Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Attorney

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination relating to Sexual Harassment

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination lawyers protect employees from sexual harassment.

For additional information please visit our Los Angeles Sexual Harassment website.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act among others. The laws apply to Los Angeles employers, including state and local governments. It also applies to Los Angeles employment agencies and to Los Angeles labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sex-Based Discrimination under Los Angeles Employment Laws

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Employment Attorneys, represent their clients and seek protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which protect Los Angeles Employees against employment discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin, and religion. Title VII and FEHA applies to most Los Angeles employers, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations. It is unlawful for Los Angeles employers to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of his/her sex in regard to hiring, termination, promotion, compensation, job training, or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment. Title VII and FEHA also prohibit Los Angeles employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of individuals on the basis of sex. Title VII and FEHA prohibit both intentional discrimination and neutral job policies that disproportionately exclude individuals on the basis of sex and that are not job related.

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Lawyers Protecting Employees from Race/Color or National Origin Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protect Los Angeles employees against employment discrimination on the bases of race and color, as well as national origin, sex, and religion. Title VII and FEHA apply to most employers with including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations. Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied any person because of his/her racial group or perceived racial group, his/her race-linked characteristics (e.g., hair texture, color, facial features), or because of his/her marriage to or association with someone of a particular race or color. Title VII and FEHA also prohibit employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of individuals of certain racial groups. Title VII's and FEHA's prohibitions apply regardless of whether the discrimination is directed at Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Arabs, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, multi-racial individuals, or persons of any other race, color, or ethnicity.

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Employment Lawyers providing protection from Age Discrimination

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects Los Angeles employees who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA's protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing an age discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA. Los Angeles Attorneys providing protection from Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy for Whistleblowing/Opposing Illegal Conduct.

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Employment lawyers, protect Los Angeles employees and apply the laws that prohibit the termination of employees in violation of numerous public policies. These include "whistleblowing," which is an employer's retaliation for an employee reporting an employer's illegal activities or refusing to participate in illegal activities.

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Employment and Disability Discrimination Lawyers

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibit private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations. The ADA's nondiscrimination standards also apply to federal sector employees under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, and its implementing rules.

An individual with a disability is a person who:

Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; Has a record of such an impairment; or Is regarded as having such an impairment.

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Employment and Retaliation Lawyers

An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination. The same laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability, as well as wage differences between men and women performing substantially equal work, also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding.

Wrongful Termination or Wrongful Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination and Evidence Gathering and Employer Investigation

An employer must conduct a good faith investigation regarding the basis for discharging employee. Sheppard v. Freeman, 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 346 (1998), [Wrongful discharge case]; citing to Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Internat., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 107-108; "Some of the information exchanged will be incorrect, even maliciously so. Thus, it will behoove the employer to be thorough in its investigation and analysis relating to personnel actions, not only to avoid civil liability and costly grievance procedures, but to retain and reward good employees and to root out those who are dishonest or who act with ulterior motives which undermine the effective operation of the company." Freeman, 67 Cal.App.4th at 346.

"'Good Cause' means 'fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of the employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary, or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual.' A reasoned conclusion, in short, supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond." Cotran , 17 Cal.4th at 108.

As Justice Stanley Mosk warned in his concurring opinion in Conran, "[t]he requirement that an employee receive notice and an opportunity to be heard is not fulfilled by a charade of due process by an employer that has already made up its mind..." Id. at 110.

"We thus recognize that a basic ingredient of the 'fair procedure' required under the common law is that an individual who will be adversely affected by a decision be afforded some meaningful opportunity to be heard in his defense. adequate notice of the 'charges' ... and a reasonable opportunity to respond." Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 541, 555

Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Pretext or Subterfuge Layoff

A layoff is defined under California law as "a separation from a position due to lack of funds or lack of work." Lab.Code §1400(c).

"[A] layoff is the result of financial exigency, not the actions of a particular employee, good or bad." Duncan v. Department of Personnel Administration , 77 Cal.App.4th 1166 (2000)

[Experienced female "laid off" for "budgetary reasons" and replaced by inexperienced males after being advised not to get pregnant and then getting pregnant; altogether shows evidence of a pretextual layoff.] Sasco Electric v. California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, 176 Cal.App.4th 532, 542 (2009)

"In RIF (reduction in force) cases, a plaintiff can "show through circumstantial, statistical or direct evidence that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of . . . discrimination."

E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 577 F.3d 1044, 1049-1050 (9th Cir. 2009) This can be shown by discriminatory animus. Id. at 1050 " 'co-workers assessment[s]' of a plaintiffs work should be considered because they can be "clearly probative of pretext." Id. at 1051.

A bona fide layoff in shown where the employer acts in good faith and the eliminated position was not filled by a new hire. Clutterham v. Coachman Ind., Inc. 169 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227 (1985).

