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.

A String of Harassment Lawsuits Aimed Right at Tesla

Many only know Tesla as a company who has goals of changing the world, but more and more are rethinking their opinion of the company as news headlines point out another major component in the Tesla workplace: harassment. The company proudly claims to be forward thinking on environmental matters, dedicated to diversity and center-left politics, and the many ways in which advanced technology can support progress in all these areas of concern. But many are now labeling the company as being caught up in the “bro” culture – a culture that can still be found in many offices throughout California. Other companies experiencing similar accusations include: Uber, Google, Social Finance, Greylock Partners, etc. Major news outlets like Bloomberg and CNBC have actually implied that the problem is worse than we think.

The latest case at Tesla involves Jorge Ferro, an assembly line worker who claims he was harassed because he is gay. He claims he was taunted, told to “watch your back,” and eventually fired. Ferro states that an old scar (from a 16-year old injury) drew the notice of Tesla Human Resources, who promptly dismissed him. But Ferro alleges he was actually fired due to retaliation for reporting the harassment.

When contacted about the issue, Tesla first attempted to side step the issue by claiming that both Ferro and his supervisor were not employees, but independent contractors. They also insisted that Tesla, as a company, takes all forms of discrimination and harassment very seriously. In fact, the Guardian reported that the company responded in even further detail by referencing their own track record, “…no company on Earth [has] a better track record than Tesla…they would have to have fewer than zero cases where an independent judge or jury…found a genuine case of discrimination.”

While Tesla insists that the recent influx of harassment and discrimination claims are due to their own notoriety and the opportunity this presents for media outlets and attorneys seeking acclaim and higher profiles, there have been other accusations of similar behavior in the last few years.

Just a week before Ferro’s claim surfaced, three former African-American workers filed a California lawsuit that they were subjected to verbal and written racist slurs.

Another instance involved a former Tesla engineer who claimed she was fired because she presented examples of gender discrimination at the company to the human resources department.

If you need to discuss instances of discrimination in the workplace or have questions regarding harassment on the job, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

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.