Federal lawsuit alleges discrimination against Vietnamese women nail techs
The fight for licensed manicurists to be able to work as self-employed without passing a test is going to court.
Backed by Vietnamese American nail technicians and nail salon owners holding protest signs, including 'stop Asian hate,' Republican Assemblyman Tri Ta announced Monday morning the filing of a discrimination lawsuit outside of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Santa Ana.
'Earlier this year, our office received many concerns from Vietnamese American manicurists and nail salon owners,' Ta said at a news conference. 'Their lives were turned upside down overnight when the independent contractor status expired on January 1.'
'It is not just unfair, it is discrimination,' he added.
Licensed barbers, cosmetologists, estheticians and electrologists can still work as independent contractors under state labor law without being subjected to a rigorous test.
But exemptions under Assembly Bill 5 expired this year for manicurists.
The change has left manicurists and nail salon owners alike confused as to whether non-employees can continue renting booths for their businesses — a decades-long industry practice.
Ta, whose 70th Assembly District encompasses Little Saigon, said 82% of manicurists in the state are Vietnamese, with 85% of those being women.
The federal discrimination suit, filed on May 31, represents several Orange County nail salon businesses as well as individual manicurists.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and the heads of five state agencies and boards are named as defendants.
'This lawsuit seeks only one thing — to make sure that all professionals in the beauty industry are treated equally and to eliminate the obvious discrimination against the Vietnamese community,' the complaint reads.
Attorney Scott Wellman, who is litigating on behalf of the nail salon owners and manicurists, held up a copy of the complaint during the news conference. He claimed the equal protection rights of his clients under the U.S. Constitution are being violated by the lack of an exemption.
'This wrong has to be righted,' Wellman said.
The suit represents a change in strategy for those fighting on behalf of aggrieved manicurists and nail salon owners.
In February, Ta introduced Assembly Bill 504, which aimed to reinstate the exemption for manicurists, but later claimed the proposed legislation couldn't even get a hearing from the committee on labor and employment. He followed up in March by calling for the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into alleged racial discrimination codified in California labor law, before ultimately turning to federal court.
'These hardworking professionals deserve the same freedom to set their own hours, to choose their own clients, to rent their own booths and to run their own businesses on their own terms just like other peers in the beauty industry,' Ta said Monday.
Ta and the suit cite statistics from a UCLA Labor Center report on California's nail salon industry that was published last year. Co-authors of the report, though, have been publicly critical of Ta's efforts to have the exemption reinstated.
'As an industry predominantly consisting of Vietnamese and female manicurists, AB 5 protects the community from misclassification and labor violations that have long existed at the workplace so that they can receive the wages, benefits and protections that all workers deserve,' said Lisa Fu, executive director of the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative and report co-author.
The report found that 80% of nail salon workers are considered low-wage earners, with 30% of manicurists in the state classified as self-employed, which is triple the national rate.
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who authored the sunset provision in AB 5, previously told TimesOC that the nail salon industry has a long history of high misclassification rates that needed added guardrails for labor rights 'while still allowing individual business owners the ability to work as a sole proprietor and simply rent space from a salon.'
Manicurists who back the federal discrimination suit spoke out at Monday's press conference.
'I want to be able to continue to work as an independent contractor,' said Loan Ho. 'It gives me more flexibility. I have time to raise my children.'
Emily Micelli works out of Blu Nail Bar at Fashion Island in Newport Beach, which is the lead plaintiff in the suit. She has more than 20 years of experience as a nail technician and doesn't want to be a nail salon employee.
Micelli left the previous nail salon she worked out of when the owner wouldn't allow her to continue as an independent contractor.
'I cannot keep clients on my phone, make appointments and come up with my own custom design packages,' Micelli said after the news conference. 'I have to abide by the salon's rules. It will make me lose business.'
Micelli believes that while the law may be well-intended, it otherwise serves to discriminate against Vietnamese American women like herself.
