Los Angeles Employment Attorney Blog

In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln, as Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy, under Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution issued two executive orders freeing slaves in the Confederate States. These executive orders are collectively referred to as the Emancipation Proclamation. On December 6, 1865, the U.S. added the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which abolished slavery.

In 1887 the U.S. added another amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the 15th amendment, which provides that suffrage can no longer be restricted by race. Then in 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed guaranteeing civil rights and prohibiting racial discrimination. Most states have similar laws and expressed stated public policy that racial discrimination is unlawful.

Then why do we still have racial discrimination? People have fears and prejudices instilled at early ages while others develop those fears and prejudices as they move through life. But, it is a sad reality that racial discrimination exists and the victims of racial discrimination suffer severe emotional distress and economic disaster. The U.S. can do better. The U.S. needs to do better. Laws are not enough. We need a national push for education against hatred and racial prejudice. We need educational campaigns that tell the real story of those who fall victim to hatred and prejudice.

Don't think that racial discrimination is just happening in the dark corners of business. It isn't. Employers and companies engage in subtle, systematic racial discrimination. Sophisticated methods are devised to get around public policy and the common good which inevitably adversely target racial minorities. Recently the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States reversed a U.S. District Court ruling that would, in theory, have allowed an insurance company to use secret formulas to determine the cost of insurance which coincidentally and predictably resulted in higher premiums for racial minorities - African-Americans in particular than for Caucasians.

On May 12, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down it decision in Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al which involved an African-American insured who filed a class action against Farmers and others to remedy alleged racial discrimination in assessing higher premiums for homeowner's property and casualty insurance for African-Americans than the premiums that are charged to Caucasians. The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the claim reasoning that the claim was reverse-pre-empted by McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Briefly, MacCarran-Ferguson Act is a federal law that establishes inverse preemption prohibiting a federal law of general applicability from pre-empting a state regulating the insurance business. The District Court adopted Farmers' argument that although their secret scoring and protocol may adversely impact African-Americans who are not necessarily higher risks to be charged more than Caucasians, it did not violate any state law regulating the insurance business.

The 9th Circuit decision discusses the laws in detail. But for purposes of understanding an ugly fact of present day life, it is sufficient to know that Farmers argued that it should be allowed to use its secret, propriety scoring system that resulted in higher premiums for African-American than it charged Caucasians. The 9th Circuit explained that allowing a company to use credit scoring that resulted in disparate discrimination against minorities was contrary to law and well established public policy prohibiting racial discrimination.

While the case has not been tried and the facts are yet to be disclosed, it is astounding that a company would advance theories that result in higher premiums for racial minorities than are charged Caucasians. And, it is even more astounding that a federal district court could selectively reason certain laws to allow the disparate racial discrimination. Fortunately, the 9th Circuit Court reversed the Central District Court's ruling and thereby advanced the progress of prohibiting discrimination by employers and companies.

Wake up America! Our workforce, our businesses, and our entrepreneurial success are hindered by racial discrimination.

Abel Law Offices employment attorneys serving Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties believe that it is important to keep the public informed on new cases dealing with employment law and to present information to educate employees and employers. Employees with disabilities and resulting limitations have rights under both Federal and California state law. And, employers have certain obligations when confronting the issue of an employee with a disability limitation.

This week the California Court of Appeal decided and published its decision in , Carmine Scotch v. The Art Institute of California-Orange County Inc.. Plaintiff Scotch had alleged discrimination based on disability in violation of California's Fair Employment Housing Act. He asserted that he was discriminated against because he was HIV positive. He claimed that the Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc. (AIC) failed to engage in the required interactive process to accommodate an employee with a disability limitation and failed to provide a discrimination free workplace.

The trial court granted judgment in favor of AIC. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment. In its decision many important principles of disability discrimination law are discussed and seminal cases cited. While Scotch was unsuccessful, the case poignantly emphasizes the need for an employer to engage in an interactive process to make reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability limitation.

If you have limitations because of a disability, your employer must engage in an interactive process to make reasonable accommodation to the workplace so that you can perform the essential duties of your job. If this is not occurring, you may have legal remedies. If your business is challenged with dealing with this type of situation, your business should engage experienced Los Angeles employment lawyer for legal advice and guidance.

Contact the Abel Law Offices, employment law lawyers serving Southern California, to schedule an appointment to discuss your disability employment matter.

On May 1, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in State of Alaska v. EEOC (2009) , held that the Government Employees Rights Act (GERA) eliminated Alaska's sovereign immunity. The court also held that the plaintiffs who had alleged they were wrongfully discharged after they complained about unequal pay because of race, sexual harassment, and retaliation for having reported this unlawful employment conducted, stated claims that constituted violations of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The decision is not surprising or startling from a legal perspective. Rather, it makes common sense and is consistent with the well accepted principles that employees should not be unlawfully discriminated in the workplace nor retaliated against for speaking up about such wrongs. All states have laws protecting employees and their citizens from unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Moreover, the Federal Government has enacted numerous statutes to provide the same protection.

What is astounding is that the State of Alaska would fight all the way the a Federal Disctrict Court of Appeals arguing that it can abuse its government employees, allow them to be sexually harassed, and then fire them because they complain about it. The Ninth Circuit reiterated that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits retaliating against a public employee for speech made as a citizen on matters that are of public concern.

This is another example demonstrating much still needs to be done to eradicate race and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for those who engage in protected activity. It also illustrates how those with some power abuse it. Alaskan's tax dollars were spent arguing that the State was immune from actions that violate fundamental decency, basic constitutional rights, and well established public policy for the United States.

Alaska should have done the right thing at the beginning - paid employees fairly, stopped sexual harassment, and encouraged people to speak up. It would have saved a lot of money and improved workforce morale. Too bad Alaska - you can't pay women less than men for the same work, allow women to be sexually harassed or fire them because they object to such deplorable behavior.

California does not have immunity for these unlawful employment acts either. Los Angeles County has a population of more than 10 million people. There are thousands of government workers in Los Angeles. You can be sure that astute Los Angeles employment law attorneys have read this case. Expect them to bank on it if the state violates government employees' rights.

The Abel Law Offices, Los Angeles employment lawyers, represent employees and employers confronting racial and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation claims.