Did Johnson & Johnson Face a Nearly $1 Billion Wrongful Death Verdict Over Alleged Asbestos-Contaminated Talc?

In Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., a Los Angeles jury awarded nearly $1 billion to the family of an 88-year-old woman who developed mesothelioma and later died, after plaintiffs alleged her illness was caused by asbestos contamination in Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder.

Case: Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 21STCV05513

The Plaintiff: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

Mae Moore was described as a devoted wife, a mother of three, and an avid user of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. Following her death, her family filed wrongful death claims alleging that the talc-based product Moore utilized harbored asbestos contamination, and this exposure led to the development of mesothelioma. Moore received a diagnosis of mesothelioma in December 2020 and succumbed to the disease approximately a year later, at the age of 88.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Johnson & Johnson and other entities named in the lawsuit are the defendants.

Johnson & Johnson is a global company that has sold consumer products, including talc-based baby powder. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants were responsible for placing a talc product into the market that was contaminated with asbestos and for failing to provide adequate warnings. Johnson & Johnson has denied that its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer and has stated it plans to appeal the jury’s verdict.

A Brief History of the Moore v. Johnson & Johnson Case

• Filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles (Case No. 21STCV05513)

• Date of Filing: Feb. 9, 2021

• Claims: Alleged asbestos exposure from talc-based products leading to wrongful death

• Proceeded through litigation to jury trial before Judge Ruth Ann Kwan

• After deliberating for two days, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the family totaling close to $1 billion.

• The jury unanimously found that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice or oppression.

• Compensatory and punitive damages were awarded.

• In response to the findings, Johnson & Johnson stated an intent to appeal.

The Main Question in the Case

Did Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder expose Mae Moore to asbestos in a way that caused her to develop mesothelioma and ultimately led to her death? And if so, did Johnson & Johnson’s conduct justify punitive damages based on findings like malice or oppression?

The Allegations: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

The third amended complaint, as described in the reporting you provided, included a broad set of theories commonly seen in wrongful death product liability litigation. The allegations included:

1. Asbestos-contaminated talc exposure

The plaintiffs alleged that Moore regularly used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and that the talc in it was contaminated with asbestos.

2. Wrongful death and survivorship claims

The claims sought recovery for Moore’s death and for harms suffered before her death, based on the allegation that product exposure caused a fatal disease.

3. Product liability and failure-to-warn theories

The suit asserted theories of negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and failure to warn, based on the allegation that the product was not safe as sold or that consumers were not adequately warned of the risk.

4. Fraud and concealment-related allegations

The claims also included allegations such as fraud, concealment, and conspiracy-related theories, reflecting the plaintiffs’ position that the conduct went beyond an ordinary product defect case.

As with any contested litigation, defendants can dispute both causation and fault. In this matter, Johnson & Johnson has denied that its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer.

FAQ: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

Q: What is a wrongful death claim?

A: A wrongful death claim is brought by certain surviving family members or representatives seeking damages after a person dies due to another party’s wrongful act or neglect.

Q: What is mesothelioma, and why is it relevant in asbestos cases?

A: Mesothelioma is a cancer commonly associated with asbestos exposure. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged Moore’s mesothelioma resulted from asbestos-contaminated talc exposure.

Q: What is the difference between compensatory damages and punitive damages?

A: Compensatory damages are intended to compensate for losses and harm (economic and non-economic). Punitive damages are intended to punish and deter conduct found to be especially harmful, such as conduct involving malice, oppression, or fraud.

Q: Does a jury verdict mean the case is over?

A: Not always. Defendants may file post-trial motions and appeals. Appellate courts can affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment depending on the legal issues and trial record.

Q: Why do punitive damages sometimes make verdicts dramatically larger?

A: Punitive damages can be many times larger than compensatory damages because they are designed to deter and punish, not simply reimburse losses.

If you lost a loved one and believe corporate misconduct, a dangerous product, or a failure to warn contributed to that death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to pursue accountability and justice.

Can a $22,000 Wage-and-Hour Settlement Still Support a Large Attorneys’ Fee Award?

In Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., the Ninth Circuit addressed a question that shows up often in California wage-and-hour litigation: when a plaintiff settles individual claims for a relatively modest amount, can she still seek substantial attorneys’ fees for work that also touched related class or PAGA theories? The court held that a section 998 settlement agreement did not automatically bar recovery of fees for work on related claims if that work was intertwined with the individual claims. But the Ninth Circuit also made clear that fee awards cannot be “because vibes.” Trial courts must explain how they arrived at the number. Here, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fee award and sent the case back for a clearer explanation.

