Employment Attorneys for Employees in the Transportation Industry

California Employment Attorneys Representing Employees in the Transportation Industry

Over the last pandemic crisis, our country realized just how vital the transportation industry truly is to our survival.  While entire industries were sheltering at home, the transportation field – trucking, shipping, and warehousing – was working nonstop to keep America going.  In California, this holds especially true as our economy is heavily reliant on those who keep our food supply line going strong.  Unfortunately, we have also seen much abuse, harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against employees in this area.  To combat such violations, Stephen Danz and Associates, along with co-counsel, have aggressively represented many employees who were affected.  We are dedicated to representing employees in this field. Our law firm attorneys and support staff are a powerful legal team on the employee’s side.  Once retained, we even the field when it comes to taking on the large employers and their defense counsels.

California’s trucking industry is diverse and complex.  It is also one of the largest industries in the United States.  Accordingly, employees who face discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful termination, or related employer prohibited activity in this industry, should seek the help of competent and knowledgeable California employment lawyers.  Those who have experience and the resources to take on the largest companies.  The attorney you trust should also have the fortitude to stand against the largest defense firms, and not be concerned about litigation.

How Do Employers Discriminate Against Employees whose English is a Second Language?

An employer may not discriminate on the basis of an applicant’s or employee’s English proficiency unless it is justified by business necessity, that is, the level of proficiency required by the employer is necessary to effectively fulfill the job duties of the position. In determining business necessity in this context, relevant factors to consider include: the type of proficiency required, such as: spoken; written; oral; or reading comprehension. In addition, employers may have certain standards when a certain degree of proficiency is required, or the nature and job duties of the position require it for the safety of the consumer.

How Are Employees Protected Against Discrimination Based on Their Accent?

Discriminating against an applicant or employee because of their accent is unlawful unless the employer proves that the individual’s accent interferes materially with their ability to perform the job in question.  In regard to dress and grooming policies, common discrimination claims arising from seemingly neutral grooming policies that disproportionately affect employees or applicants in certain protected classes include: Race – a no-beard policy that prohibits men from having facial hair in the workplace has been found to disproportionately impact African-American males, who commonly have a medical condition that prevents them from shaving, or National origin – A policy that prohibits certain types of ethnic clothing while allowing casual dress in the work environment is likely discriminatory based on national origin.

How California Law Protects Against Discriminatory Immigration-Related Practices?

The FEHA and its regulations protect undocumented applicants and employees (who lack legal authorization under federal law to be present or work in the United States) to the same extent as it protects any other applicant or employee. Unless the employer can show by clear and convincing evidence that certain actions are necessary to comply with federal immigration law, it is unlawful for an employer to:

  • Engage in discovery or other inquiry into an applicant’s or employee’s immigration status.
  • Discriminate against an employee or applicant because of their immigration status.

FEHA regulations provide, without limiting or expanding such authority, that an employer can only require an applicant or employee to possess or present a driver’s license under the California Vehicle Code in one of the below circumstances:

  • State or federal law requires possession of a driver’s license.
  • A covered entity requires possession of a driver’s license, and the law permits it.

Requiring an employee or applicant to present or hold a driver’s license, however, may be evidence of a FEHA violation if either:

  • The policy is not uniformly applied.
  • The policy is inconsistent with legitimate business reasons (for example, performing essential job functions do not require possessing a driver’s license).

Why Contact Us?

Our leadership has practiced law in California for five decades.  Accordingly, the experience, resources, and years of litigation prepared us to fight for your legal rights in California’s state and federal courts.  The team focuses only on employment law and therefore can provide clients with maximum compensation and most favorable results.  This is critical as employment laws constantly change – whether it is the types of charges, defenses, deadlines, or court rules.  Trust our team for its transparency, knowledge and constant communication.