Gina Carano Sues Disney for Wrongful Termination

In recent news, Gina Carano filed a wrongful termination lawsuit after being fired from Disney’s The Mandalorian. In an interesting twist, problematic social media posts instigated her termination, but another social media post led to her ability to seek resolution through the legal system.

The Case: Gina Carano v. The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc.

The Court: US District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: S2:2024cv01009

The Plaintiff: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Carano, is a former Disney+ “The Mandalorian” actor. Carano played the former Rebellion soldier Cara Dune during two seasons. After Carano shared problematic social media posts in 2021, Lucasfilm announced they no longer employed Carano. In response to the abrupt dismissal, Carano filed a wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit in California federal court seeking more than $75,000 in compensatory damages and reinstatement as Dune in “The Mandalorian” series. Carano seeks a jury trial. Elon Musk funds Carano’s wrongful termination lawsuit through X (formerly known as Twitter).

The Defendants: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

The defendants in the case, the Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc., took action against Carano after a February 2021 Instagram post (since deleted) making an implied comparison between being a conservative in the modern setting to being Jewish during the Holocaust. Before this, she was called out for other right-wing social media posts stating opinions about the 2020 presidential election, mask requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic, and opinions regarding other people’s declared pronouns that incited critics to declare her racist or transphobic and demanding that Disney/Lucasfilm fire her from “The Mandalorian.”

The Case: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

While problematic social media posts instigated the original incident, a different type of social media post led to the filing of Carano v. The Walt Disney Company. Legal counsel for X reached out to Carano after she responded to one of Elon Musk’s posts offering to help individuals who lost their jobs based on activity on the social media platform. X hired legal counsel to look into Carano’s story and assist her in seeking an appropriate resolution. X states they support Carano’s suit as a sign of their commitment to free speech.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

Did a Lack of Proper Safety Checks Result in a Pre-Trial Inmate’s Death?

The County of Orange is facing wrongful death allegations after OCSD deputies allegedly failed to conduct proper safety checks of a mentally ill inmate.

The Case: Lucio v. County of Orange

The Court: United States District Court-Central District of California

The Case No.: 8:24 cv- 00359

The Plaintiffs: Lucio v. County of Orange

The plaintiffs in the case are the family of Ronald Garcia Lucio, Jr, who died while in custody at the Santa Ana County Jail. According to Lucio’s children and parent, Lucio was a pre-trial inmate who suffered from mental illness. The wrongful death lawsuit claims Lucio died while being housed in Orange County Central Jail due to a lack of proper safety checks for a mentally ill patient/inmate.

The Incident: Lucio v. County of Orange

According to the court records, on March 18, 2022, Lucio received his evening meal in his Orange County Central Jail cell at 3:20 pm. At 7:12 pm, the OCSD Deputy entered Lucio’s cell with a vocational nurse to conduct a well check. The deputy observed Lucio lying in the lower bunk on his right side and made a “man down” call once the radio that resulted in additional deputies and medical staff reporting for assistance. At 7:14 pm, the deputies moved Luxio from the bottom bunk in his cell to the dayroom floor outside his cell, where the medical staff began cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) arrived and took over Lucio’s treatment at 7:27 pm. Upon arrival, the paramedics found Lucio pulseless and noted he was exhibiting the onset of rigor mortis. OCFA personnel pronounced Lucio dead at 7:30 pm.

The Case: Lucio v. County of Orange

The case, Lucio v. County of Orange, claims that deputies and Orange County Central Jail medical staff failed to provide proper safety checks that could have prevented the death of Lucio, a pre-trial inmate who suffered from mental illness.

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

Liberty Reverse Mortgage/Ocwen Named Defendant in New Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, a lawsuit was filed alleging Liberty Reverse Mortgage/Ocwen engaged in labor law violations.

The Case: Michaela Lanere v. PHH Mortgage Corporation d/b/a Liberty Reverse Mortgage, Ocwen Financial Insurance Services, Inc., Ocwen USVI Services, LLC, and Liberty Home Equity Solutions

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

The Case No.: 24CV001137

The Plaintiff: Lanere v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

The plaintiff in the case, Lanere, filed a class action complaint alleging that the company, Liberty Reverse Mortgage/Ocwen, failed to provide her and other employees in similar situations with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Lanere v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

The defendants in the case are PHH Mortgage Corporation d/b/a Liberty Reverse Mortgage, Ocwen Financial Insurance Services, Inc., Ocwen USVI Services, LLC, and Liberty Home Equity Solutions (aka Liberty Reverse Mortgage/Ocwen). According to the court documents, the defendants face numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide meal and rest periods

• Failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

According to the complaint, rigorous work schedules prevented Liberty Reverse Mortgage/Ocwen employees from taking their off-duty rest breaks, and they were not fully relieved of duty during their rest periods. California employers are required by labor law to provide their employees with a minimum number of rest periods depending on the number of hours worked. When employees do not receive their rest breaks and meal periods as designed by labor law, their employer must provide compensation in the place of the missed break.

How Much Time Should California Employees Get for a “Break?”

According to California labor law, non-exempt employees should be offered a minimum 30-minute meal break if they work more than five hours a day and a second meal break if they work over ten hours. California employees are entitled to 10-minute rest periods for every four hours they work. Failure to provide these breaks entitles the employee to one additional hour of pay at their regular rate for each workday that the meal or rest period is not provided.

