Employment Attorney for Cisco Systems Employees

Cisco Systems Employment Violations – Dedicated Plaintiff-Side Attorneys

California companies have a history of employment related violations.  Cisco is one of these companies.  In a recent case, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), which enforces the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) sued Cisco Systems for bias based on Indian caste system along with conduct involving discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against employees.  In addition, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, or ethnicity.  Here, Cisco Systems was sued for violating both the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII.  What makes this case worse is that Cisco Systems allegedly knew about such conduct and failed to prevent the discrimination.  Other meaningful lawsuits have involved age discrimination and sexual harassment against Cisco Systems.

Over the last several years, we have noticed other employment discrimination lawsuits against tech giants like Cisco Systems.  We are aware of many other allegations of age discrimination, Equal Pay Act violation, Unfair Competition Law violation, hiring discrimination, sexual harassment, gender and sex discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and other sexual misconduct ignored by California companies.

If you are a former or current employee at Cisco Systems, or know of anyone who has suffered while working there, reach out to our office.  We continually receive reports of rampant hostile work environment and unlawful wage disparity at California corporations so this would not be a first.  Contact our office to discuss your case.

When does the time clock begin in bring an employment discrimination case?

The time limit for filing a DFEH administrative charge is measured “from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred.” Making this determination depends on the nature of the conduct, including whether it was:

  • A discrete act of disparate treatment discrimination or retaliation.
  • The application of a facially neutral policy that had a disparate impact.
  • A series of acts creating a hostile work environment.

Does the California DFEH Work with the federal EEOC in Dual Filing of Cases?

The DFEH has a work sharing agreement with the EEOC (29 C.F.R. §§ 1601.75, 1601.80 and DFEH: Work Share Agreements). Where concurrent jurisdiction exists, this agreement authorizes dual filing between the agencies, which means that in certain cases an administrative charge that is filed with the EEOC, is also filed with the DFEH, or the DFEH, is also filed with the EEOC.

If an administrative complaint is amended, however, it may need to be separately filed with each agency.  In California, which is a deferral state, an employee must file an administrative charge with the DFEH regarding federal claims within 300 calendar days after the alleged unlawful employment practice or act occurred (for example, termination or lack of promotion). If the employee fails to do so, his or her federal allegations may be time-barred.  With some exceptions, the agency that initially receives the administrative charge will also process it and investigate the allegations. The other agency will usually adopt the original agency’s findings and determinations.

The EEOC typically issues a right-to-sue letter after it has either adopted the DFEH’s findings or made its own determination. A failure to issue an EEOC right-to-sue letter, however, will not bar a plaintiff from filing suit on their federal claims so long as they received a DFEH right-to-sue letter.  In contrast, California courts have held that a plaintiff must receive a DFEH right-to-sue letter to pursue FEHA claims.  If the DFEH processes and investigates a dual-filed administrative charge, the employee can generally request that the EEOC conduct a “substantial weight review” of the final action.  In addition, if an administrative discrimination or harassment charge is concurrently filed with the DFEH and the EEOC, the one-year statute of limitations for filing a civil complaint may be tolled pending an EEOC investigation if:

  • The DFEH defers the investigation to the EEOC and concurrently issues a right-to-sue letter to the complainant, or
  • The EEOC defers the investigation to the DFEH and decides to conduct its own investigation or agrees to perform a substantial weight review of the DFEH’s post-investigation determination.

In these cases, the tolling period expires upon the latter of the expiration of the federal right-to-sue period to file a civil action, or one year from the date the DFEH issues its right-to-sue letter.

Stephen Danz and Associates’ affiliated employment attorneys handle cases solely on behalf of local employees who have experienced labor law violations such as discrimination, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation.  Our experienced and dedicated attorneys understand the client needs to protect his or her rights and income as well as the ability to continue to work.  When you trust us with your case, we represent you and your interests with confidence and transparency.  Our reputation speaks for itself as we tirelessly work to represent your employment interests so that your professional and financial futures are protected.

We devote our practice to fighting for workers’ rights.  Employment law in California is a specialized area and cases are hard-fought.  Therefore, having the one of the largest employee-side law firms on your side is critical.  If you are in California and searching for attorneys that are both experienced and aggressive, look no further and contact one of our offices.  When encountering discrimination, wrongful termination, or retaliation in the workplace, many California employees have turned to our attorneys for guidance.  In turn, we represent employees throughout California in their fight against employers that have taken advantage of their upper hand.  Our attorneys cover cities in Northern California and Southern California as the State’s courts are as specialized and diverse as the State’s landscape.