Los Angeles Nurse Sues Cedars-Sinai for Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination

A former Cedars-Sinai Medical Center nurse has filed a lawsuit claiming her dream nursing job turned into a nightmare when she faced repeated harassment from Filipino coworkers, discriminatory treatment, and ultimately termination after complaining about the abuse.

Case: Camyle Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case No.: 21STCV27139

The Plaintiff: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Camyle Meier, a half-white and half-Japanese nurse, accepted her “dream job” at Cedars-Sinai shortly before finishing her bachelor’s degree in nursing. Inspired by childhood experiences (including her sister’s treatment at Cedars), Meier was eager to build a long career in medicine. According to her complaint, that goal was cut short due to a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.

The Defendant: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is a large healthcare facility located in Los Angeles. It's also one of the largest employers in California’s medical sector.

History of the Case: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Meier alleges that on her very first day of work, Filipino coworkers poured coffee into her backpack and tampered with her belongings, sending what she interpreted as a clear message of racial animus. Assigned to a section composed almost entirely of Filipino women who had worked together for over a decade, she claims she was consistently ostracized, bullied, and assigned the heaviest and most difficult patients without proper training.

The Allegations: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

According to the lawsuit, her colleagues filed falsified complaints against her, subjected her to unreasonable scrutiny, and undermined her work. Meier alleges that after she resisted actions she believed were unlawful and reported the harassment, retaliation escalated. She was placed on leave just two days before her six-month probationary period ended and was terminated for an alleged time recording violation—a policy she says was different from the one originally provided to her.

Meier's lawsuit includes claims for:

• Gender Discrimination

• Retaliation

• Breach of Contract

• Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

• Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination

• Failure to Take Corrective Action

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The Main Question in the Case: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Did Cedars-Sinai Medical Center violate California labor laws (including the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by allowing a hostile work environment to develop, failing to take corrective action, and terminating Meier in retaliation for her complaints?

FAQ: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Q: What type of discrimination is alleged in this case?

A: Meier claims she experienced race- and gender-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation after reporting workplace misconduct.

Q: What specific conduct is alleged against her coworkers?

A: Allegations include tampering with personal belongings, pouring coffee into her backpack, assigning her the most physically demanding patients without training, filing false complaints, and subjecting her to ostracization and intimidation.

Q: What damages is the plaintiff seeking?

A: The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for lost income, emotional distress, and harm to her professional career.

If you have been harassed, discriminated against, or wrongfully terminated in retaliation for speaking out, you may have legal options under California employment law. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced Los Angeles employment law attorneys fight to protect the rights of workers across California, with offices serving clients in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

L.A. County Nurse Reaches Tentative Settlement in Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A Los Angeles County registered nurse has reached a tentative settlement in her discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in which she claimed she was repeatedly denied promotions and wage increases after speaking out about preferential treatment favoring Filipino and Asian-American nurses.

Case: Jessica Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case No.: 23STCV00176

The Plaintiff: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Jessica Castillo, a registered nurse hired by Los Angeles County in September 2015, evaluated county hospitals and health facilities as part of her job. She alleges that beginning in late 2018, she and other non-Filipino nurses were subject to discriminatory work assignments and denied opportunities for promotion and higher pay after complaining about the treatment.

The Defendant: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

The defendant, Los Angeles County, is one of the largest public employers in California. The defendant denied Castillo’s claims. They claim that Castillo was promoted twice during her tenure, and received steady overtime. They also claimed that when Castillo was not selected for promotions, it was due to one of two valid reasons: 1) her own errors or 2) because other candidates were more qualified for the position.

History of the Case: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Castillo’s complaint alleged that a program manager consistently gave more favorable assignments, telecommuting privileges, and overtime opportunities to Filipino and other Asian-American nurses, in violation of county rules and seniority rights. During the pandemic, favored employees were allegedly permitted to work remotely, while others (including Castillo) were required to work in the field. According to the plaintiff, the required field work allegedly exposed them to COVID-19. After complaining regarding the situation, Castillo claims she faced repeated denials of promotions until she was eventually transferred to another department in September 2021.

The Main Question to Consider in Castillo v. Los Angeles County:

The central question in this case is whether Los Angeles County unlawfully discriminated against and retaliated against Castillo in response to her complaints. Discrimination and retaliation in response to workplace complaints violates multiple labor laws as well as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

FAQ: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Q: What type of discrimination did Castillo allege?