Case: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case No.: 23-3927

The Plaintiff: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

The plaintiff is a former employee of a large retail company who worked for approximately six weeks at a California store. She alleged that during her employment she was denied meal and rest breaks, was not paid overtime, did not receive compliant wage statements, and was required to use her personal cell phone for work-related tasks without reimbursement. Based on those allegations, she filed a lawsuit asserting individual claims as well as putative class and PAGA claims for violations of California’s Labor Code.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is the defendant in the case.

Wal-Mart is a nationwide retailer with operations throughout California. In this lawsuit, the company was accused of wage-and-hour violations involving breaks, overtime, wage statements, and expense reimbursement policies and practices. The case also addresses how employers can structure settlements and litigation strategy when a case begins with class and PAGA theories but later proceeds primarily on an individual basis.

A Brief History of the Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Case

The plaintiff filed the action in state court, asserting individual, class, and PAGA claims. The company removed the case to federal court.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several of the plaintiff’s class claims and denied class certification on the remaining class claim. After that, the plaintiff continued pursuing her individual claims and PAGA claims. Shortly before trial, the parties resolved the individual claims through a $22,000 settlement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998. As part of the deal, the plaintiff dismissed her PAGA claims without prejudice and preserved her right to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to her individual claims.

After the settlement, the district court awarded the plaintiff $297,799 in attorneys’ fees and $14,630 in costs. The record reflects that the plaintiff had already voluntarily reduced her fee request by nearly half, excluding time spent on class certification work and certain legal assistant time.

Wal-Mart appealed. The Ninth Circuit held the section 998 settlement did not automatically preclude a fee request for work on related claims, as long as the work was sufficiently intertwined with the individual claims under the framework courts use to evaluate fee requests in cases with mixed success. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fee award. It remanded the case because the district court did not provide a sufficiently clear explanation of how it arrived at the awarded amount.

The Main Question in the Case

When a plaintiff settles her individual wage-and-hour claims under section 998 and agrees to dismiss other claims (like PAGA) without prejudice, can she still recover attorneys’ fees for work that also related to other claims that were not ultimately litigated to judgment, so long as the work was intertwined with the individual claims? And what level of explanation must a district court provide when awarding attorneys’ fees?

The Allegations: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

The case involved wage-and-hour allegations commonly seen in California employment litigation, including:

1. Meal and rest break violations

The plaintiff alleged she was denied the legally required meal and rest breaks during her employment.

2. Unpaid overtime

She alleged she worked overtime hours without receiving proper overtime compensation.

3. Wage statement violations

She alleged the wage statements she received did not comply with California Labor Code requirements.

4. Expense reimbursement for required cell phone use

She alleged the employer required her to use her personal cell phone for work-related purposes without reimbursing the related costs.

The appellate decision discussed in your summary focused less on whether those violations occurred and more on what fee recovery is permitted and how fee awards must be justified procedurally.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling: Fees May Be Recoverable, But the Court Must Explain Why

The Ninth Circuit addressed two key points.

1) The court held that the settlement agreement did not categorically bar attorneys’ fees for work on related claims under the standard used to evaluate fee requests in cases where a party achieved partial success. The key question is whether the work on related claims was intertwined with and contributed to the individual claims that were actually settled. If the claims share a common core of facts and legal work, time spent on related claims can still sometimes be compensable.

2) The court found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to offer a clear explanation. Even if a fee award is legally permitted, the judge still has to show the math and reasoning. The Ninth Circuit faulted the district court for failing to provide a concise yet clear explanation of how it determined the final fee amount. Because the explanation was insufficient, the appellate court vacated the award and remanded the case to the district court for a more transparent fee analysis.

Why This Case Matters for Wage-and-Hour Litigation

This decision underscores two practical realities:

* Fee exposure can be significant even when the damages recovered by an individual plaintiff are relatively modest, especially in wage-and-hour cases where fee-shifting statutes may allow prevailing employees to recover reasonable fees.

* Trial courts must create a record. Fee awards cannot be affirmed on appeal if the judge does not clearly explain the basis for the number, particularly when the requested amounts are large and the litigation involves multiple claims with mixed outcomes.

FAQ: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Q: What is a section 998 settlement?

A: California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 is a settlement tool that can shift certain costs and influence fee exposure depending on whether a party beats or fails to beat the offer at trial. Parties often use it to encourage settlement and manage litigation risk.

Q: Why would attorneys’ fees be much higher than the settlement amount?

A: In wage-and-hour cases, fee-shifting statutes can allow a prevailing employee to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees. Litigation can be time-intensive even when the employee’s personal damages are relatively small.

