Paula Lopez, Former News Anchor, Files Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Paula Lopez, a former news anchor for KEYT/KCOY, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against NPG of California, owner of KEYT and KFFX stations. Lopez worked as a news anchor for the stations for close to 30 years before he was terminated in September 2015. At that time, Lopez was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and assaulting an officer.

Lopez pleaded no contest to DUI, refusing a chemical test, delaying a peace officer, and battery on a peace officer in a plea agreement. As a result she was sentenced to 120 days in jail and probation. She served 50 days in the electronic monitoring program.

Lopez filed the California lawsuit on September 2nd claiming that Lopez’s time with the station/s resulted in a loyal following of viewers through her distinguished and experienced work as one of the most trusted and vibrant television journalists on the Central Coast. Allegations were made the in spite of her history with the company, Lopez was discriminated against, demeaned and degraded on the basis of her sex, disability and Hispanic race/ancestry.

Allegations Included in the Lawsuit:

·       Lopez was denied equal pay based on gender.

·       Lopez was denied reasonable accommodation for her disability.

·       Lopez was denied reasonable accommodation for legal mandated interactive processes in relation to her disability.

Lopez insists that she wasn’t offered a fair agreement when NPG purchased the stations, stating that she was only offered a “minimal pay increase” even though she was already paid a significantly lower salary than CJ Ward, her male, non-Hispanic counterpart on the news show. General manager for the stations, Mark Danielson, responded that NPG does not comment on current or former employees or potential litigation.

Lopez claims that she took leave rom work after she “went missing for a day” in 2013. Reasons for this were related to a combination of symptoms and conditions in connection to anxiety, depression, and alcoholism – all of which the plaintiff claims she was in the process of having treated. Five months later, Lopez was arrested for public intoxication and was suspended from work without pay. Lopez mentions signing a “last chance agreement” in the lawsuit in an attempt to avoid being fired from her job. In the agreement, provisions required random drug and alcohol testing. Lopez claims that the station’s access to the results of these tests violated her privacy. Lopez also alleges that she was later moved to a station with “less stature,” given a more strenuous workload, and replaced on primetime by “younger” and “non-Hispanic” women. Lopez was terminated after her Sept. 6, 2015 DUI arrest.

If you have questions about wrongful termination or if you think that you may have been fired as a result of discriminatory practices in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

San Gabriel Police Officers May Be Headed to the Supreme Court to Talk Benefits

In 2013, former San Gabriel Police Officer Danny Flores (joined by 14 other current and former officers) sued the city citing allegations of unfair calculations of overtime pay rates. After District and Federal courts ruled in favor of the police officers on the issue, they could be headed to the Supreme Court to discuss police benefits as the city looks to appeal.

In June 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the current and former San Gabriel Police Officers who sued over the way the city factored their benefits program into their overtime pay. Regardless of the ruling, the city of San Gabriel announced they would keep fighting the allegations. The city filed a petition for a rehearing of the case, but the petition was denied. On June 21st, the City Council agreed that they would appeal to the Supreme Court. This is the final step on the judicial ladder. The Supreme Court has not yet decided if they will take up the case.

The Facts of the Matter: Flores v. City of San Gabriel

The officers cited the city’s cash-in-lieu-of-benefits provision as a violation of employment law. The provision states that the city of San Gabriel employees can collect pay rather than health benefits. For instance, a city employee who already has health benefits can receive additional pay instead of the benefits their city job offers. The officers argue that the additional pay was not factored in during the city’s overtime pay rate calculations and that doing so could result in $5-10 per hour differences for city employees.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision written by Judge Andre Davis held that the City did not show that it attempted to comply with Fair Labor Standards Act, which left the plaintiffs eligible for liquidated damages.

If you need more information about the Fair Labor Standards Act or if you need to discuss overtime pay calculations that you suspect could be in violation of employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Golden State Phone and Wireless Faces Wage Allegations and Class Action

Israel Padron, a San Luis Obispo local, recently filed a class-action wage and hour suit against Golden State Phone and Wireless, his former employer. He alleges that he was not provided with appropriate overtime compensation. The complaint was filed July 20, 2016 on behalf of other employees in similar situations in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Israel Padron claims that Golden State Phone & Wireless’s practices were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiff’s complaint included allegations that he worked over 40 hours per workweek between October 2012 and September 2015 and did not receive overtime pay as deemed appropriate by law. He claims that the company miscalculated the overtime rate of pay as they failed to include the value assigned for bonuses and/or commissions applicable to his position with the company.