A: She claimed race and national origin discrimination, alleging that Latino, Black, and white nurses were treated less favorably than Filipino and Asian-American nurses.

Q: What retaliation did she claim?

A: Castillo alleged she was repeatedly denied promotions and pay increases after filing complaints about the alleged discriminatory treatment.

Q: Was the case resolved?

A: The parties have reached a conditional settlement, which is pending final approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

If you believe you have been denied promotions, pay increases, or other job opportunities due to discrimination or in retaliation for speaking out, you may have legal options. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to help protect your rights, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Court Grants Conditional Certification in AI Bias Lawsuit Against Workday

A landmark AI discrimination lawsuit against Workday, Inc. is moving forward, with the court granting conditional certification for Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims on behalf of what could be one of the largest collectives ever certified. The case raises major questions about the role of artificial intelligence in employment decisions.

Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Court: N.D. Cal.

Case No.: 23-cv-00770-RFL

The Plaintiff: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mobley, alleges that Workday’s AI-powered applicant recommendation system unlawfully discriminated against job seekers. According to the complaint, the AI-powered system discriminated based on race, age, and disability, which violates federal anti-discrimination laws. Mobley asserts that the AI tool design reflected employer biases and relied on biased training data that led to systemic exclusions of certain applicants.

The Defendant: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Workday, Inc., a major HR management services provider, offers widely used AI tools for scoring, sorting, ranking, and screening job applicants. Although Workday was not an employer or prospective employer of Mobley or the putative class, the plaintiff contends that the company may be liable as an “agent” for allegedly discriminatory hiring practices facilitated by its technology.

History of the Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

In July 2024, the Northern District of California denied Workday’s second motion to dismiss, allowing Mobley’s claims to proceed. On May 16, 2025, the court granted conditional certification for the ADEA claims, finding that Mobley sufficiently alleged a unified policy in the form of Workday’s AI applicant screening system. Workday argued that different employer-clients’ use of the tools and varied applicant qualifications made collective treatment inappropriate, but the court ruled those differences immaterial for certification purposes.

The Main Question in the Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The key question is whether Workday’s AI applicant screening system, as designed and deployed, had a discriminatory impact on job applicants—particularly older applicants—and whether the company can be held liable under federal anti-discrimination laws despite not being a direct employer.

FAQ: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Q: What law is central to this case?

A: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a law that prohibits employment discrimination against individuals age 40 and older.

Q: How large could the collective be?

A: Workday has stated that 1.1 billion applications were rejected using its software during the relevant period, meaning “hundreds of millions” of job seekers could be part of the collective.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It is one of the first major court tests of AI-driven hiring tools, raising critical questions about bias, accountability, and liability in the use of automated systems for employment decisions.

If you believe you have been denied employment due to discrimination; whether by a potential employer or because of biased hiring technology—you should speak with an experienced employment discrimination attorney as soon as possible. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our knowledgeable attorneys can help protect your rights, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Plantation Slur Case: Pierce v. Tesla Settlement

In Pierce v. Tesla Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 22-03177), a Black production-line worker alleging pervasive racial harassment at Tesla’s Fremont factory has reached an undisclosed settlement with the automaker after court-ordered mediation.

The Case: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 22-03177

The Plaintiff: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Raina Pierce, who installed door latches at the Fremont, California facility, said she endured daily racial slurs—both spoken and written on walls and bathroom stalls—and was disciplined for conduct tolerated in non-Black colleagues. A supervisor allegedly greeted crews with phrases like “welcome to the plantation.”

The Defendant: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Tesla Inc. operates the Fremont assembly plant where Pierce worked. While the company denies wrongdoing, it has faced multiple race-bias suits from current and former employees, including the high-profile Diaz verdicts and a pending class action on behalf of thousands of Black workers.

The Case: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

The plaintiffs included multiple claims alleging they experienced a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation; all violating federal and California labor law. The key allegations included in the case details were racial epithets and graffiti visible thoruhgout the factory, a manager that consistently used racially charged greetings, and unequal disciplinary actions when compared to non-Black employee disciplinary actions.

A Timeline of the Case Milestones: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

May 2022: the complaint was filed in federal court.

Discovery revealing corroboratig witness statements.

April 17, 2025: Involved parties notified the court the mediator's proposal was accepted. The terms of the agreement remain confidential (pending final paperwork).

