Thursday, February 24, 2011

68-year old Salesman Wins Age Discrimination Lawsuit against McMachon’s RV

These days, a lot of older employees have been getting passed over or fired in favor of younger or fresh out of college workers. Now that the U.S. is in recession, experience and wisdom at work isn’t as valuable as hiring cheaper labor.

This is why most employers find means and ways to cut older employees off the payroll (whether its termination, constructive dismissal, or even forced retirement) and opt to hire younger workers who would gladly work for a lower pay and less benefits.

However, this does not mean that older employees especially those aged 40-years old and above have no remedy for this kind of discriminatory treatment.

Take for example, the recent victory claimed by a 68-year old salesman from Placentia. Recently, he was awarded by an Orange County jury damages amounting to $385,000 after he filed an age discrimination lawsuit against his employer.

Bob Liemandt is a former employee of McMahon’s RV, a retailer of recreational vehicles in Irvine, and he has worked as a car salesman for 46 years. Allegedly, in 2009, after a massive heart attack in 2005, he started getting hinted into and pressured at retiring. A former employee testified during trial that the company’s president, Brent McMahon even called Liemandt a “liability” after his heart attack and said that the company had to get rid of him. In his complaint, Liemandt claimed that he was fired after an argument with one of the managers on the same day another employee was let go.

The jury found the company guilty of wrongful termination based on age and that the company violated public policy. Further, McMahon’s was also found guilty of oppression, fraud, and malice by the jury which merited the award of punitive damages amounting to $50,000. The rest of the award covered Liemandt’s backwages, lost commissions, loss of income, as well as compensation for his pain and suffering.

Although the company is going to appeal the case, according to Liemandt, he sued not just because of age discrimination. He wanted to take a stand for himself as well as others who were terminated because of their age.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee or job applicant because of his age. This protection against age discrimination encompasses the following aspects of employment: hiring, firing, pay, promotion, job benefits, lay-off, or any other term or condition of employment.

This is why employees like Liemandt should not be afraid to take a stand and fight for their rights against discrimination. For more questions on age discrimination claims, you may call expert Los Angeles attorneys from the Mesriani Law Group at (310) 826-6300 or send us an email at

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

First Student to pay $150,000 for Sexual Harassment, Retaliation

In Los Angeles, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has imposed a $150,000 fine on a company after allegedly covering up sexual harassment complaints against a supervisor and even retaliating against the female employees.

In a suit against First Student, the EEOC claimed that a male supervisor allegedly sexually harassed 3 female drivers and an HR assistant and made unwelcome verbal and physical acts against the women. Allegedly, aside from making explicit remarks about the female employees’ body parts and the sexual acts he wanted to perform on them – he also exposed himself, grabbed the breasts of one of the female bus drivers and rubbed himself against her.

When the victims allegedly complained, a male manager failed to address the matter and even covered up the sexual harassment. One of the victims was disciplines while another was transferred in retaliation. Further, one of the female bus driver’s hours were cut because the supervisor’s sexual advances were refused, he also promised extra hours to employees who’d accept his sexual requests.

The severe sexual harassment forced 3 of the complainants to resign and according to the EEOC, the $150,000 will be awarded to the four female employees.

Sexual harassment is one of the most common labor violations in the workplace. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee or applicant on the basis of one’s race, color, disability, or sex. Sexual harassment is actually a type of gender discrimination prohibited by the law and the EEOC defines it as any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that adversely affects a person's job or her performance. The US Supreme Court defined the 2 types of sexual harassment as:

• Quid Pro Quo – This means, “this for that”. This is a type of sexual harassment that results to adverse employment decisions (ex. refusing to hire, low pay, firing) if the employee refuses to cooperate or submit to an employer, supervisor, or manager’s unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors.

• Sexually Hostile Work Environment – This involves severe and pervasive behavior or conduct from either the employer, manager, co-workers, or clients that is sexually offensive that unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance.

Sexual harassment is illegal so victims should make sure to report any incidents of it especially if it has continued despite rejecting the harasser or telling him to stop.

For more information on sexual harassment lawsuits in Los Angeles, you may visit or call the Mesriani Law Group at their toll free number at 1-866-325-4529 or email them at for free case analysis.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Trucker How Struck Minivan in Ventura Freeway: Negligent by Virtue of DUI

One of the main differences between truck drivers and regular drivers is the allowed alcohol in the system while driving.

While most states (including California) allows regular drivers to have less than 0.08 percent BAC on their system, federal law prohibits truckers from having ANY alcohol in their system.

That is why even the slightest alcohol in the system, can be used to prove a truck driver’s negligence in a truck accident.

That is probably going to happen on the part of the trucker who was arrested this Tuesday morning after crashing his truck into the center divider of the Ventura (101) Freeway and slamming into a minivan.

The crash seriously injured the minivan driver who had to be brought to a nearby hospital with the trucker, who sustained minor injuries.

The CHP also arrested the trucker for suspicion of driving under the influence and there are indications that his BAC may be more than the limit of regular drivers.

The minivan driver could and should file a personal injury claim against the trucker so that he can get compensation not only for his treatment but also for other losses he sustained such as lost income due to missed work, emotional distress and pain and suffering.

The trucking company can also be named as a defendant in the claim or lawsuit since they have vicarious liability over the actions of their employees.

Good news is that large trucks like big rigs and semis usually carry higher insurance coverage in case something like this happen.