Anti-Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by Transgender Corrections Officer vs. California

Meghan Fredrick, a transgender corrections officer, notified her superiors at California State Prison in Sacramento of her declaration over five years ago. Yet in the ensuing years, the discrimination has only gotten worse. Her workplace, often referred to as New Folsom Prison, has seen incessant discrimination in the form of name calling, harassment, etc. Fredrick tried filing official complaints against the sergeants, lieutenants, and captains involved, but it hasn’t stopped. In fact, Fredrick states that the complaints never went anywhere. As a result, Fredrick has turned to the courts for resolution with an anti-discrimination and hostile workplace lawsuit listing the state prison system as the Defendant in the case.

Fredrick hopes to make the workplace a better place for other trans females, as well as other individuals who are a part of a minority group. Some say that the lawsuit is simply a fight over rude treatment, but Fredrick alleges that her life is now in danger. She alleges that the treatment has been obvious enough that the inmates at the prison have picked up on the fact the Fredrick is not respected and that she is becoming a target at a maximum-security prison. She claims that her superiors have intercepted multiple death threats in order to keep them from reaching her.

Which she finds to be extremely irresponsible since inmates at the prison can be extremely violent. She feels that to fail to inform her of a death threat is the worst move a supervisor could make. Fredrick claims physical and mental distress as a result of isolation in her work unit, but she refuses to give up and quit her job. She states that she wants to be identified as a woman, not a transgender woman, but that someone has to take a stand when the department won’t accept definitions that have been written into law.

She refuses to be bullied out of her chosen career and insists she will continue to work effectively and proudly.

If you have questions or concerns about a hostile workplace or discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch with the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Shell Oil Faces Sexual Harassment Claims

Ciara Newton worked at Shell as a refinery process operator. She was hired in January 2016. As an employee at Shell Oil’s refinery in Martinez, she alleges that she experienced sex-based harassment, sex discrimination and a failure on the company’s part to take appropriate action to prevent both discrimination and harassment.

In the complaint, the former Shell employee alleges that she experienced all of the above at the hands of both supervisors and co-workers on the job – all because of her gender.

In the lawsuit, Newton describes a male-dominated work setting where co-workers made negative and disparaging comments about women in the workplace and in which supervisors undermined Newton instead of supporting her. In fact, Newton alleges that supervisors on the job at Shell Oil actively complained about women in the workplace.

Some instances of sex-based discrimination and harassment that Newton allegedly suffered include:

• Finding a sticker on her desk that read, “If your (vagina) hurts, just stay home.”
• A supervisor stating that women do not last long in “his department.”
• A failure to receive a response after reporting the situation/s to Human Resources.

Newton is also suing Shell for wrongful termination. She alleges that the company retaliated against her because she complained about the sexual harassment and discrimination on the job. She feels the retaliation may have also been partly in response to her desire to properly document and contain a sulfuric acid spill at the refinery. When she attempted to do so, a supervisor told her to stop so he and others would not get “in trouble” for not reporting it.

In September 2015, Shell terminated Newton stating that she had unsatisfactory performance during her probationary period. This was only six days after a supervisor gave her a positive progress report and encouraged her to continue forward in her job at the company.

If you have experienced sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Applicants Win Certification in Disneyland Background Check Lawsuit

On July 6, 2017 a California judge certified two classes of potential Disneyland employees alleging that the most magical place on earth violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Allegations indicate that Disneyland did not provide prospective employees with copies of their background checks prior to making the final decision in the hiring process. In failing to provide copies of their background checks they deprived them of the chance to contest any inaccurate reports.

California Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones granted certification to a class of job applicants who were subject to “no hire” recommendations for Walt Disney Co. The “no hire” recommendations were based on info obtained in prospective employee background checks. Class certification was also granted to a class of applicants who signed a consent form later alleged to be insufficient in effectively disclosing that a screening would occur.

The class period for both will run from November 2011 through the present. During that time there were 715 “no hire” recommendations made for prospective employees. There were also 43,000 signed consent forms the plaintiffs’ allege were insufficient to comply with the law. Roger L. Culberson, plaintiff, alleges that he was deprived of his legal right and opportunity to correct inaccurate reports before Disney took adverse employment action resulting in him not getting the job.

In 1998, Culberson was convicted of batter, but the charge was later expunged from his record (2010). In 2011, Culberson was hired by Disney, but then told him not to bother reporting to mandatory orientation when they had a chance to look at his background check. Culberson claims the background check inaccurately reported 2010 as the date of the conviction. Culberson filed a complaint in 2013.

The “no hire” recommendation was placed in Culberson’s file by the Disney security department on December 8th, 2011. This was just one day after Disney received Sterling Infosystems Inc. background check including the inaccurate report of the conviction date. Culberson learned of the mistake when he called to check the status of his job application. He was advised he did not have a job. He contacted Sterling to contest the inaccurate information on December 9, 2011. On December 15th, 2011, the background report company issued a revised report removing the inaccurate reference to 2010 as the date of conviction. Culberson still wasn’t hired.

Disney claims it removed the “no hire” recommendation when the corrected report was received, but that once the issue was sorted out, they no longer needed to hire for seasonal work.

If you feel your rights were violated during the hiring process or if you had a company take adverse hiring action following a background check without first providing you with a copy, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Postmates is Getting Closer to a $2.5M Deal with Drivers over Credit Check Issue

At the end of June 2017, a California judge gave every indication that a Postmates $2.5 million deal would get the green light. The deal would end class allegations made against the on-demand delivery service. The suit was based on allegations that the Fair Credit Reporting Act was violated when Postmates did not notify 190,000 prospective couriers about their use of background checks.

