Can a Long-Term California Employee Prove Age Discrimination Even After Being Fired for an Alleged Performance Violation?

Yes — and a Los Angeles jury's verdict in Joy Slagel's case against Liberty Mutual Insurance demonstrates just how seriously California courts treat the pattern of pushing out older, long-tenured employees in favor of younger workers. After a multi-week trial, a jury found Liberty Mutual had engaged in age harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The $20 million compensatory verdict that emerged from that finding stands as one of California's most significant age discrimination awards in recent memory.

Case: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.

Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Case No.: BC648246

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual

Joy Slagel began working at Liberty Mutual in 1985, at age 19, and spent more than 30 years with the company — ultimately working as a senior workers' compensation claims adjuster handling major accounts, including Disney. Her performance reviews consistently reflected strong work through most of her tenure. In 2012, a new regional claims manager took over her department, and Slagel alleges the workplace began to change dramatically. She observed a pattern she believed pointed to age-based decision-making — almost all employees over 40 in her region were either fired or pressured to leave in the years that followed. Slagel raised complaints about what she was observing. Liberty Mutual investigated her in response. When she returned from a medical leave she had taken because of workplace-related stress, she was fired the same day. The company's stated reason: alleged dishonesty and falsification of records tied to a social media investigation for a Disney workers' compensation account. Slagel maintained the issue was a misunderstanding rooted in an earlier undocumented directive from her supervisor.

Get to Know the Defendant: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is one of the largest property and casualty insurers in the United States, with operations across the country including a major claims operation in the Los Angeles area. The Glendale claims department at the center of this case employed approximately 120 workers; Slagel alleges that by the time she was terminated, only two of those employees were over the age of 40. The company maintained at trial that Slagel's termination was based entirely on legitimate performance reasons — specifically, her handling of the Disney social media investigation — and denied any discriminatory intent.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

Slagel's lawsuit, originally filed in January 2017, alleged that Liberty Mutual's new regional management systematically targeted older employees for termination while favoring younger workers — and then retaliated against Slagel when she raised internal concerns about the pattern. According to the complaint and trial evidence:

• Following the arrival of a new regional claims manager in 2012, the composition of the Glendale department shifted dramatically — from roughly 120 employees to a workforce where nearly all workers over 40 had been fired or resigned under pressure within a few years

• Slagel received her first "needs improvement" performance rating in 2015 after years of positive reviews, while simultaneously receiving a customer service award for her handling of a major client account

• After Slagel raised internal complaints about what she believed was age-based decision-making, Liberty Mutual initiated an investigation into her conduct

• She took a medical leave due to high blood pressure caused by workplace stress; on the day she returned, she was terminated

• Liberty Mutual replaced her with a male employee in his late twenties

• The jury found that the company's stated reason for termination — the social media investigation issue — was a pretext for conduct motivated by her age and her internal complaints

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central questions were whether Liberty Mutual terminated Slagel because of her age and in retaliation for raising discrimination complaints — or whether her termination was based on the legitimate performance reason the company cited. A Los Angeles jury answered those questions in Slagel's favor following a multi-week trial in late 2025. The jury awarded $20 million in compensatory damages for past and future emotional distress, and an additional $83 million in punitive damages. However, on May 12, 2026, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jon R. Takasugi vacated the entire $83 million punitive damages award, finding the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of corporate malice at the level required to sustain that award under California law. The judge denied Liberty Mutual's request for a new trial and left the underlying $20 million compensatory verdict intact, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of discriminatory and retaliatory motive.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

This is a California case decided under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, and it sends a meaningful message to employers and employees alike about how California courts treat age discrimination.

• The case reinforces that California's FEHA protects employees from age discrimination from the moment they turn 40 — and that decades of loyal service does not insulate an employee from discriminatory treatment when management changes

• It demonstrates that an employer's stated reason for termination can be challenged as a pretext when the circumstances — including suspicious timing, inconsistent treatment of younger employees, and a pattern of targeting older workers — tell a different story

• The post-trial reduction of the punitive damages award is an important reminder that even in cases where a jury finds an employer acted wrongfully, punitive damages remain subject to meaningful judicial review in California

• The $20 million compensatory award that stands reflects the very real financial and emotional harm that long-term employees can suffer when age discrimination ends a career they spent decades building

A Brief Overview of the Case

• 1985: Joy Slagel begins her career at Liberty Mutual at age 19

• 2012: A new regional claims manager takes over Slagel's department; Slagel begins observing what she believes is a pattern of age-based decision-making

• 2015: Slagel receives her first "needs improvement" rating, while also receiving a customer service award

• 2015–2016: Slagel raises internal complaints about what she perceives as discrimination; Liberty Mutual investigates her

• 2016: Slagel takes medical leave for high blood pressure caused by workplace stress; she is terminated on the day she returns

• January 26, 2017: Slagel files her lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC648246)

• 2023: The California Court of Appeal reverses a prior summary judgment, reinstating Slagel's claims and finding triable issues of age discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and pretext

• Late 2025: Case proceeds to jury trial before Judge Jon R. Takasugi in Los Angeles

• December 5, 2025: Jury returns a verdict of $20 million in compensatory damages and $83 million in punitive damages

• May 12, 2026: Judge Takasugi issues a post-trial ruling vacating the entire $83 million punitive damages award while leaving the $20 million compensatory verdict intact; Liberty Mutual's request for a new trial is denied

FAQs: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual

Q: At what age does California law protect employees from age discrimination?

