Versace Allegedly Employed a Code Designed to Identify Black Shoppers

One of Versace’s former employees, Christopher Sampino, has come forward to file suit against the company alleging state law violations, i.e. unfair business practices, wrongful termination, racial discrimination, etc. The lawsuit claims that the Italian design house uses a secret “black code” that alerts staff and security when there is a black shopper in one of their retail locations.

Sampino’s complaint was filed in Alameda County Superior Court and included allegations that he was discriminated against by Versace for being of mixed race. He was fired after just two weeks at the Versace outlet store in Pleasanton, California. In the complaint, Sampino alleges that new-employee training included an unnamed manger advising him regarding the “D410 Code.” The code is used for labeling black clothing, but it is also used in a casual manner whenever a black person enters the Versace store. When he was advised of the use of the code, the manager explained that it was used to alert Versace workers that a “black person is in the store.”

Sampino also claims that during his time with Versace he was harassed and eventually terminated after informing the store manager that he was, in fact, black. According to Sampino, he met and/or exceeded all expectations in connection with his Versace employment, but was fired after two weeks because he did not “understand luxury” and did not “know the luxury life.” Versace also advised Sampino that his dismissal was due to his lack of experiencing a luxury life. He was advised to quit in order to make the paperwork easier.

Labor Violation Allegations Listed in Sampino’s Suit Include:

1. Not being paid for time worked.

2. Not receiving required rest periods.

3. Being wrongfully terminated.

Sampino seeks class action certification. If the proposed class action lawsuit is certified by the court, other employees and/or former employees of Versace who found themselves in similar situations and were subjected to discriminatory treatment by Versace in the U.S. during the same time frame would be able to join in the case and share in any settlement amounts.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you have questions regarding the definition of wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

AT&T Executive Fired Over Racist Texts Files Suit

Aaron Slator, AT&T’s former Head of Video Content and Advertising Sales filed suit against the company for breaching his employment contract and for defamation after his 2015 firing. The termination occurred during the regulatory review of AT&T’s $49 billion acquisition of DirecTV.  Legal counsel for the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County court arguing that the former executive was cleared during the investigation of allegedly racist text messages discovered on his phone by his executive assistance in 2013. Slator was fired over the incident in 2015 after another executive assistant filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit. 

Slator claims that AT&T advised him of their thorough investigation of the 2013 incident and assured him his job was secure. Two years later Slator was fired without any new evidence, new allegations, or new investigations into the matter. AT&T defends its actions insisting that diversity and inclusion are core values that are important to the company. They feel strongly about the situation and stand behind their termination of Slator and feel that his allegations are baseless and will result in a dismissal.

Slator’s firing made headlines across the country. He was the head of content acquisition and advertising for AT&T’s cable TV, broadband Internet, and wireless Internet services. He was also involved in the DirecTV acquisition, approved by the FCC and completed in 2015. In the lawsuit, Slator alleges that his executive assistant filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2013 alleging rampant racial discrimination by AT&T executives (listing Slator by name). Allegations included a detailed description of the racist text messages found on Slator’s phone. But AT&T’s internal investigation concluded that there was no discrimination.

Slator claims that he offered to resign, but was assured by AT&T that doing so was not necessary. He completed advisory training with an equal employment opportunity consultant in 2014. Yet the original allegations from the 2013 incident resurfaced in the 2015 lawsuit filed by a different executive assistant. Simultaneously, AT&T was sued by a unit of Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios for alleged discrimination against African-American-owned media companies. Slator’s legal counsel points to the intense public and legal scrutiny resulting from this situation when claiming that AT&T needed someone to take the blame and that the someone became Slator. The executive assistant’s claims were dismissed in California Superior Court, but this did not occur until months after Slator’s termination.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you know someone who has been wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Recent Study Indicates Transgender Discrimination in the Workplace is Prevalent

In a recent study, 2015 report from the Center for American Progress and the Movement Advancement Project, almost 80% of American transgender workers claimed they had experienced discrimination in the workplace or during the employment application process. From general discrimination to harassment to mistreatment, this demographic is facing a substantial challenge on the job.

