• COVID-19 Resources
  • Administrative Law
  • Liquor Law – ABC – OLCC
  • Employment Law
  • GAMING: Internet & Casino
  • Land Use
  • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
Call Us Now: 800.405.4222
Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson - SSJ Law
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Administrative Law
    • Alcohol and Liquor Law: ABC | OLCC
    • Employment Law
    • GAMING: Internet & Casino
    • Land Use
    • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Our Team
  • Articles
  • Community Service
  • Resources
  • Contact Us
    • The Firm
    • AV Rating
    • Client List
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Employment Discrimination In California

in Discrimination, Employment Law, News

Did your employer discriminate against you, harass you, or wrongfully terminate you for any of the following reasons:

Your religion, race, color, national origin, or ancestry?
Your sex, sexual orientation, marital status, or pregnancy status?
Your age, physical or mental disability, or medical condition?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you may have suffered unlawful discrimination.
Fortunately, California protects you under its Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) law, as does the federal government under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). We typically sue employers under FEHA, as it affords more protections to our clients than does Title VII.

Call Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson for a free consultation to find out if you have a case at 855-552-2326.

Racial Discrimination
Racial discrimination usually takes two forms – 1) Disparate Treatment and 2) Disparate Impact.

1) Disparate Treatment occurs when the employer deliberately discriminates against an employee based upon his or her race, ethnicity, skin color, or racial characteristics. 2) Disparate Impact occurs when an employer’s policies have a discriminatory impact on employees due to their race, ethnicity, skin color, or racial characteristics. Disparate treatment is usually intentional discrimination, whereas disparate impact is usually inadvertent discrimination (although this is not always the case).

Racial discrimination may take many forms. Did your employer or co-worker:

Ask you racially-charged questions during your interview or questions which sought to determine your race?
Make offensive jokes, statements or slurs based upon your race such that your work environment is hostile?
Require you to work in a certain geographic area solely based upon your race?
Assign you to a certain type of position solely because of your race?
Retaliate against you for participating in or cooperating with an investigation or lawsuit based upon a racial discrimination allegation?
Before filing a lawsuit, one usually must file a complaint with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (for a federal complaint) or the applicable state or local agency (for a state complaint). In certain instances, the agency will prosecute your case for you.

Call Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson for a free consultation to find out if you have a case at 855-552-2326.

National Origin Discrimination
Are you being discriminated against because of where you are from, your ethnicity, with whom you associate, or your accent and mannerisms associated with where you are from? You are entitled to the same employment opportunities and workplace treatment as anyone else, irrespective of your place of origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which applies to employers with 15 or more employees) protects you from “national origin” discrimination, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is the federal agency designated to enforce this law.

National origin discrimination may arise in several contexts. Has:

Your employer based employment decisions, including hiring and firing you, on your national origin?
A potential employer bypassed you just because you had an accent, even though it would not have affected your job performance?
A potential employer required you to be fluent in English and/or only speak English, even though the use of English is unnecessary to perform your job?
Your employer permitted a work environment hostile to you because of your national origin to develop or continue?
You have every right to work in a non-discriminatory environment no matter where you are from. We can help. Click on one of the areas below to learn about your rights, or call our office for a free consultation with one of our employment attorneys to find out if you have a case. (855) 552-2326.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 09:44:062014-03-03 09:44:06Employment Discrimination In California

Disability Discrimination

in Discrimination, Employment Law

Did your employer discriminate against, harass, or terminate you without cause just because you are disabled? Even if you are an at-will employee or you have not yet been terminated or otherwise punished, you may still have a valid claim.

Two laws protect victims of disability discrimination – the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Not only does the ADA prohibit such discrimination, it also requires that employers make the workplace accessible to disabled employees. In other words, they must make “reasonable accommodations” for you. The ADA applies to employers whose work affects commerce and employs 15 or more employees. FEHA applies to employers with 5 or more employees and offers more extensive protection than the ADA.