A: California's Fair Employment and Housing Act protects employees from age discrimination once they reach age 40. This applies to all aspects of employment, including hiring, promotion, compensation, and termination.

Q: What is pretext, and how does it apply in an age discrimination case?

A: Pretext means that an employer's stated reason for a termination or adverse action is not the real reason — it is a cover for an unlawful motive. In Slagel's case, the jury found that Liberty Mutual's explanation (the Disney social media investigation) was pretextual, and that the real reason for her termination was her age and her discrimination complaints.

Q: Can a California employer be held liable for age discrimination even if it claims there was a legitimate performance reason for termination?

A: Yes. California courts look at the totality of the circumstances, including patterns of treatment of older versus younger employees, suspicious timing, inconsistent application of policies, and other evidence that suggests the stated reason is not the true one.

Q: What are compensatory damages in an employment discrimination case?

A: Compensatory damages are designed to compensate the plaintiff for the actual harm she suffered — in this case, the emotional distress resulting from the discrimination and retaliation. They are distinct from punitive damages, which are meant to punish the employer for egregious conduct.

Q: Why were the punitive damages reduced in this case?

A: California courts review large punitive damages awards after trial to determine whether the evidence supports the amount. In this case, Judge Takasugi found that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish corporate malice at the level required to sustain the $83 million punitive award, and vacated it. The $20 million compensatory verdict was separately supported by substantial evidence and was left intact.

Q: What should I do if I believe I am being pushed out of my job because of my age?

A: Document patterns of treatment that suggest age is a factor — including differential treatment of younger employees, comments about age or retirement, sudden changes in performance reviews after years of positive feedback, or exclusion from opportunities given to younger colleagues. An employment lawyer can evaluate your options and advise you on California's filing deadlines for FEHA claims.

Facing Age Discrimination or Retaliation at Work?

Slagel v. Liberty Mutual shows how far California law will go to protect long-term employees from being pushed out because of their age. If you believe you have been discriminated against, harassed, or retaliated against because of your age, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Are Unpaid Student Interns Protected From Sexual Harassment Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act?

Yes — and a California appeals court ruling makes clear that a nursing student completing required clinical rotations can qualify as an unpaid intern protected under FEHA, even when that work is part of her academic program. A supervisor's sexual harassment of a student during a clinical rotation led to this landmark decision, which expands protections for interns, trainees, and clinical participants across the state.

Case: Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District

Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three

Case No.: G064668

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Walton v. Victor Valley CCD

Jessie Walton enrolled in the nursing program at Victor Valley Community College District and was required to complete clinical rotations at two local hospitals as part of her coursework. Those rotations were supervised by District faculty — including Diego Garcia, the director of the nursing program. Walton alleges that Garcia subjected her to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment throughout her clinical rotation and retaliated against her when she rejected his advances, awarding her a failing grade and refusing to meet with her to discuss it. After reporting the conduct, Walton withdrew from the program and completed her nursing degree out of state. Through her attorneys, she notified the District of her intent to pursue legal claims and sought damages for the harm the harassment caused to her education and her career.

Get to Know the Defendant: Walton v. Victor Valley CCD

The Victor Valley Community College District governs the community college serving the High Desert region of San Bernardino County, including its nursing program. As part of that program, the District placed nursing students in clinical rotations at local hospitals and supervised them through District faculty. After Walton reported Garcia's conduct, the District placed him on administrative leave and retained an outside investigator. That investigation confirmed Garcia had engaged in "highly inappropriate behavior" by harassing Walton and at least one other female student. Garcia did not return to teach for the District. Despite this, the trial court granted the District's motion for summary judgment, finding Walton lacked standing under FEHA because she was not a paid employee.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

Walton's lawsuit alleged that the District's nursing faculty supervisor subjected her to sexual harassment and retaliation during her clinical rotation. According to the complaint and the Court of Appeal's decision:

• Garcia subjected Walton to repeated verbal and physical sexual harassment during her clinical rotation and attempted to force her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades

• When Walton rejected his advances, Garcia gave her a failing grade and refused to meet with her to discuss it

• The District placed Garcia on administrative leave after Walton reported the conduct, and an independent investigation confirmed the inappropriate behavior

• Garcia did not return to his position, but the damage to Walton's nursing education had already been done — she withdrew from the program and was forced to complete her nursing degree elsewhere

• The trial court ruled Walton had no standing under FEHA because she was not an employee; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding she could qualify as an "unpaid intern" entitled to FEHA protections

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central legal question was whether a postsecondary student completing required clinical rotations as part of her academic nursing program qualifies as an "unpaid intern" under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, giving her standing to pursue harassment and retaliation claims. The trial court said no. The Court of Appeal said yes — holding that the Legislature's 2015 amendment extending FEHA protections to unpaid interns applies to nursing students in clinical roles, even when those rotations are a required part of their degree program.