The Main Question: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Did Tesla permit a racially hostile environment and unequal discipline practices at its Fremont plant, thereby violating civil rights laws, and, if so, what compensation or reforms were warranted? The confidential settlement ends the litigation without a trial.

FAQ: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Q: What did Pierce allege was the worst conduct?

A: She cited a supervisor’s “plantation/slave house” greetings, ubiquitous racist graffiti, and harsher discipline than non-Black peers.

Q: Are the settlement terms public?

A: No. The parties agreed to keep monetary amounts and any non-financial provisions confidential.

Q: Does settlement mean Tesla admitted guilt?

A: Typically, private settlements include no admission of liability; they merely resolve the claims.

If you are experiencing workplace discrimination and need to talk about filing a California lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Chair Denied, $11 M Verdict: Roque v. Octapharma

A San Diego County jury awarded more than $11 million to a 74-year-old medical screener who claimed that Octapharma Plasma, Inc. refused a simple accommodation (a chair for her back pain) and then fired her due to her age.

The Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2021-00020936-CU-WT-CTL

The Plaintiff: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Raquel Roque (age 74) worked as a medical screener at an Octapharma plasma-donation center. She suffered chronic back pain and repeatedly asked to sit while conducting screenings.

The Defendant: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Octapharma Plasma, Inc. operates plasma-collection centers nationwide and sets the on-site procedures and working conditions for staff who conduct donor eligibility screenings.

The Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Claims: failure to accommodate a disability, disability discrimination, age discrimination, and wrongful termination under California’s FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act).

Key Allegations: There were 2 key allegations in the case, 1) Octapharma denied Roque's request for a chair forcing her to stand for extended shifts, and 2) When Roque persisted, she was terminated (the company cited performance, but she alleged it was age bias)

The Main Question in the Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Did Octapharma Plasma unlawfully refuse a reasonable accommodation (a chair) and terminate Roque because of her age, warranting compensatory and punitive damages under FEHA?

FAQ: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Q: Is providing a chair considered a reasonable accommodation?

A: Yes. Under FEHA (and the ADA), an employer must offer adjustments, such as seating, that enable an employee with a medical condition to perform essential job functions, unless the change causes undue hardship.

Q: Does the absence of economic loss usually limit verdicts?

A: Not in California. Juries can—and frequently do—assign substantial noneconomic and punitive damages even when wage loss is minimal or nonexistent.

Q: What takeaway does this verdict offer employers?

A: Swiftly evaluate and, if feasible, grant minor accommodations; document the process; and ensure performance issues are legitimate and well-supported before terminating protected workers.

If you are experiencing workplace discrimination and need to talk about filing a California lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Injury, Leave & Demotion: Miller v. CDCR Disability Case

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, has affirmed summary judgment for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Miller v. CDCR (Case No. E081230), holding that the agency lawfully placed an injured correctional officer on unpaid leave after she could no longer perform the essential duties of her job.

The Case: Miller v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

The Court: California Fourth Appellate District Division Two

The Case No.: E081230 (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2000221)

The Plaintiff: Miller v. CDCR

Maria Miller, a correctional officer injured in a 2016 slip-and-fall, exhausted workers' comp benefits by 2018. Facing permanent medical restrictions (that were later compounded by a disclosed mental-health condition), she declined CDCR's offer of a "medical demotion" to a lighter-duty position and remained on unpaid leave. In 2020, she filed a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The Defendant: Miller v. CDCR

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Miller's employer, is responsible for ensuring correctional-facility security while accommodating employees' disabilities in compliance with FEHA.

The Case: Miller v. CDCR

Claims: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.

Trial Court (Riverside County): Granted summary judgment for CDCR, finding Miller could not perform essential correctional-officer functions and that CDCR offered reasonable accommodations she refused.

Court of Appeal Ruling: Affirmed.

Key points: An employer may take adverse action when an employee's disability renders it impossible to perform essential duties.

CDCR met its burden by offering a medical demotion; disability retirement is not a reasonable accommodation under FEHA. Even if the interactive process was imperfect, liability requires proof that a feasible accommodation existed and was withheld.

The Main Questions in the Case: Miller v. CDCR

When an employee's permanent medical restrictions prevent them from performing essential job functions, can an employer satisfy the FEHA by offering alternative positions, and by doing so, can they avoid liability? Does it change the situation if the employee refuses the alternate position and alleges flaws in the interactive process? After considering these essential questions, the appellate court ruled in favor of CDCR.

