JET Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) – Dedicated Plaintiff-Side Employment Attorneys
In 2020, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (“JPL”) was ordered to pay $10,000,000 to settle an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) lawsuit alleging that JPL systemically laid off employees over certain ages, passed over older employees, allowed a culture of bias, harassment, discrimination and retaliation to exist. Age discrimination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) whereas other forms of discrimination or wrongful termination in the workplace violate California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. In recent years, JPL also settled other cases of hostile work environment and the violation of other labor laws. These included allegations of age discrimination, Equal Pay act violation, Unfair Competition Law violation, hiring discrimination, sexual harassment, gender and sex discrimination, whistleblowing NDAs, and other sexual misconduct.
If you are a former or current employee at JPL, please be aware that your rights are protected. Rightfully, there have been many recent settlements holding California companies accountable for a culture filled with bias, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and intimidation. We continually receive reports of rampant hostile work environment and unlawful wage disparity, and our affiliated attorneys are current with the laws and procedural requirements. Below, we provide you with helpful tips when considering your case.
What is the first step in starting an employment discrimination case California?
The first step in commencing an employment discrimination case in California is requesting an immediate Right-to-Sue Notice from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Rather than requesting a DFEH investigation, a complainant may request an immediate right-to-sue notice foregoing the administrative process and proceeding directly to court. In doing so, the complainant waives the rights to a DFEH investigation. A complainant may file an administrative complaint to obtain an immediate right-to-sue notice by either using the DFEH’s automated right-to-sue system accessible on its website or submitting a completed right-to-sue packet to the DFEH.
Unless the complainant uses the DFEH’s automated system, the right-to-sue notice will be sent to the complainant via US mail or email. A written complaint requesting an immediate-right-sue notice must include:
- The complainant’s information, including:
- name; and
- if available, address, telephone number and email address.
- The respondent’s information, including:
- if available, their telephone number and email address; and
- if applicable, the respondent’s job title or capacity in which the respondent is being named, or both.
- A description of the act(s) of the unlawful conduct.
- The date(s) each act of unlawful conduct occurred, including the most recent one.
- An identification of each protected category that is the alleged basis for the unlawful conduct.
- For retaliation complaints:
- the date that the complaint engaged in the protected activity; and
- the type of protected activity.
- The complainant’s declaration, made under penalty of perjury under state law, that to the best of their knowledge all information stated is true and correct, except matters stated on information and belief, which the complainant declares they believe to be true. By “submitting” an electronic complaint, the complainant is submitting the relevant declaration under penalty of perjury.
- Unless the complaint is filed electronically, the complainant’s signature (or an authorized signature) and the date signed.
How to Serve the Administrative Complaint on the employer?
The DFEH must serve an investigative administrative complaint filed by an unrepresented complainant on the person, employer, or entity alleged to have committed the unlawful practice. If a complainant is represented, their counsel must serve the administrative complaint. However, an administrative charge need not be served when a complainant seeks an immediate right-to-sue letter, rather than an administrative investigation. The DFEH may, but is not required to, serve:
- Verified administrative complaints filed for investigation by represented complainants, and
- All administrative complaints accepted for filing purposes only.
On the other hand, the DFEH may not serve any complaints issued in response to an immediate right-to-sue request. If you have questions about the difference or about the process, 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’s 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 an employee-side law firm 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.