Employers that either require or allow employees to work overtime are required to provide pay as dictated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employees covered by the FLSA must receive overtime pay anytime they work in excess of 40 hours in one workweek. The overtime pay is required to be at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. The FLSA (with some specific exceptions) requires employers to include bonus payments as a part of the employee’s regular rate of pay when they are calculating their overtime pay in accordance with minimum rates of overtime pay set down by FLSA.

Padron requests that he receive a trial by jury in order to resolve the lawsuit and seeks compensatory, consequential, general and special damages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest on due and/or unpaid wages, legal fees, and other relief that the court may deem justified.

If you have questions about overtime pay or if you have been denied overtime pay by your employer, please contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Minor League Strikes Out on Wage Claims: Judge Decertifies Collective and Class Actions

Former minor league players who filed a lawsuit claiming Major League Baseball engaged in minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act may feel as if they struck out at the end of a very big game as a federal Magistrate judge in San Francisco sided with the MLB recently when players attempted to have their lawsuits certified as a collective action and class action, respectively.

Previously the judge conditionally certified the proposed collection action under the FLSA (as of October 2015). Yet in the latest ruling, the judge granted the MLB’s motion to decertify. The judge also denied the players (Plaintiffs) request to certify their state law wage and hour claims as a class action. Most see the decertification and denial as a major win for the MLB.

What Are Collective Actions and Class Actions? They both involve groups of plaintiffs joining together in a lawsuit, but they aren’t exactly the same. The most important difference between the two is that plaintiffs who want to be involved in a collective action may simply opt in to the group. Comparatively, those who would not like to be included in a class action must “opt out” or find themselves bound by the resulting judgment on the case.

Plaintiffs in this case allege that the MLB and its clubs were in violation of the FLSA and other, similar, state wage and hour laws. They claim they were paid a total of $3,000-$7,000 over the course of a season lasting five months even though they were working anywhere from 50-70 hours each week throughout the season. The former players also claim that they were paid less than minimum wage, they were denied overtime pay, and they were required to “train” during the off season without compensation.

The July 21, 2016 Order from the Magistrate Judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion that state wage and hour claims be certified as a class action. He stated that the plaintiffs’ failed to meet specified legal requirements. He stated that there would be no simple method of identifying who would be a member of the class in various states. He stated that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the “typicality” requirement was met as the court was unable to determine if representatives for different states presented claims collectively that were typical of the class as a whole. He also stated that the common questions raised by law were not predominant in the face of individual concerns. Conclusively, even though the Judge found the “numerosity” requirement to be met, and the “commonality” requirement to be met, and that the class representatives could protect the interests of the class, he refused to certify.

If you have questions or concerns regarding class certification or if you need to discuss your eligibility to act as representative in a proposed class action, please get in touch with an experienced employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Hyperloop One Files $250 Million Countersuit Against Co-Founder BamBrogan

Claiming that BamBrogan’s wrongful termination lawsuit and the allegations made within it were a malicious attempt to ruin the company’s reputation, Hyperloop One filed a $250 million countersuit in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The company claims that former CTO Brogan BamBrogan was part of a group of four company employees that engaged in both improper conduct and abusive behavior. Hyperloop One is a transportation startup involved in developing a high-speed shuttle. The countersuit states that BamBrogan and the three additional employees (referred to in their countersuit as “the Gang of Four”) actually manufactured conflict and incited rebellion in the workplace in an attempt to seize control of Hyperloop One.

The countersuit includes accusations that the “four” engaged in increasingly disruptive behavior ending with them literally staging a coup in May 2016. They asked certain employees to sign a threatening letter that demanded the company’s board members release their shares and significantly alter the company’s equity structure. The also allege the BamBrogan planned to start a competing company, Hyperloop Two, and that he actively discouraged current and prospective investors of Hyperloop One hoping that they would instead choose to invest in his new company. The countersuit alleges that when BamBrogan’s plan failed, he and the others filed the lawsuit as a media ploy full of lies intended to smear Hyperloop One.

The countersuit specifically states that BamBrogan left the company abruptly a week prior to the filing and sued his former colleagues for wrongful termination as well as claims of failure toward fiduciary duty. BamBrogan’s restraining order against Afshin Pishevar, former head of legal counsel and brother of co-founder Shervin Pishevar, was based on allegations that he placed a hangman’s noose on BamBrogan’s chair as a threat of violence. A Los Angeles judge dismissed it last week. Hyperloop One claims that the photo of the noose on BamBrogan’s chair was a sham, calling it the “stuff of tabloids.”

