President Obama set to Sign Order Banning Anti-Gay Workplace Discrimination

White House news indicates that President Barack Obama is going to sign an order banning anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. The president has directed his staff to draft an executive order. The order would place a ban on workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender employers of any federal contractors. Many see this move as the clearest indication that the Obama administration is prepared to take action on LGBT rights in spite of Congress’s failure to do so.

It’s unclear whether Obama intends the leak of the “intention” to sign as a warning to lawmakers to pass more extensive workplace discrimination laws in the limited window available to them before he takes matters into his own hands or if it is the long overdue action he pledged to take during his 2008 campaign.

The planned executive order comes after years of what many view as inaction. The Obama administration has been calling for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (which would make it illegal for employers throughout the entire nation to fire or discriminate or harass anyone in their employ due to sexual orientation or gender identity). The bill passed the Senate, but stalled in the House. Due to this stall the president has felt an increase in pressure to take action on his own. 

If the proposed executive order were to take effect, it would affect approximately 16 million workers. The executive order under discussion would build upon protections already in place that prohibit general discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or nationality. Millions of Americans in most states in the country head to work every morning unsure of their job security because of who they are or who they love. There are currently no federal laws providing adequate protection for LGBT workers fearing employment discrimination. 

For additional information on legal protection from harassment and discrimination in the workplace for LGBT contact the experts in California employment law at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Female Employees Sue Papa Murphy’s for Secret Filming in Workplace Bathrooms

Four women are suing the Martinez franchise owner of the popular Papa Murphy’s Take ‘N’ Bake Pizza. The suit is based on their allegations that their former boss secretly videotaped them in the employee restroom while using the toilet and undressing. The women claim they suspected their boss, Jason Lassor, of secretly taping them in the workplace’s unisex bathroom for three months before they eventually discovered a hidden camera inside of a cardboard box placed on a shelf in the bathroom.

Lassor already pleaded guilty to one felony count of child pornography and a misdemeanor unlawful electronic video recording charge. One month after pleading guilty, Lassor was sentenced to 120 days in county jail. His time was served by electronic home detention.

One of the four women (who will go unnamed as sex assault victims) was under 18. The women’s representation indicated that the situation was a significant breach of trust and that they were completely devastated when they learned of the filming device. They will continue dealing with the after effects of learning that their privacy had been so irrevocably breached by their employer for some time.

While the women had suspicions that they were being filmed for months prior to finding proof, they feared reprisal and workplace retaliation if they were to complain about their suspicions. When the video camera was discovered in January of 2013, the woman who discovered it called one of the other women who was at home at the time. She came to the place of business, picked up the camera and delivered it to the Martinez police. Lassor was arrested later that same day.

The suit filed by the women against the company and the franchise owner claims negligent supervision, training and retention as well as invasion of privacy, sexual discrimination, harassment and other workplace violations of employment law.

If you have questions regarding your rights to address uncomfortable work situations (suspected or otherwise) while avoiding employer retaliation in the work place contact the California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Failure to Pay Overtime Has Navy Federal Credit Union Making News

In recent news, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Navy Federal Credit Union failed to pay appropriate overtime wages. Accusations were made against the Vienna based federal credit union by some of the branch workers. The original suit was filed by Anthony Lee out of Clark County, Nevada on May 27^th in the U.S. District Court, but he plans to seek class action status so others can join in the suit. Mr. Lee has been a member services representative at Navy Federal Credit Union for almost six years. This position is categorized as non-exempt from overtime (according to the suit filed).  Lee claims that he and other workers in jobs with similar duties have been frequently required to work off the clock both before their shift starts and after it ends. The total of the “off the clock” work was approximately 30-45 minutes per day per employee. The lawsuit alleges that this practice of requiring off the clock work before and after shift work is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In addition to allegations that the Navy Federal Credit Union violated FLSA, Lee claims that one of his previous managers in the workplace referred to him by the “N” word on multiple occasions. In response, a statement was issued by Navy Federal: “The fair treatment and well-being of our employees is of the utmost importance to us…we take this claim seriously and are looking into it.”

The Navy Federal Credit Union is the largest credit union in the United States employing approximately 11,000 employees worldwide. It’s possible that up to 500 of their workers might be a part of the class action started by Lee in regards to FLSA violations, etc. The suit will be seeking a declaratory judgment that the allegations made were illegal as well as an injunction preventing further similar activities. Damages are unspecified, but will include waiting time penalties as well as court costs.

Class action lawsuits serve an important function in the workplace. They provide employees with the opportunity to come together and assert their rights under California Labor Laws and federal employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik with questions on class action suits in California. 

Whistleblower’s $25 Million Lawsuit Against Nike Heads to the Jury

In the course of the more than $25 million lawsuit proceedings against Nike, the jury heard two very different versions of events. Douglas Ossanna is a former Nike electrician, fired in early 2013. He claims that Nike fired him in retaliation after he reported unsafe working conditions for electricians at the approximately 600-acre campus in Washington County. Nike denies the allegations. Nike’s version of events has Ossanna being fired for playing a pickup basketball game on a court in the Bo Jackson Building when the facility was designated as off limits.

The more than $25 million lawsuit consists of $572,000 in economic damages, $1.5 million in non-economic damages and as much as $25 million in punitive damages. During the closing arguments, attorneys for the plaintiff argued simplicity. They claim a simple and clear-cut case of retaliation in the workplace. It was argued that Ossanna had made concerns clear regarding unsafe working conditions to at least six different Nike managers over a period of a few years. Ossanna claims none of his unsafe working conditions reports were ever investigated or resolved by Nike.

