Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EECO)

PROTECTION UNDER THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Many laws are enacted by the government to protect employee rights. Many of which are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Some of these laws are described below.

DO THE FOLLOWING ACTS APPLY TO YOU?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) – This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. Further, the law requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) -This law makes it illegal to pay different wages to men and women if they perform equal work in the same workplace. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act – This law amended Title VII to make it illegal to discriminate against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) – This law protects people who are 40 or older from discrimination because of age. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) – This law makes it illegal to discriminate against a qualified person with a disability in the private sector and in state and local governments. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. Further, the law requires that employers reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Sections 102 & 103) – Among other things, this law amends Title VII and the ADA to permit jury trials and compensatory and punitive damage awards in intentional discrimination cases.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 501 & 505) – This law makes it illegal to discriminate against a qualified person with a disability in the federal government. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. Further, the law also requires that employers reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) – This law makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information. Genetic information includes information about an individual’s genetic tests and the genetic tests of an individual’s family members, as well as information about any disease, disorder or condition of an individual’s family members (i.e. an individual’s family medical history). The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

WE CAN HELP

If you feel that one of the above laws applies to your situation and want your employee rights protected, you should contact an employment attorney immediately to protect your legal rights under both State and Federal laws.

The employment law matters are often complex and fact specific. At Mostafavi Law Group, APC, we treat your situation uniquely, and will tailor our representation to your situation and needs with commitment and zealous advocacy to maximize the recovery for you.

TAKE AN ACTION TODAY TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS

Contact us today by calling (310)473-1111, send us a fax at (310)473-2222 or email us at admin@mostafavilaw.com. We are here to help.

Latest Blog

Prejudice is not required for waiver of arbitration

No prejudice is required in determining whether a party to an arbitration agreement has waived its right to compel the arbitration and stay the action in the court. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (US 21–328 5/23/22) Arbitration Petitioner Robyn Morgan worked as an hourly employee at a Taco Bell franchise owned by respondent Sundance. When applying for […]

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)

As part of the federal CARES Act, the new Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program helps unemployed Californians who are business owners, self-employed, independent contractors, have limited work history, and others not usually eligible for regular state UI benefits who are out of business or services are significantly reduced as a direct result of the pandemic. The […]

GrubHub, DoorDash, Postmates and Uber Eats were sued in for sticking restaurants with “devil’s choice”

NEW YORK (Reuters) – GrubHub, DoorDash, Postmates and Uber Eats were sued on Monday for allegedly exploiting their dominance in restaurant meal deliveries to impose fees that consumers ultimately bear through higher menu prices, including during the coronavirus pandemic. In a proposed class action filed in Manhattan federal court, three consumers said the defendants violated […]

The California Supreme Court will decide on the faith of the gig economy

The California Supreme Court in CASTELLANOS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Case: S279622) is presented with the question that does Business and Professions Code section 7451, which was enacted by Proposition 22 (the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act”), conflict with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution and therefore require that Proposition 22, by […]

Rest and meal premiums are considered wages

The California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (SC S258966 5/23/22), held that meal breaks are considered wages for the purpose of waiting penalty statute if the employee is not paid when the employment ends with the employer. The Naranjo Court, held that the extra pay for missed breaks constitutes “wages” that must be reported on […]