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.

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 Fred Alger Management Retaliate Against a Whistleblower?

When employees come forward with information about potential securities law violations, they're often taking a personal and professional risk. In Ott v. Fred Alger Management, Inc., a federal court examined how far those whistleblower protections extend under the Dodd-Frank Act, and whether employees are covered even when they don't qualify for an SEC financial reward.

Case: Ott v. Fred Alger Management, Inc. et al

Court: Southern District Court of New York

Case No.: 1:2011-cv-04418

The Plaintiff: Ott

The plaintiff, Ott, was employed by Fred Alger Management, Inc., a financial management and investment firm. During her employment, Ott disclosed information to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about conduct she believed violated federal securities laws.

Following her disclosure, Ott alleged that she was retaliated against, which is a violation of the anti-retaliation provisions found in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, she claimed her employer took adverse actions after she cooperated with federal regulators and reported potential wrongdoing.

The Defendant: Fred Alger Management, Inc.

Fred Alger Management, Inc. is a well-known investment advisory firm based in New York, overseeing billions in assets. The company denied Ott's claims, arguing that her disclosures were not "original information" as defined by the SEC's whistleblower program.

Under the defendant's interpretation, only whistleblowers eligible for an SEC award could be shielded by Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provisions. Because Ott's information did not qualify for a reward, the company maintained that she was not protected from retaliation under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h).

A History of the Case: How the Court Interpreted Dodd-Frank

The Southern District of New York rejected the company's narrow reading of the law. In a significant decision, the court held that a whistleblower need not qualify for or receive a reward to be protected from retaliation.

The court pointed directly to the SEC's implementing regulations, which clarify that protections against retaliation apply "whether or not you satisfy the requirements, procedures, and conditions to qualify for an award." This means the law safeguards employees who provide information in good faith, even if that information later proves ineligible for an SEC payout.

By focusing on the employee's intent and cooperation rather than the report's outcome, the ruling broadened whistleblower protections nationwide.

The Main Question Being Considered: Who Qualifies for Whistleblower Protection?

The key issue before the court was whether Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation protections extend to individuals who report possible violations to the SEC but do not qualify for a monetary award.

The court's answer was clear: yes. The anti-retaliation clause is designed to encourage employees to speak up without fear, not to restrict protection only to those who provide profitable or "original" tips. The court emphasized that retaliation protections serve a different purpose from reward eligibility—they exist to prevent employers from punishing employees for doing the right thing.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

While this case originated in New York, its impact extends to employees nationwide. For California workers (especially those in finance, healthcare, or technology) this decision reinforces that whistleblower protections don't depend on technical eligibility for rewards.

California's own Labor Code Section 1102.5 and the California Whistleblower Protection Act mirror these principles. Employees are protected when they report suspected illegal conduct, whether internally to supervisors or externally to agencies like the SEC.

The Ott case stands as a reminder that integrity and accountability in the workplace should never come at the cost of personal security or employment.

FAQ: Ott v. Fred Alger Management, Inc.

Q: What law did this case interpret?

A: The court interpreted 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h), part of the Dodd-Frank Act, which protects employees from retaliation when they report possible securities law violations.

Q: Did the court limit protection to those eligible for an SEC reward?

A: No. The court explicitly held that anti-retaliation protections apply even if the employee's report doesn't qualify for a reward, as long as it was made in good faith.

Q: What does this mean for California whistleblowers?

A: It reinforces that employees in California are protected when reporting misconduct—verbally or in writing—even if the information later turns out ineligible for compensation or doesn't lead to enforcement action.

If you've been fired or retaliated against for reporting illegal or unethical activity on the job, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. Contact our office today to discuss your situation and explore your legal options at our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Retired LAPD Sergeant Wins $4.5M in Whistleblower Retaliation Lawsuit

A Los Angeles County jury has awarded retired LAPD Sergeant Randy Rangel $4.5 million after finding the department unlawfully retaliated against him for reporting alleged overtime fraud within the Transit Services Division.

Case Name: Randy Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: 22STCV34806

The Background: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

Rangel, who served the LAPD for 32 years, claimed that in 2018 and 2019, he reported a fellow sergeant for billing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for overtime work that was never performed. He alleged no investigation was launched. Instead, he says his identity as the complainant was leaked—despite whistleblower confidentiality rules—triggering months of retaliation.

Alleged Retaliation: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

According to the lawsuit, Rangel was:

• Removed from his role as captain’s adjutant, a key promotional stepping stone.

• Targeted with false rumors about his personal life.

