Google Engineer Ends Discrimination Lawsuit

The well-publicized discrimination lawsuit filed by a conservative Google engineer was dropped. The suit was high profile, and it shook Silicon Valley with discrimination allegations against Google. 

Did Google Discriminate Against Politically Conservative Workers? 

In the high-profile discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff, a former Google engineer named James Damore, claimed that the company discriminated against conservative workers and that his allegations of discrimination ended in dismissal. After Damore filed the discrimination lawsuit, three other men joined the suit against Alphabet, Google’s parent company. In Spring 2020, the plaintiffs asked California’s Santa Clara Superior Court to dismiss the lawsuit, and Google joined their request. 

The Plaintiff’s Original Discrimination Allegations: 

The Plaintiff, Damore, initially claimed that Google supported a politically correct monoculture – maintaining it by shaming any dissenting employees into silence. Damore put his thoughts down in writing and issued it as a memo in 2017. That same year, after Damore wrote the memo, Google fired the conservative engineer. 

The Lawsuit Is Over, But It Already Caused Change: 

While the lawsuit is not proceeding, the case already resulted in change. As a result of this discrimination lawsuit, Google changed some of its workplace policies to address concerns raised in the suit. For instance, previously, Google banned workers from discussing working conditions at work. As a result of a settlement Google reached with the National Labor Relations board when addressing some workplace policies one of the plaintiffs complained about, the ban on discussing workplace conditions was lifted. This positive change is felt not only by the plaintiffs in the case, but by all Google employees. 

The Case if Affecting More Than Just Google: 

Due to the lawsuit, other Fortune 100 companies are changing workplace policies to avoid similar allegations based on the mistreatment of workers. Changes include additional human resources training, better human resources policies, and more. Positive changes have been implemented in various Silicon Valley corporations due to the Damore discrimination suit. 

If you need to file a 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.

Three Women Score Huge Win In Court Battle Over Equal Pay

Three women recently scored a massive win against Oracle Corp. in California court. The three female employees gained the right to represent thousands of other workers in a gender discrimination lawsuit alleging pay was based on gender. The judge certified class action allowing the suit to advance on behalf of over 4,000 women claiming the company pays men more to do the same job as female workers. Class certification in this case is a legal milestone that women in similar cases against other tech giants have failed to reach.

Are Jobs Substantially Equal or Similar?

The California judge that certified class, California Superior Court Judge V. Raymond Swope in Redwood City, issued a ruling rejecting the company’s claim that each plaintiff’s claims were individual cases. The company claimed people in their employ with the same job code did not necessarily perform substantially similar job duties. The judge pointed out that determining whether or not the jobs were substantially equal or similar was a question of fact for the jury. Judge Swope’s ruling gives the women critical leverage as they pursue the case under California’s Equal Pay Act.

Hoping for Equal Pay in the Tech Industry:

The plaintiffs in the case hope that their fight against Oracle will help get women at the company fair pay and that by waging this fight, they can help women throughout the entire tech industry get closer to equal pay. Similar cases with female plaintiffs seeking equal pay from tech companies tend to have difficulty gaining traction. Similar cases have had similar results in other industries, as well.

Similar Claims Failed to Gain Traction in the Fight for Equal Pay:

For instance, in 2011, 1.5 million female Walmart workers were blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court when they tried to pursue discrimination claims as a group. Female engineers at Twitter Inc. and Microsoft Corp. got similar results. The courts seem to hesitate to certify classes making broad gender discrimination claims. However, California’s legislature made it easier to bring a class-wide suit based on gender pay disparities.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file a gender pay 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.

Increased Termination and Discrimination Lawsuits on the Horizon Due to Coronavirus

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, many companies furloughed or laid off some or all of their workforce. The trend already spurred employment lawsuits throughout the nation, and many expect more to follow – particularly when employees start returning to the workplace.  

Recent Covid-19 Labor and Employment Litigation Trends:

The Covid-19 pandemic, and the recommendations issued by the government regulatory agencies concerning flattening the curve, etc. created unprecedented situations for California’s workforce. These unusual situations are leading to recognizable trends in the courts.

WARN and Mini-WARN Litigation:

According to the federal WARN Act, in certain circumstances, employers with 100 or more employees are required to provide at least 60 days’ notice before implementing a mass layoff of closing down. Failing to provide the required notice can result in employees seeking back pay and penalties. According to the mini-WARN act enacted in California, a mass layoff is defined as laying off at least 50 employees within 30 days or the closing/relocation of a commercial/industrial facility with 75 or more employees.

