AT&T Executive Fired Over Racist Texts Files Suit

Aaron Slator, AT&T’s former Head of Video Content and Advertising Sales filed suit against the company for breaching his employment contract and for defamation after his 2015 firing. The termination occurred during the regulatory review of AT&T’s $49 billion acquisition of DirecTV.  Legal counsel for the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County court arguing that the former executive was cleared during the investigation of allegedly racist text messages discovered on his phone by his executive assistance in 2013. Slator was fired over the incident in 2015 after another executive assistant filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit. 

Slator claims that AT&T advised him of their thorough investigation of the 2013 incident and assured him his job was secure. Two years later Slator was fired without any new evidence, new allegations, or new investigations into the matter. AT&T defends its actions insisting that diversity and inclusion are core values that are important to the company. They feel strongly about the situation and stand behind their termination of Slator and feel that his allegations are baseless and will result in a dismissal.

Slator’s firing made headlines across the country. He was the head of content acquisition and advertising for AT&T’s cable TV, broadband Internet, and wireless Internet services. He was also involved in the DirecTV acquisition, approved by the FCC and completed in 2015. In the lawsuit, Slator alleges that his executive assistant filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2013 alleging rampant racial discrimination by AT&T executives (listing Slator by name). Allegations included a detailed description of the racist text messages found on Slator’s phone. But AT&T’s internal investigation concluded that there was no discrimination.

Slator claims that he offered to resign, but was assured by AT&T that doing so was not necessary. He completed advisory training with an equal employment opportunity consultant in 2014. Yet the original allegations from the 2013 incident resurfaced in the 2015 lawsuit filed by a different executive assistant. Simultaneously, AT&T was sued by a unit of Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios for alleged discrimination against African-American-owned media companies. Slator’s legal counsel points to the intense public and legal scrutiny resulting from this situation when claiming that AT&T needed someone to take the blame and that the someone became Slator. The executive assistant’s claims were dismissed in California Superior Court, but this did not occur until months after Slator’s termination.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you know someone who has been wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Recent Study Indicates Transgender Discrimination in the Workplace is Prevalent

In a recent study, 2015 report from the Center for American Progress and the Movement Advancement Project, almost 80% of American transgender workers claimed they had experienced discrimination in the workplace or during the employment application process. From general discrimination to harassment to mistreatment, this demographic is facing a substantial challenge on the job.

Expert and author, Lee Schubert, indicated that it is not uncommon for employers or co-workers to present transgender employees with rude and inappropriate questions, comments, etc. Common discriminatory questions/topics that transgenders face include: questions about transition surgery, questions about sexuality, etc Many employers face difficulty when attempting to appropriately refer to their transgender employees, i.e. which pronoun to use – he or she. Some transgender employees do not want to be referred to as either he or she, but prefer they as they may not identify with either male female. Employers can find it confusing – it’s new territory in many cases. But the challenges this causes transgender employees to face are very real. In fact, the recent 2015 report noted above concludes that employment discrimination is a fact of life for trans people and that it comes with serious economic consequences.

In the study, “Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for Being Transgender,” it states that up to 47% of trans workers report being denied employment unfairly. 78% report harassment, mistreatment and/or discrimination on the job.

Tips for appropriately interacting and/or managing trans workers are actually the same tips that apply to interactions with all workers in a workplace: demonstrate respect, recognize that there is a difference between personal values and community values of a workplace and act professionally, and be respectful of coworkers’ privacy and confidentiality.

If you have questions or concerns about employment discrimination or transgender employment discrimination specifically, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Employees Claim California Nail Salon Regularly Stole Wages

A recent lawsuit claims that nail salon owners make a habit of mistreating their employees; specifically the suit claims that nail salons are stealing their employee’s wages. The suit was filed by four nail salon employees: Tuyet Mai Nguyen, Thu Hang Pham, Jenny Hoang, and Trinh Truong. The women sued the Tustin Nailspa in Orange, California claiming the company withheld their wages, deducted money from their paychecks for the use of salon supplies and equipment, and other labor code violations.