• Subjected to ongoing harassment from colleagues and superiors.

• Written up for potential discipline over a separate incident, which was eventually dismissed.

He claimed the retaliation continued even after he filed an anonymous Internal Affairs complaint in 2020, and that the hostile work environment contributed to his decision to retire in 2023.

The Verdict: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

According to court documents, the jury awarded Rangel $4.5 million in damages. (It's possible the award amount could change due to potential post-trial proceedings). In some cases, the final payout is adjusted on appeal or other post-trial proceedings. Rangel v. City of Los Angeles. It is just one of several recent suits involving the LAPD Transit Services Division. Other allegations include misconduct cover-ups, retaliation for reporting violations/wrongdoing, and discrimination. 

Why This Case Matters: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

California law protects employees who report misconduct from retaliation, but in some cases (like Rangel v. City of Los Angeles), whistleblowers can still face serious consequences in the workplace. The verdict in this case sends a message about the significant legal and financial penalties associated with violating these essential labor law protections.

FAQ: Whistleblower Retaliation Case

Q: What was the basis of Randy Rangel’s lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles?

A: Rangel, a former Los Angeles Metro employee, alleged he was retaliated against after reporting an overtime fraud scheme involving other employees.

Q: Which court heard this case?

A: The case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV34806.

Q: What was the outcome of the trial?

A: The jury awarded Rangel $4.5 million in damages for retaliation, including lost wages and emotional distress.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It underscores California’s strong whistleblower protections, especially for public employees who report suspected fraud or misconduct.

Q: Can the City of Los Angeles appeal the verdict?

A: Yes. As with most civil verdicts, the City has the right to appeal within a specified timeframe under California law.

If you have experienced workplace retaliation, please speak with an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible. Get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Female Disney Executive Filed Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A former female Disney executive filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, a California Corporation, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV08350

The Plaintiff: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Asta Jonasson, is taking the network, parent company Disney, and John Ridley to court, claiming they engaged in gender, racial, and economic discrimination and wrongful termination.

During her ten years with ABC under Ridley and IFPRPC(Ridley’s International Famous Players Radio Picture Corporation), Jonasson claims her salary went unchanged and was lower than the standard for her position at the company. According to the complaint, she was also overlooked for promotions. Jonasson brought her concerns to Ridley regarding the alleged pay disparity, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination multiple times. She also states that she complained to ABC about unlawful discriminatory actions but saw no corrective action. In 2021, a white woman was hired to perform tasks Jonasson was already performing, but at a significantly higher pay rate. Jonasson eventually put her grievances in writing and was allegedly “pink-slipped” in 2022. Claiming her firing was a direct result of her written complaints of labor law violations, Jonasson filed a California wrongful termination lawsuit listing the studio, Ridley, and the parent company, The Walt Disney Company as defendants.

The Defendant: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The case has a trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley (Oscar winner Ridley is the co-host of Deadline’s Doc Talk podcast), and ABC, face multiple alleged labor law violations, including:

• Discrimination in violation of the FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of the FEHA

• Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation

• Violation of the Equal Pay Act

• Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Negligent supervision and retention

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

In Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, the plaintiff seeks a jury trial and various unspecified damages from the trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley, and ABC.

Not the Only Labor Law Allegations Disney Faces:

Disney is facing more allegations regarding gender discrimination in a class action suit from potentially thousands of past and present employees, claiming the company shows a pattern of gender discrimination and pay disparity favoring male employees. The class action was filed in 2019 by Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. It includes claims that female employees receive lower pay rates than male counterparts with similar job duties in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. After repeated failures to get the class action discrimination lawsuit tossed out, the action seeks at least $150,000,000 in lost wages for female Disney employees, with the potential for damages to grow to more than $300,000,000.

If you have questions about how to file a retaliation, discrimination, or wrongful termination lawsuit, 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.

Elon Musk’s Neuralink Faces Allegations of Discrimination and Retaliation

In recent news, a former Neuralink employee claims she faced discrimination, workplace retaliation, and disregard for her pregnancy accommodations during her time at the company.