Q: Did the Ninth Circuit say the plaintiff could not recover fees?

A: No. The Ninth Circuit held that the settlement did not automatically preclude recovery of fees for intertwined work. Still, it vacated the award because the district court did not adequately explain how it reached the fee amount.

Q: What does it mean for claims to be “intertwined”?

A: It generally means the claims share a common core of facts and legal work, so time spent on one claim also reasonably advances the other.

Q: What happens on remand?

A: The district court must reassess the fee request and provide a concise but clear explanation for any fee award it enters.

If you believe you were denied meal or rest breaks, not paid overtime, provided inaccurate wage statements, or required to use personal devices for work without reimbursement, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did USPS Discriminate by Demoting a Chinese American Postmaster and Replacing Her With a White Man?

In Lui v. DeJoy, the Ninth Circuit considered whether a demotion, followed by replacement with someone outside the employee’s protected class, can create an inference of discrimination strong enough to survive summary judgment. The court held that it can. The decision also highlights a second, equally important theme: when an employer relies on an internal investigation to justify a major employment action, that investigation must be genuinely independent and thorough. A thin paper review can fall short, especially when red flags suggest bias may have fueled the complaints.

Case: Lui v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General of USPS

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (appeal from U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington)

Case No.: 23-35378 (D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05030BHS-TLF)

The Plaintiff: Lui v. DeJoy

Dawn Lui is the plaintiff in this case. She is a woman of Chinese ethnicity who worked for the United States Postal Service for decades and was promoted to Postmaster of the Shelton, Washington Post Office in 2014. Lui alleged that after her promotion, she became the target of false complaints tied to her sex, race, and national origin, and that those complaints were used as the groundwork for discipline and a demotion that reduced her pay.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

The defendant is Louis DeJoy, USPS Postmaster General. USPS is the federal employer involved in the employment decisions challenged in this lawsuit. In practical terms, the case focuses on USPS management’s handling of complaints against Lui, the decision-making process that led to her demotion, and the internal review later used to uphold that demotion.

A Brief History of the Lui v. DeJoy Case

Lui has worked for USPS since 1992 and rose through the ranks, becoming Postmaster in Shelton in 2014. She later alleged she was targeted by false or biased complaints. According to the case summary you provided, her supervisor raised concerns about the legitimacy and motivation behind the accusations and refused to approve a demotion because he believed the allegations were false. USPS replaced that supervisor with a manager who approved the demotion, and Lui was then replaced by a white man.

After her demotion, Lui pursued an internal appeal. A Tacoma Postmaster, Karen Bacon, reviewed the matter and affirmed the demotion. Lui then filed suit alleging a hostile work environment, discrimination based on multiple protected characteristics, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the USPS on all claims. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment ruling as to Lui’s disparate treatment discrimination claim, allowing that claim to proceed.

The Main Question in the Case

When an employee in a protected class is demoted and replaced by someone outside their protected class, does that combination support an inference of discrimination? And is that inference of discrimination sufficient enough to establish a prima facie case and defeat summary judgment?

The Allegations and Key Evidence Discussed on Appeal: Lui v. DeJoy

The case summary describes several key facts and disputes that shaped the appellate ruling:

1. Targeting through complaints after promotion: Lui alleged that after she became Postmaster, she faced false complaints and hostile treatment tied to her sex, race, and national origin.

2. Management concerns about biased discipline: Lui’s supervisor reportedly believed the allegations against her were false and raised concerns that the complaints may have been motivated by racial animus, refusing to carry out a demotion based on those accusations.

3. Demotion approved after leadership change: USPS replaced Lui’s supervisor with a manager who approved the demotion. Lui’s demotion came with reduced pay, making it an adverse employment action.

4. Replacement by a white male: After the demotion, USPS appointed a white male to the Postmaster position. The Ninth Circuit treated this fact as central to whether Lui met the “replacement outside the protected class” element of the prima facie discrimination framework.

5. Internal appeal investigation relied on a limited review: Lui challenged the demotion internally. The internal review described in the summary consisted largely of a documentary review of the demotion decision and written complaints, without live interviews or independent probing into the credibility or bias concerns raised.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling: Why Summary Judgment Was Reversed on Disparate Treatment

1) Demotion plus replacement created an inference of discrimination

The Ninth Circuit held that Lui satisfied the “inference of discrimination” requirement for a prima facie case by showing two things: she was demoted and replaced by someone outside her protected class. The parties disputed that fourth element, but the court made clear that replacement by someone outside the protected class is enough to satisfy it at the prima facie stage.