The plaintiffs have been employed at Tustin Nailspa for the last ten years. Over that course of time, the salon has had several different owners. The women claim the problems started when additional chairs were added in 2005. The owners wanted to recoup their investment and see the increased profits more quickly so they allegedly took it out on the employees. The employees’ hours were allegedly increased, they were underpaid, not compensated for overtime worked, forced to skip lunch, and did not receive any type of extra compensation for their additional work.

Tustin Nailspa has faced lawsuits before. In 2013, a former employee sued citing similar allegations. In response, an investigation was opened into the salon by the California Department of Industrial Relations, a Division of Labor Standard Enforcement. The investigation resulted in $28,000 in fines against the salon owners.

Allegations in the current suit were made against multiple owners as the malpractices are claimed to have spanned a time period during which ownership changed hands. Plaintiffs are seeking recompense from both current and former owners involved in the alleged violations. The owners, through legal representation have denied the allegations and claim the plaintiffs are simply disgruntled former employees.

The plaintiffs have experienced some trouble in their attempts to get the case to court. Their first attorney was removed due to a conflict and their second attorney was not fluent in Vietnamese so the women struggled to communicate their needs. The case is generating awareness of the challenges faced by immigrants attempting to navigate the American legal system as well as the potential for mistreatment of employees in nail salons across the country.

If you have questions about filing a lawsuit, California labor law or how to obtain overtime compensation, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

$16 Million PNC Settlement to Settle Wage Suit

In response to a collection of Fair Labor Standards Act claims alleged by a group of mortgage loan officers, PNC Bank NA has agreed to offer a $16 million settlement. Plaintiffs in the wage suit claimed that the company denied them overtime wages and proper commission payments. 17 PNC BANK mortgage loan officers, some former and some currently employed, brought the collective action. The loan officers claim that PNC used an improper process for the calculation of commissions and that the company did not allow the employees to report overtime hours even though work in addition to what would be recognized as full time was required of them to fulfill their job duties.

According to the documentation, the settlement agreement will apply to mortgage loan officers employed by PNC in California from August 7th, 2011 through January 4th, 2017, New York from April 4th, 2011 through January 4th, 2017 and any other state from August 7th, 2012 through January 4th, 2017. PNC also noted that the settlement agreement is not an admission of liability or damages, but a move to avoid the burdens of further litigation.

Key Developments in the Case:

December: It was recommended that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification regarding commission recapture claims be granted.

Mid-November: Plaintiffs’ motion to strike PNC’s exemption defense was granted. The motion argued that former employees were exempt according to FLSA.

November: Conditional certification of the collective action was granted by Judge Schwab due to indications of uniform, nationwide employment policies in place at PNC.

The lawsuit alleged that during the hiring process, the company offered a salary of $24,000 per year based on a 40-hour workweek. Once hired, many of the officers worked more than 40 hours in a week and sometimes took work home with them in order to “catch up.” The “overtime” was allegedly not compensated. The workers allege that PNC offered bonuses to managers who refused, reduced or prevented workers from accurately reporting their overtime hours. In fact, it is alleged that the Branch Managers’ own pay was reduced in direct relation to the amount of overtime wages that was paid out to mortgage loan officers at the branch.

Plaintiffs also claimed that PNC did not accurately track and record the hours worked by mortgage loan officers, mortgage loan officers were not compensated for all the hours they worked, the company did not accurately calculate overtime (by NOT applying a “weighted average” including salaries, commissions, etc.), that PNC illegally deducted overtime pay from commissions, and that PNC was in violation of minimum wage requirements.

If you have questions about minimum wage requirements, or the calculation of overtime pay in compliance with California Labor Law, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Halliburton Bid to Dismiss Claims Made in Wage Suit

A former employee of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (an oil and gas provider out of California) filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging wage violations (Guerrero v. Halliburton Energy Services Inc. et al., case number 1:16-cv-01300, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.) In response to Halliburton Energy Services’ request for dismissal of the amended complaint, the Plaintiff accused the energy giant of copying bids for dismissal in other cases with similarities to the current suit.

