Barnes & Noble Facing Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In an April 14th opinion, a California appeals court offered a summary judgment in a Barnes & Noble wrongful termination lawsuit. The summary judgment may have branded the popular retail bookstore as having wrongfully firing an employee who had been with them for 23 years.

The opinion was handed down by the California Sixth Appellate District Chief Justice Conrad L. Rushing and associate justices, determining that the issues raised by Christine Oakes were valid issues to try in court in regards to wrongful termination claims based on gender discrimination, public policy and contractual obligations.

Oakes worked as a manager for Barnes & Noble’s West Valley-Mission Community College in Saratoga for eight years (2002-2010). At the end of this time period, she was fired. Unhappy with the termination of her employment, Oakes filed a complaint in 2012 listing various defendants: Barnes & Noble, West Valley College, Laurie Gaskin, and Rhea Kaston.

In 1999, according to the opinion, Barnes & Noble received acknowledgement that Oakes received and signed off on their company code of conduct and ethics. As Oakes signed off on the policy, the company notes that she was aware that she was free to leave Barnes & Noble at any time during her employment and that she was an “at will” employee. Oakes agreed that she understood the “at-will” employee status and agreed to no promise of tenure or any form of employment contract at that time. According to the opinion, Oakes stated that her understanding of her status as an “at-will” employee was that she had to “do something” to the company in order for them to dismiss her from employment.

Oakes claims in the lawsuit that as a manager, she was advised to use progressive discipline prior to firing anyone on staff. She was not instructed to use every disciplinary step in every case of potential termination. During her 23 years with Barnes & Noble, Oakes received annual performance reviews. From 2001 through 2008 these reviews indicated that she lacked communication skills and organizational skills necessary for her job. Yet her overall scores in her reviews met or exceeded company standards. While individual categories in her reviews usually met or exceeded company standards, she had a below standard score in fiscal matters. This is particularly true of 2009 when she reportedly ended with $66,000 of excess inventory at her bookstore. Amid student complaints, reported absence from meetings, etc. Oakes began to defend her behavior with claims of discrimination against her by Michael Renzi, a frequent contact as the college vice president’s primary liaison. In 2010, Renzi and the College President contacted Oakes’ supervisor with the decision that Oakes was not a good fit for the university.

With no alternative position with Barnes & Noble, Oakes was fired in 2010 without notice. In 2013, Barnes & Noble moved for summary judgment claiming that Oakes was an at-will employee terminated for legitimate reasons. Oakes argued gender discrimination as the company failed to protect her from alleged sexual harassment by Renzi. The court ruled that Oakes’ deposition testimony would be considered at trial as it favored neither her nor the defendants. A date for the trial has not been set.

If you have concerns regarding a potential wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Supreme Court Limits Rights to Jury Trial for Whistleblower Claims in Health Care

California Health and Safety Code section 1278.5(g) protects health care workers and medical staff from discrimination and retaliation for reporting unsafe patient care and conditions. Recently, the California Supreme Court held that it does not go so far as to provide a right to a jury trial. Claims brought under Section 1278.5(g) do not entitle the parties to a jury trial, but this does not prevent a jury trial on a related claim for wrongful termination that is in violation of public policy.

Consider Shaw v. Superior Court (THC-Orange County, Inc.), Case No. S221530:

In considering Shaw v. Superior Court on April 10, 2017, The California Supreme Court decided that an employee seeking damages for alleged whistleblower retaliation under the law noted above did not have the right to a jury trial. In the case, a Human Resources Coordinator filed a lawsuit against their former employer, a hospital, alleging that she was wrongfully terminated. She claimed that she was fired in retaliation for complaining that the hospital employed unlicensed and/or uncertified health care professionals who did not appropriately complete competencies as required.