On top of being fired, Ossanna’s representation make it clear that he suffered harsh working conditions including excessive amounts of overtime in response to his reporting of problems with workplace safety.

Nike indicated that they did not retaliate against the electrician and that as a supervisor, he had access to every building on the Washington County campus. Nike’s attorney, argued during her closing argument that the decision to terminate Ossanna’s employment was consistent with other recent terminations in the company including a Nike employee was terminated for lying in order to receive a $20 gift card.

If you or someone you know is a victim of retaliation in the workplace, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik to find out how you get legal reparations for the damage to your career, your finances and your life. 

Accusations of Labor Violations at TGI Friday’s

One of the nation’s most popular casual dining spots has been named in a class action lawsuit. TGI Friday’s is accused in the suit of systematically underpaying its tipped employees. Allegations made within the suit filed on April 17, 2014 in New York Federal Court include: TGI Friday’s requires that tipped workers are at work early and say late after closing without minimum wage compensation and/or overtime pay. The suit was filed by four former employees of TGI Friday’s in the New York metro area and Fredericksburg, Virginia. Plaintiffs also indicate that the restaurant management utilized a central time-keeping system that allowed them to cut hours from employee time records – requiring employees to work off the clock doing prep work and clean up before and after their shifts/restaurant hours.

No one has indicated a specific dollar amount for this lawsuit, but speculation puts it in the millions. Allegations of violations of the Federal Fair Standards Act and the New York Law were made against TGI Friday’s and Carlson Restaurants (its parent company).

TGI Friday’s has approximately 540 domestic locations and 17,700 US employees. The suit represents all current and former workers: servers, bartenders, hosts, bussers and any other “tipped” workers at the chain.

Workers are seeking recovery of minimum wages as well as overtime pay, misappropriated tips, unlawful deductions, etc.

Many employers are attempting to maximize profit by minimizing employee costs. If you are being underpaid for hours worked, get in touch with an expert wage and hour attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Starbucks Agreed to Pay up to $3M Settlement for Mileage Reimbursement Suit

An agreement is in place for Starbucks to pay up to $3 million to settle the lawsuit based on allegations that the popular coffee house did not reimburse named California employees for mileage related expenses incurred while on the job. Employers who typically incur mileage expenses while on the job include: store managers, assistant managers, and shift supervisors. These employees working at Starbucks stores located in California employed from March 2003 through March 2008 are eligible for payments of $30-75 each.

Attorney’s fees are included in the $3 million settlement as well as an undisclosed amount given to the representative plaintiff as an incentive award and a payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of $25,000.

In the documentation, Starbucks agreed to class-action status for settlement purposes along – they do not accept liability. Within the settlement paperwork it was agreed that the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys are not to respond to questions from the media. The only exception is to allow them to refer to court documents on file. Jonelle Lewis filed the lawsuit in March 2007. She had worked at Starbucks since December of 2005. She resigned within one month of filing the lawsuit. The lawsuit filed by Lewis claimed that she consistently used her personal vehicle for work purposes (i.e. bank deposits, obtaining supplies, etc.) She also claimed that she attempted to request reimbursement for the mileage, but that Starbucks’ response was not to reimburse as a matter of “policy.”

If you feel you that company “policy” in your workplace is conflicting with your rights as outlined in employment law, get in touch with the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Arguing the Professional Exemption

The Obama administration recently took a closer look at the Professional Exemption. Their scrutiny was followed by instructions to the Department of Labor to narrow the definition of the exemption. Changes are set to take effect in 2015, but Courts may begin utilizing the new definitions and strictures immediately if recent activity is any indication. 

Court cases that involve the proper classification of employees are generally the most contentious. This makes sense as the stakes are higher than cases involving potential repayment of back wages and/or penalties for overtime. They can also require complete reclassification of employees listed in the case with overtime required from that point forward. In proper classification cases, a ruling against the employer often means a complete change in the way the company runs their business.

Many employers have been cutting corners to save money on overtime. Some say it’s due to the Labor Code coming across as complex. But it’s more likely a combination of complexity allowing for loose interpretations/purposeful misinterpretations embraced during low cash flow points in a troubled economy. Employers feel they need to save the money and many are deciding to do whatever they can (legal or not) to save money on overtime costs.

A recent case involving day rate employees being classified under the labor code as professionals exempt from overtime pay seems to support the idea that the courts will consider changes to the Professional Exemption now rather than waiting until 2015. Workers in the recent case were working 12-hour shifts, sometimes 7 days a week leaving them totaling in excess of 84 hours some weeks. Their work was compensated by a day rate. Some weeks their total pay (if they worked only a couple days) was less than $455/week. Legal representation for the plaintiffs in the case argued that claiming an employee is a salaried professional, but paying them less than $455/week some weeks does not meet the requirements of the Professional Exemption’s first prong.

The case was concluded on March 27, 2014. The Federal Middle District of Pennsylvania court clerk recorded judgment for wage and hour violations in the case (3:14-cv-00042-RDM). Allegations accused the employer of failing to pay workers overtime for their hours that exceeded the full time 40. The court supported the claims. We can most likely expect to see more decisions leaning towards the new understanding of the Professional Exemption.

If you feel that you may be due past overtime or know someone who is in an untenable work environment, get in touch with the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today.