The deal states that class members must object in writing before attending the final fairness hearing. The judge stated that he would allow class members to object at the final hearing whether they submitted a written objection or not. If the deal is approved, it would end the putative class action originally launched by lead plaintiff Lorretta Nesbitt in July 2015 based on allegations that the company purposefully violated the FCRA’s stand alone disclosure requirement when conducting credit checks for prospective drivers.

According to the lawsuit, Postmates’ required disclosure was hidden in the midst of a legal document that was 10 pages long and surrounded by extraneous information including a very verbose confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff argued that this presentation of the required disclosure did not fulfill legal requirement that it be clear, conspicuous, and in a stand-alone document.

Throughout the life of the case, Nesbitt amended the complaint, adding two additional lead plaintiffs and another putative class action claim with allegations that the company was also in violation of the FCRA’s pre-adverse action notice requirements which requires employers to inform their job applicants if they were to take any adverse action, such as not hiring them for the job at hand, as a result of information pulled in a background check. Employers are also required to provide the background checks to the individuals. According to the allegations in the suit, Postmates did not abide by these regulations.

Postmates continues to defend their practices stating that their disclosures comply with the law. But since the beginning of the suit, the company has made modifications to their disclosure documentations and both parties now agree that it is FCRA compliant.

If you have questions about the FCRA or if you fear you were unfairly treated during the job application process, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Eddie Money’s Ex Drummer’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Moves Forward

If you’ve been keeping up with the case involving Eddie Money’s ex drummer, you will be interested to discover that Money lost the motion to dismiss and the wrongful termination lawsuit will move forward. His ex drummer, Glenn Symmonds, made claims – some of which the court refused to dismiss and the suit is scheduled to go to trial in November 2017.

Major publications have reported that Money plans to appeal the decision and still insists that Symmonds’ suit is without merit. Money’s legal representation stated that he is defending his right to decide who plays in his “faceless” back-up band. They called into question the legality of forcing well-respected and seasoned artists to retain specific support musicians stating that this would be a major blow to overall artistic integrity. The Defendant claims that he is fighting for the rights of musicians everywhere as he seeks to defend the freedom to choose how musicians express themselves. Money’s lawyers pointed at Glenn Symmonds allegedly poor character as sufficient reason for Money chose not to have him back, stating that Symmonds is ungrateful, vindictive, and awful. They also insist that “everything” alleged in the lawsuit by Symmonds is false. 

The court did rule in Money’s favor when they agreed to attempts at limiting how much info from depositions can be made public. Yet some info has already made it into the public record, particularly his off hand commentary comparing his justifications for firing Symmonds to an imaginary album titled The Reasons Why I Fired Glenn.

Money claims that after he fired Symmonds, his former drummer sent angry text messages, complained about the situation on social media and even threatened concert promoters. Symmonds denies these accusations.

Symmonds filed the suit in October 2015 when Money decided to replace his band with his own children. The suit effectively ended a professional and personal relationship that dated back to 1974.

Symmonds suit alleges that Money often mocked him while he was recovering from bladder cancer and a back injury. Symmonds’ fiancé also joined the suit claiming that Money sexually harassed her by making repeated lewd comments, attempting to kiss her in 2013 during a private party performance where, according to Symmonds’ fiancé’s allegations, Money unzipped his pants, put a thumb through the zipper and started to gyrate and dance while wiggling his thumb and facing her.

Money denies the allegations made against him.

If you have questions about what constitutes wrongful termination or if you have been harassed on the job, 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.

Homosexuality Taunts Lead to $17.4 Million Verdict for LA Sanitation Worker

In recent news, a Los Angeles sanitation worker, James Pearl, who was taunted on the job regarding his perceived homosexuality comes away victorious with a $17.4 million verdict. The LA jury found that he endured routine harassment at the hands of his supervisors, who had falsely assumed he was gay. While the jurors deliberated for two hours, they did come out with a unanimous decision regarding James Pearl’s case.

The jurors decided that Pearl was subjected to verbal abuse, hazing, and bullying. For instance, Pearl’s photo was digitally altered to show him in a same-sex relationship with a subordinate. These altered images were circulated amongst the city employees as a part of the bullying campaign.

One of Pearl’s colleagues alerted a manager in the highest ranks of the Bureau of Sanitation regarding the situation and the mistreatment that was occurring, but according to court documentation, the supervisor did not take action. Pearl started his career with the Bureau of Sanitation in 2002. He was promoted in 2006 to wastewater collection supervisor.

In 2011, Pearl filed a complaint of discrimination with state regulators. In the complaint he alleged that he was transferred to an office in Reseda because he was black and as retaliation because he complained about misconduct in the workplace. Days after the complaint was filed, Pearl was formally notified that the city was recommending his firing. He was accused of falsifying time documents for a subordinate who was also perceived by those in the workplace to be gay. He was then terminated on August 30, 2011. He reported the situation to the state regulators, advising them that the firing was retaliation motivated by his perceived homosexuality. He also attempted to fight back against his firing through internal procedures with the L.A. Board of Civil Service Commission.

After 13 months off the job, the panel determined his firing was unfounded and Pearl was reinstated. While Pearl was off the job, a supervisor continued showing the digitally altered photo of Pearl to employees. When Pearl returned, he received a lower-paying day shift, regularly faced accusations of misconduct, and was given the same supervisor who had been showing the digitally altered photograph to employees. The leadership in the workplace referred to Pearl using derogatory terms and continued the bullying campaign by circulating offensive messages and leaving objects on Pearl’s desk suggestive of or related to homosexual behavior.

In court documentation, the city contended that Pearl did not complain internally regarding the alleged mistreatment that was occurring and also claimed this his work assignments were dictated by budget cuts and a diminished staff.

The California lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2014. Pearl, who is now 55 years old, has been on permanent disability. He suffers from both physical and psychological damage as a result of the discrimination.

If you experience discrimination or harassment in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.