Separately, the court also addressed a procedural issue that threatened to derail Walton's case. Her attorney's declaration — a key piece of evidence supporting her opposition to the District's summary judgment motion — was excluded by the trial court because it failed to state the location where it was signed and was not subscribed under penalty of perjury under the laws of California. The Court of Appeal held that this should have been excused as a correctable oversight rather than used to exclude critical evidence from the record.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

While this case arose in a community college nursing program, its implications extend far beyond higher education. California workers and trainees in a wide range of settings can benefit from this ruling.

• California workers in internships, externships, clinical rotations, apprenticeships, and other training programs should know that FEHA's anti-harassment and anti-retaliation protections may apply to them, even if they are not receiving a paycheck

• Organizations that use unpaid interns, students, or clinical trainees should not assume that FEHA's harassment protections only cover traditional employees — this ruling signals those assumptions are legally dangerous

• The decision is especially significant for California's large healthcare training sector, where students regularly work alongside licensed professionals in supervised clinical settings

• It reinforces that supervisors who harass students or trainees under their authority can expose their institutions to significant legal liability under California law

A Brief Overview of the Case

• 2017: Jessie Walton enrolls in Victor Valley Community College District's nursing program and begins required clinical rotations supervised by Diego Garcia

• Spring 2018: Garcia allegedly subjects Walton to repeated sexual harassment and retaliates against her with a failing grade after she rejects his advances

• After Walton reports the conduct: The District places Garcia on administrative leave; an independent investigation confirms "highly inappropriate behavior"; Garcia does not return

• Walton withdraws from the program and completes her nursing degree out of state

• Through counsel: Walton notifies the District of her intent to pursue FEHA and related claims

• Trial court: San Bernardino County Superior Court grants the District's motion for summary judgment, finding Walton lacks FEHA standing as a non-employee

• March 18, 2026: The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reverses summary judgment, holding Walton may qualify as an "unpaid intern" under FEHA; case remanded with instructions to deny summary adjudication on her FEHA, Education Code, and negligence claims

• April 14, 2026: Opinion modified and certified for publication

FAQs: Walton v. Victor Valley CCD

Q: What is FEHA, and who does it protect?

A: The Fair Employment and Housing Act is California's primary anti-discrimination and anti-harassment law. It prohibits harassment and discrimination based on protected characteristics including sex, gender, and sexual orientation. In 2015, the Legislature amended FEHA to expressly extend its protections against harassment to unpaid interns.

Q: Who qualifies as an "unpaid intern" under FEHA?

A: California's definition covers a person who performs work for a public or private employer for the purpose of gaining vocational experience, and who is not entitled to wages for that work. The Walton decision confirms this definition can apply to postsecondary students completing required clinical rotations as part of their degree program.

Q: Can a student who is harassed during a clinical rotation or internship file a FEHA claim?

A: Based on the Walton ruling, yes — if the student's role meets the definition of an unpaid intern under FEHA, they can pursue harassment and retaliation claims under the Act, even if they are not a paid employee of the organization where they are placed.

Q: What should a student or intern do if they experience sexual harassment during a clinical rotation or internship?

A: Document every incident as specifically as possible, including dates, what was said or done, and any witnesses. Report the conduct through your school's or institution's complaint channels. An employment attorney can evaluate your legal options and help you understand any filing deadlines that apply to FEHA claims.

Q: Does this ruling apply only to nursing students?

A: No. The court's reasoning applies broadly to any postsecondary student completing required clinical, vocational, or externship placements as part of their academic program — including students in medical, dental, legal, social work, and other professional training programs.

Q: What is a motion for summary judgment, and why did the Court of Appeal reverse it here?

A: A motion for summary judgment asks the court to dismiss a case before trial on the grounds that the plaintiff cannot win as a matter of law. The Court of Appeal reversed because it found Walton presented enough evidence to raise triable issues — meaning a jury, not a judge, should decide what happened and whether it violated California law.

Did You Experience Harassment During an Internship or Clinical Rotation?

Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District makes clear that California law protects more than just traditional employees — interns, trainees, and clinical students may have the same right to a harassment-free workplace. If you experienced harassment or retaliation during an internship, externship, or training program in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Are California Employers Required to Include Employee Bonuses When Calculating Overtime Pay?

A former paramedic says his ambulance company employer paid him and more than 100 fellow emergency workers less overtime than California law required — by leaving their bonuses out of the calculation entirely. The California Court of Appeal agreed the case deserved a closer look, reversing the trial court's decision to block it from proceeding as a class action.

Case: Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar, Inc.
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District
Case No.: F089576

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar

Adam Martinez worked as an emergency medical technician for Sierra Lifestar, Inc., doing business as Lifestar Ambulance, a private ambulance company providing 911 emergency services in Tulare County, California. Martinez and approximately 135 current and former employees were paid hourly on a biweekly schedule and received various bonuses throughout their employment. In May 2020, Martinez received a $100 EMS Week bonus — awarded during National Emergency Medical Services Week — as recognition for the demanding work he and his colleagues perform. His lawsuit alleges that this bonus, along with other nondiscretionary bonuses paid by Lifestar, should have been included in the calculation of overtime pay but was not, resulting in a systematic underpayment of overtime and other premium wages across the workforce.