2) A thin investigation did not establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason

The Ninth Circuit also focused on the quality and independence of USPS’s investigation and review process. The court noted the investigation relied on paper, not people: no live testimony, no meetings with the complaining employees, and reliance on written complaints even after concerns were raised that the complaints were motivated by bias. Under those circumstances, the court concluded that USPS did not meet its burden to show the demotion was supported by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and was made through an independent decision-making process.

FAQ: Lui v. DeJoy

Q: What is “disparate treatment” discrimination?

A: Disparate treatment generally refers to intentional discrimination, where an employee alleges they were treated worse than others because of a protected characteristic such as race, sex, or national origin.

Q: What does an employee usually have to show to start a prima facie discrimination case?

A: Typically, the employee must show they are in a protected class, were qualified, suffered an adverse employment action, and were replaced by or treated less favorably than someone outside the protected class.

Q: Why did it matter that Lui was replaced by a white man?

A: The Ninth Circuit treated that fact as sufficient to create an “inference of discrimination” for the “replacement outside the protected class” element at the prima facie stage.

Q: Why did the investigation process matter so much here?

A: Because USPS relied on the investigation and internal review to justify the demotion. The court found the process lacked depth and independence, undermining the argument that a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason supported the demotion.

Q: Did the Ninth Circuit rule that USPS discriminated?

A: No. The court ruled that summary judgment should not have been granted against Lui on her disparate treatment claim, meaning the claim could proceed rather than being dismissed early.

Talk to an employment lawyer about workplace retaliation and discrimination.

If you believe you were demoted, terminated, or otherwise punished because of your race, national origin, sex, or another protected characteristic, or if your employer brushed off discrimination concerns with a shallow investigation, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did an Air Taxi Startup and Hyundai Retaliate After a Female Executive Raised Misconduct and Bias Concerns?

In Cooper v. Supernal LLC, a former executive alleges she was subjected to gender discrimination and sexual harassment, then faced retaliation after raising concerns about workplace culture and what she viewed as unethical business practices. In Orange County Superior Court, a case has been filed alleging marginalization, unequal pay, exclusion from important meetings, and adverse actions after she complained internally. The case is still pending, and the court hasn’t ruled on whether the claims are valid.

Case: Diana Cooper v. Supernal LLC (Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Does 1-10)

Court: California Superior Court, Orange County

Case No.: Pending (not publicly located in available sources)

The Plaintiff: Cooper v. Supernal LLC

Diana Cooper is the plaintiff in this case. She is described as an early hire at Supernal, joining the company in 2020 as one of its first employees and being recruited for her expertise in emerging aviation policy. Cooper alleges that she faced harassment, marginalization, and underpayment during her time at the company. She claims she was paid less than her male colleagues and was encouraged to leave with promises of advancement that never materialized. Cooper also claims that she raised concerns internally about both workplace culture and business representations. As a result, she faced escalating exclusion and retaliation.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

The defendants are Supernal LLC, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor Company (along with Does 1-10). Supernal LLC is an advanced air mobility company based in Irvine. The company is developing an electric vertical takeoff and landing air taxi in affiliation with Hyundai. Additionally, Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company are allegedly connected to Supernal’s operations and leadership oversight in ways relevant to the labor law complaint.

Cooper v. Supernal: Considering a Brief History of the Case

Following concerns raised about an overly optimistic technology timeline and broader issues regarding corporate conduct and culture, Cooper was reportedly excluded from pivotal meetings and decision-making processes. Furthermore, her leadership position was allegedly removed in 2025. Cooper asserts that reporting the issue to Hyundai leadership did not safeguard her from further reprisal.

The Main Question in the Case

If an employee reports gender-based mistreatment, sexual harassment, or a hostile workplace culture, and also raises concerns about potentially unethical business practices, does California law protect that employee from retaliation? And if the employee is marginalized, excluded from key opportunities, or stripped of responsibilities after speaking up, can those actions support claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and related whistleblower violations?

The Allegations: Cooper v. Supernal LLC

The case included several different labor law violation allegations:

Discrimination: Cooper alleges she was marginalized in the workplace due to a pervasively misogynistic culture and that she was underpaid compared with male colleagues.

Sexual Harassment: The complaint claims Cooper was subjected to comments about her body and an incident involving sexually explicit content shown by a colleague.

Exclusion from Meetings and Career-Impacting Opportunities: Cooper alleges she was excluded from meetings with Hyundai executives, barred from certain travel (related to Hyundai leadership), and removed from a quarterly business review meeting with other senior female employees. After Cooper raised concerns, she alleges the exclusions intensified.