She asserted a second cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy seeking an array of damages: compensatory and emotional distress damages, front pay, back pay, lost benefits, lost bonuses, punitive and exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and civil penalties, etc. While the lower courts denied requests for a jury trial, the Court of Appeal reversed, determining that the employee could file a petition for an extraordinary writ seeking appellate review of the trial court’s order without waiting until after the trial on appeal to contest the denial. 

They also ruled that Section 1278.5(g) does not afford a right to a jury trial. As the issue is not expressly addressed in the statute, the Court considered statutory language alongside legislative history reasoning that the court and not a jury must rule on this claim due to the statute expressly providing specific remedies. These specified remedies include: reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and benefits and legal costs. These are equitable remedies traditionally decided by a court and others deemed “warranted” by a court. Additionally, legislative history of the statute, specifically amendments made in 2007 allowing courts to fashion other remedies as needed to cover the full spectrum of harm endured by non-employee claimants, indicated the need for a court’s decision.

Despite not being entitled to a jury trial on the Section 1278.5(g) claim, the employee could still seek a jury trial under the Tameny claim based on public policies. The trial court would need to hear both claims side by side and allow the jury to decide the Tameny claim and then the court would determine remaining issues.

While this decision means that employees can get around the absence of a jury trial under Section 1278.5(g) simply through a second Tameny claim based on the same public policies, some remedies would be unavailable. When using a Tameny claim, attorneys’ fees and civil penalties are not available. And in some instances, this type of claim may not be applicable depending upon the plaintiff/defendant relationship.

If you have questions or concerns regarding a potential workplace retaliation situation and you need the assistance of an experienced California employment law attorney, please get in touch with us at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Garbage Man’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Recycled by 9th Circuit

A former Manhattan Beach sanitation worker seeking legal recourse for age discrimination and wrongful termination will get his day in court after a federal appeals panel ruled that he could proceed. Gilberto Santillan filed the age discrimination lawsuit against a waste disposal company, USA Waste of California, subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., the franchise waste hauler for all residents and businesses in the city.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously to allow Santillan to proceed with the two wrongful termination claims. Santillan alleges that he was discriminated against due to his age and then retaliated against for seeking legal counsel. District Court ruled in favor of the waste company, ruling Santillan’s claims could not proceed. The new ruling undermines the district court’s ruling and allows Santillan to proceed – potentially in front of a jury.

Santillan wasn’t just any “garbage man” He was what many might describe as a landmark of Manhattan Beach. He worked the route in the city for 32 years and many of the local residents have actively reached out to support his claims. Santillan’s legal representation pointed towards this strong local backing as being reflected in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. The court opinion actually referenced various letters of support from local residents indicating that they were taken very seriously.

Santillan started working for USA Waste in 1979, and handled the Manhattan Beach route for his entire time with the company. In March 2011, the city was considering whether they should renew their agreement with Waste Management or contract another hauler. Santillan’s personal service and record with the company and the city became a key theme in the campaign in support of retaining Waste Management’s services.

For 30 years with the company, Santillan was rarely disciplined, but in 2009 a new route manager for Manhattan Beach took over and Santillan ran into problems. Fro 2009 to 2011, the new manager attempted to discipline Santillan six times. Santillan was fired in December 2011. The company claims they fired Santillan because he was involved in multiple accidents in 2011, three of which were self-reported. The resident living at the damaged property at the time of the firing stated in an interview that the firing was an over-reaction. She continued by praising Santillan’s driving skills, as the street was narrow and touch to navigate.

The Ninth Circuit overruled the trial judge’s holding that Santillan’s case lacked the qualifications needed for an age discrimination claim, noting that Santillan, who speaks very little English, was one of two or more older, Spanish-speaking employees that were terminated when the new supervisor took over the Manhattan Beach route. Santillan’s replacement was estimated to be 13 years younger with 20 less years of experience on the job.

Extensive discovery will be needed prior to the start of trial.