We can evaluate your claim under both of these laws and vigorously litigate on your behalf. Click on one of the areas below to learn about your rights, or call our office for a free consultation with one of our employment attorneys to find out if you have a case. (855) 552-2326.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 09:43:212014-03-03 09:43:21Disability Discrimination

Age Discrimination

in Discrimination, Education, News

Did your employer use unfair terms and conditions to hire you just because of your age? If so, you may have suffered from age discrimination.

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects employees and job applicants 40 years of age and older when their employers or potential employers have discriminated against them. Your employer may be a private company, the state or local government, a labor organization, or even an employment agency, as long as there are 20 or more people working there. Discrimination in this context can occur when the employer requires unfair terms, conditions, or privileges of employment such as those pertaining to hiring, firing, compensation, and benefits.

If you have wish to pursue a claim against your employer, you should either file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is an independent federal law enforcement agency, or sue under applicable discrimination laws. We can help you with this process. Click on one of the areas below to learn about your rights, or call our office for a free consultation with one of our employment attorneys to find out if you have a case. (855) 552-2326.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 09:42:152014-03-03 09:42:15Age Discrimination

Flood of Lawsuits by LAPD Officers Costs the City Millions

in Discrimination, Employment Law, News

May 9, 2011 – Comment by Stephen A. Jamieson regarding the recent LA Times article about the multiplicity of lawsuits involving the LAPD.

“Interesting that the essence of the article is that the City botched the defense of the case(s), and not that the City is perhaps terrible at making sure the employees/cops are treated appropriately and
according to legal standards during their employment so as to avoid so many lawsuits from being filed in the first place.”

Below is the article in the LA Times

At least 17 officers have won million-dollar-plus jury verdicts or settlements from the city in the last decade in lawsuits involving accusations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices.

$1-million-plus LAPD payouts
LAPD clears backlog of untested DNA evidence

By Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times May 8, 2011

Robert Hill did not join the Los Angeles Police Department to become a millionaire. And yet, that’s what happened in September when city officials cut the veteran cop and his lawyer a check for nearly $4 million.

The money was compensation for the snide comments and other abuse Hill suffered at the hands of other LAPD officers after he reported that a supervisor used racial slurs and embezzled department funds.

In the last decade, at least 16 other officers have won million-dollar-plus jury verdicts or settlements from the city in lawsuits in which they leveled accusations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices. Dozens more officers have won five- or six-figure paydays.

“These cases irk the heck out of me,” said City Councilman Greig Smith, who has been a critic of the city’s job-protection rules that, he said, make it too difficult to fire officers who cause workplace problems. “Somebody running a private company would never let this … stand. Why do we let it happen here? And we see the same things happening over and over again.”

City records show that from 2005 to 2010, officers have sued the department over workplace issues more than 250 times. The city has paid settlements or verdicts totaling more than $18 million in about 45 of those cases and has lost several other verdicts worth several million dollars more in cases it is appealing, a review of the records shows. The city has prevailed in about 50 cases. The rest, representing tens of millions of dollars in potential liability, remain open.

Litigious officers have bedeviled Los Angeles police chiefs and city lawyers for decades, and a survey of large police departments across the country indicates that LAPD officers file suit more than others.

Los Angeles police, for example, brought an average of about three times more lawsuits a year per officer than officers in Chicago and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. And there were about a third fewer lawsuits among Boston police.

Officer-driven lawsuits have come under greater scrutiny in recent years as Los Angeles’ financial problems have gotten worse. Elected officials and the LAPD’s independent watchdog believe the department should be doing more to deter workplace conflict and avoid the expensive litigation.

Beyond the financial toll, the cases often amount to embarrassing, public airings of the department’s dirty laundry — nasty fights that expose crude behavior by officers and a retaliatory mindset of supervisors that undermine efforts by senior officials to present the LAPD as a smoothly run operation.

The case of Patricia Fuller, who at the time was the only woman serving as a dog handler in the LAPD’s canine unit, underscores how contentious and costly workplace incidents can become for the city.

