Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Only Gets Bigger

Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Only Gets Bigger.jpg

Recent news in the Jones Day gender discrimination indicates the case will only get bigger as a former New York associate came forward. The lawsuit filed by former Jones Day associates has now spread to New York. The original suit was filed by two plaintiffs and four anonymous Jane Doe plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that Jones Day supported a “fraternity culture” and that their “black box” compensation system resulted in women receiving significantly lower pay than male counterparts. Jessica Jardine Wilkes previously spent time working at the Jones Day Menlo Park, California office and joined the suit a few weeks ago. More recently, Katrina Henderson joined the suit.

Henderson is the latest former Jones Day associate to come forward and the first to come forward after working for a Jones Day office in New York. She spent over two years working for Jones Day before leaving for a job in-house. She appears to have been employed by the firm’s New York office from October 2013 through July 2016. At that point, she joined Pixar Animation Studios starting August 2016. She recently moved from Pixar to Amazon Studios in Santa Monica, California.

The parties continue to argue over whether or not the Jane Doe plaintiffs should be allowed to retain their anonymity. The firm insists the plaintiffs should reveal their names, but the plaintiffs assert they should maintain anonymity for the duration of the litigation. One plaintiff compared her situation to that of a whistleblower.

If you have are experiencing gender discrimination on the job or if you need to file California gender discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP so we can help. With numerous locations, including our San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago employment law offices, we have the resources, the knowledge, and the experience to successfully advocate for workers and protect you from labor law violations.

Will California Be the First State to Offer Black People Protection from Natural Hair Discrimination in the Workplace?

Will California Be the First State to Offer Black People Protection from Natural Hair Discrimination in the Workplace.jpg

Many black Angelenos see Mahogany Hair Revolution, the natural hair salon run by Kari Williams in Beverly Hills, as a refuge. It is a particular refuge for black Angelenos who are pressured to change their hairstyle to keep a job or advance in the workplace. Williams has had customers come in to request she cut their locs (short for dreadlocks) because their boss or supervisor told them the hairstyle was unacceptable. Other customers can't remember what their natural hair looks like because they haven't worn it in so long. Williams supports the proposed state legislation that could make California the first state to offer legal protection to black employees experiencing natural hair discrimination in the workplace.

The proposed legislation, referred to as the CROWN Act, passed the state Senate in April and was recently approved by the state Assembly. The legislation would outlaw policies that punish black employees or students for their hairstyles. Supporters say the bill would create a respectful and open workplace for natural hair (the bill's acronym, CROWN). The CROWN Act would extend the anti-discrimination protections included in the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Education Code to add hair texture and hairstyles. It would also amend California government and education codes to protect from discrimination based on traits that are historically associated with a race (like hair texture or hairstyle). The Act would effectively make targeting a hairstyle that is associated with a particular race would be legally defined as racial discrimination.

If the Governor signs the bill, it will provide legal protection for people in the workplace and K-12 schools by prohibiting enforcement of grooming policies that have a disproportionate effect on people of color. The change would affect policies that ban certain hairstyles like Afros, braids, twists, cornrows, dreadlocks, etc. Black employees have filed numerous lawsuits nationwide claiming to have lost their jobs or faced discrimination in the workplace due to their hairstyle.

Lawmakers in New York and New Jersey proposed legislation modeled after the CROWN Act in June.

If you are experiencing workplace discrimination or if you need to discuss how to file a California discrimination lawsuit, get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw L.L.P. With conveniently located employment law offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago; we are here when you need help.

California Youth Prison Worker Threatened Black Co-Worker with Noose

California Youth Prison Worker Threatened Black Co-Worker with Noose.jpg

According to a recent lawsuit, a maintenance worker at a California youth prison outside Los Angeles threatened a black co-worker, Gales, aged 57, with a noose. The maintenance worker who threw a noose over a light fixture at Ventura Youth Correctional Facility in May 2017 kept his job, but Darren Gales, the black co-worker to which the threat was made, was forced to go on leave after experiencing retaliation in connection with the event.

When Gales' co-worker threw the noose over a nearby light fixture and said, "someone or something needs to be hanged today," Gales, the sole black employee in the prison's procurement department, filed a discrimination complaint and let his manager know about the incident. He later overheard the maintenance worker who made the threat in a conversation with another manager in which the manager pledged to support the maintenance worker.

After overhearing this conversation, Gales went on a doctor-ordered medical leave to reduce both anxiety and stress. His physician extended the leave until January 2, 2018, when Gales returned to his job. Upon returning, Gales was told his job duties were revised in his absence – he was limited to desk duty and required to notify his boss every time he left his desk. Gales' benefits were reduced, and he received a disciplinary notice regarding the incident that started it all (well after the 30-day window to issue this type of notice passed).  