Retaliation: After raising concerns about business practices, Cooper alleges retaliation followed quickly.

FAQ: Cooper v. Supernal LLC

Q: What is workplace retaliation?

A: Retaliation generally refers to an employer taking adverse action against an employee because the employee engaged in a protected activity (reporting harassment, discrimination, suspected misconduct, etc). Retaliation may be obvious, but in some cases, the adverse actions can be more subtle.

Q: Do California protections apply when an employee complains internally?

A: Many retaliation and harassment protections can still apply to internal complaints, reports to leadership, or participation in workplace investigations. Consult an experienced labor law attorney to protect your rights.

Q: Can exclusion from meetings or removal from responsibilities count as retaliation?

A: It can, depending on the facts. Retaliation can include termination, demotion, or pay cuts, as well as actions that materially harm an employee’s job opportunities or working conditions.

Q: Is a company allowed to investigate a complaint while the employee continues working?

A: Yes, but employers generally need to avoid actions that could be viewed as punishing the reporting employee during or after the investigation.

Q: Did the defendant in the case actually violate labor law?

A: At the time this article was written, the case was still pending, and the claims listed are still just allegations until the court makes findings.

If you believe you experienced gender discrimination or sexual harassment at work, or you were punished for reporting misconduct or raising concerns about unethical practices, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Can You Sue for Wrongful Termination After a Mandatory Polygraph Test in California?

In McDoniel v. Kavry Management, LLC, the California Court of Appeals addressed a first-impression question with big ripple effects for workplace investigations: can an employer’s violation of California’s ban on mandatory polygraph testing support a wrongful termination claim based on public policy? The court said yes, holding that Labor Code section 432.2 can serve as the public policy foundation for a wrongful termination lawsuit when an employee is fired after a coerced polygraph test. The decision is a sharp reminder that “internal investigation” does not mean “anything goes,” especially when employee privacy rights are at stake.

Case: McDoniel v. Kavry Management, LLC

Court: California Court of Appeals

Case No.: D084660 (Superior Court No. CIVDS1926005)

The Plaintiff: McDoniel v. Kavry Management

Steven McDoniel is the plaintiff in this case. He worked as an assistant grower at Kavry Management, LLC, a licensed marijuana cultivation facility. After the theft, which occurred shortly after he was hired, McDoniel was directed to participate in a polygraph administered by the company’s owner. McDoniel alleged that the test was treated as mandatory; he was not given proper written notice of his statutory right to refuse, and he was terminated after allegedly failing the polygraph.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Kavry Management, LLC is the defendant in the case.

Kavry is described as a licensed marijuana cultivation business. In this lawsuit, Kavry was accused of requiring employees to submit to polygraph testing as part of an internal response to theft and then using the results to justify termination, allegedly without complying with the notice-and-consent protections required by California law.

A Brief History of the McDoniel v. Kavry Management Case

After being terminated, McDoniel filed suit against Kavry, asserting claims including wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The case went to trial, and a jury found Kavry liable for violating Labor Code section 432.2. The jury awarded McDoniel $100,000 in non-economic damages.

Kavry appealed. On appeal, the court upheld the jury’s finding and damages award, concluding there was substantial evidence the polygraph was mandatory for continued employment and that proper notice of rights was not provided. However, the Court of Appeal reversed an attorney fee award based on the timing and applicability of the fee statute relied on by the trial court.

The Main Question in the Case: McDoniel v. Kavry Management

Can an employer’s violation of California Labor Code section 432.2, which prohibits mandatory polygraph testing and requires notice of the right to refuse, serve as the public policy basis for a wrongful termination claim when an employee is fired after a polygraph exam tied to continued employment?

The Allegations: McDoniel v. Kavry Management

The case description includes several key allegations:

1. Polygraph testing was treated as mandatory.

After theft of cash and marijuana products, Kavry allegedly arranged for a polygraph examiner to test employees, including McDoniel. The process was allegedly presented as something employees were instructed to participate in, not a voluntary option.

2. The employer provided no written notice of statutory rights.

McDoniel alleged he did not receive written notice explaining his rights under Labor Code section 432.2, including the right to refuse the polygraph without retaliation or termination.

3. The employee was terminated based on the polygraph outcome.

McDoniel alleged he “failed” the polygraph and was terminated as a result, which he claimed was unlawful when the test itself was coerced and not handled in compliance with the statute.

4. The worker was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy.

The plaintiff argued that Labor Code section 432.2 expresses a strong public policy protecting employee privacy and preventing coercive polygraph practices, and that his firing in connection with that unlawful process supported the wrongful termination claim.