Fuller had accused men in the unit of making vulgar sexual advances and comments, while also excluding her from training exercises, court records show. In 2009, city officials paid Fuller $2.25 million to settle her claims.

Then another canine officer, Donald Bender, filed a lawsuit alleging that he had been stripped of a rank and kicked out of the unit as retaliation for coming to Fuller’s defense.
He was followed by Blaine Blackstone, a sergeant who supervised Fuller. Blackstone said he had been the target of retaliation by superiors after he refused their demands that he placate Fuller by changing her performance evaluation.

The city refused to settle with Bender and Blackstone, and both officers won their cases. Bender received $2.5 million and Blackstone was awarded nearly $750,000 in damages, court records show.
For Hill, who said the retaliation against him included being followed by other officers, falsely accused of misconduct and removed from a coveted assignment, knowing the large verdict he won came from taxpayers left him with mixed feelings.

“Here I was a public servant suing the city, basically suing the taxpayers who I was committed to protecting,” Hill said. “What I really wanted was for the names of the people who had harmed me to be on that lawsuit. I wanted the money to come out of their pockets. I felt bad that the wrong people were paying, but it was the only recourse I had as an officer.”

Large verdicts can be a financial boon for rank-and-file police officers who earn $45,000 to about $85,000, depending on the number of years they have served. Some, like Hill, choose to remain on the job, while others leave. Beyond the money, some who have been fired have successfully sued to get their jobs back.
The question of whether to settle a case or take the officer to court can be a dicey one for city and police officials. Settle too easily, the thinking goes, and the department will be seen by officers and attorneys as an easy target. Taking too hard a stand, however, carries risks as well. Employment cases are difficult to defend against, lawyers say, since they often turn on emotional issues and differing perceptions of what occurred.

“If you settle, all you’re doing is encouraging other officers to file more lawsuits,” said LAPD Cmdr. Stuart Maislin, who for several years ran the department’s Risk Management Division. “It sends the message that the city is just giving away money — that an officer just has to make a claim and they’ll walk away with some money in their pocket. The only way to stop that is to take them to court and fight them.”
“When we lose,” Maislin added, “we lose big.”

In general, City Atty. Carman Trutanich and Gerald Chaleff, a senior advisor to LAPD Chief Charlie Beck who oversees employee lawsuits, have pursued a hard-line approach with officers in recent years, refusing to settle except in those cases where it is clear the city is likely to lose in court.
That tough stance has led to mixed results. The city has lost a handful of jury verdicts that could have been avoided if it had been willing to settle.

Attorney Matthew McNicholas, for example, represented Richard Romney, an officer who was fired after he testified about the department’s overtime policy in a labor dispute; Melissa Borck, who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit; and Bender, the canine officer. McNicholas offered to settle the three cases for a total of $2 million, but police officials and city lawyers were adamant about taking all three to court and ended up losing verdicts totaling about $9.5 million.

Understaffing and a lack of lawyers with experience in workplace issues in the city attorney’s office has hampered the city’s ability to defend itself against such lawsuits in court, officials said. Bill Carter, Trutanich’s chief deputy, said overworked attorneys have missed court-filing deadlines, failed to take important depositions and made other blunders on employment cases.
“We’re creating a recipe for disaster,” Carter said.

The recent high-dollar verdicts and settlements suggest that the department needs to do more to mediate workplace conflicts, said Nicole Bershon, inspector general for the Los Angeles Police Commission. That should include bringing in impartial employment experts to help resolve conflicts before they reach a courtroom, she said.

The department also has come under fire for failing to thoroughly investigate complaints of workplace problems. In a 2010 audit of LAPD investigations into employee allegations of retaliation, Bershon’s office found that investigators routinely neglected to interview people accused of misconduct, or even name them in the investigations.

The way the department handles officer lawsuits has become a source of increasingly hostile fodder for the Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file officers and sometimes assists officers in bringing their suits.

