Applicants Win Certification in Disneyland Background Check Lawsuit

On July 6, 2017 a California judge certified two classes of potential Disneyland employees alleging that the most magical place on earth violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Allegations indicate that Disneyland did not provide prospective employees with copies of their background checks prior to making the final decision in the hiring process. In failing to provide copies of their background checks they deprived them of the chance to contest any inaccurate reports.

California Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones granted certification to a class of job applicants who were subject to “no hire” recommendations for Walt Disney Co. The “no hire” recommendations were based on info obtained in prospective employee background checks. Class certification was also granted to a class of applicants who signed a consent form later alleged to be insufficient in effectively disclosing that a screening would occur.

The class period for both will run from November 2011 through the present. During that time there were 715 “no hire” recommendations made for prospective employees. There were also 43,000 signed consent forms the plaintiffs’ allege were insufficient to comply with the law. Roger L. Culberson, plaintiff, alleges that he was deprived of his legal right and opportunity to correct inaccurate reports before Disney took adverse employment action resulting in him not getting the job.

In 1998, Culberson was convicted of batter, but the charge was later expunged from his record (2010). In 2011, Culberson was hired by Disney, but then told him not to bother reporting to mandatory orientation when they had a chance to look at his background check. Culberson claims the background check inaccurately reported 2010 as the date of the conviction. Culberson filed a complaint in 2013.

The “no hire” recommendation was placed in Culberson’s file by the Disney security department on December 8th, 2011. This was just one day after Disney received Sterling Infosystems Inc. background check including the inaccurate report of the conviction date. Culberson learned of the mistake when he called to check the status of his job application. He was advised he did not have a job. He contacted Sterling to contest the inaccurate information on December 9, 2011. On December 15th, 2011, the background report company issued a revised report removing the inaccurate reference to 2010 as the date of conviction. Culberson still wasn’t hired.

Disney claims it removed the “no hire” recommendation when the corrected report was received, but that once the issue was sorted out, they no longer needed to hire for seasonal work.

If you feel your rights were violated during the hiring process or if you had a company take adverse hiring action following a background check without first providing you with a copy, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Postmates is Getting Closer to a $2.5M Deal with Drivers over Credit Check Issue

At the end of June 2017, a California judge gave every indication that a Postmates $2.5 million deal would get the green light. The deal would end class allegations made against the on-demand delivery service. The suit was based on allegations that the Fair Credit Reporting Act was violated when Postmates did not notify 190,000 prospective couriers about their use of background checks.

The deal states that class members must object in writing before attending the final fairness hearing. The judge stated that he would allow class members to object at the final hearing whether they submitted a written objection or not. If the deal is approved, it would end the putative class action originally launched by lead plaintiff Lorretta Nesbitt in July 2015 based on allegations that the company purposefully violated the FCRA’s stand alone disclosure requirement when conducting credit checks for prospective drivers.

According to the lawsuit, Postmates’ required disclosure was hidden in the midst of a legal document that was 10 pages long and surrounded by extraneous information including a very verbose confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff argued that this presentation of the required disclosure did not fulfill legal requirement that it be clear, conspicuous, and in a stand-alone document.

Throughout the life of the case, Nesbitt amended the complaint, adding two additional lead plaintiffs and another putative class action claim with allegations that the company was also in violation of the FCRA’s pre-adverse action notice requirements which requires employers to inform their job applicants if they were to take any adverse action, such as not hiring them for the job at hand, as a result of information pulled in a background check. Employers are also required to provide the background checks to the individuals. According to the allegations in the suit, Postmates did not abide by these regulations.

Postmates continues to defend their practices stating that their disclosures comply with the law. But since the beginning of the suit, the company has made modifications to their disclosure documentations and both parties now agree that it is FCRA compliant.

If you have questions about the FCRA or if you fear you were unfairly treated during the job application process, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Eddie Money’s Ex Drummer’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Moves Forward

If you’ve been keeping up with the case involving Eddie Money’s ex drummer, you will be interested to discover that Money lost the motion to dismiss and the wrongful termination lawsuit will move forward. His ex drummer, Glenn Symmonds, made claims – some of which the court refused to dismiss and the suit is scheduled to go to trial in November 2017.

Major publications have reported that Money plans to appeal the decision and still insists that Symmonds’ suit is without merit. Money’s legal representation stated that he is defending his right to decide who plays in his “faceless” back-up band. They called into question the legality of forcing well-respected and seasoned artists to retain specific support musicians stating that this would be a major blow to overall artistic integrity. The Defendant claims that he is fighting for the rights of musicians everywhere as he seeks to defend the freedom to choose how musicians express themselves. Money’s lawyers pointed at Glenn Symmonds allegedly poor character as sufficient reason for Money chose not to have him back, stating that Symmonds is ungrateful, vindictive, and awful. They also insist that “everything” alleged in the lawsuit by Symmonds is false. 