The "lay off" of an employee and concurrent transferring of their responsibilities to another employee, then later hiring a different person upon justification that the position now required more experience than the "laid off" employee had is consistent with a pretextual layoff. Linclon v. Interior Regional Housing Authority S-9274 (Ak 2001) [Reversing summary judgment to employer.]

A pretextual layoff may be shown where the reduction in force was really "a personal agenda to terminate a particular employee." Franks v. Magnolia Hospital (N.D.Miss. 1995) 888 F.Supp. 1310, 1315-1316.

Pretext In General and Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Attorneys A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case either by meeting the four-part test laid out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), or by providing direct evidence suggesting that the employment decision was based on an impermissible criterion, Cordova v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 124 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 1997). Once a prima facie case has been made, "[t]he burden of production, but not persuasion, then shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action." Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000). If the employer does so, the plaintiff must then show that the articulated reason is pretextual "either directly by persuading the [fact-finder] that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089. When the evidence is direct, "`[w]e require very little evidence to survive summary judgment' in a discrimination case." Lam v. Univ. of Hawaii, 40 F.3d 1551, 1564 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. Coll. Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 1991)) (alteration in original). "But when the plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must be specific and substantial to defeat the employer's motion for summary judgment." Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co. LLC, 413 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 577 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2009).

A proffered explanation is "unworthy of credence" if it is "internally inconsistent or otherwise not believable." Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). "Substantial evidence" is evidence of "`ponderable legal significance.'" People v. Bassett (1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 138-139. "`It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.'" (Id. at p. 139

"[F]undamentally different justifications for an employer's action . . . give rise to a genuine issue of fact with respect to pretext since they suggest the possibility that neither of the official reasons was the true reason." Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1994).

A pretext may be shown with circumstantial evidence that is specific, substantial and contradictory. See Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1029 (9th Cir. 2006). Showing disparate treatment or policy enforcement is a permissible means to establish pretext. Wills v. Sup. Cty. of Orange Cty, 194 Cal.App.4th 312, 340 (2011) To establish pretext in this manner, a plaintiff must identify other similarly situated employees not terminated. Another employee is similarly situated if, among other things, he or she "`engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating or distinguishing circumstances." Id. at 241.

An employer pretext is shown where the stated reasons for the discharge are "shifting, retracted, or conflicting." Villarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002); "Pretext may be demonstrated by showing'. . . that the proffered reason had no basis in fact, the proffered reason did not actually motivate the discharge, or, the proffered reason was insufficient to motivate [the] discharge." Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 215, 224.

A poor performance justification for termination is undermined by evidence of good performance reviews, hostility of person who performed final review, close temporal proximity to protected activity, and hostile remarks by supervisor]; Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 156-157. A poor performance justification for termination undermined by evidence of hostile remarks and disparate treatment of similarly situated employees.] Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 803, 816-817

The discrepancies and changes in the justification given by the defendant for the ending of employment would give a reasonable juror good cause to find that the explanations by the employer were pretexts. E.E.O.C. v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116, 120 (2nd Cir. 1994),

A pretext may be shown where the company's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cos. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2001)

("[A] flimsy or unsupported explanation may affirmatively suggest that the employer has seized upon a pretext to mask an anti-union motivation."). NLRB v. Dillon Stores, 643 F.2d 687, 693 (10th Cir. 1981)

To establish pretext, "very little" direct evidence of discriminatory motive is sufficient, but if circumstantial evidence is offered, such evidence has to be "specific" and "substantial." Godwin v. Hunt Wesson Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998).

[An unwarranted reduction in performance review scores can constitute evidence of pretext in retaliation cases.] Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1377 (9th Cir. 1987),

Little v. Windermre Relocation, Inc., 265 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 2001), [finding that the temporal proximity of the events, the fact that the plaintiff had received only positive feedback prior to the adverse employment action, and the plaintiff's description of her direct supervisor's surprise at the adverse action sufficed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to pretext that the jury should resolve).

Diaz v. Eagle, 521 F.3d 1201, 1214 (9th Cir. 2008), "Deviation from established policy or practice may be evidence of pretext."

Elements of a Los Angeles Wrongful Termination or Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy Claim

Employment relationships are fundamentally contractual. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 654, 696

Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., Inc., 27 Cal.3d 167, "{A]n employers traditional broad authority to discharge at will may be limited by statute, or by public policy." Id. at 172; The employer's obligation to refrain from discharging an employee in violation of public policy.reflects a duty imposed by law on all employers." Id. at 176

The elements of a wrongful discharge claim in violation of public policy are: a) An employer-employee relationship;
b) Termination or other adverse action;
c) The termination was a violation of public policy. or a nexus exists
between the termination and the employee's protected activity
d) The nature and extend of the Plaintiff's damage
e) The termination was the legal cause of the plaintiff's damage
Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp., 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1426 (1993)