The Case: Lanere v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

The plaintiff alleges that the company sometimes required employees to work more than four hours without being provided with a 10-minute rest period due to overassigning job duties and understaffing. Employees who did not receive their breaks were allegedly not provided the additional one hour of compensation per day as required by law. The class action lawsuit, Lanere v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law 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.

Forest & Einstein Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

In recent news, Forest & Einstein faces labor law violation allegations after allegedly failing to pay their employees for all their hours.

The Case: Keisha Garrett v. Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-24-611638

The Plaintiff: Keisha Garrett v. Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Keisha Garrett, worked for Forest & Einstein Staffing Inc. from October 2020 through August 2023 as a non-exempt hourly employee protected by labor law. Garrett claims that during her employment, the company utilized standard business practices that failed to fully compensate employees for all their hours worked. Garrett filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other current and former Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc. employees in similar situations.

The Defendant: Keisha Garrett v. Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc., operates a staffing company in California, including San Francisco County, where the plaintiff worked. According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, the company allegedly violated several labor laws, including failing to pay minimum wage and overtime, failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures, failing to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods, failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to provide workers with their full wages when they were due.

The Case: Keisha Garrett v. Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc.

The case, Keisha Garrett v. Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc., is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California. The plaintiff in the case claims that the defendant required her to work while she was clocked out during what was supposed to be her off-duty meal break. Garrett also claims she sometimes didn’t even receive a partial lunch break.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please contact 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.

Does GNC Provide Employees with Labor Law Complaint Meal Breaks and Rest Periods?

A lawsuit filed recently in California notes allegations that GNC failed to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks compliant with labor laws.

The Case: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

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

The Case No.: 24CV000627

The Plaintiff: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rahmeez Jackson, was a GNC employee from July 2022 through April 2023. Jackson claims that while he worked there, GNC didn’t provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods and that failing to do so constitutes a labor law violation. Jackson filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other GNC employees in a similar situation.

The Defendant: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The defendant in the case, GNC Holdings LLC, owns and operates a chain of health food stores. The allegations in the class action lawsuit include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to reimburse workers for job-related necessary expenses

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to pay wages when they’re due

The allegations included in the California wage and hour class action would violate multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

Do All California Employees Get Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

California employers must provide their non-exempt employees with a minimum 30-minute meal break if they work more than five hours a day and a second meal break if they work over ten hours. Additionally, employees are entitled to 10-minute rest periods for every four hours they work. Failure to provide these breaks allows employees to receive one additional hour of pay at their regular rate for each workday that the meal or rest period is not provided.

The Case: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The wage and hour class action lawsuit, Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC, is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to respond to an employer’s labor code violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

TSC Staff Faces Allegations They Failed to Pay Overtime in California Class Action

In recent news, The Service Companies/TSC Staff face allegations of wage and hour violations in a recent California class action lawsuit.

The Case: Oscar Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

The Case No.: 24STCV01889

The Plaintiffs: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

The plaintiff in the case, Almanza, filed a class action complaint against The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant failed to provide workers with meal and rest breaks required by labor laws.

The Defendant: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

The defendant in the case, The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff, allegedly failed to provide meal and rest breaks to employees. According to the class action lawsuit, the defendant allegedly violated numerous California Labor Codes (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The allegations include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failure to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to reimburse workers for required work expenses

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to provide wages when due

The Case: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

Due to strenuous work schedules, the defendant’s employees were allegedly unable to take off-duty breaks, and during the off-duty breaks they did take, they were not fully relieved from their work duties. According to the class action lawsuit, workers were sometimes required to work more than four hours without a ten-minute rest period. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that due to understaffing, the staff that was scheduled tended to be overburdened, so from time to time, The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff denied employees their first rest periods of 10 minutes (minimum) for shifts from 2-4 hours, both first and second rest periods during shifts between 6-8 hours, and first, second, and third rest breaks during shifts lasting ten or more hours. When employees did not receive their rest periods, the company allegedly failed to provide them one hour of wages in place of the break as labor law requires. The case, Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

Did Heritage Bank Violate Wage and Hour Laws?

In recent news, Heritage Bank faces a class action lawsuit. The case was filed under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for wage and hour violations.

The Case: Nicole Demarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: RG20080970

The Plaintiffs: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

The plaintiffs in the case, Demarinis and Patire, are current and former Heritage Bank of Commerce employees. The plaintiffs brought the case under PAGA (California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004), claiming the company engaged in wage and hour Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

The defendant in the case, Heritage Bank, put an arbitration agreement in place with the plaintiffs in which they waived their right to bring claims against each other in any class or representative proceeding. Heritage Bank argued that the denial of arbitration was erroneous because the waiver provision was enforceable for nonindividual PAGA claims.

The Case: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

However, the court found that the provision violated public policy by requiring plaintiffs to abandon their right to bring PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three affirmed the decision made by the trial court rejecting the bank’s argument to compel arbitration of the individual PAGA claims based on a waiver of the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the court found that the waiver provision’s nonseverablity clause and “poison pill” provision precluded severance of the unenforceable nonindividual PAGA claims waiver by stating that if the waiver provision is unenforceable, the full arbitration agreement is null and void. As a result, the court decided the unenforceability of the waiver provision rendered the entire agreement null and void, which affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour 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.