Wrongful Termination:

California employers facing uncertainty about the economy are letting employees go, and some of these employees are responding by filing wrongful termination lawsuits. As the pandemic drags on, more wrongful termination lawsuits are filed. For instance, workers terminated after requesting to work from home in compliance with local recommendations and stay home orders are filing wrongful termination lawsuits. In this situation, workers may allege that the employer’s refusal to allow telecommuting violates state policy and attempts to require the employee to act criminally by reporting to work against local orders. When the employee refuses to comply with the employer’s request to go against local orders, and the employer fires them, the employee claims they were terminated for refusing to break the law at the request of their employer. Other employees claim they were fired for complaining about the lack of proper safety equipment, for advising co-workers that they were not being provided with adequate safety equipment, or for being uncomfortable (and vocal about it) when co-workers reported to work with Covid-19 symptoms.

Discrimination and Harassment Claims:

Some employees are filing discrimination claims questioning why they were selected for adverse employment actions like layoffs, cut hours, termination, etc. Some employees claim discrimination based on age, pregnancy, gender, etc. More discrimination lawsuits are expected to arise from the Covid-19 pandemic when employers start to require employees to return to work.

If you need to discuss how to file a discrimination lawsuit or wrongful termination 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.

Gender Discrimination Allegations at Westside LA Ad Agency

Joe Fotheringham, former creative director for an LA ad agency, sued his prior employer. Fotheringham alleges that the ad agency terminated his employment because he protested two male supervisors’ preference for hiring females rather than hiring the candidate best qualified for the open position regardless of gender.

Plaintiff Alleges Gender Discrimination in Hiring Process:

Fotheringham claims that two of his former supervisors, Marc Simmons and Jon Haber, alongside Giant Spoon ad agency, violated employment law. Fotheringham alleges wrongful termination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and workplace retaliation. According to the Plaintiff, his supervisors, Simmons and Haber, pressured him to hire women whether they were qualified for the job or not. He was advised to hire some of the best talent after they got some women in the door.

The Plaintiff’s History with the Company:

The Plaintiff, Fotheringham, started working at Giant Spoon ad agency in March 2017. He was hired as the creative director at a point in time when the ad agency did not have a creative team. He was responsible for leading the agency’s efforts in hiring staff for both the Los Angeles and New York City offices. According to the lawsuit, he was also responsible for leading client work and building work from concept to production. In the summer of 2018, Fotheringham hired a male freelance worker. He was qualified for the position, but Fotheringham’s supervisors were not happy that the new freelancer was male and told the Plaintiff to find someone else – a woman.  

The Plaintiff’s Promotion Was Blocked Due to His Gender:

At one point during his employment, Fotheringham sought promotion at the agency, but he was denied the position. He was qualified for the promotion, but when he was denied the opportunity, he was allegedly told that the company needed a woman for the job. A woman was eventually hired for the job the Plaintiff sought, and he was ultimately terminated from his position allegedly without cause.

If you have questions about how to identify wrongful termination or if you need to file a California gender 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.

Will California See the First Coronavirus Discrimination Lawsuit?

In recent news, an L.A. attorney announced she would be representing the plaintiff in the first U.S. coronavirus discrimination case. The plaintiff was employed at a California medical facility at the front desk. He claims that when the coronavirus pandemic made itself known several weeks back, doctors and nurses were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE). Still, workers at the front desk were not given PPE.

Unsafe Work Conditions & Wrongful Termination Amid Covid-19 Crisis:

While he was concerned about the lack of safety precautions, he continued checking patients in for care at the medical facility until the hospital discovered that a patient he interacted with later tested positive for coronavirus. Once it was determined that he was exposed, he was sent home, which was appropriate as a preventive measure at the hospital. What followed was not necessary or legal. The next day, he was fired.

Wrongful Termination Following Exposure to Coronavirus on the Job:

When the hospital fired him the day after notifying him that he was exposed to a patient that later tested positive for the virus and sending him home, he was shocked. Luckily, the law provides a means for him to seek justice through general disability laws.

General Disability Laws & Employees Discriminated Against Due to Coronavirus:

 The case will be argued based on general disability laws. Since disability refers to a condition or state that affects a primary life function (like breathing), and even if the effect is only felt for a few days, it qualifies as a disability under state law. The law prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees or harassing an employee because they have a disability.

Employee Terminated Due to Suspected Covid-19 Infection:

In this case, the employee was tested for Covid-19. While the test came back negative, the employer (who is still unnamed at this point), terminated him simply because people perceived him to be infected. Firing an employee because you perceive them to have a condition or disease is prohibited under California law. Similar arguments were seen 30 years ago when AIDS discrimination cases were prevalent, and employees who were perceived to have AIDS just because they were a gay man, and they were fired. This same theory will be back in court again, but this time, with Covid-19 rather than AIDS as the target of workplace discrimination.

Will the First Coronavirus Discrimination Case Go To Court?

While the case has not yet officially been filed, the plaintiff’s attorney did release that a letter was sent to the medical center to allow them the opportunity to make it right. The only response received was that since they’re in the middle of a crisis, they won’t be responding. Due to this non-response, the case appears to be headed to court.

