Physician’s Whistleblower Claims to Proceed Against UCLA

In recent news, the Court of Appeal reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Regents of the University of California (and others), in the whistleblower retaliation action brought by Arnold Scheer, M.D., M.P.H., plaintiff.

The Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The Court: Court of Appeal of State of California, Second Appellate District Division Three

The Case No.: B303379

The Plaintiff: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The plaintiff in the case, Scheer, brought whistleblower claims in three causes of action. Scheer alleged violations under Labor Code Section 1102.5, Government Code Section 8547 et seq., and Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5. According to court documents, Dr. Scheer alleged the company retaliated against him for whistleblowing about various issues and concerns connected to patient safety, mismanagement, fraud, illegal conduct, and economic waste.

The Defendant: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The defendant in the case, the Regents of the University of California, successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the wrong standard was applied to the case in trial court, and citing Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal. 5th 703 (2022).

Summary of the Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the California Supreme Court clarified the legal framework that applies to claims under Labor Code Section 1102.5. The recent opinion requires the plaintiff to meet a less burdensome standard for whistleblower claims under Section 1102.5. While Lawson did not specifically discuss Government Code Section 8547.10, the case did require the state Supreme Court to analyze nearly identical language, so the appellate court concluded Lawson’s legal framework can be applied to the Government Code claim in Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of California. The Court of Appeal found that the Defendants based their argument seeking summary adjudication of Scheer’s Labor and Government Code claims on a legal standard inconsistent with Lawson. Based on this contradiction, the court reversed and remanded the claims. Regarding Scheer’s Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, the appellate court concluded that Lawson didn’t change the legal framework. However, the appellate court concluded there was a triable issue of material fact regarding the stated reasons for termination, so this claim was also reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

If you have questions about California employment law, retaliation, or need help filing a California whistleblower 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Playstation’s Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Dismissed by California Court

California court recently dismissed discrimination and retaliation claims against Playstation. However, they did note that further testimonies from additional women could be heard in a second filing.

The Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: United States District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-09054

The Plaintiff: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Emma Majo, is a former Sony IT Staffer. Majo worked in Sony’s PlayStation Network department as an IT security risk analyst for six years before she was fired. The case left the court determining whether Sony engaged in systemic gender discrimination and failed to implement an effective system to prevent pay discrimination. According to the complaint, Majo’s department showed a 60-40 gender split upon her hiring, but the department is now male-dominated. Details of Majo’s case hint at broader institutional gender discrimination issues.

The Defendant: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The defendant in the case, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, denies allegations of pay disparity, wrongful termination, and other gender-based discrimination. As a result, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Summary of the Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The United States District Court of North California granted PlayStation’s “motion to dismiss.” However, the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The motion to dismiss was granted for most claims because the allegations were most conclusory. Some individual claims survived, but the court does not have jurisdiction over the state claims after dismissing the federal claim, so all claims are dismissed. The court pointed out that Majo did not fully explain the allegations in the complaint. Still, the court acknowledged that three of the state claims had merit and noted that adding the additional eight women’s testimonies could lead to additional allegations. In concluding the ruling, the court indicated that the plaintiff might file a second amended complaint within 28 days. It’s likely the amended complaint, including the additional eight testimonies, will follow and allow the court the opportunity to fully examine them from the outset.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California age 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

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

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.

VW’s Rebranding Effort Allegedly Included Policy to Purge Older Workers

In response to a 2015 diesel emissions scandal, Volkswagen AG instituted a rebranding strategy. According to a 53-year old worker, Jonathan Manlove, the rebranding strategy allegedly included a policy to remove older employees from the company. The worker claiming age discrimination filed a collective action in Tennessee federal court.

Manlove claimed in the complaint that VW’s attempt to create a distraction from the diesel emissions scandal fallout or what has become known as the Dieselgate scandal with two different rebranding labor campaigns included clear discrimination violations. Particularly, the company planned to get rid of management positions that were filled by “older” employees. The plaintiff alleged that the new policy was in clear violation of U.S. age discrimination laws.