BamBrogan’s claims that Shervin indulged in a pay-to-play arrangement, paying a public relations vendor from Pramana a salary well above average ($400,000) while they were “dating” were labeled a “salacious personal attack” in the countersuit. Hyperloop One claims none of it is true.

Legal counsel for the plaintiff, BamBrogan, responded to the countersuit by stating that they were basing their counter on pure fiction and that the truth would be shown through evidence.

If you have questions about an instance of wrongful termination or concerns regarding legal grounds for suing, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Hyperloop Technologies Accused of Wrongful Termination by Co-Founder

The co-founder of Hyperloop Technologies recently slapped the company with a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that he was not only wrongfully terminated, but that his character was defamed by the company. CTO Brogan BanBrogan, as well as other former employees, sued Hyperloop Technologies alleging that they were forced out because they spoke to investors in the company about cultural issues within the “futuristic firm.” Additionally, they allege that they were forced to enter into contracts that weren’t in the company’s best interests by venture capitalists, Shervin Pishevar and Joe Lonsdale.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of California and included scathing details of Pishevar’s activities while BamBrogan was involved in the company. The documents even include a photo of Pishevar. The description of the photo provided by the plaintiffs indicate that Pishevar was approaching the plaintiff’s desk with a “noose coiled in his hand.” They allege the message was clear and that this moment was followed by another incident later in the same day when the company offered their final letter in response to the plaintiffs’ letter (a group of eleven Hyperloop One employees).

The company stated that they would make no “core” changes and that “three heads would roll.” This referred to three of the plaintiffs: Pendergast and Mulholland, who were fired, and BamBrogan who they planned to demote and force to take a leave of absence (they advised he would not be terminated as long as he promised to behave). If the group of eleven employees accepted the proposal, the company promised not to “pursue them to the ends of the earth.” Plaintiffs allege the company’s official response to their letter even threatened economic and legal warfare by “millionaires with extensive networks.”

BamBrogan states that his involvement in the company began with Hyperloop Technologies took on Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s challenge to put together a super-fast transportation system. BamBrogan states that Pishevar felt it was a business opportunity and hired BamBrogam (previously employed by Musk’s SpaceX) to lead the company. He was offered 6% of the company’s shares. Pishevar retained 90% of the shares.

BamBrogan states that the relationship was difficult from the start, but culminated in improper business deals and the noose episode mentioned above. A meeting following the company’s official response occurred, but when it didn’t go well, BamBrogan and others were either fired or simply left the company on their own. BamBrogan sought a restraining order against Pishevar in response to the situation. Hyperloop Technologies indicated that they saw the suit as unfortunate and delusional – a cliché response to what they referred to as a failed coup.

If you have been wrongfully terminated from your job, please get in touch with an experienced southern California employment law attorney as soon as possible so we can help you. The lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are available to talk to you today. 

Two Austin Drivers Accuse Uber of Wrongful Termination

In May, Uber Technologies, Inc and Lyft, Inc. abruptly removed their services from Austin, Texas. As a result, thousands of drivers in the area lost their jobs. Two of those former drivers, Todd Johnston from Uber and David Thornton from Lyft, filed two proposed California class action lawsuits. In response to new regulations that were implemented, the two companies moved out of Austin, Texas.

The plaintiffs’ attorney indicated that the success of the suits depend upon the same common issue that Uber and Lyft have been battling in various forums: the question of whether drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. The two previous drivers cited the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) as a basis for their lawsuits. According to the statute, employers who have 100 or more employees working 20 or more hours a week (on average) must provide 60 days notice before a mass layoff or plant closure resulting in a mass layoff. The goal of this particular legislation was to provide workers with the opportunity to find alternative employment, find and arrange for any necessary or advantageous retraining, make accommodations for loss of pay, etc.

The plaintiffs claim that Uber and Lyft’s departure from Austin, Texas resulted in 10,000 drivers contracted to operate in the city being “laid off.” According to the wording in the above cited statute, this type of action (resulting in the “laying off” of more than 500 workers) calls for an appropriate notification. Legal experts viewing the case indicate that the plaintiffs face an uphill battle as for the statute to apply to the situation, laid off workers must have been “employees.” Uber and Lyft classify their drivers as independent contractors – a classification that comes with significantly different rights and benefits in comparison to workers classified as employees.

In April an unrelated lawsuit reached a settlement with terms dictating that drivers are to be considered independent contractors – not employees. Having noted that, we have yet to see a definitive court ruling on this particular issue. So while it will be an uphill battle for these plaintiffs to establish themselves as “employees” of Uber and Lyft in the eyes of the court, the possibility is there.

If you have questions regarding what constitutes a misclassification, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.