Cases re Supporting Elements to a Public Policy Violation

a) Based on either constitutional, statutory or ethical rules or regulations enacted under statutory authority. Green v. Ralee Eng.Co., 19 Cal.4th 66, 79 (1998)

b) Public in that it inures to the benefit of the "public" rather than merely serving the interests of the individual; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.,47 Cal.3d 654, 669-670 (1988) "as courts and commentators alike have noted, the cases in which violations of public policy are found generally fall into four categories: (1) refusing to violate a statute [citations]; (2) performing a statutory obligation [citation]; (3) exercising a statutory right or privilege, and (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance [citations]." (Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 1090-1091.

c) The issue is whether permitting an employer to discharge an employee for exercising that right would undermine a "`clearly mandated public policy'" embodied in the provision from which that right emanates. Green, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 90.

d) Must be a well established public policy at the time of the discharge; The public policy must be "rooted in" or "tethered" to policies delineated in a specific constitutional or statutory provision. Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1095. "`[t]he term "public policy" is inherently not subject to precise definition,'" we interpreted the term to mean "`"that principle of law which holds that no citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good." Id. at 1094.

d) Substantial and fundamental. Stevenson v Huntington Mem. Hosp, 16 Cal. 4th 880, 894 (1997)

e) Includes claims based on state and federal law. Green v. Ralee Eng.Co., 19 Cal.4th at 37-38

f) The at-will employee possesses a tort action when he or she is discharged for performing an act that public policy would encourage, or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn Gentry, 1 Cal4th at 1092.

g) The public policy must be "delineated" or described in detail in the statute. Sequoia Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1480; Gentry, 1 Cal4th at 1095.

h) Ethical rules prescribed by the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the State Bar pursuant to Cal.Bus.& Prof. Code 6076, 6077 invoke public policy. Altschul v. Sayble, 83 Cal.App.3d 153, 160-163 (1978), citing to Ames v. State Bar, 8 Cal.3d 910, 917 (1973); General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.4th 1164, 1182 (1994), ""fundamental public policies reflected in the governing ethical code [for attorneys]."

i) Soules v. Cadam, Inc. (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 390, 401, an action for tortious discharge is not strictly limited to these situations but will lie "wherever the basis of the discharge contravenes a fundamental public policy."

j) Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc., 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1148 1149 (1005), [criminalization of employment fraud reflects broad public interest]

k) "[A]lthough the public policy served by the conduct of the aggrieved employee at issue may often be directly protective of the interest in employment itself, the doctrinal foundation of the public policy tort claim is not so much the plaintiff's continued interest in employment as the preservation of the public interest as it is expressed in multiple forms in the Constitution and statutory law." General Dynamics Corp., supra, at p. 1181

Other Cases Wrongful Termination Cases

General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1164, 1188 (General Dynamics ), [under most circumstances, an in-house attorney could maintain "a retaliatory discharge claim against his or her employer ... [if] the attorney was discharged for following a mandatory ethical obligation prescribed by professional rule or statute.]

Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 613, [legislative' decisions involve the adoption of a broad, generally applicable rule of conduct on the basis of a general public policy.]

Altschul v. Sayble, 83 Cal.App.3d 153, 160-161 (1978), "the State Bar's incorporation by reference of the ethical criteria of the ABA Code could reasonably be construed as the equivalent of expressing public policy on legal ethics, notwithstanding the fact that only violation of State Bar Rules was subject to disciplinary action.

"The Rules are not only ethical standards to guide the conduct of members of the bar; but they also serve as an expression of public policy to protect the public." Ames v. State Bar, 8 Cal.3d 910, 917 (1973)

Redress for injury to reputation is an ancient right recognized as a fundamental public policy through centuries of common law, statutes (Civ. Code, § 46, and its predecessor since 1872) and the California Constitution (art. I, § 2, subd. (a)). Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 743-744

California Supreme Court in Safeway Stores v. Retail Clerks etc. Assn., 41 Cal.2d 567, 574-575, "It is true that questions of public policy are primarily for the legislative department to determine. But it is also true that when neither the Constitution nor the Legislature has spoken on the subject the courts may make the declaration."

District courts have clear statutory authority to promulgate rules governing the admission and conduct of attorneys who appear before them. Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 645 (1987). The Central District of California has adopted the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the decisions applicable to the Act and Rules. C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-3.1.2 Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., n.3

Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 303 (9th Cir. 1996); see also CD. Gal. Local R. 83-3.1.2 (providing that attorneys practicing in the district court must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, that any violation of those rules "may be the basis for the imposition of discipline," and that the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association may also be considered as guidance when disciplining attorneys.)

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 165 (1986), "[p]revailing norms of practice as reflected in American Bar Association standards and the like . . . are guides to determining what is reasonable. . . ."

Wharton v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1201, 1206 (9th Cir. 1997), "[a]ttorneys have an ethical duty under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct not to 'knowingly assist or induce another to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct' " (Rule 8.4(a)).

ABA Model Rules "do not establish ethical standards in California, as they have not been adopted in California and have no legal force of their own." State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644, 655-656 (1999)

Contact our Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Attorneys today!