Burgers & Beers Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $150,000

A Southern California food chain known as Burgers & Beer agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit. The company is based out of El Centro, California, and allegedly denied server positions to men.  

Disqualifying Male Applicants and Employees from Server Positions:

According to the lawsuit filed against Burgers & Beer, the So Cal food chain denied all male applicants and current employees access to server positions. The men were refused the job based solely on their sex. The lawsuit also claims that the denial of server positions to any men interested in the job was an ongoing standard practice at the food chain since 2015. The standard practice resulted in the current, almost all-female serving crew.

The denial of a position based solely on the sex of the applicant violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex for hiring or promotions. The EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement with the Defendant through its conciliation process. When this wasn’t possible, they filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

What Terms Are Included in the Settlement?

The two-year consent decree settling the lawsuit includes:

• A monetary settlement

• Injunctive relief to prevent future workplace sex discrimination

• Revision of the company’s job descriptions for all positions

• Creation of a plan to purposefully increase the number of male applicants for server positions

• A hiring and retention rate goal for men in server positions

• A review and revision of company discrimination policies

• Providing discrimination training to all employees

• Required record-keeping to demonstrate compliance with all elements of the settlement agreement

The two-year consent decree settling the suit remains under the court’s jurisdiction for the full term of the order.

If you are experiencing discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. 

Former Juul Employee Sues San Fran Vaping Co. Alleging Harassment and Wrongful Termination

On December 20, 2019, former Juul employee Kai Yin “Carrie” Chuang filed a complaint with San Francisco Superior Court, alleging she was the victim of sexual harassment. Chuang also claims the San Francisco vaping company wrongfully terminated her employment after reporting harassment incidents to her superiors. 

Chuang worked at Juul, as well as its predecessor company Pax Labs. She was employed as a supply chain manager starting in 2017 through 2018. Chuang claims that three different male Juul employees made unwanted sexual advances to her on multiple occasions. The incidents involved suggestive comments and inappropriate physical contact. According to the lawsuit, Chuang reported the incidents to her supervisors at Juul. Still, the managers discouraged her from pressing the issue and did not conduct a thorough investigation of her claims.

Alleged Incidents of Workplace Harassment:

While on a business trip in 2017, a male employee requested the Chuang come to his room and “sleep with him.” When Chuang refused, the male co-worker touched her inappropriately and kissed her against her will.

Juul executives allegedly spread false rumors that Chuang accepted bribes from a vendor, indulged in a romantic relationship with vendor representative, and downloaded company files and shared them with an ex-employee in violation of company policy. Chuang claims the executives spread these rumors in retaliation for reporting the abusive incidents.

Was Chuang Wrongfully Terminated?

In December 2018, Chuang was terminated from her position with Juul. In February, Chuang filed a complaint. She received a right-to-sue notice the same day. Chuang’s lawsuit seeks back pay, lost fringe benefits, and additional monetary relief. A specific amount is not specified in the lawsuit.

How Did Juul Respond to the Harassment, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Allegations?

Juul claims that Chuang did not raise allegations until months after her separation from the company. They also claim that an internal investigation was completed in response to her complaints. Juul insists Chuang’s claims have no merit and that they are dedicated to creating and sustaining a safe, comfortable workplace for all employees that is free from all forms of harassment.

If you need to discuss harassment or workplace retaliation, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Delta Facing Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Former Delta Airlines flight attendant, Ida Gomez Llanos, 79 years old, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging age discrimination after she was fired (Gomez Llanos v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.). 

Gomez filed the wrongful termination lawsuit on November 15, 2019, in California Superior Court. Gomez claims she started work as a flight attendant for Delta in November 1962. Additionally, Gomez claims the airline terminated her employment on June 6, 2019.

Delta Faces Employment Law Violation Allegations:

According to the lawsuit, Gomez Llanos faced both age discrimination and a hostile work environment at Delta Airlines.

Gomez Llanos was allegedly fired following numerous allegations: 1) that she stole company-owned items from one of the Delta aircraft for her personal use, 2) spiked her coffee with alcohol, and 3) failed to fill her assigned position on the job (specifically paying another flight attendant to cover her shift on an international flight). Gomez Llanos was the company’s most senior flight attendant; as such, other employees resented the privileges and salary that the seniority granted. Other employees allegedly voiced their resentment by lodging official complaints to management.