Get to Know the Defendant: Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar

Sierra Lifestar, Inc., operating as Lifestar Ambulance, provides 911 emergency ambulance services in and around the City of Tulare in California's Central Valley. The company employs paramedics, emergency medical technicians, clerical staff, and an IT technician, all paid on an hourly basis on a biweekly pay schedule. According to the complaint, Lifestar paid employees approximately ten categories of bonuses during the class period but did not factor those bonuses into the regular rate of pay it used to calculate overtime, double time, and meal and rest period premiums.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

Martinez filed a class action in Tulare County Superior Court seeking to represent himself and approximately 135 current and former Lifestar employees. Court filings show the following:

• Lifestar excluded nondiscretionary bonuses from the "regular rate of pay" used to calculate overtime, double time, and meal and rest period premium pay, resulting in employees receiving lower premium pay than California law requires

• The company paid approximately ten types of bonuses, and the complaint alleges all of them were nondiscretionary and should have been included in overtime calculations

• Because of this exclusion, employees received time-and-a-half calculated only on their base hourly rate — rather than on the slightly higher regular rate that would include the bonus — and lost wages accordingly

• The employer's argument that the EMS Week bonus was a "gift" or a discretionary payment was rejected by the Court of Appeal as a reason to deny class treatment, because the same bonus policy applied to all employees in the class

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central legal question before the Court of Appeal was not whether Lifestar violated the law — that question remains for future proceedings — but whether the case could proceed as a class action. The trial court denied class certification on the ground that Martinez only received one of the ten bonus types and that each type presented unique circumstances, making his claims atypical of the class. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court applied the wrong legal standard. The question of whether any given bonus is nondiscretionary, and therefore must be included in the regular rate of pay, is a classwide issue that applies equally to all employees — not a reason to block class treatment at the threshold stage. The case was remanded to Tulare County Superior Court for a fresh evaluation of class certification under the correct framework.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

While this case was filed in Tulare County, California workers across the state experience similar situations. Miscalculation of the regular rate of pay is one of the most common sources of wage and hour complaints in California.

• California law requires that nondiscretionary bonuses — those tied to performance goals, attendance, production, or other objective criteria — be included in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime, double time, and meal and rest period premiums

• An employer cannot retroactively label a recurring, policy-based bonus a "gift" to escape the obligation of including it in overtime calculations

• The Court of Appeal's ruling closes a tactic some employers have used to defeat class certification: arguing that minor differences between employees' bonus types make a single plaintiff's claims atypical of the class as a whole

• This case is especially relevant to hourly workers in healthcare, transportation, emergency services, and any other field where bonuses supplement an hourly wage

A Brief Overview of the Case

• May 2020: Adam Martinez receives a $100 EMS Week bonus from Lifestar Ambulance, netting approximately $100 after withholdings

• Complaint filed: Martinez files a class action in Tulare County Superior Court (Case No. VCU299663) alleging that nondiscretionary bonuses were excluded from overtime and other premium pay calculations

• March 25, 2025: The trial court denies class certification, finding that Martinez's claims are not typical of the proposed class because he only received one type of bonus

• April 21, 2026: The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reverses the denial of class certification, holding the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard; the case is remanded for further proceedings

FAQs: Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar

Q: What is the "regular rate of pay" and why does it matter for overtime in California?
A: The regular rate of pay is the hourly figure California employers must use to calculate overtime, double time, and meal and rest period premiums. It is not simply an employee's base hourly wage — it must also include nondiscretionary bonuses, certain incentive payments, and other forms of additional compensation earned during the workweek.

Q: What makes a bonus "nondiscretionary" under California law?
A: A bonus is generally nondiscretionary if it is tied to objective criteria — such as a performance goal, a production target, or a recognized occasion like National EMS Week — and employees have a reasonable expectation of receiving it. A truly discretionary bonus is one the employer decides to pay spontaneously, in an amount determined entirely at its own discretion, without any prior promise or established policy.

Q: Can an employer call a bonus a "gift" to avoid including it in overtime calculations?
A: Not automatically. California courts look at the substance of the payment, not just the label. A recurring bonus paid under a consistent company policy to employees who meet defined criteria is likely nondiscretionary regardless of what the employer calls it.

Q: What is class certification and why did it matter so much in this case?
A: Class certification is the court's decision to allow a lawsuit to proceed on behalf of a group of similarly situated employees rather than just the individual who filed. In wage and hour cases, certification is critical — without it, each of the 135 employees would have to file separately to recover their share of the underpaid wages.

Q: If I receive a bonus at work, should my employer include it in my overtime calculation?
A: If your bonus is tied to performance goals, production numbers, or other objective criteria, it is likely nondiscretionary and should be included in your regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. If your overtime paychecks do not appear to reflect your bonuses, you may have a wage claim worth evaluating with an employment attorney.

Q: What happens next in Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar?
A: The case was sent back to Tulare County Superior Court for a fresh analysis of class certification using the correct legal standard. Whether Lifestar ultimately violated California wage law has not been decided; that determination will come later in the litigation if the class is certified and the case proceeds to trial.