What the Court of Appeal Decided

Based on the verified summary you provided, the Court of Appeal made three core determinations:

* Labor Code section 432.2 can support a wrongful termination claim based on a violation of public policy, including in cases where an employee is terminated after a mandatory polygraph test.

* There was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s conclusion that the exam was mandatory for continued employment and that Kavry did not provide proper notice of the right to refuse.

* The court upheld the jury’s $100,000 noneconomic damages award, but reversed the attorney fee award because the fee statute at issue did not apply retroactively to McDoniel’s employment timeline.

Key Takeaways for Employees

If your employer asks you to take a polygraph test, your rights may depend on the specifics of your situation, but this case highlights a few practical realities in California:

* Employees may have legal protections if a polygraph is presented as a condition of keeping their job.

* When the statute applies, written notice of rights is not optional.

* If an employee gets fired because they were forced to take a coerced polygraph test, they might have a valid wrongful termination claim under public policy protections.

FAQ: McDoniel v. Kavry Management

Q: What does Labor Code section 432.2 prohibit?

A: It generally prohibits employers from requiring employees or applicants to take a polygraph test as a condition of employment or continued employment and includes notice-related protections.

Q: What does “wrongful termination in violation of public policy” mean?

A: It is a claim alleging an employee was fired for reasons that violate an important public policy expressed in law, such as statutes designed to protect workers from coercive or abusive practices.

Q: Why did the court say this was an “issue of first impression”?

A: Because the Court of Appeal treated the question of whether a section 432.2 violation could support this specific type of wrongful termination claim as a new legal question not previously decided in that way.

Q: What damages were awarded in this case?

A: The jury gave the plaintiff $100,000 in non-economic damages, which the Court of Appeals agreed with, but the Court of Appeals also reversed the decision on the separate attorney fee award because of some timing and applicability issues.

Q: Does a failed polygraph automatically justify termination?

A: This case shows how relying on polygraph tests can be risky legally, especially when people feel like they have to take them or when their rights aren’t protected enough.

If you believe your employer required a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment, failed to provide the required notice of your rights, or terminated you for refusing a coercive workplace practice, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did the County of Orange Retaliate Against a Prosecutor for Defending Coworkers From Harassment?

In Tracy Miller v. County of Orange, a jury found that a longtime Orange County prosecutor was pushed out of her job after she stood up for female colleagues who reported incidents of sexual harassment at work.

Case: Tracy Miller v. County of Orange

Court: San Diego County Superior Court

Case No.: 30-2022-01262015-cu-oe-cjc

The Plaintiff: Miller v. County of Orange

Tracy Miller is the plaintiff in this case and a former Orange County prosecutor who served for more than two decades. According to the verified case summary, Miller advocated for several female colleagues after they came forward regarding alleged sexual harassment by one of their male supervisors. According to Miller’s complaint, after she stepped in to offer support, hostility in the workplace escalated until she was eventually forced out. The jury unanimously agreed that her departure was not entirely voluntary and ruled in her favor on retaliation and constructive discharge-related theories.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

The defendant is the County of Orange. As a public employer, the County of Orange oversees departments and supervisory structures that can shape workplace culture, reporting channels, and discipline decisions. In this case, the County was accused of allowing a retaliatory environment to develop after Miller supported coworkers who raised harassment concerns, and of taking or enabling actions that contributed to Miller being pushed out of her position.

Miller v. County of Orange: Considering a Brief History of the Case

• Miller filed her case in San Diego County Superior Court under Case No. 30-2022-01262015-cu-oe-cjc.

• The dispute went to a jury trial.

• The jury awarded Miller over $3 million in damages.

• The award included compensation for economic loss, emotional distress, and punitive damages.

• The jury’s decision reflected their assessment that the conduct at issue warranted both compensation and deterrence.

The Main Question in the Case

When an employee speaks up to defend coworkers from sexual harassment, do California’s workplace protections prohibit an employer from retaliating against that employee?

The Allegations: Miller v. County of Orange

The original complaint included numerous allegations of labor law violations:

1. Retaliation (Triggered by Advocacy)

2. Hostility Escalating to Pressure to Leave

3. Retaliation and Constructive Discharge

The jury awarded damages for economic losses, emotional distress, and punitive damages, indicating that it found the conduct sufficiently harmful to justify both compensation and punishment.

Understanding Retaliation Under California Law

California employees who report harassment or discrimination, participate in investigations, or support coworkers exposed to these situations are protected by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In other words, the law’s protection is not limited to the person directly targeted. An employee who acts as an ally, witness, or advocate can also be protected from retaliation. In some cases, acts of workplace retaliation are fairly obvious (termination, demotion, etc.) Howeverr, retaliation can also show itself in more of a slow squeeze that could include: isolation, sudden negative performance evaluations, undesirable reassignments, exclusion from meetings, hostility from company leadership, etc.