Gales was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder related to the alleged discriminatory incident and left his job again on February 7, 2018. He has not been able to return to the job. He seeks compensation for lost wages and benefits as well as damages for emotional pain and suffering.  

If you need to discuss an incident of discrimination in the workplace, please call one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP's various locations: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago. We are ready to be your advocate as you seek resolution for labor law violations in the workplace.

Is Starbucks Misgendering Trans Woman a Violation of Labor Law?

Is Starbucks Misgendering Trans Woman a Violation of Labor Law.jpg

Starbucks recently claimed that misgendering or calling an employee by the wrong pronoun is not harassment, which is in direct contradiction to their employee guidelines. A former Starbucks employee, Maddie Wade, filed a complaint at the Fresno Superior Court in California suing the company for harassment and discrimination.

Wade, a former barista at a Starbucks in Fresno, alleges that when she began her transition, her manager at the time reduced her work hours and refused to call her by preferred pronouns. She also claims that her former Starbucks manager began posting transphobic material online through social media outlets. Wade claims that she was bullied and targeted by her manager at the Fresno Starbucks daily after she came out as transgender.

Allegedly, the mistreatment by her boss, Dustin Guthrie, escalated to unbearable levels and Wage had to transfer to a different Starbucks location. The harassment continued at the next Starbucks location. Wade claims her manager at the new site encouraged her to take the matter to the District Manager, and she did, but the situation was not resolved. After nine years of employment, Wade eventually left her position at Starbucks at the advice of her therapist due to the mental stress and “intolerable conditions” she was forced to endure.

Wade seeks general damages, special damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees from her former employer. She states that the loss of health insurance prevented her from receiving the treatment and procedures she needs to complete her transition. Wade also claims that Starbuck’s value marketing group for its LGBTQ employees on the Facebook page, Starbucks Partners – Pride Alliance Network, refuses to allow her to post on its wall.

It is ironic that as we enter Pride Month, Starbucks seems to be making moves counter to its public record highlighting LGBTQ acceptance. The company is reasonably well known for its LGBTQ acceptance: scoring 100 out of 100 on Human Rights Campaign’s 2018 Corporate Equality Index, releasing annual LGBTQ-focused products, rolling out trans-inclusive health care included in their benefits package, etc. Attorneys representing the massive coffee provider are filing a motion for summary judgment and arguing that there is not enough evidence to show that Guthrie was calling Wade by incorrect pronouns on purpose. Without proof of intent, the Defendant contends that the behavior in itself cannot constitute discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

If you have questions about filing a discrimination lawsuit or if you experienced discrimination in the workplace, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with employment law office nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.

Google Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit Progresses & California Judge Apologizes

Google Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit Progresses & California Judge Apologizes.jpg

Google job applicants filed suit alleging discrimination based on gender, race, and political views. The plaintiffs in the suit claim Google had a clear pattern of hiring white or Asian men with particular political views (or perceived political views). In response to the lawsuit, Google filed three motions in an attempt to squash the legal action: a motion to dismiss, a motion to strike, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara took apart each of the arguments in a written order (nine pages long) and concluding by apologizing to Google and advising them that they would have to face the charges in court.

Plaintiffs counsel will need to negotiate with Google over the discovery plan and start getting documents from them related to the plaintiffs’ request to certify class.

The Defendant, Google, claims they lack the ability to discriminate against job applicants based on political views or activities. They argued that hundreds of thousands or even millions of people have applied to work at Google during the five years proposed as a class period, and they could not reasonably be expected to go through them all. They argued that even if they could go through them all, they couldn’t possibly define who is a conservative and who is not. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that Google’s argument was similar to arguments made decades ago when issues of discrimination against women were brought up in court. Concepts of gender and race are the basis for a large portion of discrimination cases, yet in the modern workplace, these concepts are more fluid than ever, yet the legislature actively protects them against discrimination, leaving it to the court to resolve the issue.

Plaintiffs’ counsel also made sure to note that according to Google insiders, the massive tech company reviews the personal data of job applicants using its own collection of user data. They even refer to an individual’s fitness to be a Google employee as the x-factor of “Googliness.”

If you have experienced discrimination in the workplace or during the hiring process, please don’t hesitate. The experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. With convenient locations in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago, we are ready to be your advocate and seek justice for unfair working conditions.

Thomas Keller Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Goes to Trial

Thomas Keller Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Goes to Trial.jpg

A former server for the Thomas Keller Restaurant Group, Vanessa Scott-Allen, was denied a position at the French Laundry when management discovered her pregnancy. The company insists that they did not issue a formal job offer to Scott-Allen and that she misconstrued “pleasantries” with an official offer. They further claim that the reason she did not receive a job offer was her performance on the job.

