Orange County Employment Discrimination Lawyers Nassiri Law Group Home
Contact Us Now For a Free Consultation
Site Map
- Index
- Attorney
- Practice Areas
- Labor and Employment
- Wrongful Termination
- Disability Discrimination
- Wage / Hour Disputes
- Gender Discrimination
- Sexual Harassment
- Same-Sex Sexual Harassment
- Sexual Harassment in California FAQ
- A Hostile Work Environment Due to Sexual Harassment
- Strict Liability of Employer for Supervisor’s Sexual Harassment of Employee
- Employers Have a Duty to Prevent Sexual Harassment
- Sexual Abuse
- Confronting a Sexual Harasser
- Retaliation for Reporting Sexual Harassment: Illegal
- How to Handle Unwanted Sexual Advances at Work
- Confronting Your Employer About Sexual Harassment
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Age Discrimination
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- LGBT Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employee Misclassification
- Military Status Discrimination
- Other Types of Discrimination
- California Fair Pay Act
- Labor and Employment
- In The Media
- Client Testimonials, Results & Case Evaluations
- Office Locations
- Contact Us
- Disclaimer
- Privacy Policy
- Articles
- Glynn v Superior Court 2019
- Frlekin v Apple, Inc 2020
- Dep't of Homeland Sec. V. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913 (2015)
- Cardenas v. Fanaian, D.D.S., Inc., 240 Cal. App. 4th 1167, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2015)
- Ferrick v. Santa Clara Univ., 231 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 68 (2014)
- Nosal-Tabor v. Sharp Chula Vista Med. Ctr., 239 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 651 (2015)
- Satyadi v. W. Contra Costa Healthcare Dist., 232 Cal. App. 4th 1022, 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21 (2014)
- Hirst v. City of Oceanside, 236 Cal. App. 4th 774, 187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 (2015)
- France v. Johnson, 795 F.3d. 1170 (9th Cir. 2015)
- Curley v. City of N. Las Vegas, 772 F. 3d 629 (9th Cir. 2014)
- Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., 795 F. 3d. 941 (9th Cir. 2015)
- Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d. 495 (9th Cir. 2015)
- Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack Holdings Lawsuit Allowed to Go Forward
- Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk: Specific Holding Speaks to Broader Issue
- Rhea v. General Atomics: Vacation/PTO Deduction for Partial-day Absences Clarified
- Sandifer v. United States Steel “Donning and Doffing” is not Compensable Work Time
- Dilts v. Penske: A Victory for Workers and States' Rights
- Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. Commission Wages: How and When They are to be Paid
- Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. Bring Your Own Device Programs Just Got Better – For Employees
- Thomas v. County of Riverside The Ninth Circuit Protects Free Speech
- Lane v. Franks First Amendment Protections for Public Employees Clarified
- Airline Pilots Association International v. United Airlines, Inc. California's Kin Care Law not Preempted by ERISA
- Workplace Verbal Attacks on Male Employee's Heterosexual Identity Deemed Harassment Under FEHA
- Employer Can Not Classify Employees as Independent Contractors in Certain Cases
- Family Medical Leave Act does not Provide Protections if FMLA Leave is not Requested
- Failure to Comply with Fitness for Duty Justified Termination
- Plaintiff Fails to Prove that Lack of Training Led to Intentional Poisoning
- Franchisor Not Liable for Wrongful Conduct of Franchisee’s Employee
- Police Officer with ADHD Not Protected by Americans with Disabilities Act
- Individual May Bring Wrongful Termination Action for Violation of Public Policy
- Whistleblower Protections Extend to Additional Reporters
- Bone Fide Occupational Qualification Must be Applied Carefully
- Labor Code Section 229 Precluded Arbitration of Claim for Unpaid Wages
- Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Argument that Arbitrator has Financial Self-Interest in Deciding Unconsionability
- Agreement to Submit all Claims to Arbitration was Insufficient to Allow Employee to Compel Employer Into Class Arbitration
- Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ('PAGA') Does Not Qualify as Class Action Under Class Action Fairness Act for Purposed of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers Case Analysis
- Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Case Analysis
- Davis v. Nordstrom Case Analysis
- Johnmmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s Case Analysis
- Casas v. Carmax Auto Superstores California Case Analysis
- Willis v. Prime Healthcare Case Analysis
- Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association Case Analysis
- Hall v. Rite Aid
- In Re Walgreen Co. Overtime Cases, 231 Cal. App. 4th 437, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 38 (2014)
- Cheal v. El Camino Hospital
- Ellis v. U.S. Sec. Assocs.
- Stenehjem v. Sarren
- EEOC v. Abercrombie
- Teamsters v. Washington Dept of Corrections
- Cifuentes v. Costco
- Cosentino v. Fuller
- McVeigh v. Recology
- Vance. v. Ball State
- McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech
- Lawler v. Montblanc N. A.
- Furtado v. State Pers. Bd
- Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Wash, Inc
- Hailliburton Energy Servs. Inc. v. Dept of Transp.
- Muniz v. UPS
- Arizona v. ASARCO
- Harris v. City of Santa Monica
- Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC
- Fitzsimons v. Cal Emergency Physicians Med. Grp.
- Rickards v. United Parcel Sev., Inc.
- Shelly v. Geren
- Sheppard v. David Evans & Assocs.
- Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd.
- Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza
- Rehmani v. Superior Ct.
- Baker v. Mulholland Security & Patrol, Inc.
- Client Reviews
