Farmers Group Victorious Against Age Discrimination Claims

/

A California jury sided with Farmers Group stating that California employment laws do not apply because the insurance agents filing discrimination claims are independent contractors.

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs in the case are former California-based insurance agents claiming that they were discriminated against for their age. The plaintiffs allege that Farmers Group fired them based on their age so they could replace them with younger, “more productive” workers. The plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence showing Farmers Group saved 440% on commissions by replacing established agents.

The Defendant: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Farmers Group Inc., argued that the insurance agents were independent contractors, not employees and that labor law did not apply to independent contractors. While the plaintiffs attempted to argue that Farmers Group imposed performance standards, office requirements, etc., that effectively “controlled” as they would an employee, the defendant argued that the evidence showed they were independent contractors:

  • Farmers Group argued that the agents could not state what Farmers Group does

  • I couldn’t identify their “sales managers.”

  • Filed their own taxes

  • Declared themselves sole proprietors or independent contractors to the IRS

  • And dedicated their office equipment, supplies, etc., on their taxes as a sole proprietor/independent contractor would

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

In the case, James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al., Farmers Group Inc. was cleared of discrimination and wrongful termination allegations. The eight-week trial was followed by two days of deliberations. Still, the former California-based insurance agents claiming the company discriminated against them for their age so they could replace them with younger workers had their claims dismissed when jurors determined the four plaintiffs were, in fact, independent contractors, so Farmers did not violate California labor law.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination or age discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

ADP Facing Fired Manager’s Disability Bias and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

/

In recent news, a former manager filed a mental disability discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit alleging ADP violated labor law.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The Court: U.S. District Court Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:2022cv00898

The Plaintiff: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff in the case, Nathaniel Rutledge, was a manager for ADP from March 2019 until the company terminated his employment on August 27, 2021. After the death of his brother, Rutledge was instructed to join a video call with ADP’s Director of Associates, Sonya Everett, and Lead Investigative Security Agent, Michael Paulhus. Everett told Rutledge they were conducting a wellness check because there were indications Rutledge was “struggling.” According to the plaintiff, they did not indicate what prompted the situation. They immediately began asking a series of questions that felt like an interrogation, repeatedly demanding the plaintiff turn on the camera even though he wasn’t feeling well and was uncomfortable doing so. After Rutledge said he didn’t want to continue the call without being told what the meeting was about, the company placed him on leave and advised him he was required to obtain clearance from their Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider before returning to work. Rutledge assured the EAP counselor he had no mental issues that affected his work, but the counselor recommended Rutledge see a therapist anyway. He did not, and two days later, the counselor sent a letter to the defendant notifying them of Rutledge’s non-compliance. When Rutledge was again invited to a video call the same day, he declined, stating that the last one made him very uncomfortable. Rutledge was fired the next day. The company claimed his refusal to take the video call was insubordinate. The company claimed they terminated his employment because he refused to participate in ongoing psychological treatment.

The Defendant: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff Rutledge filed disability harassment, wrongful termination, and emotional distress claims. The defendant in the case, ADP, is a payroll services company.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

FEHA explicitly prohibits an employer from harassing an employee because of a mental disability. To successfully argue a disability harassment claim, the plaintiff must show the following:

(1) they are a member of a protected class

(2) they were subject to unwelcome harassment

(3) the unwelcome harassment was based on their protected status

(4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with their work performance (by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment); and

(5) the defendants in the case are liable for the harassment

However, for the case to move forward, the plaintiff must only show that the defendant regarded them as disabled, thus creating a protected class and making them a part of the protected class. The defendant’s immediate motions to dismiss were denied.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Job Candidate Claims Discrimination: Is Workday’s AI Job Screening Tool Biased?

/

In recent news, Workday faces a lawsuit claiming that their AI job screening tool discriminates against certain job applicants.

The Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 23-cv-00770

The Plaintiff: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Derek Mobley, is a black man over 40 years old who suffers from anxiety and depression. Mobley claims he has applied to 80-100 job openings for companies using Workday's AI job screening tool since 2018. While Mosey holds a bachelor's degree in finance from Morehouse College and an associate's degree in network systems administration from ITT Technical Institute, his application was declined for every job. Mosley filed a class action complaint seeking to represent others who have also been affected by the screening tool's algorithm.

The Defendant: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Workday, Inc., the defendant in the case, is an HR and payroll SaaS firm. Workday's software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform is designed to help organizations manage their workforce and financial operations. One of the critical features of Workday's platform is its user interface, which is designed to be intuitive and user-friendly. The platform also uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to help automate routine tasks and provide insights into data. Workday's customers range from small and medium-sized businesses to large enterprises across various industries. The company is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. In the California discrimination lawsuit, Workday is accused of building algorithms for their AI job applicant screening tool that result in discrimination against Black applicants in their 40s.

The Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Mobley v. Workday, Inc. alleges that Workday unlawfully uses an algorithm-based job applicant screening system to determine if an employer should accept an application for employment with the decision based on the applicant's age, race, or disability.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Yield Monitor Claims Foster Poultry Farms Violated Labor Law

/

A former yield monitor for Foster Poultry Farms LLC claims the company violated labor law by engaging in discriminatory practices and failing to accommodate a disability.

The Case: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

The Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District

The Case No.: 17CECG03360

The Plaintiff: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Kaur, the plaintiff in the case, was employed as a yield monitor at Foster Poultry Farms LLC, a chicken processing facility. In 2013, she slipped on the job while wearing company-issued rubber boots. The incident left her with a broken left wrist. In May 2016, Foster Farms announced a restructuring. The following month, the labor relations manager told Kaur she was losing her job because Foster Poultry Farms was eliminating several positions. In July 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, claiming labor code violations.

The Allegations: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Kaur’s 2017 complaint alleged the following claims:

  • Discrimination (based on race/nationality and disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA))

  • Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (under FEHA)

  • Failure to engage in an interactive process (under FEHA)

  • Failure to take all appropriate measures to prevent discrimination (under FEHA)

  • Retaliation for asserting FEHA rights

  • Retaliation under section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code

The History of the Case: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

The plaintiff, Kaur, is of Indian origin. She testified that three company employees discriminated against her: one supply room worker and two supervisors. In 2019, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge denied the WCAB petition under section 132a. Kaur’s former employer filed a motion for summary judgment citing legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barring the plaintiff’s claims in light of the WCAB’s decision and the statute of limitations barring the discrimination claim based on race/national origin. The trial court agreed with the company’s arguments and granted summary judgment in its favor, but the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the trial court’s decision was reversed in connection with the plaintiff’s FEHA claims of disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in an interactive process. The court of appeal found that the WCAB’s decision denying the disability discrimination claim under section 132a had no preclusive effect under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Tesla Inc. Facing Allegations of Fostering Racial Discrimination and Harassment

/

In recent news, Tesla Inc. couldn't escape a California racial discrimination and harassment lawsuit alleging they fostered a hostile work environment in a Tesla factory in San Francisco Bay, California.

The Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, Alameda County

The Case No.: 22CV006830

The Allegations: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc., Tesla allegedly fostered a workplace environment that supported discrimination and harassment. According to the case, black workers at Tesla claimed they heard racial slurs at work as often as 50 to 100 times a day. In addition, they also regularly saw racist graffiti in the factory's bathrooms, on workstations, at lunch tables, etc. On top of that, black Tesla workers were allegedly paid less than their non-Black co-workers for substantially similar work.

The Defendant: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The defendant in the case, Tesla Inc., attempted to avoid the lawsuit requesting the court throw out the complaint. However, the court tentatively denied Tesla's request to dismiss the complaint in late August 2022. According to Tesla spokespeople, the company strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment and feels the lawsuit is misguided.

