San Diego Employment Law Attorney Blog

A Muslim woman who works as a hostess in Disneyland has filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Disney because she has been told she cannot wear her hijab while working. Imane Boudlal works as a hostess at the Storyteller's Restaurant in Disneyland's Grand California Hotel. She was sent home by her employer seven times without pay for wearing her white headscarf against her employer's policy.

According to KTLA.com, Boudlal, 26, became a U.S. citizen last June after emigrating from Morocco five years ago. Boudlal has worked for Disneyland for two years, but only decided to challenge Disney's strict dress code after earning her citizenship. She said the U.S. Constitution grants religious freedom and that is what she is asking for. She asked for religious accommodation to wear the scarf two months ago.

A new lawsuit has been filed against FedEx as part of an ongoing dispute between the company and some of its truck drivers. Thirty-one current and former truck drivers for FedEx filed a lawsuit against the company in a U.S. District Court in Boston last Tuesday. The lawsuit seeks class-action status and claims that the truck drivers are incorrectly classified as independent contractors when they really should be considered employees.

The truck drivers filing the lawsuit claim that they are considered independent contractors even though an employer-employee relationship exists between truck drivers and FedEx. FedEx controls what its drivers wear, sets the times they work, and monitors their performance and equipment, among other things. The drivers are seeking to be classified as employees so that they can become unionized as are their counterparts at rival parcel delivery company, UPS. The worker lawsuit is also seeking financial compensation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Fresno that claims Delano Regional Medical Center discriminated against Filipino employees. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of more than 30 Filipino employees of the hospital who say that they were harassed and discriminated against because of their national origin.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin. The EEOC claims that Delano Regional Medical Center singled out the employees of Filipino origin and treated them differently by not allowing them to speak Tagalog, while allowing other ethnic groups to speak other non-English languages.

The 20th anniversary of the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, a law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace against those with disabilties, sparked a vocal debate over how effective the law has been in opening up the workplace to people with disabilities. A recent article in Newsweek breaks down the debate that's been going on between political commentators and advocates for people with disabilities.

The article begins by saying that the ADA has been "near-universally admired" and has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Some politicians and disability advocate groups have questioned, however, whether the law has really helped people with disabilities. Some point to the statistic that the percentage of unemployment among people with disabilities has remained stable since the passage of the law -- at 60 percent. Each side expresses a different take on the statistic.

A woman who was employed as an extra on the popular TV show, "Bones," filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against David Boreanaz late last month. Boreanaz both stars on the show and is an executive producer. 20th Century Fox Television is also named as a defendant in the suit, as are various other production companies involved in the show. Kristina Hagan filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

Hagan's attorney, Gloria Allred, says she is also representing another woman with a similar charge against Boreanaz of sexual harassment in employment. Allred describes Hagan as a struggling actress who is working hard but not having much luck in the Hollywood entertainment business, which makes her, and actresses like her, vulnerable to people in positions of power.

Representatives for Boreanaz have claimed the allegations are false and "absurd" fabrications.

In the previous post, we wrote about the age discrimination lawsuit against Google Inc. Recently the Supreme Court of California ruled that the case against Google could move forward. Many experts in the employment law field have been calling the ruling a win for employees, saying that it may be easier, for example, for an employee to get their case heard before a jury.

In light of this recent ruling, we thought it would be pertinent to take a deeper look at the law prohibiting age discrimination in the workplace. The website of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers useful facts about age discrimination. Whether you are an employee or an employer, it is always a good time to review The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill that would have extended the 8-hour workday and overtime pay to workers on farms. Schwarzenegger said that he vetoed the bill because it was impractical to impose the 8-hour workday in the agriculture business because "it is seasonal, subject to unpredictability of Mother Nature and requires the harvesting of perishable goods."

The sponsor of the bill, Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) said that the governor's veto amounts to special treatment for giant agribusiness and "second-class treatment" of workers on farms. Florez aims to reverse the 1941 California law that exempts farm employees from being paid overtime, or 1 1/2 times the normal rate, for any hours worked beyond an 8-hour day.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that an age discrimination lawsuit brought against Google Inc. can proceed to trial. The lawsuit was brought against Google by Brian Reid, who was employed by the company from 2002 to 2004 until being terminated. Google had disputed whether there was enough potential evidence of age discrimination to justify the case going to trial. Particularly, the disagreement between both sides centered on whether "stray remarks" made by colleagues of Reid's were enough to show discrimination or bias on the part of the company toward him.

Previously, employers had used the "stray remarks" doctrine, set by a U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1989, to protect themselves from liability for a manager's offensive comments about an employee who is later demoted or fired. Google had sought to have the case dismissed, saying any evidence of discriminatory comments Reid had to bolster his case amounted to "stray remarks" made by employees who had no authority over his hiring or firing.