The rebranding strategies were implemented in 2016 with the twin policies: TRANSFORM 2025+ and Pact for the Future. They were implemented globally. According to American law, VW’s policy of purging older employees from their management ranks is illegal age discrimination.

The plaintiff stated in the complaint that VW’s own press releases on their new strategies made clear their intentions to eliminate older employees. The company openly stated that they would be using early retirements and “natural fluctuations” in order to reach their rebranding strategy goals to become “slimmer, leaner and younger.” 

Manlove filed suit on behalf of VW employees in the United States of America over the age of 50. Manlove worked as a VW assistant manager in logistics before he was demoted in June 2017. The demotion came only days after the VW announcement that the company would be creating a younger workforce at management levels.

VW advised Manlove he had one hear to find and obtain another assistant manager position at the company before the move would become a permanent demotion. Yet somehow Manlove’s positive performance reviews did nothing to keep him from being assigned to remain in the demoted position by VW Human Resources as well as being advised he was not allowed to apply for openings at the company.

According to the complaint, many others were affected. Since the announcement of the policy change, six employees under the age of 30 were promoted to assistant manager positions at the logistics department of VW at the Chattanooga, Tennessee manufacturing facility where Manlove was employed. At the same time, only two over 50 employees retained their assistant manager positions.

If you are experiencing age discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

NY Times Facing Discrimination & Misclassification Claims

Robert Stolarik, a photographer with an extensive working relationship with the New York Times, filed a lawsuit against the newspaper. He alleges that the New York Times misclassified him on the job, discriminated against him due to age, denied him assignments due to a past arrest, and retaliated against him when he made these claims public. During the course of his career as a photographer, Stolarik has had his photos featured on the front page of the New York Times over 30 times.

Stolarik filed the lawsuit on July 6th in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He included a number of different accusations:

Classification as a freelancer instead of a full-time employee, which left him responsible for paying additional taxes and ineligible for the company’s benefits and retirement plan. Stolarik claims the editors referred to him as a “full time freelancer” for 14 years.

No overtime pay despite working close to 3,400 hours in overtime from 2005 through 2009.

When seeking to become a staff photographer/employee, Stolarik was told a number of times by different editors at the paper that his age (37 in 2006) prevented his hiring as a staff shooter. During that same time period, younger photographers (20-somethings) were hired on as staff photographers.

In August 2012, Stolarik was assaulted and arrested while covering a story in the Bronx. The Times made sure Stolarik had legal representation and submitted an angry letter to the NYPD about the incident. The officer was later charged and found guilty of a felony for lying about the arrest. Yet Stolarik was taken off the police beat (that he had covered for more than 10 years) in response to the arrest.

Stolarik claims that the unlawful and discriminatory practices of the New York Times resulted in a loss of income and benefits because he was denied both a staff position and freelance assignments. In addition, Stolarik claims the paper retaliated against him when he submitted a letter including these legal complaints to the paper in spring of 2016. Since that time, he has not received a single assignment from the paper’s editors.

If you have experienced workplace retaliation or you don’t know what to do about discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Uber’s Travis Kalanick Leaves a Sexist Workplace Culture in his Wake

Many credit Travis Kalanick with “building” Uber, the ride-sharing and delivery service company, after his own image and in his own style. He is often described as bold, brash and unapologetic – a frat-boy whose personality seems stamped all over the massive company that experienced such rapid growth that it expanded into cities over the heated objections of politicians with the help of excessive smear campaigns designed to bully obstacles out of the way. The strategy was an effective one for years. In fact, Uber grew into a $70 billion business before suddenly running into some bumpy roads.

The bumps came in the form of a cascade of sexual harassment allegations and public relations disasters that finally led to Kalanick’s resignation as Uber’s CEO. Kalanick’s resignation comes just a week after Uber announced that he would take an indefinite leave of absence at the recommendation of a report by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who was commissioned to conduct an investigation into Uber’s “toxic” workplace culture.

