Did Sunsweet Retaliate When Employee Notified HR of Discrimination?

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the court considered a case of alleged workplace retaliation when a Sunsweet worker spoke up about alleged discrimination and harassment at work.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The Court: Sutter County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CVCS23-0000742

The Plaintiff: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa, was a non-exempt hourly employee for Sunsweet Growers. Renteria-Hinojosa alleged that she submitted multiple complaints to HR and filed an EEOC charge due to sexual harassment and discrimination at work. According to the lawsuit, Renteria-Hinojosa was enduring harassment and discrimination daily when she reported for work. She claimed the company discriminated against her for being a “female dating other females” and that her complaints regarding the situation received no effective response. Eventually, Renteria-Hinojosa took a stressful leave from work (in April 2022) to escape the untenable situation. Renteria-Hinojosa also claimed Sunsweet’s non-exempt employees were not provided off-duty meal breaks because their work schedules were too rigorous. She filed a class action lawsuit citing California labor code violations.

The Defendant: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sunsweet Growers Inc., is a California employer. All California employers are required to comply with federal and state labor laws. According to California labor law, employers must provide their employees with a thirty-minute off-duty, uninterrupted meal break before the end of every 5th hour of work and a second meal break before an employee completes their 10th hour of work in one shift. According to the complaint, Sunsweet did not provide additional compensation to employees who missed their breaks.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the plaintiff claims harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations based on missed meal breaks and rest periods. The failure to provide employees with the missed meal breaks and rest periods or additional compensation for missing them led to inaccurate wage calculations and inaccurate overtime wage distribution, constituting additional alleged labor law violations.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace retaliation lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Female Disney Employees File Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

A group of female Disney workers filed a lawsuit accusing Disney of sexual discrimination and demanding that Disney provides employees equal pay for equal work regardless of gender.

The Case: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The Court: Superior Court for County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 19STCV10974

The Plaintiff: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Laronda Rasmussen, and a group of current and former female Disney employees claimed they were paid more than $150 million less than men in similar middle management positions. The women claimed the alleged pay difference violated the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. According to the plaintiffs, Disney regularly underpays their female employees, skips over them for promotions, gives them extra work with no additional compensation, and fails to provide them with sufficient support staff to enable them to succeed.

The Defendant: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The defendant in the case, The Walt Disney Company, underwent statistical studies that seem to support the gender pay inequality claims. David Neumark, a professor at California Irvine, labor economist, and gender pay gap expert, analyzed Disney’s human resource data from April 2015 through December 2022 and determined female Disney employees were paid about 2% less than male employees. From 2015 to 2017, the study discovered an even greater gender difference in starting pay (4.36%). When Disney stopped using their prior salary policy that affected starting pay for new hires, the starting pay disparities dropped to 1.3%.

The Case: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiffs filed their discrimination lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, demanding equal pay for equal work. The plaintiffs hope the judge will certify their four-year-old civil suit as a class action. Approximately 12,500 current and former female Disney employees in California could be affected from 2015 to the present. LaRonda Rasmussen, a manager of product development for Disney, originally filed the suit. Rasmussen claimed that six male employees were paid between $16,000 and $40,000 more than her for similar job duties.

If you have questions about how to file a California discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Elon Musk’s X Faces Discrimination and Breach of Contract Allegations

In recent news, X (previously known as Twitter) faces discrimination and breach of contract allegations.

The Case: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The Court: U.S. District Court, State of Deleware

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-00780-UNA

The Plaintiff: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The plaintiff in the case, Chris Woodfield, filed a workplace discrimination and breach of contract lawsuit on July 18th in Delaware. In addition to breach of contract and discrimination allegations, Woodfield alleged the company engaged in fraud. According to Woodfield, X targeted women, older employees, and employees of color in the mass layoffs. Woodfield also claims that the company stalled attempts to address the dispute through arbitration, specifically claiming that the company failed to pay the required fees to initiate arbitration of the issues. Like the California ERISA violation lawsuit the company faces, the Woodfield v. Twitter/X lawsuit claims the company owes former employees more than $500 million.

The Defendant: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The defendant in the case, Twitter/X, engaged in multiple layoffs after new ownership/management took over the social media giant. Nearly 4,000 workers were laid off (layoffs occurred in November 2022, twice in December 2022, and again in February 2023). According to court documents, HR officials at the company repeatedly told Musk and employees that any laid-off employees would be eligible for severance pay as determined in their 2022 agreement when X merged with Twitter.

The Case: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The case, Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X, makes it clear how important it is for employers to be transparent about their severance benefits. Employers must communicate the reasons behind any layoffs clearly to all affected employees and explain the severance packages they receive in detail. Employers and employees benefit from a consistent severance pay policy that clearly outlines the criteria for determining any potential severance pay package based on pre-determined factors like time at the company, job title/level, performance history, etc. The clearly outlined policy must then be followed with a consistent application of the policy to all employees to avoid discrimination.

If you have questions about how to file a California discrimination class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Foodservices Giant Faces Religious Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

A food services corporation recently found itself facing serious employment law violation allegations.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The Court: United States Court for the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01347-TWR-KSC

The Plaintiff: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Rogers, worked as an Internal Mobility Team recruiter for the defendant. During her time with the company, Rogers consistently received positive performance feedback from her colleagues and supervisors. However, she claims that the defendant fired her after she would not endorse, promote, or participate in a program she felt was blatantly discriminatory (based on both race and gender). Rogers filed a discrimination and wrongful termination federal lawsuit on July 24, 2023.