The court did rule in Money’s favor when they agreed to attempts at limiting how much info from depositions can be made public. Yet some info has already made it into the public record, particularly his off hand commentary comparing his justifications for firing Symmonds to an imaginary album titled The Reasons Why I Fired Glenn.

Money claims that after he fired Symmonds, his former drummer sent angry text messages, complained about the situation on social media and even threatened concert promoters. Symmonds denies these accusations.

Symmonds filed the suit in October 2015 when Money decided to replace his band with his own children. The suit effectively ended a professional and personal relationship that dated back to 1974.

Symmonds suit alleges that Money often mocked him while he was recovering from bladder cancer and a back injury. Symmonds’ fiancé also joined the suit claiming that Money sexually harassed her by making repeated lewd comments, attempting to kiss her in 2013 during a private party performance where, according to Symmonds’ fiancé’s allegations, Money unzipped his pants, put a thumb through the zipper and started to gyrate and dance while wiggling his thumb and facing her.

Money denies the allegations made against him.

If you have questions about what constitutes wrongful termination or if you have been harassed on the job, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

West Covina Police Officers File Suit Seeking Overtime Pay

Five police officers from the West Covina Police Department allege that the city is not paying them proper overtime pay. The plaintiffs filed their California overtime lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Central District of California on May 17th.

The five-page complaint includes allegations that the city is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of not providing proper compensation for overtime to their police officers/employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant is not paying for all hours worked above/beyond the overtime threshold and they are also not including all forms of compensation in the calculation of the Plaintiffs’ regular rate of pay, which reduces the amount of overtime they receive for hours over 8 in one day or 40 in one work week.

Officers represented in the California overtime lawsuit are:

• Keith Freeman
• Bryan Gaboury
• Anthony Huacuja
• Joseph Meyers
• Doug Weischedel

All the officers involved are seeking to recover their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as other damages and attorneys’ fees appropriate for the case.

Officials for the city (Defendant) state that the lawsuit stems from a similar case out of San Gabriel where police officers argued that the benefits program in place (that allows all city employees to collect cash in replacement of health benefits) should be factored into their regular rate of pay prior to using the regular rate of pay to calculate overtime compensation. While the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the police officers in the San Gabriel case last year, the city appealed the case and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case on May 15th.

According to City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow, the two city benefits programs are not identical, but some employees could be eligible for additional overtime compensation if they are receiving cash payments as a replacement for health coverage through the benefits program. She stated that she is currently in the midst of evaluating the appeals court ruling on the San Gabriel case in order to pinpoint how and if it applies to West Covina’s benefits program and current situation. If it does apply, she will also be attempting to determine how many employees would be affected and how much they would be owed in unpaid overtime. The city hopes for a speedy resolution of the matter.

If you aren’t receiving overtime compensation for overtime hours, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Sedgwick Partner Sued Firm: Gender Bias Case Nears Settlement

Traci Ribeiro, a nonequity partner from Sedgwick LLP’s Chicago office, sued the firm alleging that she and other female lawyers at the firm were being short-changed. Recent updates in the case indicate they may be nearing a settlement deal. Ribeiro first proposed class action citing accusations that the firm’s all-male leadership team routinely denies female attorneys equal pay and opportunities for promotion. Within her complaint, Ribeiro described Sedgwick LLP as a male-dominated culture utilizing systemic gender discrimination.

Definition of Gender Bias: Unequal treatment, particularly in relation to an employment opportunity, such as promotion, benefits, work privileges, pay rate, expected job duties, etc. When differences in these employment opportunities are based on the sex of an employee or a group of employees, this is referred to as gender bias. Gender bias in the workplace, during the application process, as a reason for termination, etc. can be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit in accordance with anti-discrimination statues.

Ribeiro’s allegations continued, claiming that she had not advanced to equity partner even though she was just as qualified and just as accomplished as male attorneys at the firm. In addition, she cited multiple examples of female attorneys that were being paid less than males in equal positions at Sedgwick LLP.

Due to terms included in an alternative dispute resolution provision in the firm partnership agreement, Sedgwick quickly moved the suit to federal court and then arbitration. U.S. District Judge William Alsup indicated in November, 2016 that two things must be determined: 1) whether or not the dispute is arbitrable, and 2) if Ribeiro’s 1012 partnership agreement’s arbitration clause can be enforced.

The parties submitted a joint report noting that they had conducted a meeting April 4th, 2017 with a mediator in an attempt to reach a provisional settlement. Having successfully done so, they executed a memorandum of understanding in anticipation of a full settlement executed in short order. Ribeiro also amended her complaint.

If you have questions regarding gender bias, or how to react to gender bias in the workplace, please get in touch with an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible.

UC Berkeley Is Rocked by Another Sexual Misconduct Scandal

As University of California Berkeley again faces sexual harassment allegations, some might refer to their history in recent years as a plaque of sexual harassment reports. Most recently, a renowned University of California Berkeley professor was sued due to alleged groping of an Asian-American research assistant. The former student, 24-year old Joanna Ong, filed the lawsuit against UC Berkeley’s star Philosophy professor, John R. Searle. She claims that he groper her and when she declined his advances, he fired her.

