California Safeway Cashier Suit Ends with $12 Million Deal

Did you know that Safeway has recently agreed to pay $12 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by one of their cashiers? The lawsuit alleged Safeway failed to provide seats to cashiers at their California grocery stores, which is in violation of California state law(Sharp v. Safeway Inc., No. 2011-1-CV-202901 (Superior Ct. of Calif., County of Santa Clara, Oct. 21, 2019)).

According to California labor laws, employers must generally provide employees with “suitable seating” if the nature of their job duties permit sitting. Safety argued that they truly believed, in good faith, that the nature of a cashier’s job did not reasonably permit sitting. While the court decertified the class in the case, the settlement still has a wide impact. It is estimated that Safeway may need to provide seats for up to 30,000 cashiers at different California stores over the next two years in order to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. This requirement is in addition to the agreed upon monetary sum.

This case is an example of when a non-compliant policy that affects a large pool of employees can turn a seemingly small issue into a massive issue. And this type of massive issue can turn into a big, expensive problem for the employers involved. This is a frequent scenario with wage and hour mistakes by employers.

Other Examples of “Small” Compliancy Mistakes that Can Turn Into Expensive Problems for Employers:

1. Auto-deduct Policies – they become an issue when employees work through planned breaks.

2. Pre- and Post-Shift Work – Failing to pay employees for off the clock work necessary to their job duties can result in expensive wage and hour claims.

3. Miscalculated Overtime – miscalculated overtime adds up quickly.

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace 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.

When Companies/Vendors Are Linked to Deaths, Amazon Cuts Ties and Contracts

Did you know that over 2,000 workers in eight different states are going to lose their jobs because Amazon is dropping three different major delivery firms after news and media mentions? Amazon abruptly canceled their contracts even though doing so will leave thousands out of work. This move seems to indicate a change in how the massive online retailer plans to fulfill millions of orders with millions of packages being delivered across the nation daily. 

The 3 Major Delivery Firms Losing their Amazon Contract: 

Inpax Shipping Solutions is based out of Atlanta, Georgia. They’ve estimated that the loss of the Amazon contract will result in approximately 925 layoffs in six different states. Layoffs began at the beginning of October 2019. They will stop all services for Amazon by the beginning of December.  

Sheard-Loman Transport is located out of Chicago, Illinois. They described the loss of the Amazon contract as entirely unexpected. In a recent court filing, they noted that the Amazon contract would not be renewed, and it was cause for serious concern. The loss of the Amazon contract will lead to the termination of about 200 employees in three different states across the nation. This shipping company stopped delivering Amazon orders in September 2019. 

Letter Ride LLC, out of San Diego, California, will also be losing its Amazon contract. They will start laying off approximately 897 drivers, dispatchers, and other workers in December 2019. 

All three contract terminations follow investigations by online news sources into Amazon’s delivery network’s explosive growth. The investigations focused on extreme financial pressure combined with intense deadline pressure from Amazon on their ever-growing fleet of delivery companies and independent contractor drivers. The reports indicated that the situation often leads to mistreatment of the workforce and a threat to the public’s safety. In the course of the investigation and the following report, numerous deaths were linked to each of the above-noted delivery service companies. 

Loved ones of the victims actively seek changes to the way Amazon manages their delivery forces. They wish for a higher prioritization of worker and pedestrian safety when contracting out to various last-mile delivery services. Instead of seeing progressive change in policy or management practices, these advocates of driver and pedestrian safety claim they only see Amazon attempting to hide behind third-party contractors to escape their responsibility for the situation. 

Amazon claims they work with many different carrier partners to successfully deliver packages to their customers and that they perform regular evaluations of the partnerships. They confirm they have ended their relationship with the above companies, but also state that drivers are being supported by the opportunity to provide delivery services through other local delivery service partners.  

Amazon delivery service partners see frequent employment lawsuits, some of which name Amazon as a joint employer. Employment law violations alleged often include wage and hour violations, overtime claims, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, and other FLSA violations. 

If you need to discuss potential legal responses to a breach of contract or other employment law violations, please don’t hesitate. 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.

$1.25 Million to Settle Dish Network Discrimination Lawsuit

In recent news, Dish Network agreed to pay a $1.25 million settlement. The settlement would serve as compensation to job seekers who filed suit alleging that the company's online application process denied them the chance to work at the Douglas County location. Dish Network also agreed to alter their online hiring process to accommodate disabled applicants. Dish will add a prominent statement to applications advising that reasonable accommodations will be provided with instructions on how to obtain them. 

As agreed in the settlement, Dish Network will also hire a third-party consultant to evaluate the Dish Network online assessment and suggest revisions. Questions included in the application process's online assessment will be carefully considered and limited to those related to the skills needed for the jobs posted.  

Dish Network also agreed to appoint a compliance officer to provide training and monitor the online application process for compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act. The Act states that employers are required to ensure that all individuals with disabilities are offered the opportunity to request an accommodation, even if the application process is conducted online.  