The Covid-19 Crisis Does Not Negate the Law: Employees Still Have Rights

The counsel for the plaintiff in this soon-to-be case does concede that there is a crisis; she points out that it is a medical crisis – not a legal crisis. Furthermore, this is also a time of crisis for California workers. People are out of work. Families are struggling to pay their bills. And we can’t forget them. California employers cannot cast their people aside, break the law, and justify it by the fact that they’re too busy facing a crisis to deal with the consequences of their employment law violations. The law is still in place, crisis, or not. Employees still have rights and protections under the law.

If you need to discuss discrimination violations 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.

Bay Area Solar Panel Company Forced to Pay Settlement for Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Fidelity Home Energy Inc. and successor NorCal Home Systems Inc. out of Concord were forced to pay a settlement for allegedly denying service to any that management deemed likely to be Indian or Middle Eastern based on their names. The Bay Area solar panel installation company will settle the racial discrimination lawsuit with a $350,000 settlement paid to a former employee. The terms of the settlement also require the company to hire a consultant to assist them in changing company policies and practices in violation of the law.

NorCal Home Systems' $350,000 settlement is paid to Ayesha Faiz. Faiz, who is of Afghan origin, learned within a week of starting her job as a telemarketing supervisor at the company that potential customers that sounded Middle Eastern or Indian were regularly rejected for home energy system sales appointments.

Lawsuit Alleged Racial Discrimination was Standard Practice:

According to court documents, Faiz watched as supervisors purposefully tagged customer records in the company's internal databases and placed them on a "do not call" list. Faiz claims the company forced her to reject the potential customers multiple times per week. Additionally, her supervisor's forced her to instruct her subordinates to practice the same discriminatory behavior towards the potential customers who had Middle Eastern-sounding or Indian-sounding names.

At one point during her employment, Faiz saw a note stuck on a worker's computer that stated clearly, "NO INDIANS." Some employees at the solar panel installation company wrote notes on the digital customer files within the database for anyone they thought were probably Middle Eastern or Indian. Comments on the customer files ranged from "Indian Name!" to "We Won't Run This." The company denies the allegations Faiz made in the lawsuit. They insist that they did nothing wrong and that they are moving forward with their business practices as is.

Identifying Discriminatory Practices in the Workplace:

Yet Faiz was forced to discriminate against potential customers of her own national origin. It was so distressing for her that after a few weeks, she quit the job that required active discrimination daily. She could not handle working for a company that refused service to a particular ethnicity and went out of their way to single them out and separate them from the list of possible customers. The EEOC determined this constituted a hostile work environment in violation of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination by employers based on national origin.

The settlement, a three-year consent decree, requires Fidelity and NorCal to provide money to Faiz for damages and hire an EEO consultant to assist in revising NorCal's policies and practices. NorCal is also required to update their databases and remove any notes or information used to "screen" potential customers by ethnicity or national origin.

If you need to file a racial 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.

Tesla Faces a Racial Discrimination Lawsuit at the California Factory

Tesla Inc.’s effort to dismiss claims made by two former employees at their California factory failed. The federal judge rejected the electric car maker’s request to dismiss, which cleared the way to a potential trial.

Who Are the Plaintiffs Filing the Discrimination Suit?

Tesla’s California electric car factory employs over 10,000 people. Two of the factory’s former employees, Owen Diaz and his son Demetric Di-az, claim the workplace was rampant with racial hostility. U.S. District Judge William Orrick of San Francisco found open questions over whether the plaintiffs faced harassment that was specifically severe and pervasive. The two plaintiffs allege that the harassment took place throughout both 2015 and 2016. Owen Diaz claims he worked at the factory as an elevator operator for 11 months. Demetric Di-az claims he worked at the factory as a production associate for two months.

Diaz and Di-az, black employees at the factory, claim they were forced to listen to racial epithets regularly, subjected to racist cartoons, and that factory supervisors at best did little to stop the workplace harassment, and at worst, engaged in the harassment alongside the plaintiffs’ co-workers. They may pursue claims that the company did not make a reasonable attempt to stop the racial harassment and seek punitive damages. In order to seek punitive damages, the plaintiffs will need to show that the company was aware of the harassment, even if higher management did not engage in the actual hostile treatment.

The case is scheduled for trial May 11, 2020.

The Defendant: Tesla Electric Car Manufacturer

Tesla is a Palo Alto, California based company. While the electric car manufacturer has faced numerous racial harassment lawsuits, they are not the only car company to have similar legal issues in recent years. Ford faced a similar problem in 2017. The company agreed to a $10.1 million settlement to resolve similar problems with alleged racist behavior at two different Chicago factories. Tesla insists that they did not hesitate in addressing racial abuse at their Fremont factory, but that there is no evidence in this case of fraud, malice or oppression.

Other Details in the Tesla Racial Discrimination Case:

The plaintiffs, Diaz and Di-az, may also pursue claims against the staffing agency that assigned him to the factory, as well as a liaison between that agency and the electric car manufacturer, Tesla. The plaintiffs will likely seek millions of dollars in damages.

If you need to discuss harassment or workplace discrimination, 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.