The temporary dismissal of Uber’s frat-boy founder apparently wasn’t enough to waylay the fears of nervous investors. The New York Times reported that five of Uber’s top investors demanded Kalanick resign. The ultimatum was delivered in a letter titled, “Moving Uber Forward.” In the letter, the five investors demanded a change of leadership and Kalanick agreed. While Kalanick resigned as CEO, he will keep a seat on Uber’s board of directors.

Almost from its very founding, Uber has been putting out fires on a number of issues. They have dealt with accusations of driver mistreatment: hired as independent contractors in order to avoid the costs of health insurance and overtime. They have dealt with political opposition in a number of locations over concerns regarding the largely unregulated model of livery service as well as the potentially negative impact that hundreds or thousands of new cars on city streets could have. They have faced significant fines due to failing to ensure their drivers adhered to anti-discrimination laws. The first massive blow came in 2015 when the state’s Labor Commission ruled in favor of drivers in the argument of misclassification.

Uber’s response to all of the above was to launch counter-offensives. For instance, when facing opposition in New York City, Uber launched a multi-million ad campaign targeting Mayor Bill de Blasio and other opposing politicians. In Seattle, Uber hired a firm liked to the CIA to investigate the city’s union laws when Uber drivers were offered the right to bargain collectively. And in cities everywhere, Uber utilized “greyball” software to evade government regulators and disguise the accurate depth of operations.

Dozens of Uber passengers have filed lawsuits alleging rape, kidnapping, assault, harassment, etc. with the additional claims that the company next to nothing to prevent them from happening. Reports have also circulated of aggressive tactics being considered as retribution against journalists who attempted to expose the more shady side of the company. And the boardroom reeked of problems as well. In a publicly shared blog post, former Uber engineer Susan Fowler outlined several instances of sexual harassment, which were all followed by a complete disregard on the part of executives with which she shared her concerns.

Granted, this is the same company:

• That signed off on an ad campaign built around the phrase “hot chick” drivers.
• That hired a senior VP who had been fired from a previous job for sexual harassment.
• Whose founder and CEO referred to the company as “Boober.”

Earlier this month, Uber fired more than 20 employees as a result of an investigation into hundreds of sexual harassment, discrimination, and workplace retaliation claims. Yet the sexist culture prevails. On the same day the repot about corporate sexism was released to the public, a board member cracked a sexist joke to Arianna Huffington, a fellow board member. The offender quickly resigned, yet it serves as proof of the strength of the “legacy” left behind by the departing Kalanick.

If you have concerns regarding workplace retaliation or if you experience discrimination or harassment on the job, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at California’s Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Settled with $4 Million Settlement from the Catholic Church

March 25, 2015 - A former high school football coach, Christopher Cerbone, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Catholic Church in Sacramento in response to his termination after reporting that some of the older players were sexually harassing some of the younger members on the team. The church agreed to pay $4 million to settle the suit. This settlement is in addition to the $900,000 a jury already ordered the church to pay the coach. The sexual harassment the coach reported was a form of “hazing.”

The church offered the $4 million settlement while the Sacramento County supreme court’s jury was deliberating whether to award punitive damages in response to the suit. The jury later advised reporters that they were considering awarding a lower amount closer to $1 to $2 million.

The hazing incident that led Cerbone to report the sexual harassment occurred at a Catholic high school in Vallejo in December of 2012.

Southern California employment law is designed to protect California workers who are doing their jobs. If you feel unsafe in the workplace or you feel that someone you work with is in an unsafe environment or situation, contact us for information on how to make it right. Many workplaces have policies regarding discrimination that go ignored until workers seek outside legal counsel. If you are a victim of harassment or if you have been victimized by a wrongful termination, you have the right to speak up for yourself. Doing so, with legal counsel on your side will mean getting results. If you have questions regarding sexual harassment or what constitutes wrongful termination, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.