Details of the Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

Citing claims of hundreds of Black workers with evidence supporting their claims of general racially based mistreatment, harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation at Tesla's Fremont plant, the lawsuit is set to move forward. The original lawsuit was filed in February 2022, and Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo will consider the case. The defendant, Tesla Inc., is also defending against similar claims in a proposed class action on behalf of California factory workers in state court. Last year, a judge rejected Tesla's similar request to dismiss the claims made in the class action. Tesla denies any wrongdoing in relation to employment law violations and hostile workplace allegations and states they've implemented several policies in the last few years to prevent racial discrimination and harassment and establish consequences when they occur in their workplaces. In a case citing similar accusations, a former Tesla contractor was awarded a $137 million jury verdict due to racial abuse at the factory. A judge later said the award should be reduced to $15 million and that former contractor disagreed with the adjustment, so the case is headed for a retrial.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

SmartTalent Staffing Agency Allegedly Refused to Place Women per Client Requests

/

SmartTalent, a Gig Harbor, Washington-based staffing agency, faces allegations that they complied with client demands to refuse to place females.

The Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01102-RSM 

The Allegations: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

According to the lawsuit, EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC, SmartTalent staffing agency made a practice of honoring requests some of their business clients made to fill positions with strictly male applicants. Allegedly, the staffing agency violated employment law by refusing to place females in open positions per client demands. The lawsuit alleges that SmartTalent managers trained recruiters to fill gender-based recruitment requests to keep their company's clientele satisfied. As a result of this standard practice at the agency, SmartTalent specifically advised female workers that specific jobs were not available or that certain jobs would not be a good fit based on their sex. Specifically, SmartTalent told women that warehouse jobs were mainly for men, labor-intensive jobs were too hard, and that women didn't belong in these types of positions.

The Defendant: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The defendant in the case, SmartTalent, LLC, is a staffing agency based out of Gig Harbor, Washington. Their contingent and temp workers are part of a large group of workers vulnerable to losing employment opportunities, which frequently occurs due to client preferences regarding long-standing stereotypes of men's or women's work.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

SmartTalent, LLC's alleged conduct on behalf of its clients violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids using gender-based criteria in employment practices. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the women workers affected by SmartTalent's alleged discriminatory practices, and the lawsuit seeks lost wages and monetary damages (including compensation for emotional distress). The suit also seeks punitive damages and injunctive relief (like a permanent injunction and ongoing monitoring procedures to ensure that SmartTalent policies and practices comply in the future). Lawsuits like EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC assist in removing unnecessary barriers to employment and remedying class-wide sex discrimination by staffing agencies and employers, which is critical for the health of the workforce.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

BaronHR and Radiant Services Face Discriminatory Recruitment and Hiring Lawsuit

/

In recent news, BaronHR and Radiant Services have been accused of discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices.

The Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-cv-06517

Staffing Agencies & Employers in a Dual-Employer Relationship: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

In EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, two entities are accused of violating employment law due to a dual-employer relationship. When staffing agencies and employers work together in a dual-employer relationship, they are both responsible for complying with employment law. A discrimination-free workplace is required by employment law, and preferential hiring has no place in the workforce. When a staffing agency agrees to discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices requested by an employer, the liability for the employment law violation extends from the employer to the staffing agency.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, the defendants in EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, face allegations of employment law violations as dual employers. BaronHR is a national staffing agency that works with Radiant Services Corporation, a commercial laundry facility that provides services in Southern California’s hospitality industry. The two face accusations of discriminatory denial of work based on race, national origin, and sex. According to the case documents, BaronHR and Radiant have avoided recruiting, referring, and hiring Black, Asian, and White applicants for low-skill jobs since 2015. The company allegedly requested women applicants for particular “light” jobs and only men for other “heavy” jobs. According to the lawsuit, BaronHR fulfilled the company’s request to recruit new hires based on sex. In addition to recruiting applicants based on sex, the company also required applicants to have no medical conditions or past injuries, which excluded qualified individuals with disabilities (perceived disabilities or past disabilities) from any open positions at the company.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Federal law prohibits screening qualified job applicants to exclude individuals or groups based on sex, race, national origin, or disability. A policy that supports the practice violates employment law and creates an unhealthy, likely hostile work environment.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.