Have You Been Shortchanged on Overtime Pay?

Cases like Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar are a reminder that wage miscalculations — even small ones — can add up to significant losses for California workers over time. If you believe your employer has not been calculating your overtime correctly, including by failing to account for bonuses or incentive pay, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Cell Tower Testers Say AmeriCloud Solutions Denied Them Overtime by Misclassifying Them as Contractor (Copy)

A group of former "drive testers" say AmeriCloud Solutions treated them like employees in every way that mattered; except when it came time to pay overtime. Their lawsuit accuses the telecommunications company of misclassifying them as independent contractors to avoid paying wages they were legally owed.

Case: Ahmed et al. v. AmeriCloud Solutions, Inc.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
Case No.: 1:23-cv-15569

Get to Know the Plaintiffs: Ahmed v. AmeriCloud Solutions

Faizan Ahmed, Jamaal Aljaidi, Syed Hussani, and Zubair Mohammad worked for AmeriCloud as "drive testers" - traveling to different areas, often far from home, to test cellular tower signal strength. Their daily routine involved loading company-owned testing equipment into a vehicle before their shift began, driving predetermined routes through cellular tower cells, and staying in hotels provided by AmeriCloud while working away from home. The class action complaint defines the proposed class as all drive testers who worked for AmeriCloud since November 1, 2020, with the proposed class estimated to exceed 50 workers.

Get to Know the Defendant: Ahmed v. AmeriCloud Solutions

AmeriCloud Solutions, Inc. is an Illinois-based corporation that provides a range of services in the cellular telephone industry, including site acquisition, design, installation, integration, testing, troubleshooting, and optimization of 3G, 4G, and Wi-Fi networks. As part of its optimization and testing services, AmeriCloud deploys drive testers using state-of-the-art testing equipment owned by AmeriCloud (not its workers) to test cellular tower infrastructure for its clients.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

The plaintiffs' complaint, filed November 1, 2023, lays out a pattern of alleged wage theft dressed up as independent contractor status. According to the complaint:

●      AmeriCloud classified drive testers as independent contractors, paid them straight time for all hours worked with no overtime premiums, and withheld no taxes from their pay — despite directing every aspect of their work

●      The first shift drive tester spends roughly 30 minutes before the scheduled 4:00 a.m. shift loading equipment from the hotel into the vehicle and preparing it for the day — unpaid time

●      The second shift drive tester spends roughly 30 minutes at the end of their shift disconnecting equipment and returning it to a secure location in the hotel — also unpaid

●      Defendant repeatedly called drive testers as early as 2:00 a.m. to discuss equipment issues and direct them to begin work, adding further uncompensated time to their already long days

●      Shifts were scheduled for eight hours but regularly ran nine to ten hours, with no overtime compensation for hours beyond 40 in a workweek

●      Drive testers were required to pick up company vehicles and drive them cross-country to testing areas — for Chicago-based testers, assignments could be as far as Oklahoma or Kansas, requiring a full day of driving — travel time that was not always compensated

●      Coordinators directed drive testers not to record certain time on their timesheets, including time spent waiting for rental cars at airports

●      The complaint asserts three counts: violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (including punitive damages), and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance (including treble damages of all overtime premiums owed)

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central legal question is whether AmeriCloud's drive testers were properly classified as independent contractors under the FLSA, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance; or whether the economic reality of the relationship made them employees entitled to overtime pay and other wage protections. The complaint argues that because AmeriCloud owned all the testing equipment and vehicles, set the schedules, directed the work, and provided housing during assignments, the drive testers were employees in every practical sense, regardless of what they were called on paper.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

While this case was filed in Illinois, California workers experience similar situations. Misclassification suits like this one are common across the country, and are one of the most common reasons for employment law complaints in California.

●      California's ABC test under Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) sets one of the strictest independent contractor classification standards in the country — the kind of company control described in this case, including company-owned equipment, company-set schedules, and company-provided housing, would weigh heavily against contractor status under California law

●      Workers who are labeled "contractors" but whose schedules, tools, and assignments are controlled by the company may still be entitled to overtime pay and other employee protections under the California Labor Code

●      The allegations about unpaid prep time before and after shifts, and unpaid cross-country travel, mirror disputes California courts regularly see — time spent on required tasks that are integral to the job is often compensable work time under California law

●      This case is a reminder that a 1099 tax form and a "contractor" label do not automatically exempt a worker from overtime protections under federal or California law

A Brief Overview of the Case

●      November 1, 2020: The class period begins, covering all drive testers who worked for AmeriCloud from this date forward

●      November 1, 2023: Faizan Ahmed, Jamaal Aljaidi, Syed Hussani, and Zubair Mohammad file their class and collective action complaint against AmeriCloud Solutions in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

●      Ongoing: The case proceeds in federal court as a proposed class and collective action on behalf of all AmeriCloud drive testers, including a subclass of those who worked in the City of Chicago

FAQs: Ahmed v. AmeriCloud Solutions

Q: What makes someone an "independent contractor" versus an employee?
A: Courts typically look at the economic reality of the working relationship — who controls the schedule, who provides tools and equipment, how much independence the worker actually has, and whether the work is integral to the company's core business. The more control a company exercises, the more likely a worker is legally an employee.

