Boeing Faces Allegations of Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace

After a former Boeing employee filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit, the court must determine if Boeing violated labor law.

The Case: Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company

The Court: Washington Western District Court

The Case No.: 2:24-cv-00278

The Plaintiff: Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company

The plaintiff in the case, Rasmussen, is a former Boeing crane mechanic who filed a lawsuit against the company after 10 years of employment, alleging she experienced discrimination and harassment while on the job. Specifically, Rasmussen reported that her Boeing manager made an anti-gay joke - and she very quickly found herself found herself facing a one-day suspension over parking tickets. In a separate incident, Rasmussen made a report regarding a co-worker sexually assaulting another worker, stating that it was one of many incidences of harassment and discrimination endured during her time at the company as a transgender. — one of many acts of harassment and discrimination she says she faced for more than 10 years as a transgender lesbian woman working in the Boeing Everett facility. Rasmussen claims Boeing responded to her complaint by suspending the offending co-worker for one day, the same consequences Rasmussen once faced for an alleged parking violation.

The Defendant: Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company

The defendant, The Boeing Company, is an airplane-maker. The plaintiff was employed at the company for 20 years before deciding to transition to live consistent with her gender identity (in 2010). Once she transitioned, she continued to work for 10 more years. While she never felt unsafe at Boeing before the transition, she didn't feel safe in the last ten years. Rasmussen described the feeling at Boeing as not feeling “threat-free” and always suffering from a “level of anxiety.” In the discrimination lawsuit, Rasmussen describes years of mistreatment following her transition in 2010.

The Case: Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company

The plaintiff in the case, Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company, is 55 years old. Rasmussen sued Boeing in federal district court in Seattle, Washington alleging the company violated labor laws against harassment, discrimination, and retaliation at work.

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.

Former ISE Exec. Alleges Gender Basis and Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

In recent news, a former Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE) executive claims racial discrimination and gender discrimination were left unchecked in the workplace.

The Case: Joyce Li v. Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE) and predecessor Relativity Sports

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

The Case No.: BC660219

The Plaintiffs: Li v. ISE

The plaintiff in the case, Joyce Li, was a seasoned professional with over a decade of experience in the sports industry. As the Director of Operations for the Basketball Division at Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE), she allegedly played a pivotal role in the agency’s basketball division, reportedly negotiating more than $400 million in NBA player contracts. Despite her instrumental contributions in the workplace, Li alleges gender discrimination based on disparities in pay and treatment in comparison to her male counterparts at work. Additionally, Li alleges the workplace exhibited a blatant lack of racial diversity. The plaintiff claims that while she performed the duties of a sports agent, she was denied participation in the standard fee splits or commissions. Additionally, her salary fell significantly below that of male colleagues who received substantial pay raises and bonuses. The allegedly discriminatory treatment combined with her termination suggests a pattern of discrimination and retaliation. Li claims her complaints were dismissed. After her termination, the company replaced female employees with male counterparts in their Basketball Division.

The Defendant: Li v. ISE

The defendant in the case, ISE (formerly Relativity Sports), faces allegations of gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and wrongful termination. After exercising her right to protest discrimination in the workplace, Li claims she was subjected to workplace retaliation and wrongful termination that resulted in ongoing economic loss and mental and emotional suffering.

The Case: Li v. ISE

The defendant in the case, ISE (formerly Relativity Sports), faces allegations of gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and wrongful termination. Li seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Additionally, She seeks an injunction that would prohibit “unequal pay to women and minorities and other discriminatory and retaliatory practices in the future.” She requested a court-supervised policy protecting women and minorities from unfair pay and workplace practices that would require periodic reporting from the company to ensure compliance.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact 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.

Does Disney Pay Female Workers Less than Male Workers?

In recent news, Disney faces allegations that they pay their female workers less than male employees.

The Case: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

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

The Case No.: 19STCV10974

The Plaintiff: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, LaRonda Rasmussen, and at least 8,900 other women employed by Disney claim that the company pays female employees less than male employees. The female Disney employees requested class certification for a class of women employed by Disney in California who are nonunion and employed in positions below the level of vice president any time between April 2015 and the present. According to the lawsuit, Disney allegedly underpays women in middle management in comparison to their male coworkers. The complaint also claims Disney passes over women for promotions in favor of male coworkers.

The Defendant: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The defendant in the case, The Walt Disney Co. et al., argued that the plaintiffs failed to adequately identify and define “substantially similar” jobs performed by male and female Disney employees. However, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle rejected Disney’s argument. Instead, the judge agreed to certify the class of women under California’s Equal Pay Act. However, the judge failed to certify a larger class under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The Case: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The case, LaRonda Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County. A California federal judge determined Disney would have to face labor law claims brought against it by a class of women arguing they were paid less than their male coworkers at the company.

If you have questions about how to file an employment law complaint, please get in touch with 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.

Did Tesla Retaliate Against Employees for Opposing Harassment?

In recent news, a federal lawsuit alleges black Tesla employees endured open hostility and racial discrimination.