The Defendant: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

Compass Group USA, Inc., is the defendant in the case, one of the largest corporations in the world. According to the plaintiff, Compass Group USA Inc. initiated a program they falsely labeled a “diversity” initiative. According to the plaintiff, the program was designed to prevent white men from participating in promotions and benefits. Courtney Rogers discussed her concerns with the company and requested accommodations to work in a different area. According to Rogers, she advised the company the program conflicted with her strongly held religious beliefs that hold all people equal regardless of race or gender. According to court documents, HR assured Rogers that the company would not retaliate against her for her beliefs and that she would receive a different assignment as an accommodation. However, that same HR representative terminated Rogers’ employment two weeks later. In their first meeting, Rogers was assured she was doing excellent work, but her termination letter two weeks later stated she was being terminated for unsatisfactory performance.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

In the case, Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al., Compass describes their program initiative as “Operation Equith,” calling it a diversity program offering qualified members special training and mentorship with the promise of guaranteed promotion within the program. The program was only available to women and people of color. The lawsuit demanded a jury trial seeking relief from religious discrimination, citing a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and violations of wrongful termination public policy. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and mandatory training for the company’s senior management in human resources.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful termination attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Rite Aid Faces Allegations of Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination

A former RiteAid employee filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, sexual harassment, workplace retaliation, and discrimination based on an allegedly inappropriate text exchange with her RiteAid district manager.

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The Court: Superior Court of Fresno County

The Case No.: 19CECG00569

The Plaintiff: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Hanin Atalla, claims that during her employment at RiteAid, she engaged in a text exchange with her RiteAid district manager in which the district manager sent her lewd photographs. The text exchange occurred off-site and after hours, and the plaintiff and the district manager knew each other before the plaintiff’s employment at RiteAid. The plaintiff sued for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The Defendant: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The defendant in the case, Rite Aid Corp., is a drugstore chain (Thrifty Payless, Inc., dba RiteAid).

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

In Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., the trial court granted summary judgment regarding all claims in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s conclusion stating that the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of material fact regarding the requirement to show that the manager was acting in the capacity of a supervisor during the January 4, 2019 text exchange. They agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff had an extensive texting relationship with the district manager, and pairing that with the facts that the text exchange in question was offered outside of the workplace and after work hours led them to conclude it was a personal exchange based on their personal friendship rather than a work exchange. The Appellate court also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion regarding the wrongful termination claims - that the evidence indicates that the plaintiff was not terminated but that she resigned.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Determining the Burden of Proof in California Workplace Discrimination Lawsuits

On appeal, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding the burden of proof in a California workplace discrimination lawsuit.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

Lopez, the plaintiff in the case, worked for La Casa between 2002 and 2017. In 2014, Lopez was placed in a shelter manager position at a residential shelter for domestic violence victims. Two years after becoming a shelter manager, Lopez experienced complications after giving birth and notified the defendant regarding the situation. In response, the plaintiff claims that La Casa sent her harassing communications and did not make a reasonable effort to determine if Lopez’s disability could be accommodated. According to the lawsuit, La Casa declined to provide accommodations suggested by Lopez’s doctor. Lopez claims in the lawsuit that her efforts to return to work were denied, and she was forced out of her position with the nonprofit. Lopez also alleges that due to the Defendant misrepresenting the reason for her termination, she was denied a job at a different workplace.

The Defendant: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The defendant in the case, Casa de Las Madres, is a domestic violence shelter.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

On appeal, the court affirmed a judgment in favor of the Defendant. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code 12945(a)(3)(A), proof that 1) the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is required, 2) that accommodations were requested on the advice of a health care professional, 3) the employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation, and 4) the plaintiff could perform essential job functions if reasonable accommodations were provided. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court was correct in applying these requirements with the burden properly placed on Lopez, the plaintiff, to prove the condition relating to pregnancy existed and that she could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodations provided.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Farmers Group Victorious Against Age Discrimination Claims

A California jury sided with Farmers Group stating that California employment laws do not apply because the insurance agents filing discrimination claims are independent contractors.

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs in the case are former California-based insurance agents claiming that they were discriminated against for their age. The plaintiffs allege that Farmers Group fired them based on their age so they could replace them with younger, “more productive” workers. The plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence showing Farmers Group saved 440% on commissions by replacing established agents.

The Defendant: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Farmers Group Inc., argued that the insurance agents were independent contractors, not employees and that labor law did not apply to independent contractors. While the plaintiffs attempted to argue that Farmers Group imposed performance standards, office requirements, etc., that effectively “controlled” as they would an employee, the defendant argued that the evidence showed they were independent contractors:

• Farmers Group argued that the agents could not state what Farmers Group does

• I couldn’t identify their “sales managers.”

• Filed their own taxes

• Declared themselves sole proprietors or independent contractors to the IRS

• And dedicated their office equipment, supplies, etc., on their taxes as a sole proprietor/independent contractor would

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

In the case, James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al., Farmers Group Inc. was cleared of discrimination and wrongful termination allegations. The eight-week trial was followed by two days of deliberations. Still, the former California-based insurance agents claiming the company discriminated against them for their age so they could replace them with younger workers had their claims dismissed when jurors determined the four plaintiffs were, in fact, independent contractors, so Farmers did not violate California labor law.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination or age discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.