Q: Can my employer avoid paying overtime just by calling me a contractor?
A: No. Simply labeling a worker a "contractor" doesn't determine their legal status. Courts look at the actual working relationship, not the label on a contract or paycheck.

Q: Does California have stricter rules than other states for contractor classification?
A: Yes. California's ABC test under AB5 is considered one of the strictest contractor classification standards in the country. Under that test, workers are presumed to be employees unless the employer can satisfy all three prongs of the test.

Q: Is unpaid prep time before a shift actually compensable?
A: In many cases, yes. Time spent on tasks that are required, integral to the job, and directed by the employer — like loading equipment before a shift or securing it after — can be compensable work time under both federal and California law.

Q: What about unpaid travel time between assignments?
A: Travel time can be compensable depending on the circumstances. When a worker is required to travel to a distant location as part of the job and that travel is directed and controlled by the employer, those hours may be owed wages under federal and state law.

Q: What should I do if I think I've been misclassified as a contractor?
A: Document your schedule, who assigns your tasks, what equipment you use, how much independence you actually have, and whether taxes are withheld from your pay. Then speak with an employment attorney about your options as soon as possible.

Think You've Been Misclassified as an Independent Contractor?

Cases like Ahmed v. AmeriCloud Solutions show how easily companies can misclassify workers to avoid paying what the law requires. If you believe you've been wrongly classified as a contractor and denied overtime or other wages you're owed, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

California Court Rejects Blue Origin's One-Sided Arbitration Agreement in Harassment Case

A Follow-Up: In April 2024, we covered Craig Stoker's wrongful termination lawsuit against Blue Origin when he first filed his complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Two years later, that case has produced a significant appellate ruling worth revisiting.

When Craig Stoker raised safety concerns about Blue Origin's rocket engine program, he alleges his complaints were dismissed by colleagues who told him to "man up" — comments he says reflected gender-based bias baked into how his concerns were received. After he was terminated, Stoker sued, and when Blue Origin tried to force his claims into arbitration, a California appeals court ruled the arbitration agreement itself was too one-sided to enforce.

Case: Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC, et al.

Court: California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three

Case No.: B344945 (Los Angeles County Superior Court No. 23STCV28816)

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Stoker v. Blue Origin

Craig Stoker worked as senior director of program management on Blue Origin's BE-4 rocket engine program, based out of the company's Woodland Hills, California location, from August 2020 until his termination in October 2022. Stoker alleges he spent months raising safety and workplace concerns internally, and that his complaints were repeatedly brushed off, in part with comments suggesting he should "man up" — remarks he says reflected gender-based dismissiveness toward his concerns rather than a good-faith response to legitimate safety issues. As a condition of his employment, Stoker had signed a broad arbitration agreement covering nearly every category of workplace dispute. After his termination, he sued for retaliation, gender discrimination and harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination.

Get to Know the Defendant: Stoker v. Blue Origin

Blue Origin, LLC is an aerospace and space exploration company that designs and builds rockets, engines, and spacecraft, including the BE-4 engine program where Stoker worked. Like many employers, Blue Origin required employees to sign broad arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, covering nearly every category of workplace dispute.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

Stoker's lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges a range of employment law violations tied to his termination. According to the complaint:

● Stoker experienced sexual and gender discrimination and harassment during his employment

● He was terminated in retaliation after raising safety concerns

● Blue Origin failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the alleged discrimination and harassment

● His termination violated public policy protecting employees from retaliation

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central legal question was whether Blue Origin's arbitration agreement was enforceable under California law. Blue Origin argued Stoker's allegations were too vague to qualify as sexual harassment under the federal EFAA, while Stoker argued both that the EFAA applied and that the arbitration agreement itself was unconscionable. The Court of Appeal ultimately didn't need to resolve the EFAA question at all; it found the agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California contract law, and that the unlawful provisions couldn't simply be severed to save the rest of the agreement.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

This is a California case decided under California law, and it has direct implications for any California worker who has signed a broad employment arbitration agreement.

● The ruling confirms that California courts will strike down arbitration agreements that are too one-sided, even without relying on federal protections like the EFAA

● It signals to California employers that overly broad arbitration clauses covering nearly every type of claim may not hold up in court

● Workers don't necessarily need to prove their claim qualifies for a federal carve-out to challenge an unfair arbitration agreement; California's own unconscionability doctrine can accomplish the same result

● The decision is a reminder that employees should have their arbitration agreements reviewed by an attorney rather than assuming they are automatically enforceable

A Brief Overview of the Case

● August 2020: Craig Stoker is hired by Blue Origin as senior director of program management

● October 2022: Stoker is terminated after allegedly raising safety concerns

● November 2023: Stoker files suit against Blue Origin in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. 23STCV28816)

● Blue Origin moves to compel arbitration: The trial court denies the motion, finding the EFAA applied

● Blue Origin appeals

● April 24, 2026: The Court of Appeal affirms the denial of arbitration, ruling the agreement was unconscionable under California law without reaching the EFAA question

FAQs: Stoker v. Blue Origin

Q: What does it mean for an arbitration agreement to be "unconscionable"?