If you feel you have been wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

“Guerrilla” Tennis Scandal has Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Headed Back to Court

Previously released news regarding the “guerilla” tennis scandal leading up to the termination of ESPN tennis commentator, Doug Adler, ended with his subsequent wrongful termination lawsuit filing. Now, Adler’s wrongful termination lawsuit is headed back to court.

Adler was allegedly fired from his job as a tennis commentator for ESPN for using a word on the air that he claims he never used. Adler is an acknowledged tennis expert and former All-American player turned commentator for ESPN. He covered numerous tennis events, but the one event pertaining to this discussion is the 2017 Australian Open. Adler was on air describing the aggressive style of play used by Venus Williams, one of the competitors in the match. Adler claims he used the word “guerilla,” a term known to describe aggressive tennis play.

Not surprisingly, viewers heard the word “gorilla” and assumed Adler was making a demeaning and racist comment in reference to Williams, who is African American. After receiving complaints and unable to ignore the negative backlash from the incident, ESPN fired Adler. Adler claims he was wrongfully terminated. He claims that the network was not sympathetic considering that the two words, guerilla and gorilla, spelled differently and meaning two very different things, sound exactly the same.

The wrongful termination lawsuit was filed in California state court in February 2017. On March 16th, 2017, Adler’s wrongful termination suit was moved to federal court on grounds that Adler and the Defendants, ESPN, hail from two different states. This provides the federal district court with jurisdiction in the case. ESPN also assumed that the damages the plaintiff will be seeking would surpass the $75,000 cap observed by the state court in such cases.

Yet the case met with a surprising issue when US District Court Judge Percy Anderson felt that the defendant’s statement that co-defendants Mark Gross and Jamie Reynolds resided in Connecticut “upon information and belief” of ESPN was sufficient. Judge Anderson saw this as insufficient for the purposes of the court to qualify residence and establish citizenship. As diversity jurisdiction no longer qualifies, Adler’s wrongful termination lawsuit is heading back to state court in California.

Adler has yet to specify amounts he will be seeking for damages and recovery. ESPN worked up a figure of at least $148,000 using their estimated calculations of lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, legal fees, etc. Although, Adler’s representation has previously pointed out that it is impossible to place a value on the loss of your professional reputation. It was further noted that ESPN, Adler’s employer, essentially labeled him a racist and terminated his employment over a comment that was, at worst, misunderstood.

If you have questions about wrongful termination or what qualifies as a wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination Verdict Has Jury Awarding Woman $492K Instead of $15K Offer

In recent news, a California state court jury awarded $492,000 to a former medical assistant who accused Kaiser Permanente of wrongful termination. Maria Gonzalez claims that the company illegally fired her in order to avoid costly medical treatment her disabled son required. The jury award came after the company attempted to resolve the case several times with settlement offers, the largest of which was $15,000 according to the plaintiff’s attorney.

The jury reached a verdict after a two-week trial. They found that Kaiser’s behavior constituted disability discrimination in terminating Gonzalez in 2014. Gonzalez worked in a pain management clinic. Kaiser claims that she was fired for unauthorized access of her son, Pedro’s, medical records while he was receiving treatment in the clinic.

The jury’s award encompasses past and future economic damages. While the jury declined to award the requested $7 million in non-economic damages, plaintiff’s legal counsel saw the verdict as a positive result for Gonzalez. It should also be noted that Kaiser would also be required to cover attorney fees reaching into the seven figures.

History of the Case:

·       Gonzalez received 11 years of positive performance reviews from Kaiser.

·       The positive reviews continued until her son, Pedro, needed treatment for a chronic kidney disorder.

·       Pedro received coverage through Kaiser. Gonzalez repeatedly sought referrals to specialists outside of Kaiser’s network.

·       When a major operation failed to help Pedro, Gonzalez pushed for a second, more expensive surgery.

·       Allegedly, when Pedro complained about the quality of care he was receiving, a Kaiser physician responded with, “You wouldn’t want anything to happen to your mother, would you?” Kaiser later denied such a statement was made.

