$13 Million Verdict Awarded to UCLA Doctor in Retaliation and Gender Discrimination Case

A California man was awarded a $13 million verdict in February 2018 after filing against a former employer, The Regents of the University of California (UCLA). The plaintiff, Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown, alleged that UCLA discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and then retaliated against her for complaining about the problem. The escalating issue eventually led to Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown’s resignation.

The doctor started work with the UCLA Medical Center in 2005. She was the Director of the UCLA Lymphoma Program. During her entire tenure at UCLA, she received exemplary peer reviews, awards and even accolades. For her first 8 years with the university, Pinter-Brown was one of only two senior female faculty members in the program.

When Pinter-Brown raised harassment concerns with a male co-worker, she became the target of various workplace audits, her research privileges were suspended, her title was taken, etc. Throughout the ordeal, Pinter-Brown’s reputation was irreparably harmed. The university made no apparent efforts to solve the problem or alleviate the situation even though Pinter-Brown made both verbal and written complaints about the issues. The plaintiff claims that she was forced to “play dead” at work in order to avoid further confrontations or an escalation of the problem the university chose to ignore until she eventually simply resigned from her position.

In February 2018, a California jury found her Pinter-Brown’s favor on claims of discrimination and retaliation. Pinter-Brown was awarded $3,011,671 in lost earnings from the university and an additional $10,000,000 in damages for her emotional distress. The total awarded was over $13 million.

The plaintiff’s attorney was quoted discussing the doctor’s time with the university and describing her has an “outstanding employee.” The plaintiff’s legal counsel felt it was very clear that Pinter-Brown experienced workplace retaliation as a direct result of openly complaining about harassment by a male colleague. The jury of her peers from California vindicated her complaints and those in favor of Pinter-Brown hope it can be another step in fixing a wide-spread problem with ignoring the problem of gender inequality.

If you have a problem with workplace retaliation or if you have attempted to resolve employment law violations in the workplace unsuccessfully, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Systematic Pay Discrimination Against Women at Vice Media?

Elizabeth Rose, a former female employee for Vice Media, alleged that the company discriminates against women on their workforce. In fact, in the lawsuit filed for pay discrimination, she stated that the company systematically and intentionally pays their female employees less than their male counterparts in the workplace.

Vice Media operates Viceland, a cable channel, and also produces two programs for HBO. Rose worked at the millennial focused media company in both New York and Los Angeles (2014-2016). She was employed as a channel manager and project manager.

Rose’s complaint was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In her complaint, Rose alleges that as part of her job, she received internal memos showing salaries of approximately 35 employees. These notifications portrayed a clear pay disparity with women making far less on the job than male employees doing the same or nearly the same work. During her time at the company, Rose became aware that a male subordinate that she had actually hired was making $25,000 more per year than her. He was later promoted to be her supervisor. A male Vice Media executive advised Rose that the man was a good fit for male clients personality-wise.

Rose claims in the lawsuit that Vice Media violated equal pay laws in both California and New York as well as being in violation of the federal law. Three proposed classes would enable women employed by Vice Media for the last six years to join the suit. Between the three proposed classes, more than 700 women could be eligible to join the lawsuit.

Vice Media officially responded that they were reviewing the complaint made by Rose. They also stated that they are committed to providing a respectful, inclusive and equal workplace for employees. The company defended their claim by advising that a pay parity audit was actually started last year and that the company has a goal of 50/50 male/female representation at every level of the business by 2020. They have also recently created a Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Board to address similar issues.

If you fear you are not being paid fairly in the workplace, or if there are other employment law violations in your place of employment, please get in touch with the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Former Employee Files Suit Against Beverly Hills Hotel Alleging Racism

The family that owns the Four Seasons Hotel Los Angeles at Beverly Hills, 300 S. Doheny Drive, is looking at a bit of legal trouble after a former employee filed suit against the wife of the hotel owner. Jennie Lam’s lawsuit claims that she was harassed about her Asian heritage and was then fired in 2016 after she complained about the situation. Lam was employed as a floral designer and plant care specialist at the hotel beginning in February 2015. Her technical employer was For All Seasons Landscapes, which is located inside the hotel.

