Latest news with #FEHA
Reuters
7 days ago
- 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
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
See - Sada Elbalad
04-06-2025
- Business
- See - Sada Elbalad
Judge Dismisses Four Claims in Assistant's Sexual Lawsuit against Vin Diesel, Some Remain
Yara Sameh Vin Diesel got a court to throw out four employment discrimination claims against him on Tuesday, but still faces allegations of sexual battery and wrongful termination brought by a former assistant. The assistant, Asta Jonasson, sued Diesel in 2023, alleging that he had accused the actor of groping her, forcibly kissing her, and faping in front of her in his hotel room in Atlanta in 2010. She claimed the alleged assault took place just over a week after Diesel and his production company, One Race Productions, hired her while filming Fast Five. Jonasson also claimed the production company fired her the next day in retaliation for resisting Diesel's advances. Diesel's lawyers previously stated that the actor denied 'generally and specifically, each and every allegation' leveled by Jonasson. Per the suit, Jonasson cited California's AB2777, which, like New York's Adult Survivors Act, allows some sexual misconduct claims to be filed in civil court regardless of whether the statute of limitations had passed. In addition to claims of sexual battery, wrongful termination, claims of retaliation, negligent supervision and retention, and infliction of emotional distress, Jonasson also sued Diesel for four claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). However, plaintiffs must first file an administrative complaint with the state Civil Rights Department (CRD) before they can file a lawsuit under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This gives the CRD time to evaluate the allegations and decide whether to accept the case for investigation. Diesel's attorneys argued that Jonasson's administrative complaint, required under FEHA, was submitted after the one-year deadline, and claimed California's extension of the statute of limitations for sexual assault lawsuits does not apply to administrative filings. Judge Daniel M. Crowley agreed with Diesel's lawyers and dismissed the four FEHA claims. 'Plaintiff's FEHA claims are time-barred because she failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a CRD complaint within one year of the alleged adverse action, a jurisdictional requirement for a FEHA lawsuit,' Crowley wrote in Tuesday's ruling. Following the dismissal, Diesel's attorney, Bryan Freedman, said, 'It is unfortunate that a person who worked for the company for less than two weeks 15 years ago in another state is allowed to use the California court system to assert such baseless claims.' He added, 'Next, we will present irrefutable evidence that the remaining fictitious allegations alleged herein did not occur and finally end what remains of this maliciously filed lawsuit.' Matthew T. Hale, an attorney for Jonasson, commented, 'While we respectfully disagree with the court's decision on this limited legal issue, the Court made no factual findings that impact the remaining causes of action in this case. We will continue to advocate vigorously on behalf of our client, who remains committed to seeking justice.' read more New Tourism Route To Launch in Old Cairo Ahmed El Sakka-Led Play 'Sayidati Al Jamila' to Be Staged in KSA on Dec. 6 Mandy Moore Joins Season 2 of "Dr. Death" Anthology Series Don't Miss These Movies at 44th Cairo Int'l Film Festival Today Amr Diab to Headline KSA's MDLBEAST Soundstorm 2022 Festival Arts & Culture Mai Omar Stuns in Latest Instagram Photos Arts & Culture "The Flash" to End with Season 9 Arts & Culture Ministry of Culture Organizes four day Children's Film Festival Arts & Culture Canadian PM wishes Muslims Eid-al-Adha News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier News Australia Fines Telegram $600,000 Over Terrorism, Child Abuse Content Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Sports Neymar Announced for Brazil's Preliminary List for 2026 FIFA World Cup Qualifiers News Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouly Inaugurates Two Indian Companies Arts & Culture New Archaeological Discovery from 26th Dynasty Uncovered in Karnak Temple Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War Arts & Culture Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks News Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan
News18
04-06-2025
- General
- News18
Vin Diesel Cleared of 4 Discrimination Charges, Still Faces Sexual Battery Lawsuit