Scott-Allen seeks $5 million in damages for wrongful termination and sex discrimination from the Thomas Keller Restaurant Group. The Group runs the French Laundry and Per Se, as well as other dining establishments. The plaintiff named Thomas Keller himself in the lawsuit alongside the General Manager of French Laundry, Michael Minnillo. The case went to trial in Napa County Superior Court close to three years after the plaintiff filed the original suit.

It is not uncommon for suits of this type to be settled outside of court, but Scott-Allen preferred to go to trial to raise awareness for issues that riddle the entire restaurant industry. Scott-Allen insists that she considered the company family and that they betrayed her by rescinding her job offer once her pregnancy was known.

Scott-Allen claims that she spent five years at New York’s Per Se, where she received regular promotions in the workplace from kitchen server to captain, the highest ranking server position at the company. She began planning a move to the West Coast to have more space, to raise a family, and to work at the French Laundry, Keller’s fine-dining destination in Yountville. She advised her manager of the move/transfer, signed the transfer request form, and packed her things. When she arrived in Napa Valley, she found that there was not a job for her after all. Only weeks had passed since managers at the French Laundry discovered that Scott-Allen was pregnant.

According to the lawsuit, managers asked Scott-Allen how her pregnancy may affect her job performance during an interview in April 2016. But the hiring manager, Minnillo, already knew that Scott-Allen was pregnant. Scott-Allen submitted proof of the prior knowledge during the case. Minnillo wrote in an email sent on March 1, 2016, to the company’s head of Human Resources that the pregnancy was never mentioned and that there was confusion regarding how to proceed. According to the suit, Minnillo and the HR manager came up with a plan to give Scott-Allen a “sham” interview to protect themselves and the company in case she decided to file a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. During a video deposition, Minnillo stated that the interview was “to go through the motions” even though he had no intention of hiring Scott-Allen.

The company claims that Minnillo’s confusion was not due to what to do in the situation because of Scott-Allen’s pregnancy. They insist that Minnillo decided not to hire her based on her job performance as they had previously worked together at Per Se. The company insists that he was simply wondering if Scott-Allen’s pregnancy would prevent him from passing her over for the job. A little over a week after passing Scott-Allen over for the job insisting that there was no position for her at the French Laundry, the restaurant hired a different individual to fill the role of captain – one who had no prior experience at a Michelin-starred restaurant, but that was not pregnant.

If you have experienced pregnancy discrimination on the job or during the hiring process, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with the employment law office nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.

Mattel Faces Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Mattel Faces Age Discrimination Lawsuit.jpg

A former Mattel employee sued Mattel for age discrimination. 71-year old Benny Binshtock filed the age discrimination lawsuit against Mattel in Los Angeles Superior Court listing several allegations: wrongful termination, age-based harassment, age-based discrimination, retaliation in the workplace, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, fraud, and concealment. Binshtock claims he was falsely accused of unnecessarily calling women over to his workspace as a justification to fire him, but that the real reason was his age. The age discrimination lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

Binshtock firmly believes that his age was a contributing factor in the decision of management to terminate his employment and that the company intentionally sought to bring younger employees into the plaintiff’s position in the workplace. Binshtock’s time with Mattel began with his hiring in 1968. He was initially hired as an apprentice model maker and later received a promotion to supervisor. According to the complaint, the plaintiff’s department full of model makers like himself had not seen new hires in a significant number of years. Binshtock’s lengthy term of employment lent his complaint authority when he noted that the people in his department ranged in age from 40 to 65 years and that Mattel had employed them for many years.

In March 2018, Mattel employees saw the beginning of a round of layoffs. Binshtock claimed it was evident that defendants had clear intentions to terminate older employees. Within a month of the initial layoffs, Binshtock was called in for a meeting with Human Resources. In this meeting, he was advised that they had received a complaint against him of sexual harassment in the workplace. The “complaint” indicated that Binshtock always called female co-workers over to this office for his amusement rather than for work-related necessities. The plaintiff claims the sexual harassment complaint was completely baseless – fabricated to defame him of the reputation he spent years building on the job at Mattel.

In the same meeting with Human Resources, the HR rep changed her accusation against Binshtock from sexual harassment to “making women uncomfortable.” The plaintiff was called into another meeting in May 2018, where HR told him that an investigation had been conducted into the matter and had resulted in the decision to terminate his employment. Within the month, Binshtock, 70 years old at the time, was fired.

If you have been fired and need to discuss filing a wrongful termination lawsuit, please don’t hesitate. Get in touch with an experienced employment law attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Our convenient locations in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago make it easy for us to be your advocate and seek the justice and compensation you deserve.