California Café Fights Muslim Discrimination Lawsuit

A Jewish-Muslim couple that owns Urth Caffe is denying accusations that seven women were forced to leave the California café because they were visibly Muslim. The West Hollywood café plans to counter-sue. The café is an artisanal coffee shop and restaurant with six different southern California locations. A discrimination lawsuit filed by the women on May 2nd alleges that they were made to leave the Laguna Beach café location last April because they were Muslim.

What is Discrimination? Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of people that fall into different or specific categories. The most common forms of discrimination in modern society are acts made on the grounds of race, age or sex.

Owners Shallom and Jilla Berkman, who are Jewish and Muslim, respectively, announced that they plan to counter-sue and stated that the entire discrimination lawsuit is a fraud on both the media and the California courts. The women were asked to leave, but the café insists that it was because they violated a policy stating that patrons must give up a table after 45 minutes during peak hours when the café is busy and others are waiting in line. The women (six of whom were wearing Muslim headscarves) insist that the restaurant was not full and that other customers who had been there just as long were not asked to leave.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Sara Farsakh, wrote a Facebook post that went viral stating that what started as a night out with friends ending painfully and embarrassingly – a reminder of what it is like to be visibly Muslim. The legal counsel for the café owners states that the lawsuit is part of a broader purpose to portray a “victimization narrative” of Muslims. It was also noted that the incident is both sad and frustrating, mostly because the political agenda is being pushed at the expense of one of the area’s most diverse and welcoming businesses.

If you need assistance with a discrimination claim or if you simply have questions about a potentially discriminatory situation, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Petition to Review Deputy Disability Discrimination Case Declined

A petition filed by Stanislaus County requesting a review of Deputy Dennis Wallace’s disability discrimination case was declined. Deputy Wallace was seeking $468,000 after the county placed him on unpaid leave for two years post-injury. Wallace claims that the county placed him on leave due to an inaccurate assessment of his ability to perform his duties as bailiff (even with reasonable accommodation provided). In a 2012 trial the case ended with a hung jury. The deputy lost the discrimination case after a jury heard it in 2013, but the state appeals court overturned the jury verdict in February.  

After the appeals court’s decision, the county argued that the state’s highest court review the ruling as the decision would make it easier for disabled or injured workers to prove claims of discrimination against their employers. When their petition for review was declined, the county saw it as a big disappointment. They were equally disappointed that the appellate court did not allow the jury to come to the final decision regarding whether or not the county behaved in a discriminatory manner towards the deputy.

The appeals court determined that the superior court judge was in error when he advised the jury that Wallace was required to prove that the county was biased against disabled employees. They remanded the case back to superior court asking them to set the amount of damages owed Wallace for a specified time period: January 5th, 2011 through January 30th, 2013. It was further decided that any financial consequences due to an employer’s mistaken assumption or conclusion that an employee is unable to perform job duties safely should be the responsibility of the employer – not the employee. They noted that this would hold true even in cases where the employer’s mistake was made in good faith. Due to the prejudicial nature of the “instructional error” involved, they remanded the disability discrimination claim for retrial.

The rejection of the case review by the California Supreme Court means that the county can be held to a new, strict liability standard that, prior to the appellate court decision on the Wallace case, did not exist.

If you are interested in hearing more information disability discrimination or if you need assistance with a disability discrimination claim, please contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Jimmy Choo Employee Claims Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

A former Jimmy Choo employee, John Ornelas, claims that after enduring harassment and discrimination at the hands of his supervisor for being gay, he reported the problem and was fired from the Beverly Hills store in retaliation.  The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 15th against the former employer, Jimmy Choo, and the former boss, Nikki Raffasha. The suit listed allegations of both wrongful termination and discrimination based on sexual orientation and race and seeks unspecified damages.

According to the suit, Ornelas was hired in 2011 as a Jimmy Choo sales associate. The nextyear he started work at the Beverly Hills store located on Via Rodeo Drive. After completing a month on the job, Ornelas claims that Raffasha started to insult and mock him regularly – often using derogatory terms describing both his race and sexual orientation. Ornelas further claims that the derogatory terms were flippantly used - even after the death of Ornelas’ partner of 12 years.

Ornelas claims that multiple reports submitted regarding the alleged harassment and discrimination had no results. He saw no improvement to the situation. In October 2015, the problem escalated when Raffasha took one of Ornelas’ sales and reported as her own. Ornelas states that he confronted his boss regarding the sale and that her response was to indicate that anyone would choose her over him – referring to him as “gay, Mexican trash.”