The company’s bid to dismiss Geurrero’s claim came last month after an amended complaint was filed. U.S. Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill permitted the amended filing when the judge dismissed the suit that includes allegations of California labor law violations due to a failure to provide rest breaks and pay wages for all hours worked, etc. The plaintiff responded to the dismissal bid submitted by Halliburton by pointing out that the dismissal motion filed was almost identical to that filed in every case with similar claims that Guerrero listed in his first amended complaint.

Guerrero claims that his former employer has no evidentiary support or analysis for claims that Guerrero and the putative class are exempt from California’s overtime laws. Allegations Halliburton faces in the suit include claims that Halliburton policy requires workers to work through meal periods, the company fails to comply with California labor law by providing employees with first meal periods within the first five hours of a work shift, claims for missed rest periods, etc.

Halliburton insists that Guerrero’s overtime claims included in the amended complaint are not legally supported because his hours were regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and this makes him exempt from overtime eligibility. The company also insists that Guerrero failed to provide factual support for claims that the company denied him legally compliant meal and rest periods. Halliburton also urged the court to strike Guerrero’s allegations regarding their alleged failure to maintain accurate records in violation of California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders due to irrelevance since Guerrero cannot allege a viable claim for the violation.

Guerrero’s proposed class action includes allegations that he worked as a nonexempt truck driver as well as industrial worker for Halliburton, but failed to receive proper compensation in accordance with employment law. The suit was first filed in state court, but was later moved to federal court.

Halliburton’s responding dismissal bid claimed Guerrero’s lawsuit failed as a matter of law as there were no alleged facts included as support of a cognizable legal theory and because the various claims included were riddled with substantive defects that left too many questions. Judge O’Neill was inclined to agree and on November 2nd, 2016, he did so officially – stating that facts were missing from the complaint, specifically noting the need for dates as to when the alleged failures to pay straight time and overtime wages occurred. He also agreed with Halliburton that Guerrero failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9 in claims that the company failed to pay wages at the time of his termination.

If you have questions regarding overtime or overtime wage calculation, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Time Warner Cable Allegedly Misclassified California Installation Techs

California installation techs involved in a suit against Time Warner Cable won collective action certification and partial class certification in California federal court. Plaintiffs allege Time Warner Cable misclassified California installation techs as contract workers to avoid paying overtime wages and provide benefits. California District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell rules that the installation techs (employed by Multi Cable, Inc. under a partnership with Time Warner Cable) were eligible for class certification for claims that they were paid as “faux independent contractors” from 2011 through 2015. 

The class in this case is represented by Luis Luviano, installation technician. As a group, the class claims that Time Warner Cable and MCI (California company contractually obligated to supply IT services for the cable company), regularly required techs to work overtime without appropriate overtime pay. Employees were also allegedly required to purchase tools and equipment without reimbursement due to erroneous classification as contract workers. The classification was in spite of control over duties and job completion exercised by the company that was allegedly indicative of an employee/employer relationship.

The technicians in the class described control exercised over them as “contractors” to include every aspect of the job from mandatory uniforms to the hours worked to the tools and materials used for the job to decals applied on workers’ vehicles. IT workers also allege that the compensation scheme used by the company was unnecessarily complicated with pay based on both the number of installations completed and the customer satisfaction ratings received based on their performance. Techs claim that the pay system resulted in an inability to predict how much pay they could expect to receive for their work as well as making it close to impossible to verify the accuracy of pay received.

Time Warner Cable attempted to argue against the validity of the suit claiming that workers making allegations failed to establish that there was, in fact, a co-employer relationship between Time Warner and MCI, but the judge ruled that there was sufficient cause to merit further argument at trial.

Both companies involved (Time Warner and MCI) attempted to quash class certification claiming that Luviano was not a reliable representative. The companies claimed that Luviano obtained his position using a false name and social security number and that he lied about his arrest record during his application process and during depositions. O’Connell ruled that Luviano could represent the class, but allowed it on the condition that a replacement be named in the event he was eventually disqualified. The matter does raise well founded credibility issues, and could negatively impact the chances of the class prevailing on its claims, but the court does not find that one plaintiff’s (even if he is the class representative) inadequacy renders the representation as a whole inadequate as one inadequate representative plaintiff is replaceable.