Emboldened by recent high-profile verdicts for officers, union officials have grown vocal at what they see as the unwillingness or inability of senior LAPD officials to deal with problems in the workplace — a charge department leaders deny.

“I’ve got a news flash for … the ‘leaders’ who are tasked with ensuring the Department treats its people fairly. Look in the mirror to find out where the problems are,” Sgt. John Mumma, the union’s secretary, wrote in a recent open letter published in the union’s magazine. “How many more officers are going to become millionaires over the botched handling of their cases?”

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2011-05-09 09:37:102011-05-09 09:37:10Flood of Lawsuits by LAPD Officers Costs the City Millions

Current Affairs

  • Dozens of Californians cited for allegedly providing alcoholic beverages to minors Saturday.March 15, 2023 - 9:11 pm

    During the weekend of March 11th and 12th, 2023 the ABC worked with nearly fifty local law enforcement agencies and departments across California to conduct “shoulder tap” minor decoy operations…

  • Newsweek Legal Insight Team spotlight on Solomon Saltsman and JamiesonOctober 20, 2022 - 8:46 pm

    NEWSWEEK Premier Law Firms
    Solomon Saltsman and Jamieson
    in the spotlight…

  • Title 4. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Proposed RegulationsOctober 15, 2022 - 8:21 pm

    Following relaxed policy regulations during the COVID era, the Department has published a proposed rule change to codify Title 4, Rule 70 which will allow licensed premises to serve and allow consumption of alcoholic beverages in permanent non-contiguous areas separate from the main or primary by public area of the licensed premises. There are restrictions and requirements that licensees should be acquainted with if alcohol service is intended or is ongoing in these non-contiguous areas. Proposed Rule 70 is set out in full herein. There will be a public hearing before the Department on November 1, 2022.

  • ABC Launches New Online Licensing Services Portal for Over 90,000 California BusinessesAugust 4, 2022 - 9:18 pm

    The fee waivers became available in February 2021 when Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of immediate actions that provided relief to individuals, families and businesses suffering the most significant economic hardship from the COVID-19 Recession

  • abc alcohol beverage control attorneys los angels CaliforniaTHE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HAS JUST CHANGED ITS LAWSJuly 10, 2022 - 8:15 pm

    On March 31, 2022, the Restaurant Beverage Program (RBP) Ordinance, which expediates the permitting process and lowers costs for eligible sit-down restaurants permitted to sell alcohol went into effect in the City of Los Angeles. Under the new program, qualifying sit-down restaurants can apply to serve alcohol through a 4-week…

LOS ANGELES

426 Culver Boulevard
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
Los Angeles: 310.822.9848
[email protected]



BAY AREA

315 Montgomery Street
10th Floor
San Francisco, CA  94104
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
[email protected]



PORTLAND

25 NW 23rd Place, Suite 6 #363
Portland, OR 97210
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
Portland: 503.236.8050
[email protected]



Do you have questions?

email or call us at 800.405.4222

Join Our Email List

Select list(s) to subscribe to


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, 426 Culver Blvd., Los Angeles, CA, 90293. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Current Affairs & Latest News

Dozens of Californians cited for allegedly providing alcoholic beverages to minors Saturday.

During the weekend of March 11th and 12th, 2023 the ABC worked with nearly fifty local law enforcement agencies and departments across California to conduct “shoulder tap” minor decoy operations…

Read Full Article

DISCLAIMER

Articles posted on our website, were to the best of our knowledge correct at the time they were written, but laws change continuously so no one should rely on what is written in any article as the current state of the law. The reader should always consult a practicing lawyer for an evaluation of how the current law affects any particular factual situation at the time when it occurs. The badges for AVVO®, Million Dollars Advocates Forum®, Martindale Hubbel AV Preeminent®, SuperLawyers®, and BestLawyers®” have been awarded to various specific attorneys at Solomon Saltsman and Jamieson.  See each attorney’s profile for which badges are specifically assigned to him or her.
Full Site Disclaimer

Copyright © 2018 Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson.

Website design by: wwyou.com

Scroll to top