The Case: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The Court: Superior Court of Alameda County

The Case No.: 24CV079691

The Plaintiffs: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Lindsay Short (formerly known as Lindsay Tatum), is a former Neuralink employee. Neuralink hired Short on March 9, 2021, as an Animal Care Team member at Neuarlink’s Dixon location. During her hiring process, it was understood by all parties involved that Short would require flexibility to accommodate her children’s work schedule and doctor’s appointments. After the Dixon location was closed in January 2022, Short was promoted to Animal Care Lead and transferred to Fremont with a pay raise. After negotiating her need for flexible time off to care for her children, Short accepted the new position as Animal Training Lead for the Non-Human Primate population and moved from Dixon to Fremont. Upon starting the job at the Fremont location, Short quickly discovered that management heavily discouraged taking rest breaks, and employees were frequently not relieved of job duties during their meal periods. Management at the Fremont location also quickly began pressuring Short to prioritize her work over her family, disregarding the oral agreement they entered into offering flexibility to accommodate her need to care for her children.

Alleged Labor Law Violations Escalate: Failure to Provide Appropriate PPE

Additionally, Short claims in the complaint that Neuralink conducted experiments within its research lab using rhesus macaque non-human primates (NHPs) that carried the deadly Herpes B virus without providing her with the appropriate PPE and failed to acknowledge her concerns regarding training, safety protocols, and violations of government regulations, which eventually led to her potential exposure. In response to her complaints, Short claims she was subjected to a retaliatory demotion under the erroneous guise of poor work performance that took effect in May 2023. In June 2023, Short advised HR in a teleconference meeting that she was pregnant. The next day, her supervisors presented her with a separation agreement and notice of termination for alleged “performance issues.” Short filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming she suffered economic loss and emotional distress due to the company’s unlawful conduct.

The Defendant: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The defendant in the case is Neuralink, Corp., and two of Short’s managers during her time working at the company. Short claims Neuralink and two of her managers, specifically Thurman and Sorrells, subjected her to discrimination, failure to provide appropriate accommodations for pregnancy, exposure to unsafe conditions, a pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory actions, and whistleblower retaliation. Additionally, Short claims Neuralink violated labor law’s meal break and rest period requirements.

The Case: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp., lawsuit alleges several labor law violations. The alleged labor law violations started after Short took a promotion with an accompanying pay raise and oral agreement for a flexible work schedule that accommodated her need to provide care for her children. The promotion necessitated a move of approximately 80 miles from Dixon to Fremont. Short seeks economic damages, non-economic damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and any other remedies available under applicable laws.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Appeals Court Overturns Whistleblower Retaliation Award

In recent news, the California Appeals Court overturned a jury award to Ortega, a fired employee in a California whistleblower retaliation case.

The Case: Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings

The Court: California Appeals Court

The Case No.: B309931

The Lawsuit: Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings

The plaintiff in the case, Ortega, sued Carson Wild Wings for whistleblower retaliation after being fired from her server job. Ortega alleges the company fired her in retaliation after she made complaints of wage and hour violations. Ortega’s argument hinged on the timing of her complaints (April 6th and 7th, 2017), with the employment termination following on April 10, 2023. The company claimed the termination was based on allegations that the plaintiff manipulated the tip-out procedure, a recent “water bombing” incident, and past write-ups. The plaintiff denied manipulating the tip-out system, claimed past write-ups were in the distant past and were unrelated to her termination, and that the “water bombing” incident was an accepted “prank” to pull on new servers to teach them to remember to log out of the system. The manager testified she didn’t know about the employee’s meal break complaint when she decided to fire Ortega.

The Jury Trial’s Award: Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings

The jury awarded the former Carson Wild Wings server $200,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The defendant appealed the court’s decision.

On Appeal: Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings

On appeal, the court considered the timeline of events. Following the water-bombing incident that infuriated the general manager, the GM drafted the corrective action memorandum serving as notice of termination listing multiple reasons, including manipulating the tip-tracking system to avoid paying taxes on tips, the water-bombing incident, break violations, and tardiness. The GM forwarded the memorandum to the district manager and HR to request approval for the employee’s termination on April 6, 2017. After sending the email, the general manager left for the day. Later that evening, during the night shift, the plaintiff’s shift manager asked her to clock out for her meal break but work through it and take her break later. The employee complained about never receiving a meal break around midnight. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiff was asked to work through her scheduled meal break again. She complained to another shift manager about the missed breaks and other wage and hour violations. On April 9, 2017, after reviewing the general manager’s corrective action memo, the company suspended Ortega before her shift started. On April 10, 2017, Ortega was terminated from her position. Considering the timeline of events, the California Appeals Court reversed the jury trial’s award, finding insufficient evidence to support the award. The uncontested evidence showed the employer’s supervisor did not know about her labor law violation complaints when deciding to request termination of employment, so the corrective action could not be retaliation.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace retaliation or whistleblower retaliation 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.