If you have questions regarding misclassification or if you feel you have been misclassified in order to denied overtime pay or benefits, please contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Augustus v. ABM Security Services: On Duty Rest Breaks Rejected

In the midst of the holidays, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. stating that the law does not allow employers to require their employees to utilize on-duty or on-call rest breaks. The impact of this decision will likely impact thousands of California employment centers with similar policies, particularly in security, hospitality, and retail industries.

California’s Industrial Welfare Commission’s industry-specific Wage Orders require employers in the state to allow non-exempt employees to take a 10 minute rest break for each four hour work period. The law also indicates specifically that the 10 minutes should be consecutive and that, when possible, the break should occur in the middle of the shift. In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. the question was whether or not this requirement was fulfilled if the “rest break” was on-duty or on-call.

This particular case was based on plaintiffs’ complaints that they were non-exempt security guards working for the company, ABM Security Services, Inc. (ABM) at a variety of work sites (i.e. residential, commercial, retail, office, industrial, etc.) throughout the state of California, and their principal duties providing immediate response to emergency and/or life threatening situations and physical security on site required that they keep their pagers and radios on. There was no exception to the rule for rest breaks. As part of their job duties, security guards were required to keep pagers and radios on during rest breaks and stay vigilant and respond to any calls that occurred regardless of their rest break schedule.

ABM’s policy was based on the urgency or time-sensitive nature of some of the clients’ needs pertaining to the on site security guards in a number of different circumstances. Some such situations included: building tenant who wanted a security escort to the parking lot, the manager of a building that needed notification of a mechanical issue on site, and various “emergencies.”

Security guards working for ABM saw this as a violation of labor law and filed suit complaining that ABM failed to provide employees with compliant rest breaks. The plaintiffs were granted summary judgment and awarded approximately $90 million by the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.

The case presented two issues to be considered by the Supreme Court:

1.     Are employers required to allow employees to take “off-duty” rest breaks?

2.     Can employers require employees to remain “on-call” during rest breaks?

After considering the issue, the California Supreme Court came to a decision. They first noted that California law did not explicitly require employers to provide “off-duty” rest breaks, but they also took into consideration the plain meaning of the word “rest” and other language included in the Wage Order and Labor Code. When they concluded that rest breaks need to be off-duty they noted that California Labor Code section 226.7 prohibits employers from requiring any employee to work during any meal or rest period and that the relevant Wage Order’s wording indicated that rest breaks needed to be considered time worked. The court decided that the language indicating that “rest breaks” be counted as “work time” would not be necessary unless it was the intention of the law for rest breaks to be off-duty. ABM attempted to sway the court’s decision in their favor by pointing to language in the Wage Order discussing the possibility for employers (on rare occasion) to require employees to take on-duty meal breaks. Their argument did not hold as the Court’s opinion was that the absence of language authorizing the same for on-duty rest breaks was more telling than the existence of the exception made for meal breaks. The Court held that rest breaks must be off-duty.

The Court also had to consider whether employers could comply with requirements to provide employees with breaks while also keeping them “on call” during the break. ABM argued that there was a difference between an employer requiring that an employee keep working throughout their rest break and an employer requiring that the employee remain on call. The Court did not agree and noted that the practical realities of a 10-minute rest period must be considered. The time limitation alone already restricted the employees’ options regarding what they could do on break. The Court felt any additional limitations (i.e. requirements for pagers or phones or availability on site, etc.) were not in accordance with the intention of the law to offer employees a small period of “freedom” from the job for rest and to use for their own purposes. Based on these arguments, the Court held that on-call rest breaks were not compliant with the law. 

The Augustus decision will have a significant impact on California employers who utilize on-duty or on-call rest breaks in order to maximize staff productivity and accommodate single-employee shifts. Employers who are unable to comply with the rest break requirement to relieve employees of all duties may have to pay rest break premiums as an alternative. If you have questions regarding how the Augustus decision could affect you, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.