Defendants included in the lawsuit are: Beverly Cohen, the Robert & Beverly Cohen Family Trust, For All Seasons Gardenscapes Inc., and Veronica Rodriguez. (Veronica Rodriguez is a former co-worker of Lam).

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on allegations of race discrimination and harassment, age discrimination (the wife allegedly referred to her as “the little Chinese girl”), whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lam claims she was repeatedly singled out by Cohen due to her race. Allegedly, Cohen once advised Lam, “Chinese, Vietnamese, whatever you are, just work or you will not have a job.”

Lam also claims she was made to work in temperatures over 100 degrees inside a heated greenhouse without the appropriate (or any) rest or meal breaks. When she complained about the working conditions, she was allegedly told that the heat was good for someone her age and good for her skin and that “Asian people are meant to work hard.” Lam’s lawsuit also indicates that she was made to dig through trash cans for old flowers to use in arrangements and also forced to clean the defendant’s penthouse balcony.

Rodriquez is included in the lawsuit because she allegedly made similarly racially charged, negative remarks to Lam such as, “I don’t like you, whatever the hell your background is, Vietnamese or Chinese…”

Lam eventually saw negative effects on her health. In April 2016, she had a panic attack and started to shake when Cohen ordered her to use a saw to cut branches into shorter lengths and use them in a floral arrangement. Lam protested that she wasn’t trained for that type of work, and a co-worker performed the duty. According to Lam, he severely cut one of his fingers during the process. As Lam left Cohen terminated her employment.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you are experiencing a hostile work environment, please contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$300 Million Suit Insists Ogletree Law Firm Supports Gender Pay Gap

In recent news, Ogletree Law Firm was accused of gender pay gap in connection with a $300 million lawsuit. The case is all the more interesting because Ogletree Law Firm specializes in defending companies against this type of lawsuit.

How did they end up as a Defendant? It started with Dawn Knepper, California employment lawyer, transferred to the Orange County office in 2012. She requested equal or greater pay in comparison to a male associate with similar seniority whom she had surpassed in both billable hours and new business leads. Rather than agree to her requirement, the firm paid her about $100,000 less than what the male associate was being paid.

This led to one of the claims in Knepper’s l$300 million gender discrimination lawsuit citing Ogletree Deakins as the Defendant. According to Knepper, the firm is male dominated with the majority of decision makers being male and the culture one that fosters the marginalization of women. She also accused the firm of supporting a work culture that demeans and undervalues women.

The website for the firm boasts diversity and equality in their workforce, but Knepper’s suit claims that approximately 80% of equity partners at the firm are men and that the situation means fewer opportunities and lower pay for female associates. She filed her proposed class action complaint against the firm (with more than 700 attorneys throughout the US) was filed on January 12, 2018.

Ogletree insists that they have always kept equal opportunity as a core value at the firm and that they in no way tolerate discrimination of any kind. They also claim that half the firm’s employees are female and that 2 of the 4 elected members of its compensation committee are also women. They went even further to claim that many of their most successful attorneys are women.

If you feel you are being unfairly treated in the workplace, if you are the victim of a gender pay gap or you need assistance obtaining filing a proposed class action lawsuit, please contact an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Does Google Discriminate Against White Male Conservatives?

A former Google Engineer, James Damore, filed a class action lawsuit against Google claiming that they discriminate against white, male, conservatives after he was fired in August. Damore’s firing occurred after he posted a memo to an internal message board at the company presenting a very specific argument:

Damore’s memo argued that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are “biologically less capable” of engineering.

In response to his termination, Damore filed a class action lawsuit against Google in Santa Clara Superior Court. In his suit, Damore claims that Google unfairly discriminates against white men with conservative political views that are not “popular” with Google execs. 

Damore is not making allegations alone either. He is joined by another former Google engineer: David Gudeman. Gudeman spent 3 years working on a query engine for the company. According to his publicly accessible LinkedIn profile, Gudeman left Google in December 2016 and has since been self-employed.

The lawsuit states that it is intended to represent any employees of Google that have been discriminated against as a result of their “perceived conservative political views” by the company or due to their male gender or being a Caucasian. The plaintiffs specifically accuse Google of singling out and systematically mistreating employees that express views that deviate from the popular or “norm” at Google pertaining to various political topics raised in the workplace and/or issues that are relevant to Google’s policies and procedures in relation to employment or business. The lawsuit includes examples, such as: diversity hiring policies, bias sensitivity, social justice, etc.