The Miller verdict highlights the legal risks employers face when an employee’s advocacy is met with punishment rather than protection.

How Juries Can Calculate Damages in Retaliation and Constructive Discharge Cases

The verdict described in this case included three common categories of damages seen in retaliation matters:

1. Economic Damages: lost wages (past and future), lost benefits, diminished earning capacity, etc.

2. Emotional Distress Damages: stress, anxiety, emotional damages, etc.

3. Punitive damages: Applicable in cases involving particularly harmful activity.

Different types of damages are awarded in different cases, depending on the details of each case and the court's findings. More than one type of “damage” can apply to a single case.

Key Takeaways for Employees

If you believe you are being retaliated against for reporting harassment or supporting a coworker who reported it, take action to protect yourself. Document the situation carefully, including a timeline of complaints, who you spoke with, and what they said, what changed afterward, etc. Save any emails, texts, schedules, reviews, or meeting notes that are applicable. Then turn to an expert for legal advice as soon as possible. When it comes to retaliation, the entire case can pivot on documentation and timing. Early guidance during the case can help protect your case and your legal options.

FAQ: Miller v. County of Orange

Q: Are retaliation protections limited to the person being harassed?

A: No. California law can also protect employees who report harassment, support harassed coworkers, or participate in workplace harassment investigations, even if they were not directly targeted.

Q: What is constructive discharge?

A: Constructive discharge refers to situations where working conditions are made so intolerable that any reasonable worker would feel forced to resign. In other words, legally speaking, the resignation is considered a termination.

Q: What are the common types of “damages” seen in wrongful termination cases?

A: Common types of damages can include economic losses (wages and benefits), emotional distress damages, and, in more serious cases, even punitive damages.

Q: Why are punitive damages significant?

A: Punitive damages are designed to multitask. They both punish past action and prevent future, repeated action. Their presence often suggests a jury believed the employer’s conduct was particularly serious or harmful.

Q: What should an employee do if they suspect retaliation is happening?

A: Document key events, keep copies of relevant communications and evaluations, and speak with an employment attorney as early as possible to understand deadlines and options.

If you believe you were retaliated against for reporting harassment, supporting a coworker who spoke up, or participating in a workplace investigation, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did Home Depot Use a “Midnight Workday” to Short Overnight Workers on Overtime?

In Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., two employees brought a class action alleging Home Depot designed its defined “workday” to reduce overtime owed to workers on overnight shifts.

Case: Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

Case No.: 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD

The Plaintiff: Bell v. Home Depot

Sandy Bell and Martin Gama are the named plaintiffs who filed this class action against Home Depot. The plaintiffs are former Home Depot employees who worked overnight shifts in California. Both workers were hourly, non-exempt Home Depot employees alleging that when their shifts crossed midnight and exceeded eight total hours, Home Depot’s timekeeping system treated the shift as split into two workdays, resulting in overtime they claim they should have received but did not.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is the defendant in the lawsuit.

Home Depot is a national home improvement retailer with stores throughout California and the United States. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that Home Depot controlled the payroll and timekeeping policies that defined the “workday” and that those policies affected overtime calculations for overnight employees when their shifts crossed midnight.

A Brief History of the Bell v. Home Depot Case

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 in the California state court. It was later moved to federal court and consolidated with a related case, Henry v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., which raised similar overtime concerns for employees working shifts that extended past midnight.

The plaintiffs’ claims ultimately hinged on the central allegation that Home Depot’s policies resulted in inadequate overtime compensation for overnight shifts.

The Main Question in the Case

Can an employer avoid overtime pay obligations by defining a “workday” to split a continuous shift into two consecutive calendar days? When employees work a single overnight shift that crosses midnight and the total hours exceed eight, splitting the shift into separate parts reduces overtime pay. The court must consider whether this practice violates California wage-and-hour laws and related protections.

The Allegations: Bell v. Home Depot

Home Depot faces numerous allegations in the recent overtime pay lawsuit. Generally speaking, the plaintiffs argue that Home Depot’s time-keeping system’s definition of a “workday” as the period between 12 am and 11:59 pm on a given calendar day violated labor laws.

Home Depot’s Definition of a “Workday:” Plaintiffs argue that Home Depot applied that definition in a way that reduced or avoided overtime owed for overnight shifts.