FAQ: Miller v. CDCR

Q: Why wasn't disability retirement considered a reasonable accommodation?

A: FEHA defines a reasonable accommodation as a workplace adjustment enabling the employee to perform the job, whereas disability retirement removes the employee from the workforce altogether, contrary to FEHA's goal of keeping employees working when possible.

Q: Does an employer's imperfect interactive process automatically create liability?

A: No. An employee must demonstrate a specific, objectively available accommodation that the employer failed to provide; absent that, procedural flaws alone are insufficient.

Q: What is a "medical demotion," and is it legal?

A: A medical demotion reassigns an employee to a lower-level role compatible with medical restrictions, often with reinstatement rights if health improves. Courts view it as a legitimate accommodation when higher-level duties can't be performed.

Q: Can failure to accommodate double as disability discrimination?

A: Not necessarily. An employer may be liable for failing to accommodate without being liable for discrimination if no adverse employment action stems from bias.

Q: What lessons does this case offer California employers?

A: Document essential job functions, explore all viable accommodations—including reassignment—and remember that FEHA liability hinges on whether a workable accommodation existed, not on perfection in the dialogue.

If you have questions about filing a workplace discrimination complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Lively v. Wayfarer: Harassment & Defamation Showdown

Actor Blake Lively has sued Wayfarer Studios, its co-founder Justin Baldoni, and associated PR firms in the Southern District of New York, alleging workplace sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign that damaged her reputation and business interests (Case No. 1:24-cv-10049).

The Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

The Court: Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y)

The Case No.: 1:24-cv-10049

The Plaintiff: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Blake Lively, star and producer of the film It Ends With Us, asserts that during production, Baldoni engaged in un-rehearsed physical contact, sought to add intimate scenes without an intimacy coordinator, and later orchestrated a media strategy to discredit her after she complained, causing sales of her hair-care brand to drop sharply.

The Defendant: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, and affiliated crisis-PR consultants are named as defendants. Lively contends that they hired public relations professionals to suppress her allegations and “bury” her public image. At the same time, the defendants deny any misconduct and claim they acted to protect their reputations.

The Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Lively’s claims (Dec 2024 filing): sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, and business losses tied to an alleged smear campaign.

Procedural status:

An emotional-distress count was dismissed on June 3, 2025, but core harassment and retaliation claims remain.

Defendants countersued in January 2025 for defamation and civil extortion, seeking $400 million. Most of that countersuit was dismissed on June 9, 2025, leaving only potential contract-interference allegations for possible refiling.

Lively has subpoenaed internal text messages and phone records; defendants have sought third-party communications they say support their defense.

Related litigation: A crisis-PR consultant and a former Wayfarer PR firm have filed separate actions over the dispute, alleging defamation and breach of contract. None of these suits directly involves Lively’s wage-and-hour or labor claims, but they could impact discovery and public perception.

The Main Question in the Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Did Wayfarer Studios and Justin Baldoni engage in unlawful workplace harassment and retaliatory reputation-damage tactics against Blake Lively, and, if so, are they liable for the resulting economic and emotional harm? Conversely, did Lively’s public statements cross the line into actionable defamation against the defendants?

FAQ: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Q: What behavior does Lively allege constituted sexual harassment?

A: She says Baldoni improvised intimate physical contact and tried to add nudity and graphic scenes without prior discussion or an intimacy coordinator, creating an unsafe work environment.

Q: What is meant by a “retaliatory smear campaign”?

A: Lively claims the defendants hired PR professionals to release or amplify negative stories, monitor social-media chatter, and otherwise undermine her credibility after she complained about on-set conduct.

Q: Why was the emotional-distress claim dismissed?

A: The court ruled that, as pleaded, it did not meet the legal standard for a separate tort; however, the underlying harassment and retaliation counts were allowed to proceed.

Q: What remains of the defendants’ $400 million countersuit?

A: The court threw out the defamation and civil-extortion counts but allowed defendants an opportunity to replead limited claims of interference with contractual relationships.

Q: Could third-party subpoenas affect the outcome?

A: Yes. Phone records, text messages, and PR-firm documents may provide key evidence of either a coordinated smear effort (supporting Lively) or benign reputation management (supporting the defendants), which could influence liability and damages.

If you have questions about filing a workplace discrimination complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.