expenses. But this is generally not the case in the United States. Under the American Rule, each party pays their own attorneys. This default rule applies unless a statute or contract says otherwise. Statutes that require a losing party to pay for the winning party's expenses are called shifting statutes. Shifting statutes: Exception to the American Rule Shifting statutes apply to certain types of legal claims. For example, you can get attorney's fees if you win a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. That's because that law specifically says you can. If it didn't, both sides would pay their own attorneys, regardless of outcome. Conversely, if you're injured in a car accident and sue the other driver for negligence, you'll probably have to pay your own attorney, even if you win. Likewise, if you lose, the other driver will still pay her own attorneys. That's because no shifting statute applies to negligence lawsuits in California. Another exception to the American Rule is contracts. Some contracts say that if one party sues the other in connection with the contract, the loser pays the winner's expenses. But this more common in commercial settings. If you're suing your employer for discrimination, you're not suing to enforce a contract, so this less of a concern in a typical employment case. Lastly, as a practical matter, most cases settle before trial. Shifting statutes only apply once trial is over. But very few cases make it that far. So even when a shifting statute applies, the case usually settles before it comes into play. If a case settles before a verdict, each side typically pays their own attorneys. Asymmetrical fee and cost shifting in Title VII and FEHA Even if an exception to the American Rule applies, there is an exception to the exception for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases in California. If you're bringing a lawsuit in California for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at work, you're likely bringing it under Title VII or the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA). Title VII is federal law and the FEHA is state law. They have some differences, but both prohibit discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at work. Title VII and FEHA both provide for asymmetrical fee and cost shifting (fees are what you pay your attorney, costs are other expenses). Asymmetrical shifting schemes make it easier for one side to recover fees and costs. Under both Title VII and FEHA, a victorious plaintiff can recover both fees and costs from the defendant. But a victorious defendant cannot recover fees or costs from a plaintiff unless the plaintiff's case is frivolous (courts very rarely find that a case is frivolous). This gets a bit tricky because California has a statute that allows prevailing parties to collect costs (but not attorney's fees) from the losing party. But Title VII and the FEHA are exceptions to this rule. Accordingly, while California's default rule entitles a prevailing defendant to costs, this is not the case with non-frivolous Title VII or FEHA claims. Talk to an employment attorney about your potential discrimination, harassment, or retaliation case In summary, Title VII or FEHA plaintiffs are unlikely to pay the defendant's expenses, even if they lose. As such, the risk of bearing the employer's expenses should not prevent you from pursuing a legitimate claim for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. This is why the asymmetrical shifting scheme exists. The drafters of Title VII and the FEHA didn't want fear of having to pay defendant's expenses to scare plaintiffs away. Of course, this is only one of many things to consider before suing your employer. But don't let fear of losing and paying the defendant's expenses prevent you from having a lawyer evaluate your case. If you need an attorney for an employment matter, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram....

14 Oct Title VII Sex Discrimination Oral Arguments

Posted at 14:08h in Employment Discrimination, sex discrimination, Wrongful Termination

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two landmark Title VII sex discrimination cases on October 8, 2019. The two cases involve whether Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court's decisions in these cases could transform federal employment discrimination law. Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia: Does Title VII's sex discrimination provision prevent employers from discriminating against gay employees? The first of the cases was Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia. This case is actually two cases that the court consolidated because they raise the same issue. The Bostock plaintiff was an employee of Clayton County in Georgia. When the county found out he was gay, it fired him. The Plaintiff sued the county, arguing it unlawfully discriminated against him for being gay. The county argued that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation. At the Supreme Court, the plaintiff's argument started with the text of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination "because of...

03 Oct Court case on gay, transgender employment discrimination

Posted at 13:07h in California Law, Employment Discrimination, Federal Law, FEHA, LGBTQ, Protected Categories, Title VII

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....