A: Under California law, an agreement can be found unconscionable if it is both procedurally unfair (such as being presented as a non-negotiable condition of employment) and substantively unfair (such as heavily favoring the employer's interests).

Q: Can an unfair provision just be removed from an arbitration agreement instead of throwing out the whole thing?

A: Sometimes, but not always. In this case, the court found the unfairness was so extensive that severing the problematic parts wouldn't fix the agreement.

Q: Do I have to sign an arbitration agreement to keep my job in California?

A: Employers commonly require arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, but that doesn't mean every such agreement is enforceable under California law.

Q: What is the EFAA, and why didn't the court rely on it here?

A: The EFAA is a federal law letting employees void arbitration agreements for sexual harassment or assault claims. The court in this case didn't need to address it because it found the agreement unenforceable under separate California unconscionability principles.

Q: If I already signed an arbitration agreement, can I still challenge it later?

A: Yes. Arbitration agreements can be challenged in court, particularly if they were presented unfairly or contain one-sided terms.

Q: What should I do if I think my employer's arbitration agreement is unfair?

A: Have the agreement reviewed by an employment attorney before assuming you're bound by it — especially if you're considering filing a harassment, discrimination, or retaliation claim.

Worried Your Arbitration Agreement Isn't Fair?

Stoker v. Blue Origin shows that not every arbitration agreement holds up in court — especially when it's overly one-sided. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

San Diego Jury Awards $105 Million to Counselor Fired After Reporting Sexual Harassment

A San Diego jury delivered one of the largest wrongful termination verdicts in county history to a counselor who says she was fired for doing exactly what the law asks employees to do: speak up about harassment and safety failures.

Case: Michelle Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance, Inc.

Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Central Division)

Case No.: 37-2024-00002653-CU-WT-CTL

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance

Michelle Giaquinta worked as a counselor at Fashion Valley Comprehensive Treatment Center. She reported to management that she was being sexually harassed by a fellow counselor, whom she believed had placed a hidden camera discovered in an employee bathroom. According to trial evidence, Giaquinta had never been cited for documentation issues and had even been praised by her supervisors for her documentation skills — directly contradicting the company's stated reason for firing her.

Get to Know the Defendant: Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance

San Diego Health Alliance, Inc., doing business as Fashion Valley Comprehensive Treatment Center, is an opioid treatment facility and a subsidiary of Acadia Healthcare, Inc. The facility provides addiction treatment services to patients in the San Diego area.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

Giaquinta's lawsuit alleges that her employer retaliated against her for reporting serious safety and harassment concerns. According to the case and trial evidence:

● Giaquinta reported that a coworker had sexually harassed her and may have placed a hidden camera in an employee bathroom

● The alleged harasser admitted his fingerprints would likely be found on the hidden camera

● Management failed to report the allegations to state investigators within the legally required 24-hour window, and never reported them at all

● One day after management deemed Giaquinta's complaints "unfounded," a patient ran through the facility screaming that the same counselor had sexually harassed her

● Rather than report the incident to regulators as required, the facility terminated both the alleged harasser and Giaquinta

● The company claimed Giaquinta was fired for failing to properly document a patient interaction, despite no prior documentation issues and prior praise for her documentation

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central question for the jury was whether Giaquinta was terminated for a legitimate performance reason, as the company claimed, or in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and a serious patient safety failure the facility never disclosed to regulators.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

This is a California case decided by a California jury under California employment and retaliation law, and the size of the verdict sends a clear message to employers statewide.

● The verdict reinforces that California law protects employees who report harassment and safety violations, even when doing so is uncomfortable for the employer

● The jury's finding of malice, oppression, and fraud — resulting in a $70 million punitive damages award — shows how seriously California juries can treat retaliation against whistleblowers

● The case illustrates a common retaliation pattern: an employer manufacturing a pretextual reason for termination shortly after an employee raises safety or harassment concerns

● It's a reminder that healthcare and treatment facility employees, who are often bound by mandatory reporting laws, have strong legal protections when they follow those laws

A Brief Overview of the Case

● October 2023: Giaquinta is terminated from Fashion Valley Comprehensive Treatment Center

● January 2024: Giaquinta files suit in San Diego Superior Court

● Late April 2026: The case proceeds to trial

● May 12, 2026: The jury awards Giaquinta $35 million in compensatory damages and $70 million in punitive damages, totaling $105 million

FAQs: Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance

Q: What is retaliation under California employment law?

A: Retaliation occurs when an employer takes an adverse action, like termination, demotion, or discipline, against an employee because they engaged in a legally protected activity, such as reporting harassment or safety violations.

Q: Why did the jury award punitive damages in this case?

A: Punitive damages are awarded when a jury finds an employer's conduct involved malice, oppression, or fraud — a higher standard than ordinary negligence.

Q: What is the 24-hour reporting requirement mentioned in this case?

A: Certain licensed facilities are required to report specific allegations, such as suspected abuse, to state investigators within a defined window, often 24 hours, to protect patients and staff.

Q: Can an employer fire someone for a stated reason that isn't the real reason?