In response to this incident, management credited the disputed sale to Ornelas, but two days later he was fired from his job at Jimmy Choo.

If you have experienced discrimination on the job or if you have been fired from your job in retaliation for reporting a hostile work environment, please contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Farmers Insurance Co. Sued by Female Attorneys for Pay Discrimination

Female attorneys employed by Farmers Insurance Co. filed suit alleging that the company paid them less than the male attorneys employed by the company. The pay discrimination class action group reached a $4.1 million deal with the insurance company in California federal court. The settlement amount is to be split amongst 300 women who either are or were employed by Farmers as attorneys working as claims litigators throughout the past 4-5 years. The agreement requires that Farmers Insurance Co. hire an outside human resources professional to consult on an independent basis.

Also as a part of the resolution of the case, Farmers agrees to a three-year injunction that sets down a new set of rules for treating female employees. In addition to hiring the independent human resources consultant, Farmers will be required to abide by the rules set down in the injunction. The rules include a requirement to allow attorney employees to openly discuss their pay rates with one another, the conducting of a statistical analysis of pay rates each year, strive to promote more female lawyers in the company, move more women employees into higher pay grades, etc.

The lead plaintiff, Lynne Coates, alleged that a male colleague handling a similar workload and job duties was paid from $150,000-200,000. In comparison Coates’ salary was capped at $100,000. When Coates lodged a complaint, she was “demoted” from her position in the company as an attorney and asked to handle other, lesser duties.

The suit was filed in April of 2015. It involved both federal and California state equal-pay laws. It was also among the first of this type of suit to test California’s new Fair Pay Act (effective 2016). The settlement discussed and agreed on between the parties is still waiting for approval from the U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California with a June 23rd hearing already scheduled.

If you have questions regarding pay discrimination or California’s state equal-pay laws, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Discrimination & Workplace Retaliation: KKK Hood Placed in Worker’s Station

Isiah Washington, a 27 year old African American factory worker, claims he was fired in retaliation after he reported what can only be described as an inappropriate action taken in the workplace: racist co-workers hung a Ku Klux Klan “hood” in his workstation. This alleged act of racial discrimination also constituted a hostile work environment for the former employee of Sierra Aluminum Company in Riverside, California. As a result of the occurrence last April, Isiah filed a racial discrimination suit against the company.

Washington claims that the “hood” was clearly a symbol of the KKK, one of the most violent and ruthless organization in the history of the country. He also claims that when it was reported, the company not only didn’t respond, but they didn’t even pretend to take it seriously, even though Washington noted that this particular incident was the final move in a months long campaign of discrimination. He stated that he was scared and felt very threatened in the situation. When he asked his supervisor to “please take it down” the supervisor blew Washington off. He states that the supervisor started talking to other employees and that they all began laughing. Washington remembers that he was scared for his life and “everyone was laughing” (including his supervisor to which Washington had just reported he incident). Washington claims in the lawsuit that the offensive (and terrifying) white sheet remained above his workstation for another hour while he continued his work. He clarifies that he did not see it as a prank or a joke, but as an intimidation technique – a threat.

Washington filed a complaint with the company’s HR department about the incident. It was ignored. The firm actually claimed that the “sheet” must have been blown in with a gust of wind. Seeing the action as a threat that wasn’t addressed in any way by the company, Washington alleges he had to continuously watch his back on the job – resulting in extreme emotional distress, fear and even anxiety. From that day on, Washington had to put up with derogatory comments from his co-workers.

At Washington’s request, the company agreed to move him to a different shift, but he ran into trouble again a few months later. After accidentally cutting his thumb on some aluminum, Washington covered the cut with a band-aid. On the following day, his supervisor questioned him about the incident – wondering why he had accessed the First Aid box on site. He replied and advised his supervisor that he was fine at which point the supervisor insisted that Washington visit the company driver and that he allow someone to drive him. Wary because of the recent negative activity in the workplace, Washington declined the ride to the doctor and advised the supervisor he could drive himself. The supervisor became angry and advised Washington he could no longer go to the company doctor. He went anyway and received clearance to work. When he returned to work the next day, he was fired. The reason he was offered for his termination was that he did not follow company policy.

Washington feels that the company obviously used this situation as an excuse so they could fire him, which could be referred to as wrongful termination.

If you have concerns about discrimination in the workplace, workplace retaliation or wrongful termination, please contact the experienced southern California employment law attorneys with your questions at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Guide Dog Discrimination Lawsuit Against Uber Moves Forward

June 22, 2015 - There has been a recent wave of complaints aimed at the popular driving service, Uber (and similar services). In response, there could be a new ruling that raises the bar for accountability amongst such driving services. In fact, the ruling could raise the bar for all tech companies; not just those related to ride-hailing services.