Did Delta Welcome Complaints Against Senior Employees Like Gomez Llanos?

Gomez Llanos also alleged in the lawsuit that Delta welcomed any complaints against senior employees as it supported their efforts to get rid of their most senior flight attendants. By welcoming any criticism of their oldest employees, they could justify the eventual termination of their employment.

According to the lawsuit, Gomez Llanos went above and beyond in her job as Delta flight attendant. She claims she continued to receive commendations and awards from the airline for her exemplary behavior throughout her years of service. The plaintiff’s legal counsel intends to hold the airline responsible for their intolerable actions and alleged discrimination, retaliation, and harassment violations.

Delta’s Response to the Age Discrimination Allegation:

Delta’s spokesperson insists that the airline stands by its decision to terminate Gomez Llanos’ employment. The airline claims that when company policy is identified as violating employment law or when inappropriate conduct is reported, the airline conducts a thorough investigation and determines the most appropriate response. The airline considers several factors, including overall performance and length of employment. 

If you need to file an age discrimination lawsuit or if you need to discuss other employment law violations, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. 

Los Angeles and Long Beach Female Dockworkers File Discrimination Lawsuit

In a recent federal discrimination lawsuit, female dockworkers claim pregnancy discrimination against the shippers, Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 13. The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles. The lawsuit claims that the union and the shippers discriminated against pregnant dockworkers at both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. 

The pregnancy discrimination lawsuit is based on claims made by four dockworkers alleging that: 

·      they did not receive promotions or union membership

·      they saw a decrease in pay, and 

·      they were not offered lighter duties during their pregnancies.

Other violations and claims backed claims of pregnancy discrimination. At least one female dockworker who suffered a miscarriage was forced to return to work before she was ready. According to the lawsuit, male workers did not see similar consequences of missing similarly lengthy stretches of work. The attorney representing the women in the case suggested that this particular claim could apply to hundreds of dockworkers. Women make up about 40% of LA and Long Beach’s casual workforce, but the policies do not reflect the situation. This case aims to bring the situation to light.

When asked about the situation, other dockworkers had a lot to say. One California female dockworker named Tonya stated that she worked at the Port of Oakland for five years and experienced similarly discriminatory behavior. She said it happened all the time. She recalls one man who started as a checker. He took three out of five months off work at one point due to family issues without any problems. He was promoted not long afterward. A woman who worked in the same location during the same timeframe and in a similar position had a baby and took maternity leave. When she returned from maternity leave, other workers were promoted above her, who had significantly less experience and were newer hires. When the woman asked about the situation, she was told she lacked commitment to the job.

Dockworkers are usually offered generous hours off during active military deployment or when they have experienced an injury on the job. Following these periods off, employees are generally still provided back pay and offered promotions as if they never left work. But when the stretch of “off the job” time is related to pregnancy, there is a pattern of negative consequences. It acts as a blemish on their work record. One female dockworker described it as feeling as though she were being punished because she wanted to have a baby.

If you are experiencing pregnancy discrimination or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$1.25 Million to Settle Dish Network Discrimination Lawsuit

In recent news, Dish Network agreed to pay a $1.25 million settlement. The settlement would serve as compensation to job seekers who filed suit alleging that the company's online application process denied them the chance to work at the Douglas County location. Dish Network also agreed to alter their online hiring process to accommodate disabled applicants. Dish will add a prominent statement to applications advising that reasonable accommodations will be provided with instructions on how to obtain them. 

As agreed in the settlement, Dish Network will also hire a third-party consultant to evaluate the Dish Network online assessment and suggest revisions. Questions included in the application process's online assessment will be carefully considered and limited to those related to the skills needed for the jobs posted.  

Dish Network also agreed to appoint a compliance officer to provide training and monitor the online application process for compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act. The Act states that employers are required to ensure that all individuals with disabilities are offered the opportunity to request an accommodation, even if the application process is conducted online.  

The Dish Network spokeswoman, Caroline Krause, stated the company was pleased to resolve the matter. The settlement is not a finding that employment law was violated. Krause also noted that the agreement "codifies practices Dish put in place years ago to ensure all individuals, regardless of disability status, have the opportunity to apply for employment…"

Dish Network is one of the United State's largest video television providers employing approximately 17,000 workers. This is not the first time Dish Network has faced severe legal allegations. In 2005, Dish's parent company, Echostar Communications Corp., was hit with an $8 million damage judgment due to another disability case. In 2015, the court found for Dish after they fired an employee who failed a drug test after taking marijuana off-duty to treat a medical condition. In 2017, Dish Network faced a $280 million civil penalty for repeated Do Not Call Registry violations.

