Employment Attorney for eBay Employees

Ebay, Inc. Employment Violations in California – Plaintiff-Side Employment Attorneys

Ebay has had to face several high-profile cases involving employment discrimination.  One case involved a 67-year old former senior manager of its global security team who alleged age discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.  The government has also investigated claims of harassment, sexual discrimination, retaliation, bullying, and pay inequity at Ebay’s headquarters.

Our attorneys report an increase in the number of workers compensation, retaliation, race discrimination, and age discrimination at California technology companies. We have also been made aware of other settlements against these entities for age discrimination, Equal Pay Act violation, Unfair Competition Law violation, hiring discrimination, sexual harassment, gender and sex discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and other types of sexual misconduct.

If you are a former or current employee at Ebay, please be aware you are not alone.  There are many settlements holding the company accountable that are not public.  In Southern California alone, there are hundreds of settlements holding against companies due to a culture filled with prejudice, bias, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and intimidation.  We continually receive reports of rampant hostile work environment and unlawful wage disparity at California companies.

One of the most widely violated employment laws in California is the Ralph Civil Rights Act. This law protects all persons from violence or intimidation committed against their person or property because of one of the following:

  • Political affiliation.
  • Position in a labor dispute.
  • Sex.
  • Race.
  • Color.
  • Religion.
  • Ancestry.
  • National origin.
  • Disability.
  • Medical condition.
  • Genetic information.
  • Marital status.
  • Sexual orientation.
  • Citizenship.
  • Primary language.
  • Immigration status.
  • The perception of having at least one of these characteristics.

What is Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies?

Some laws first require the plaintiff to exhaust Administrative Remedies.  For example, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) requires claimants to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil action. This means that a claimant must first file an administrative complaint (also called an administrative charge) with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing  (“DFEH”) and receive a right-to-sue notice before proceeding to court. The exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a suit in court. Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal.

What are Critical Time Limits and Tolling under the FEHA?

Under the FEHA, a plaintiff must file an administrative charge with the DFEH within one year of the alleged unlawful employment practice, unless an exception applies. The FEHA and its regulations provides several nonexclusive exceptions to the one-year administrative filing rule. For example:

  • Delayed discovery of the unlawful employment practice after the one year administrative time limit has expired, then a 90-day extension of the one year period.
  • Delayed discovery of the actual employer where the presumption that the person or entity identified on a W-2 statement is the employer has been rebutted, then one year after the rebuttal.
  • Delayed discovery of a perpetrator’s identity in certain hate crime cases, then one year after the identity is discovered but never more than three years after the violation occurred.
  • A minor at the time the violation occurred, then one year after the age of majority.
  • Administrative error, where the DFEH either:
  • Misleads the complainant about filing obligations;
  • Commits errors in processing the complaint; or
  • Improperly discourages or prevents the complainant from filing at all.

The one-year limit may also be extended for non-statutory reasons, including cases involving:

Equitable tolling or Continuing violations. Under this doctrine, unlawful conduct outside the limitations period is considered actionable when “sufficiently connected” to unlawful conduct within the limitations period. Such conduct will be viewed as “a single, actionable course of conduct” if the actions involved: are sufficiently similar in kind; occur with sufficient frequency; and have not acquired a degree of permanence.

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.