Last Updated: A Los Angeles judge dismissed 4 employment discrimination claims against Vin Diesel, but allegations of sexual battery and wrongful termination by a former assistant remain active. Actor Vin Diesel no longer faces four discrimination-related charges in a lawsuit filed against him. However, the case is far from over. A Los Angeles judge dropped those specific claims on June 3, 2025, though more serious allegations, including sexual battery and wrongful termination, are still being considered in court. The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by Asta Jonasson, who once worked as Diesel's assistant. She accused him of sexually assaulting her in 2010, saying he 'pinned her against a wall in a hotel suite and masturbated in front of her." Normally, a claim this old would be dismissed due to time limits. But a new California law has allowed the case to move forward. Signed in 2023 by Governor Gavin Newsom, the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act makes it possible for survivors to bring back certain sexual assault claims that happened as far back as 2009. Still, not all of Jonasson's claims could continue. Judge Daniel M. Crowley ruled that four of them—specifically under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)—were invalid because Jonasson didn't file a complaint with the state's Civil Rights Department within the one-year deadline. In his statement, Judge Crowley explained: 'Plaintiff's FEHA claims are time-barred because she failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a CRD complaint within one year of the alleged adverse action, a jurisdictional requirement for a FEHA lawsuit." The dismissal only applies to the FEHA-related claims, including workplace discrimination. Other parts of the lawsuit—such as sexual battery, wrongful termination, retaliation, negligent supervision, and emotional distress—are still active and will go to court. Vin Diesel's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, denied all of Jonasson's claims. In a statement to People, he said, 'We will present irrefutable evidence that the remaining fictitious allegations alleged herein did not occur and finally end what remains of this maliciously filed lawsuit." Though the case has been trimmed down, it's far from finished. The court will now focus on the remaining, more serious allegations, and both sides are preparing for the next steps, which may uncover more information about the incident and Diesel's role. First Published:
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Judge Dismisses Four Claims in Ex-Assistant's Sexual Battery Lawsuit Against Vin Diesel
Vin Diesel had four claims dismissed on Tuesday in a lawsuit brought by his former assistant, but still faces sexual battery and wrongful termination allegations. Asta Jonasson sued Diesel in 2023 and accused the actor of groping her, forcibly kissed her, and masturbating in front of her in his hotel room in Atlanta in 2010. The former assistant claimed the alleged assault took place just over a week after Diesel and his production company, One Race Productions, hired her while filming Fast Five. Jonasson also claimed the production company fired her the next day in retaliation for resisting Diesel's advances. More from Rolling Stone Tom Girardi Sentenced to 7 Years in Prison for Embezzling Millions From Clients Sean Combs' Accuser Thalia Graves Wins Fight to Dismiss Bodyguard's Defamation Suit Sean Combs Trial: Hotel Security Guard Details Alleged $100,000 Bribe for Cassie Assault Video Diesel's lawyers previously stated that the actor denied 'generally and specifically, each and every allegation' leveled by Jonasson. Per the suit, Jonasson cited California's AB2777, which, like New York's Adult Survivors Act, allows some sexual misconduct claims to be filed in civil court regardless of whether the statute of limitations had passed. In addition to claims of sexual battery and wrongful termination, Jonasson sued Diesel for four claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). However, plaintiffs must first file an administrative complaint with the state Civil Rights Department (CRD) before they can file a lawsuit under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This gives the CRD time to evaluate the allegations and decide whether to accept the case for investigation. Diesel's attorneys argued that Jonasson's administrative complaint, required under FEHA, was submitted after the one-year deadline, and claimed California's extension of the statute of limitations for sexual assault lawsuits does not apply to administrative filings. Judge Daniel M. Crowley agreed with Diesel's lawyers and dismissed the four FEHA claims. 'Plaintiff's FEHA claims are time-barred because she failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a CRD complaint within one year of the alleged adverse action, a jurisdictional requirement for a FEHA lawsuit,' Crowley wrote in Tuesday's ruling. Following the dismissal, Diesel's attorney Bryan Freedman told People, 'It is unfortunate that a person who worked for the company for less than two weeks 15 years ago in another state is allowed to use the California court system to assert such baseless claims.' He added, 'Next, we will present irrefutable evidence that the remaining fictitious allegations alleged herein did not occur and finally end what remains of this maliciously filed lawsuit.' In a statement to Rolling Stone, Matthew T. Hale, an attorney for Jonasson, said, 'While we respectfully disagree with the court's decision on this limited legal issue, the Court made no factual findings that impact the remaining causes of action in this case. We will continue to advocate vigorously on behalf of our client, who remains committed to seeking justice.'Best of Rolling Stone The 50 Best 'Saturday Night Live' Characters of All Time Denzel Washington's Movies Ranked, From Worst to Best 70 Greatest Comedies of the 21st Century