Expert and author, Lee Schubert, indicated that it is not uncommon for employers or co-workers to present transgender employees with rude and inappropriate questions, comments, etc. Common discriminatory questions/topics that transgenders face include: questions about transition surgery, questions about sexuality, etc Many employers face difficulty when attempting to appropriately refer to their transgender employees, i.e. which pronoun to use – he or she. Some transgender employees do not want to be referred to as either he or she, but prefer they as they may not identify with either male female. Employers can find it confusing – it’s new territory in many cases. But the challenges this causes transgender employees to face are very real. In fact, the recent 2015 report noted above concludes that employment discrimination is a fact of life for trans people and that it comes with serious economic consequences.

In the study, “Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for Being Transgender,” it states that up to 47% of trans workers report being denied employment unfairly. 78% report harassment, mistreatment and/or discrimination on the job.

Tips for appropriately interacting and/or managing trans workers are actually the same tips that apply to interactions with all workers in a workplace: demonstrate respect, recognize that there is a difference between personal values and community values of a workplace and act professionally, and be respectful of coworkers’ privacy and confidentiality.

If you have questions or concerns about employment discrimination or transgender employment discrimination specifically, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Kohl’s Employee Not to Be Discriminated Against for Medical Marijuana Use

A former Kohl’s employee, Justin Shepherd, was fired for his use of medical marijuana after he was injured on the job and a drug test was conducted. A federal court judge in California determined that this employee may move forward with his lawsuit against Kohl’s, his former employer. Shepherd worked at Kohl’s Department Store for over five years before he was diagnosed with acute and chronic anxiety and given a recommendation for medical marijuana use. He did not inform his employer of his use of medical marijuana, but the company did update their policies to include rhetoric protecting California employees from medical marijuana use discrimination.

When Shepherd’s job injury led to a drug test that revealed his use of marijuana, he was terminated. When he sued for the alleged breach of contract, covenant of good faith, fair dealing and defamation, the court denied Kohl’s motion for summary judgment, but placed a few claims under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. This is a noteworthy case as there is still heavy discussion about the contradictions between federal law that still identifies marijuana as an illegal substance and state laws that permit marijuana use for medical and sometimes recreational use (depending on the state).

Shepherd worked as a material handler at Kohl’s in June 2006. When he was hired, he signed an agreement including a clause stating he was an at-will employee. By 2011 Shepherd had been promoted. He had also been diagnosed with acute, chronic anxiety with his doctor recommending medical marijuana use. Shepherd did not disclose his condition or treatment to Kohl’s. In 2012, the company policies were updated to include exceptions to its drug testing and substance abuse policies protecting California (and other applicable states) employees from discrimination for medical marijuana use in regards to hiring, firing, and other employment matters. Shepherd claims he took note of these policy changes and was depending on them when he decided to continue his anxiety treatment and stay at Kohl’s rather than look for new employment elsewhere.

In 2014, Shepherd was injured on the job. He went to a healthcare provider contracted with the company where a drug test revealed trace amounts of marijuana metabolites. Shepherd then showed his manager his medical marijuana recommendation and advised them that he only used it when off duty, and that the metabolites can stay in the system for quite a while. Shepherd was terminated for his “drug use.” He was told that he should have chosen to address his anxiety issue with a different medication. He filed suit quickly thereafter.

If you have questions about medical marijuana policies in your workplace or about what constitutes wrongful termination, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Orchid Farm Accused of Pregnancy Discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Dash Dream Plant, an orchid farm located in Dos Palos, California, 65 miles northwest of Fresno. Officials state that the California business broke federal law when they refused to give women their jobs back after completing maternity leave. At least four women are involved in the suit, making the same pregnancy discrimination allegations against the company.

The Defendant: Dash Dream Plant, Inc. Dash Dream holds over 140,000 square feet of land and utilizes multiple greenhouses to handle wholesale and personal orchid based orders. They keep an experienced staff on hand, claiming over 20 years of experience. The business began in Korea and expanded to the United States in the late 1990’s. The Dash Dream Plant facility is designed to facilitate both wholesale and retail orders with a retail location within the farm. The farm grows: Cybidiums, Dendrobiums, and Phalaenopsis Orchids in a variety of colors.  

Officials involved in the case state that during Dash Dream Plant staff meetings, managers advised women in attendance not to get pregnant because there were already “too many of them.” They also advised workers that the next to get pregnant should just consider themselves fired from their position with the orchid farm.