'I know the law wants to protect us as workers,' she said, 'but being a W-2 [worker] is better for office workers not for people like us, who are artists. I'm actually an artist — a nail artist.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP can't include limits on Trump lawsuits in megabill, Senate official rules
'Individual district judges -- who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts -- are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairm of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out Trump's agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits. Advertisement The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law -- gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'It was nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored this nation since its founding.' Advertisement Senate Republicans sought to target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders that often block administration policies. Republicans in the House passed a measure in their version of their party's major policy bill to impose limits on federal judges' power to hold people in contempt. The actions came as federal judges have opened inquiries about whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating their orders in cases related to its aggressive deportation efforts. The decision on Sunday is part of a broader review MacDonough is conducting of the Republican-written legislation, which includes large tax cuts and reductions in social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. She ruled that Republicans could include in their bill a divisive measure that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., opposes that provision and has said he intends to introduce an amendment to try to kill the measure. MacDonough also rejected a GOP plan to push some of the costs of nutrition assistance, formerly known as SNAP, onto the states, a ruling that has sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She was expected to work into the week evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order, including whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. Advertisement If Republicans fail to remove the measures she deems out of order, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it. That would effectively kill the legislation since Democrats are solidly opposed. This article originally appeared in
American Press
5 hours ago
- American Press
Iranian ambassador says US ‘decided to destroy diplomacy' with strikes on nuclear sites
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump arrives at an election night watch party at the Palm Beach Convention Center, on Wednesday in West Palm Beach, Fla. (Associated Press) Iran said that the U.S. 'decided to destroy diplomacy' with its strikes on the country's nuclear program and that the Iranian military will decide the 'timing, nature and scale of Iran's proportionate response.' Iran's U.N. ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, spoke to an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council hours after the U.S. attack. 'We will take all measures necessary,' he told the meeting.
Hamilton Spectator
5 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's go-it-alone strategy on Iran risks dividing an already split Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's decision to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites without fully consulting the U.S. Congress layered a partisan approach onto a risky action, particularly because the White House briefed top Republican leaders beforehand without doing the same for Democrats. While House Speaker Mike Johnson , Senate Republican leader John Thune and the GOP chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee were all briefed before the action, their counterparts were not. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer was given a perfunctory heads-up by the White House shortly before the strikes were made public. And House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries' office received a 'courtesy call' before Trump announced it. The so-called Gang of Eight congressional and intelligence leaders were not notified before the mission , according to two people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. One, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he learned of the strikes on social media, which he said 'is an uncomfortable thing for the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.' 'Bad enough that we weren't informed,' Himes, of Connecticut, said Sunday on CNN, 'but unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak, as the representatives of the people, on what is one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' It's a highly unusual situation that is complicating the difficult politics ahead for the president and his party as the U.S. enters an uncertain national security era with the surprise military attack on the nuclear facilities, an unprecedented incursion in Iran. Trump faces a vote in Congress as soon as this week on a war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would 'direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.' Another resolution has been introduced by lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. House. And at least one Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, said Trump's actions are 'clearly grounds for impeachment.' At the same time, the Trump administration is expecting Congress to send an additional $350 billion in national security funds as part of the president's big tax breaks bill also heading soon for a vote. Senators are set to be briefed Tuesday behind closed doors on the situation in Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday that the White House made 'bipartisan courtesy calls' to congressional leadership. She said in a social media post that the White House spoke to Schumer 'before the strike' but that House leader Jeffries 'could not be reached until after, but he was briefed.' While the president has authority as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to order specific military actions, any prolonged war-time footing would traditionally need authorization from Congress. The House and Senate authorized actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. 'Congress should be consulted,' Kaine said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We were not.' As soon as Trump announced the actions late Saturday, he won swift support from the GOP leadership in Congress. Johnson, Thune and the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, were all briefed ahead of time and sent almost simultaneous statements backing the military campaign, as did the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Rick Crawford, also of Arkansas. But by apparently engaging with only one side of the political aisle, Trump risks saddling his Republican Party with political ownership of the military action against Iran, which may or may not prove popular with Americans. Rather than rally the country to his side, Trump risks cleaving its already deep divisions over his second term agenda. Johnson, who praised Trump's action against Iran as 'the right call,' said the president's targeted strike was within his authority and in line with past presidential actions. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act,' Johnson, R-La., said on social media. Trump himself has shown little patience for political dissent from within his party, even as criticism rolls in from among his most trusted backers. The Iran military campaign threatens to splinter Trump's Make America Great Again movement, which powered his return to the White House. Many Trump supporters aligned with his campaign promises not to involve the United States in overseas actions and instead to be a peace-making president. 'I think I represent part of the coalition that elected Trump,' said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on CBS. 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California have introduced their own war powers resolution in the House, a sign of how close the far left and far right have bonded over their opposition to U.S. campaigns abroad, particularly in the Middle East. The Trump administration insisted Sunday the U.S. is not seeking a war with Iran. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' said Vice President JD Vance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' And Trump swiftly attacked Massie, who is one of the most steadfast non-interventionist GOP lawmakers in Congress — along with Sen. Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — and the president suggested he would turn his Republican Party against the congressman. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' the president said on social media. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.' __ Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