If you need to discuss an employer's refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for your disability, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Is the Supreme Court Divided on LGBT Job Discrimination Case?

The Supreme Court appears divided as they struggle over whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT workers from employment discrimination. The cases under consideration are the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the place of the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court’s four liberal justices are expected to side with the employees terminated due to their sexual orientation or transgender status. The question was whether or not one of the court’s conservatives would join the four liberals in siding with the employees in either of the two highly anticipated cases. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that strong arguments favored LGBT workers. He also stated that there was a question of whether or not justices of the court should take the “massive social upheaval” that could follow such a ruling into account when coming to a decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two other conservatives, did not openly indicate their views on the matter, but Roberts did question how employers who hold religious objections to hiring LGBT individuals could be affected by the outcome of the cases.

In one of the cases, a skydiving instructor and a government employee (at the county level) were both fired because they were gay. 

In the second case, a transgender funeral home director named Aimee Stephens was fired. Stephens attended court the day of the arguments.

If the court were to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers LGBT individuals, it could lead to some required changes to:

·      Locker rooms

·      Bathrooms

·      Women’s Shelters

·      School Sports Teams 

The argument led to a discussion that lawmakers should be in charge of changing the law, not unelected judges. Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, apparently agreed with this sentiment stating that 1964’s Congress could not have imagined the law to apply to sexual orientation or gender identity cases when it was created. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presented the counter-argument that the Congress of 1964 also did could not foresee sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination.

A decision is expected in the early summer of 2020. 

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Another Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against PIMCO

A Pacific Investment Management Co. lawyer, Andrea Martin Inokon, is suing the firm. She alleges that the firm discriminated against her regarding pay, mentorship, and promotions. Pacific Investment Management Co., the $1.84 trillion asset manager, denied the allegations. 

Inokon served as PIMCO senior counsel. She filed suit in September 2019 in the Superior Court of California in Orange County. Inokon listed three Defendants in the lawsuit: PIMCO, deputy general counsel Rick LeBrun, and David Flattum, global general counsel. Inokon claims she was passed over for promotions she earned because she was pregnant. In the lawsuit, she claims that women at the firm who are mothers are identified as choosing family over work and labeled as not wanting to advance in their career or receive equal pay.

PIMCO’s spokesperson denied the gender discrimination allegations made in the suit. The spokesperson categorically denied the accusations about PIMCO’s general employment policies and the details of Inokon’s employment circumstances. The company insists that they will show that the plaintiff was treated fairly, received fair pay due to her job duties and her performance.

Inokon is suing for Fair Employment and Housing Act violations, wrongful retaliation, California Equal Pay Act violations, and intentional misrepresentation. She seeks punitive damages.

According to allegations in Inokon’s complaint, PIMCO operates similar to a fraternity. Allegedly, the firm’s senior officers encouraged workers to drink and socialize at strip clubs, poker nights, and golf outings. Inokon, an African American woman, also alleged that white men were over-represented at every level of the firm’s management and leadership. She also alleged that the leadership at the firm interfered with, limited, and prevented female employees from receiving adequate credit for the job duties.

Inokon’s attorney stated that her client was inspired to come forward by the #metoo movement. Inokon sees the case as larger than herself, with finance being one of the few remaining male enclaves where these types of environments continue to thrive. Inokon seeks the release of PIMCO’s compensation records to prove whether or not PIMCO paid her and other staff members fairly.

Inokon claims she was passed over for promotions. She also claims that LeBrun approved her request to work remotely to care for her mother (with the stipulation that she check in with the New York office twice a week). He advised Inokon that he would let Flattum know of the arrangement. Once Inokon started to prepare to move to her new location, LeBrun did an about-face and told her she could not work remotely. Inokon alleges LeBrun told her she would be terminated from her position if she did not work four days of the week in the New York office. Around this same time, Inokon discovered she was pregnant. She advised LeBrun of the pregnancy and that she would likely not be able to travel to New York as required.

These are not the first tine PIMCO has faced allegations of this type.

If you need to discuss how to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.