Pregnant workers in California are protected by both state and federal employee laws. They have the right to take pregnancy leave without penalty. In fact, California is one of the best states in the nation for pregnant workers and/or workers who plan to have or adopt children. Employers are required by law to respect the right to take disability leave or pregnancy leave in accordance with California pregnancy leave laws.

The law related to this lawsuit states that businesses that have 15 or more employees have to hold a job for women who will be returning from maternity leave. When advised of the lawsuit and the allegations included, Dash Dreams did not respond with a comment.

The southern California employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have the experience needed to help workers in California. Having served as legal representation for both employees and employers in the southern California area, we offer a unique perspective of both sides of the legal argument in employment law cases. If you need assistance with pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch as soon as possible. 

Chipotle Now Facing Alleged Racism Allegations in Another Lawsuit

Chipotle is having a rough year – at least in regards to legal allegations. From class action food poisoning lawsuits, animal welfare issues, drops in both sales and stock price…the popular restaurant chain can’t seem to catch a break in 2016. What are they facing now? Chipotle is making news again, but this time because they are facing allegations of racial discrimination and harassment at one of their California franchise locations.

The California lawsuit filed by Sheqweshu Clark, a previous employee at the El Segndo, California location, states that Latino managers assign day shifts to other Latino employees, but leave “black” staff, like herself, with the less desirable night shifts. But this is not the only claim being made by Clark in the recent lawsuit. She also alleges that management denied there was a problem with either shift assignment or discrimination and then fired Clark a few weeks later without offering an explanation. Clark claims she when she attempted to confront by Chipotle supervisors about preferential treatment, she was summarily dismissed and advised that “black girls” always have “attitude.” Formal allegations included in the lawsuit against Chipotle include: retaliation, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, racial discrimination, and failure to prevent harassment.

Chipotle is not commenting on the allegations at this time, but do state that they have received the suit and will consider its merits in order to determine a course of action. The Chipotle spokesperson did advise that, generally speaking, the filing of a lawsuit constitutes a series of allegations, but does not actually represent proof of wrongdoing.

If you have questions about wrongful termination, discrimination in the workplace, or workplace retaliation, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible.    

In-House Lawyer Lays Out Discrimination Claims Against Apple

A former in-house attorney at Apple, Inc. going by the name of “Jane Doe” to shield her identity has accused Apple of age discrimination, gender discrimination and wrongful termination – all in violation of California labor laws. The complaint was filed June 1st in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Jane Doe alleges that men were offered more flexible work schedules and that supervisors at Apple gave her conflicting directions that forced her into a “no-win” predicament. The case has been assigned to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson. Jane Doe was hired by Apple as global product safety counsel in February of 2014. At the time she lived primarily in Los Angeles and worked out of affiliate offices in accordance with an arrangement her original supervisor approved. Within a few months, Jane Doe got a new boss, senior director of products law, Michael Miramontes, due to reorganization at Apple.

Miramontes (Defendant) allegedly asked Jane Doe (Plaintiff) to move her family to Northern California. After further discussion, he eventually agreed to allow Jane Doe to work from Los Angeles on Fridays. In comparison, plaintiff alleges that there were male attorneys in the same department with deals to work from Sunnyvale for only 2 days of the work week or working out of state one week a month, etc. Jane Doe also received reprimands on the job for not “flying to Korea” to handle a product safety issue. Based on this reprimand, Jane Doe later offered to visit a Chinese manufacturing facility to handle safety issues in connection to a line of Bluetooth speakers by Apple Beats Electronics unit. She was then criticized for offering – creating a “no-win” scenario for Jane Doe. She was fired in January.

Johnson has already denied a request by Apple to have the lawsuit moved to Santa Clara – where they may have been hoping for a more tech-friendly venue. Downtown L.A. has a reputation for being fairly realistic regarding work situations and the inequities that occur, especially when dealing with one of the most powerful companies in the modern world.

If you need to know more about wrongful termination or if you fear that you have been a victim of wrongful termination yourself, please get in touch with us as soon as possible. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is the home of southern California’s favorite employment law attorneys. We have the experience and the knowledge to take your case from start to finish.