The California sexual harassment lawsuit was filed at Alameda County Superior Court seeking damages for sexual harassment and assault, wrongful termination and the creation of a hostile work environment. In addition to the star Philosophy professor being listed as defendant in the case, Regents of the University of California were listed as co-dependents.

Ong stated that as such a renowned professor of philosophy, Searle should be completely familiar with the concept of coercion, but that instead both the professor and the university used their power and their platform to abuse others. While 84-year old Searle has stepped down from teaching, he retains emeritus status at the university. He has been teaching at UC Berkeley since 1959 and just last year, the university unveiled the John Searle Center for Social Ontology, the 1st center of its kind in the nation.

It was the same year when Ong was offered a job under Searle. According to court documents, the offer was for $1,000 per month salary as a consultant for the new center, plus $3,000 per month supplemented by Searle himself. Based on Searle’s reputation as an esteemed philosopher at UC Berkeley, Ong accepted the job offer willingly in July 2016. Ong claims the first few days of her job went well. Ong stated that she even shared her worries about making ends meet while pursuing a career in academia. Searle’s response was to reassure Ong that her living costs and needs would be taken care of and urged her to have a relationship of “total trust” with him. Things escalated quickly from that point. Searle allegedly groped Ong in his offer after advising her that they were “going to be lovers” amid other inappropriate claims and insinuations. When his proposal was rejected, Searle apologized and paid Ong the promised $3,000.

When Professor Searle went on vacation, Ong reported the incident to the center’s director, Jennifer Hudin, but no appropriate action was taken. Ong claims that Hudin told her that she would protect her from further advances, but that she also said Searle had previously had sexual relationships with his students in exchange for “academic, monetary or other benefits.”

From that point forward, Ong states that the workplace became increasingly hostile and awkward. When Searle returned from vacation, he pretended nothing happened. Ong stated that for the rest of her time in the position, Searle watched pornography at work, made inappropriately sexist comments when she was nearby, requested that Ong log into an inappropriate website for him, and insisted that Ong read and respond to his emails including flirtatious correspondence with young women (both UC Berkeley students and foreign students from Europe). Some of the women corresponding were asking to be his research assistant; which was at that time Ong’s position. Further complaints to Hudin garnered the response that nothing was done out of respect/loyalty for the professor and because Hudin needed to protect Searle.

Searle eventually cut Ong’s salary in half and fired her soon after the pay cut. Ong’s attorney points out that Hudin and other administrators and professors at UC Berkeley were aware of the lecherous behavior on Searle’s part based on a large amount of evidence of his sexual misconduct by both emails and actual complaints made against him.

If you need to discuss a hostile work environment or sexual harassment in the workplace, please contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Shedding Some Light on the Serious H1B Visa Program Issue

60 Minutes recently ran a story on the H1B Visa program that showed the impossible situation many American workers found themselves in when they were told to train their own replacements. These workers from foreign countries were a part of the H1B Visa program, which is intended to save taxpayers millions of dollars through outsourcing, but the alleged long-term benefits for taxpayers are of no comfort to those who are facing the loss of their jobs.

American workers interviewed about the situation were still having trouble “wrapping their minds” around actually being forced to train someone to take their own position; their livelihood. Workers agreed with interviewers that the situation feels like being forced to dig their own grave…and then get in it.

Robert Harrison, one of the workers interviewed regarding the situation, is an engineer previously employed by UCSF Medical. Harrison was fired along with 80 of his co-workers recently when their jobs were outsourced to India. Before leaving his position, Harrison, like his coworkers, was forced to train his own replacement. The situation left Harrison, and many American workers in similar situations, outraged and angry. Harrison had to sit next to the worker chosen to replace him in his position at UCSF Medical - wishing the entire time that he wasn’t being forced to work with his own replacement sitting next to him “shadowing” him and attempting to learn all that he knows in order to step into Harrison’s place at the company. Yet doing so was the only way to ensure that he would receive pay through February 2017 as well as a promised bonus. Making the full pay contingent upon fulfilling obligations to train replacements left Harrison, and many like him, with his hands tied. 

Representation for hundreds of workers who have been fired from their jobs in favor of foreign workers with H1B Visas stated emphatically that the situation should offend everyone. She insists that no one should be told that they are losing their job because they are being replaced by cheap, foreign labor. It is an insult to each and every worker being forced to train their own replacements and seek employment elsewhere.

The H1B visa was created in 1990 to help the United States attract the top foreign graduates and offer them a path to United States citizenship. When the program was created, Congress promised American workers that their jobs would be protected. Almost every major tech company has employees here on H1B visas, including Apple, Google, etc. Media companies also embrace the practice. The author of the H1-B Visa bill, Former Congressman Bruce Morrison, has stated that the bill has been “hijacked.”

If you have questions about how the H1B visa program could affect your job or your workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern and northern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.