A federal judge in San Francisco allowed the National Federation of the Blind of California (NFB) to file suit claiming that Uber actively discriminates against visually impaired guide-dog users. Allegations indicate that Uber drivers have refused to provide rides for passengers who have service animals in use, which is in violation of ADA laws. The suit claims that drivers have also denied transport to blind individuals without service dogs. In addition, other instances are cited in which the blind individual and their service dog were allowed to utilize the ride service, but the service animals were allegedly mistreated during the drive time. The original civil complaint cites over 30 instances of discriminatory action towards blind people and/or their service animals.

One instance of harassment involved the Uber driver forcing the guide dog of a blind woman named Leena Dawes into the trunk of the sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When she realized where the Uber driver had placed her dog, she asked repeatedly if they could pull over so she could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the Uber driver denied her requests. This is just one of the many instances noted in the suit.

Uber requested the case against them be dismissed on the basis that due to contracts in place, users are required to take complaints/disputes to arbitration and argue as individuals not in the form of a class action lawsuit. They also argued that due to their unique service, they can’t be classified as “public accommodation” and therefore shouldn’t be held liable for ADA requirements.

This reasoning was tossed out by a federal judge who stated that the NDF could more forward with the suit on behalf of those members who have not yet signed the mentioned Uber contracts. This refers to class action lawsuit members who have not necessarily used the Uber service yet.

Other related legal news includes:

• Uber came under fire last March when their app was rendered useless to blind users after a software bug. They failed to fix it for a number of months.
• An ongoing suit in Texas argues the question of whether or not Uber offers sufficient access for users in wheelchairs.
• Lyft was sued as well, but settled out of court.
• Leap, the San Francisco private bus start up with a $6 fare, found themselves the focus of a suit due to the fact that they don’t provide wheelchair access.

Services such as Lyft, Uber and Leap are important as they make integration more convenient and accessible (through low pricing) for vision-impaired individuals. Most new smartphones’ built-in screen reading functionality makes the app based ride services an excellent option that allows for greater independence when traveling.

Many are hoping that the San Francisco ruling will set a precedent that will leave new, app-based services such as Lyft and Uber, etc. accountable to the same civil rights laws as other businesses and ride services.

For additional news and information on discrimination lawsuits or class action suits, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Alleged Discrimination: Female Farmers Attorney Employee Sues

June 18, 2015 - A class action lawsuit was filed by Lynn Coates against Farmers Insurance on behalf of female attorney employees containing allegations that the insurance conglomerate has policies and procedures in place that are discriminatory against women in the workplace.

Accusations made in the class action lawsuit indicate that the Los Angeles, California based insurance company was illegally paying their female attorneys significantly lower wages than their male attorneys that were performing the same work duties.

The suit claims that Farmers fails to compensate female attorneys on staff in equal measure when compared to their male counterparts performing equivalent work and that they actually systematically offer female attorneys less pay than the men. The men are also disproportionately offered higher profile work assignments, more opportunities for promotions and pay increases as well as workplace recognition for accomplishments on the job. In short, the suit claims that Farmers advances their mail attorneys’ careers much faster than that of their female attorneys. The suit even goes so far as to claim that rather than being treated equally, the female attorneys are treated more like support staff for the male attorneys.

• Coates was paid less than male attorneys who had decades less experience on the job.
• While Coates was working for Farmers, younger, male attorneys received the best cases.
• Procedures and practices discriminating against women have been in place at Farmers since the 1970s.

A previous lawsuit was filed in the 1970s by the Secretary of Labor against Farmers claiming unequal pay, Marshall v. Farmers Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 75-63-C2. In this suit, Farmers’ salary policy was found to be discriminatory. Specifically, it was found to exclude women in the workplace from appropriate promotion, etc.

Coates, the original plaintiff in the current suit against Farmers, is a resident of California. She worked in the Farmers’ San Jose branch legal office in the 1990s and again in 2010. Coates received positive reviews regarding her work and periodic raises, but even so, male attorneys on the job with decades less experience were making significantly more for comparable work. One male attorney on staff with similar experience and equivalent workload was making up to 50% more than Coates.

As soon as Coates became aware of the pay discrepancy, she attempted to discuss it with a supervisor. As a result, she was demoted from her position as an attorney to that of a paralegal. Coates states that the demotion was in retaliation for complaining about the unfair pay policies.

If you feel that there are discriminatory policies or unfair practices in place at your workplace, please get in touch with the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.