Gonzalez is happy with the verdict, but may seek further resolution as legal counsel sees the $0 award is contrary to the law.

If you need further information about wrongful termination of you feel you may have been the victim of wrongful termination, please contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination Suit: San Francisco to Pay $2 Million to Fired Worker

After a California jury awarded $2 million to a fired former senior attorney in Herrera’s office who was investigating improper payments, a spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera indicated that they were still evaluating options. The San Francisco Superior court jury’s award was granted by Lynn O’Malley Taylor to former Chief Trial Deputy Joanne Hoeper.

Hoeper claimed that she was wrongfully terminated in 2014 as a result of her work on a potential fraud investigation. Her investigation concerned payments that were approved by Herrera’s home office’s claims bureau to homeowners and plumbers used by homeowners for the replacement of private sewer lines they claimed were injured by the roots of trees owned by the city.

The Superior Court trial lasted a month, but the potential fraud investigation Hoeper was in the process of conducting was never concluded. It was not yet determined whether or not the alleged fraud actually occurred. According to court documents, Herrera claimed that Hoeper was terminated due to his dissatisfaction with her management style. He also stated that he started searching for Hoeper’s replacement in 2010 before the even started probing into the sewer-line-payments in the early months of 2012. Contrary to Herrera’s claims, the jury concluded that Hoeper’s efforts to investigate the alleged false claims against the city claiming root damage to plumbing were a substantial and motivating reason for the city’s decision to fire Hoeper. The jury awarded Hoeper $602,000 for lost earnings, future lost earnings of $136,000 and $1,291,000 for her emotional distress from the situation.

If you need help with a wrongful termination or you need assistance determining if you have been wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Shedding Some Light on the Serious H1B Visa Program Issue

60 Minutes recently ran a story on the H1B Visa program that showed the impossible situation many American workers found themselves in when they were told to train their own replacements. These workers from foreign countries were a part of the H1B Visa program, which is intended to save taxpayers millions of dollars through outsourcing, but the alleged long-term benefits for taxpayers are of no comfort to those who are facing the loss of their jobs.

American workers interviewed about the situation were still having trouble “wrapping their minds” around actually being forced to train someone to take their own position; their livelihood. Workers agreed with interviewers that the situation feels like being forced to dig their own grave…and then get in it.

Robert Harrison, one of the workers interviewed regarding the situation, is an engineer previously employed by UCSF Medical. Harrison was fired along with 80 of his co-workers recently when their jobs were outsourced to India. Before leaving his position, Harrison, like his coworkers, was forced to train his own replacement. The situation left Harrison, and many American workers in similar situations, outraged and angry. Harrison had to sit next to the worker chosen to replace him in his position at UCSF Medical - wishing the entire time that he wasn’t being forced to work with his own replacement sitting next to him “shadowing” him and attempting to learn all that he knows in order to step into Harrison’s place at the company. Yet doing so was the only way to ensure that he would receive pay through February 2017 as well as a promised bonus. Making the full pay contingent upon fulfilling obligations to train replacements left Harrison, and many like him, with his hands tied. 

Representation for hundreds of workers who have been fired from their jobs in favor of foreign workers with H1B Visas stated emphatically that the situation should offend everyone. She insists that no one should be told that they are losing their job because they are being replaced by cheap, foreign labor. It is an insult to each and every worker being forced to train their own replacements and seek employment elsewhere.

The H1B visa was created in 1990 to help the United States attract the top foreign graduates and offer them a path to United States citizenship. When the program was created, Congress promised American workers that their jobs would be protected. Almost every major tech company has employees here on H1B visas, including Apple, Google, etc. Media companies also embrace the practice. The author of the H1-B Visa bill, Former Congressman Bruce Morrison, has stated that the bill has been “hijacked.”

If you have questions about how the H1B visa program could affect your job or your workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern and northern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.