The men are seeking monetary, non-monetary and punitive remedies.

Google stated that Damore was fired for violating the company code of conduct and promoting negative gender stereotypes in the workplace. The Labor Department is conducting a separate investigation into systemic pay discrimination at Google, but Google denies that there is a problem stating that they have found no pay gap in their own analysis.

If you need assistance filing a California wrongful termination law suit, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Alleged Age Discrimination at Hewlett-Packard Results in Lawsuit

Another age discrimination complaint has been lobbed at Hewlett-Packard, tech giant. The most recently filed age discrimination lawsuit was filed by Bryant Fonseca, 55, a San Diego resident. Fonseca sued in San Diego Superior Court, seeking class-action status. A Hewlett-Packard spokeswoman responded by email stating that the Palo-Alto based company doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

Bryant Fonseca was a Hewlett-Packard employee as a research and development buyer for close to 40 years. He claims that the tech giant terminated his employment at the Rancho Bernardo location last May as part of their 2012 plan to reduce their workforce that targeted older employees.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, Fonseca completed the required step in the process that is often skated over, filing a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing. He was granted the right to sue. Yet the interesting part of this step in the legal process is that the department has received more than 32 complaints citing age discrimination at Hewlett-Packard since July 2012. Of the 32 complaints, seven were aimed directly at the Hewlett-Packard San Diego location. Also interesting, 24 of the 32 complaints were given permission to sue the company. (Seven were dismissed or withdrawn and one was closed as it was not in the department’s jurisdiction).

In a review of age discrimination complaints to California state officials last year, USA Today found that of 12 leading tech companies since 2012, Hewlett-Packard claims the top spot. (Cisco Systems was second on the list with 11 complaints). Hewlett-Packard officially denies that their workforce reduction plan targets older workers for layoffs instead stating that their selection process is “neutral.”

If you are experiencing age discrimination in the work force or if you have been forced into a hostile work environment of any type, we want to help you. Contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

1st Ever Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by EEOC

Scott Medical Health Center was recently ordered to pay $55,000 by a federal judge in the first sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The judge’s three-page order found Scott Medical Health Center, the Scott Township-based pain management and weight loss services provider, responsible for “creating, facilitating, or tolerating” sexual harassment – which can refer to any harassment related to sexual orientation or sex or gender stereotypes/gender role stereotypes. 

Also ordered by the judge, the health center will provide the commission a written report including any and all complaints and/or allegations (both formal and informal) regardless of whether they are reported verbally or in writing related to sexual harassment/sex harassment made by any employee for the upcoming five years. 

EEOC attorneys released a statement hailing the ruling as historic. They set it apart as a precedent that sexual orientation is a protected status in any workplace. The EEOC also stated that protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals have been “stepped up” under sex discrimination provisions. They’re making it a priority at the national level. 

Sexual orientation is not actually protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 governing workplace discrimination, but the EEOC interprets sex discrimination as including harassment of both gay and transgender workers. The EEOC sees this case as one of many that point towards the persistent and commonplace problem of anti-LGBT bias in the workplace throughout America. 

This lawsuit based on anti-LGBT bias, was filed in March 2016. The lawsuit describes a situation in which Dale Baxley, a telemarketer for Scott Medical Health Center, was taunted by a manager for being gay. This harassment occurred in Summer 2013. Robert McClendon, the manager accused of harassing Baxley for being gay was already under investigation at the time of the filing. Several female employees made claims against the same manager. According to the EEOC complaint, Baxley quit in August 2013 after complaining to the company president and seeing nothing change. 

In response to the claims, the health center’s lawyer stated that the Defendant was “blindsided” by the allegations, that they were unaware of Baxley’s sexual orientation, and that the commission had no authority to file the claim. 

Earlier this month, the federal district judge, Cathy Bissoon, ordered Scott Medical Health Center to pay damages in the amount of $50,000, which is the maximum penalty for this type of violation against an employer the size of the health center. In addition, the court ordered the company to pay Baxley $5,500 in back wages. 

For more information about sexual orientation lawsuits or to discuss what constitutes a hostile work environment, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.