Overnight Shift Splitting: The plaintiffs claimed that when employees worked a continuous overnight shift (crossing midnight), Home Depot allegedly treated the hours after midnight as belonging to a new workday, even though the shift remained an uninterrupted work period.

Company Avoided Overtime Pay for Single Shifts Exceeding Eight Hours: California law generally requires overtime pay (time-and-a-half) for hours worked beyond eight in a single workday (and double time for hours exceeding twelve in a workday). Plaintiffs in the case alleged Home Depot’s workday definition allowed the company to pay straight time for hours that, in the context of one continuous shift, should have triggered overtime pay.

Class-wide Impact Supported by Centralized Time Records: The plaintiffs alleged that Home Depot’s timekeeping data could be used to identify class members and evaluate claims in accordance with uniform policies and consistent records.

Why Overnight Overtime Cases Often Focus on the “Workday”

Overtime claims are not always about what an employee did. Sometimes they’re about how the employer counted their time on the clock. When a company’s timekeeping system breaks one continuous overnight shift into two shifts, workers will see a decrease in the number of overtime-eligible hours.

In order to determine liability, the court focused on Home Depot’s intent. The court had to consider whether Home Depot had a legitimate business purpose for its workday designation, or whether it was a method of avoiding overtime pay.

For employees who clock in and out on the same calendar day, this type of workday definition would not typically pose a problem, but it can be significantly detrimental to workers with overnight shifts that cross midnight. The definition itself can result in hours that would otherwise be eligible for overtime pay no longer qualifying.

In this case, the court focused on the company's intent, emphasizing that Home Depot’s liability turned on whether the workday designation had a legitimate business purpose or was intended to evade overtime obligations. The existence of detailed timekeeping records was also important because it could help determine who fell within the class definitions and how any unpaid overtime might be calculated.

Class definitions and covered time periods:

The case involves certified classes tied to overnight shifts crossing midnight:

Bell certified class (hourly-paid supervisors):

All persons who worked for Home Depot in California as a non-exempt, hourly-paid supervisor from August 14, 2009 through June 1, 2016, who worked at least one overnight shift that crossed midnight of more than eight hours, and who, as a result, were not paid overtime for the hours worked over eight hours during such overnight shift.

Henry certified class (hourly/non-exempt positions):

All persons employed by Home Depot in hourly or non-exempt positions in California from September 18, 2010 through May 3, 2016, who worked a shift past midnight where the total hours for that shift exceeded eight hours.

The class is described as including approximately 20,000 individuals who worked more than eight hours and past midnight.

Settlement: Preliminary Approval Granted

The plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion requesting preliminary approval of the class and PAGA settlements, approval of the class notice, and appointment of a settlement administrator.

Under the settlement agreement described, the parties agreed to a gross settlement amount of $3,350,000. The settlement is described as non-reversionary, meaning that no portion of the settlement returns to Home Depot if it is not paid out. The court reviewed the factors applied to class settlements (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23) before granting the unopposed motion for preliminary approval. This preliminary approval stage typically allows notice to be sent to class members and sets the case on the path toward a final approval request.

FAQ: Bell v. Home Depot

Q: Why does it matter if a shift crosses midnight?

A: When a shift crosses midnight, the beginning of one continuous shift is one “day,” while the second portion is on a different “day.” Depending on which timekeeping system the company uses and how the system defines a “workday,” this could prevent workers from receiving overtime pay for eligible hours simply because, according to the record, the single, continuous shift was split into 2 separate workdays.

Q: What overtime rule are the plaintiffs relying on?

A: The allegations rely on California’s daily overtime requirements, including time-and-a-half after eight hours in a workday and double time after twelve hours in a workday, along with weekly overtime concepts.

Q: What is the main allegation about Home Depot’s “workday” definition?

A: The plaintiffs alleged Home Depot’s midnight-to-midnight workday definition split a single overnight shift into two calendar days in a way that reduced or avoided overtime pay for hours worked beyond eight in a continuous overnight shift.

Q: What are Labor Code sections 203 and 226 generally about?

A: Section 203 is commonly associated with waiting time penalties for certain final pay issues, and Section 226 generally relates to wage statement requirements. In this case, the remaining claims included alleged violations of these provisions along with related wage-and-hour claims.

Q: What does “preliminary approval” of a class settlement mean?

A: Granting preliminary approval occurs in the early stages when the court considers whether or not a proposed settlement agreement is generally fair enough to notify class members. After notice is sent to class members, the court reviews any objections before granting final approval.

If you believe your employer’s timekeeping policies caused you to miss overtime pay, shorted you on wages earned during overnight shifts, or resulted in inaccurate wage statements or final pay issues, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.