Wells Fargo Settles Transgender Discrimination Suit in California

Marco “Marlo Kaitlin,” a former Wells Fargo employee, claims she was harassed and mocked to the point that brought her near to suicide. Her lawsuit against Wells Fargo was filed with Los Angeles Superior Court last July 14th. She alleged wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress on the part of Wells Fargo. She claims it all started with her decision to transition from a man to a woman.

Throughout the negotiations, part of Gallegos’ case was dismissed due to a long history of job performance issues and what the company referred to as absenteeism. Wells Fargo claimed that they had a strong commitment dating back 25 years to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. They also publicly stated that they believed discrimination of any kind against any group is wrong. They responded to Gallegos’ allegations by stating that the claims were wrong and inconsistent with how Wells Fargo treats its employees.

Facts of the Case According to the Lawsuit:

·       When Gallegos was hired for the Wells Fargo El Monte consumer call Center in August of 2010, she was male.

·       In December 2010, Gallegos started treatment to support the transition from male to female. Gallegos also began to wear women’s clothing more often.  

·       In May 2011, Gallegos’ boss told her she would “go to hell” for her behavior and that they were “unnatural” and an “affront to God.” Gallegos complained to another supervisor, but in response the supervisor receiving Gallegos’ complaint simply became extremely critical of her work. Gallegos’ attempts to transfer to another area at work (the Spanish speaking call center) were mocked, but she was given the new position. Yet colleagues immediately began using demeaning comments (i.e. referring to her as an “ugly woman” and nicknaming her “The Mask.”) Gallegos again lodged a complaint with a supervisor, but saw no appropriate response. She eventually changed her name from Marco to Marlo Kaitlin.

·       In spite of Marlo’s request that her co-workers use her new name, they continued to use her old name. Male co-workers consistently taunted her by greeting her with phrases meant to cause discomfort (i.e. “What’s up, man?” or “How you doing, man?”)

·       She was given permission to use the women’s restroom, but a female co-worker was upset. 

·       Gallegos was excluded from meetings and mandatory training sessions with supervisors.

·       Gallegos eventually sought out Human Resources to advise them that the hostile work environment was too much for her and that she often considered committing suicide.

·       Gallegos was fired in August 2014 by a supervisor who stated that they had received “word from above” that the company could no longer employ her.

The case was resolved on May 25th through a settlement, but terms were not divulged.

If you have questions about what constitutes a hostile work environment or if you need to discuss wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Eddie Money Drummer Adds Sexual Harassment Claims to Discrimination Lawsuit

Eddie Money’s drummer, Glenn Symmonds sued for wrongful termination in October. More recently, his fiancé decided to join the suit with sexual harassment claims against Money. The original discrimination suit claimed that Money mocked his disabilities on stage and sexually harassed his fiancé (with repeated lewd advances). The sexual harassment claims were included in an amended lawsuit that was filed in California state court.

When Symmonds was fired, he claimed it was due to his age and disabilities (stemming from a combination of bladder cancer and a back injury). He also claimed that the sexual harassment of his fiancée, Tami Landrum, resulted in emotional distress. The case has recently been moved from Sacramento to Los Angeles.

In defining the “sexual harassment” she endured, Landrum states that Money made sexual comments to her repeatedly and frequently attempted to kiss her. Money also made lewd gestures at Landrum after dedicating a song to her on stage, etc. Symmonds stated that Money mocked his urinary incontinence (a result of chemotherapy) on stage, telling the audience that their tour was sponsored by Depends adult diapers.

According to the suit, the problem peaked in May of 2015 when Money dragged Landrum, Symmond’s fiancé, into a bathroom and blocked her exit. Symmonds confronted Money after Landrum told him of the situation and the entire band was laid off the next week. Within months, the entire band was back at work except Symmonds and Landrum. The two claim this is due to the confrontation and Symmonds’ disabilities previously noted.

Money’s legal counsel dismisses the lawsuit as “ridiculous” and points out that the addition of the sexual harassment claims only occurred when Symmonds realized that his age discrimination lawsuit had no merit. They claim that the plaintiffs shamelessly seek to “shake down” Eddie because he is famous.

Money claims that the entire band was released for the summer as Money intended to tour with his children. The plan the entire time was for the band to rejoin him at the end of the season. Several of the band members were disappointed, but according to Money, Symmonds and Landrum responded very poorly by writing disparaging posts online, claiming they had been fired, calling and leaving messages with concert promoters threatening them and advising them not to pay Money, etc. Money claims his decision not to invite Symmonds back to the band was not related to his age, any illness or disability or any alleged difficulties with his fiancé. He claims it was due strictly to the inappropriate reaction the plaintiff had upon hearing that Money planned to tour with his adult children for the summer.

If you have questions regarding workplace discrimination or sexual harassment on the job, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys from southern California’s Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

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.