The Case: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 4:23-cv-04984

Background: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

In this widely publicized case, the complaint alleged that electric car maker Tesla, Inc. violated federal law when they tolerated the ongoing widespread racial harassment of their black employees. In addition, the lawsuit claims that Tesla retaliated against some workers for opposing the harassment. According to case documents, the harassment continued from at least 2015 through 2023, with the black employees at Tesla’s Fremont, California facilities enduring various racial slurs, pervasive stereotyping, racial abuse, and general hostility while fulfilling their jobs at the busy manufacturing plant. Incidents allegedly occurred casually in high-traffic areas and worker “hub” areas. Black employees also allegedly encountered graffiti (showing variations of the N-word, swastikas, nooses, threats, etc.) on their desks, office furniture, factory equipment, bathrooms, elevators, and new vehicles just rolling off the Tesla facility’s production line.

Workplace Retaliation Claims: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Tesla Inc., also faces allegations of retaliation. During the EEOC investigation, evidence suggested that employees who objected to the discriminatory behavior and racial harassment at the Tesla facility suffered various forms of workplace retaliation, from a change in job duties to termination or transfer. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial harassment. It also requires employers who receive harassment complaints to respond promptly by investigating the claim and taking appropriate action to stop the retaliatory acts or harassment.

The Case: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

In EEOC v Tesla, Inc., the parties failed to reach a pre-litigation settlement. After the failed attempt to resolve the situation pre-litigation, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages and back pay for any affected Tesla employees. The suit also seeks injunctive relief to reform Tesla’s employment practices and prevent future acts of discrimination.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace discrimination 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.

Sweetgreen Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations in Discrimination Lawsuit

In recent news, Sweetgreen faces allegations of labor law violations in a discrimination lawsuit. The complaint accuses the employer of discrimination, racial harassment, and a hostile work environment. The workers who filed the complaint claim that Sweetgreen’s upper management and human resources department ignored their complaints for years.

The Case: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 804089/2023E

The Plaintiffs: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The ten plaintiffs in the case, who are black, claim that human resources and upper management at Sweetgreen ignored their complaints of discrimination for years. The plaintiffs level their allegations at seven different NYC Sweetgreen locations and two different “head coaches” (the term Sweetgreen uses to refer to their general managers), Donald Izquierdo and Edwin Ventura. The lawsuit amended a previous lawsuit filed in March on behalf of two plaintiffs. The new complaint claims managers and other store employees regularly used the “N-word” and other similarly derogatory terms to refer to Black workers. The complaint also claims employees in supervisory/management positions on site also made racist and sexual comments to female workers and customers.

The Defendant: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The defendant in the case, SweetGreen, is a salad-making restaurant chain with multiple locations.

The Case: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs, who were Sweetgreen employees, allege that Sweetgreen and its management discriminated against their employees based on race and sex and created a hostile work environment in at least seven different NYC Sweetgreen locations. Ventura would allegedly disqualify Black job applicants, citing subjective objections. For instance, rejecting a female Black job applicant because she “looked like she had an attitude problem.” The plaintiffs noted that the comment was never applied to any non-Black job applicants. The case was filed in Bronx County Courts, Supreme Court Civil Term in Bronx, New York. The case is currently pending.

If you have questions about how to file a workplace discrimination 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.

Compass Group Faces Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

In recent news, Compass Group, a multinational corporation, faces discrimination and wrongful termination allegations after a former employee claims she was fired for refusing to participate in a “diversity” program she felt blatantly discriminated based on race and gender.

The Case: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court Southern District of California

The Case No.: 23CV1347 KSC

The Plaintiff: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Courtney Rogers, is a former Internal Mobility Team recruiter for Compass Group USA. While Rogers was working for the company’s human resources department in 2022, the company introduced “Operation Equity,” a new “diversity” program in which only “women and people of color” were invited to participate. The program was promoted as offering special training and mentorship alongside guaranteed promotion. Rogers expressed her concerns that the “diversity” program was openly discriminating against white males, denying them employment opportunities and benefits made available by Compass to women and people of color through the program. The initiative directly conflicted with Rogers’ religious belief that all people, regardless of race or gender, are created equal, so she requested accommodation by assigning her to a different project. A senior HR officer assured her there would be no retaliation against her for expressing her beliefs, and she could be assigned different responsibilities as accommodation. However, within two weeks, Rogers was fired.

The Defendant: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Compass Group USA, Inc., is one of the largest employers in the world and the parent company of many recognizable names like Bon Appétit Restaurant Management, Wolfgang Puck Catering, TouchPoint, etc.

The Case: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

In the case Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., the plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks relief from “Religious Creed Discrimination” (a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The lawsuit seeks financial compensatory damages resulting from Compass’ discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, as well as asking the court to require Compass’s senior human resources management to participate in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Fair Treatment training, classes, and oversight to prevent a repeat of retaliation against other employees in the future.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace discrimination 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.

Former Target Employee Claims Wrongful Termination

A former Target employee claims the massive box store wrongfully terminated her.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

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

The Case No.: 34-2022-00316991

The Plaintiff: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

Torres, the plaintiff and former Target employee in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging Target violated labor law. Torres claims that she was fired due to a disability and that Target failed to provide hourly, non-exempt workers with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

The defendant in the case, Target Corporation, faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failure to pay wages when due

The allegations constitute violations of various applicable Labor Codes, including California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged violations would give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

According to the complaint and the plaintiff's allegations, Target wrongfully terminated Torres, an employee allegedly subject to protected activity. Torres claims that Target subjected her to adverse employment actions, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed the company of her asthma disability. The company fired Torres after informing them of her disability, which led her to claim a causal link between the protected activity and Target's decision to terminate her employment.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination 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.