A: If an employer's stated reason for termination is pretextual — meaning it's not the actual reason — and the real motivation was retaliation for protected activity, that termination can be unlawful under California law.

Q: How large can a wrongful termination verdict be in California?

A: Verdicts vary widely by case, but California juries have shown a willingness to award substantial compensatory and punitive damages in cases involving serious retaliation and cover-ups.

Q: What should I do if I'm punished at work after reporting harassment or safety concerns?

A: Document your reports, any resulting discipline, and the timeline between them, then speak with an employment attorney about your rights.

Fired After Reporting Harassment or a Safety Concern?

Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance shows how seriously California courts and juries take retaliation against employees who do the right thing. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

California Courts Side with Black Tesla Workers in Race Harassment Class Action

Thousands of Black factory workers at Tesla's Fremont plant say they endured pervasive racial harassment on the job — and when Tesla tried to force parts of the case into arbitration, California courts repeatedly said no.

Case: Vaughn, et al. v. Tesla, Inc.

Trial Court: Superior Court of California, County of Alameda | Case No. RG17882082

Related Appellate Case: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District | Case No. A164053

Get to Know the Plaintiffs: Vaughn v. Tesla

Marcus Vaughn is the lead named plaintiff representing a certified class of thousands of Black current and former employees who worked on the production floor at Tesla's Fremont factory. Other named plaintiffs include Monica Chatman and Evie Hall, who worked at the factory through staffing agencies before becoming direct Tesla hires. The class alleges pervasive, unaddressed use of racial slurs and other racially discriminatory conduct at the factory.

Get to Know the Defendant: Vaughn v. Tesla

Tesla, Inc. is an electric vehicle manufacturer headquartered in California, with a major factory in Fremont, California, where the alleged conduct occurred.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

The class action alleges widespread race-based harassment and discrimination at Tesla's Fremont factory. According to the case:

● Black employees were subjected to pervasive use of racial slurs by associates, leads, and supervisors

● Tesla was aware of the conduct but failed to take sufficient action to stop it

● The alleged conduct affected a class of thousands of current and former Black employees at the factory

● Some plaintiffs, including Chatman and Hall, experienced the alleged harassment while working through staffing agencies, before they became direct Tesla employees

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The core legal question in the appellate rulings centered on arbitration: could Tesla force plaintiffs to arbitrate claims that arose before they became direct Tesla employees, or claims they never agreed to arbitrate at all? The Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs like Chatman and Hall only agreed to arbitrate disputes arising after they became direct Tesla hires — not race harassment claims tied to their earlier employment through staffing agencies.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

This is a landmark California race discrimination class action, decided under California law, with implications far beyond Tesla's factory floor.

● The case reinforces that employers cannot use arbitration agreements to sweep away claims that predate the agreement or fall outside its actual scope

● It highlights the protections available to workers placed at a company through staffing agencies, who may not be bound by arbitration terms signed only after becoming direct employees

● The size of the certified class — thousands of workers — shows how a pattern of workplace harassment can result in company-wide legal accountability

● It reinforces that California courts will closely scrutinize attempts to compel arbitration, rather than automatically enforcing broad arbitration clauses

A Brief Overview of the Case

● November 13, 2017: Marcus Vaughn files the original class action complaint against Tesla in Alameda County Superior Court

● 2019: The Court of Appeal issues its first decision (A154753), rejecting Tesla's attempt to compel arbitration against Vaughn, who never signed an arbitration agreement

● September 2021: The trial court grants in part and denies in part Tesla's motion to compel arbitration for plaintiffs Chatman and Hall; Tesla appeals, staying trial court proceedings

● January 4, 2023: The Court of Appeal issues its second decision (A164053), agreeing that Chatman and Hall only agreed to arbitrate claims arising after becoming direct Tesla hires

● May 17, 2024: The trial court certifies the class, allowing thousands of Black workers to pursue their claims together

FAQs: Vaughn v. Tesla

Q: Can an employer force arbitration for claims that happened before I signed an arbitration agreement?

A: Not necessarily. As this case shows, courts may limit arbitration agreements to claims arising after the agreement was signed, especially when the underlying conduct predates it.

Q: Does working through a staffing agency affect my rights against the company I'm placed with?

A: It can. Workers placed through staffing agencies may not automatically be bound by arbitration agreements they later sign only once hired directly by the client company.

Q: What does it mean for a class to be "certified" in a class action?

A: Class certification means a court has determined that a group of workers with similar claims can proceed together as a single lawsuit, rather than filing individual cases.

Q: How long can employment class actions take to resolve?

A: As this case shows, class actions involving repeated appeals and arbitration disputes can take years, even a decade or more, before reaching resolution.

Q: Is repeated use of racial slurs at work illegal under California law?

A: Yes. A hostile work environment based on race, including pervasive use of racial slurs, can violate California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Q: What should I do if I'm experiencing racial harassment at work?

A: Document incidents as they happen, report them through your employer's internal channels if possible, and consult an employment attorney about your legal options.

Experiencing Racial Harassment or Discrimination at Work?

Vaughn v. Tesla shows how persistent legal action can hold even the largest employers accountable for workplace race discrimination. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.