The Dish Network spokeswoman, Caroline Krause, stated the company was pleased to resolve the matter. The settlement is not a finding that employment law was violated. Krause also noted that the agreement "codifies practices Dish put in place years ago to ensure all individuals, regardless of disability status, have the opportunity to apply for employment…"

Dish Network is one of the United State's largest video television providers employing approximately 17,000 workers. This is not the first time Dish Network has faced severe legal allegations. In 2005, Dish's parent company, Echostar Communications Corp., was hit with an $8 million damage judgment due to another disability case. In 2015, the court found for Dish after they fired an employee who failed a drug test after taking marijuana off-duty to treat a medical condition. In 2017, Dish Network faced a $280 million civil penalty for repeated Do Not Call Registry violations.

If you need to discuss an employer's refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for your disability, 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.

Is the Supreme Court Divided on LGBT Job Discrimination Case?

The Supreme Court appears divided as they struggle over whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT workers from employment discrimination. The cases under consideration are the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the place of the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court’s four liberal justices are expected to side with the employees terminated due to their sexual orientation or transgender status. The question was whether or not one of the court’s conservatives would join the four liberals in siding with the employees in either of the two highly anticipated cases. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that strong arguments favored LGBT workers. He also stated that there was a question of whether or not justices of the court should take the “massive social upheaval” that could follow such a ruling into account when coming to a decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two other conservatives, did not openly indicate their views on the matter, but Roberts did question how employers who hold religious objections to hiring LGBT individuals could be affected by the outcome of the cases.

In one of the cases, a skydiving instructor and a government employee (at the county level) were both fired because they were gay. 

In the second case, a transgender funeral home director named Aimee Stephens was fired. Stephens attended court the day of the arguments.

If the court were to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers LGBT individuals, it could lead to some required changes to:

·      Locker rooms

·      Bathrooms

·      Women’s Shelters

·      School Sports Teams 

The argument led to a discussion that lawmakers should be in charge of changing the law, not unelected judges. Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, apparently agreed with this sentiment stating that 1964’s Congress could not have imagined the law to apply to sexual orientation or gender identity cases when it was created. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presented the counter-argument that the Congress of 1964 also did could not foresee sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination.

A decision is expected in the early summer of 2020. 

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace 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.

Former Tinder Exec Attorneys File Motion to Dismiss Retaliatory Defamation Suit

Greg Blatt, the former Tinder CEO, filed a defamation lawsuit in response to claims made by Sean Rad and Rosette Pambakian. Rad and Pambakian are part of a larger group of Tinder founders and former execs who accused Blatt of sexual harassment and assault, amongst other allegations. Rad and Pambakian's legal counsel responded to the defamation lawsuit with a motion to dismiss. They based the motion on the argument that the defamation suit was an attempt to hinder protected speech through costly litigation. California's anti-SLAPP law prohibits this type of lawsuit.

Rad and Pambakian's attorney further argued that Blatt's defamation lawsuit was an attempt to muzzle their clients; to stop them from telling the truth about Diller and Blatt's wage theft and sexual assault coverup. They claim the defamation lawsuit is nothing more than an unlawful retaliatory lawsuit and, as such, is in violation of the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. Rad and Pambakian's legal counsel argued that the defamation suit was intended to launch a smear campaign against Pambakian and the individual who reported the sexual assault. The attorneys also indicate that Blatt only altered his course (requesting the complaint he himself filed now be sent to private arbitration) because he already reached his media objective through the public filing.

Blatt's attorney denies the accusations, claiming that they will prevail in court.

Both suits (Blatt's defamation suit and the new case filing) have been connected to the #metoo movement, which has seen many high-profile figures accused of sexual assault respond by filing defamation lawsuits. Blatt's attorneys insist that Rad and Pambakian are weaponizing the #metoo movement and undermining the claims of actual assault and harassment victims with false accusations. They even claim the plaintiffs in the case are cynically pursuing the $2 billion in damages.

If you have questions about how to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace or if you need to file a sexual harassment 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.

Franchising Industry Rejoices Over Federal Appeals Court Decision Regarding McDonald’s as a Joint Employer

In a recent development, the federal appeals court held that McDonald’s could not be held liable as a joint employer of franchise location employees. The case (Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp.) involves close to 1,400 workers employed by one of McDonald’s franchise locations. The lawsuit alleges several wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code as well as negligence and relief under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Previously, the class settled with the franchise, but they sought to take the case further by holding McDonald’s responsible as the joint employer. The District Court disagreed, finding that McDonald’s was not a joint employer of the employees hired by a franchise. The court rejected the employees’ theory of joint liability for violations. The employees in the case appealed, but the Ninth Circuit court affirmed.  

What is the Law on Joint Employment Liability in California?

The Ninth Circuit court based its findings regarding joint-employer status on the meaning of “employer” as defined by California law.

An employer, as defined by California Wage Order No. 5-20001, Section 2(H), is someone who “directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.”

The definition of “employer” received further clarity through the findings of the California Supreme Court in the 2010 Martinez v. Combs decision. In this case, “employ” was further defined as:

·      the act of exercising control over the wages, hours or working conditions

·      to “suffer or permit” someone to work

·      to engage, creating a common-law relationship

The Ninth Circuit court explained that, in the context of franchising, the California Supreme Court held that a franchisor becomes potentially liable for the actions of the franchisee’s employees only if the franchisor retains or assumes an overall right of control over various factors: hiring, direction, supervision, termination, discipline, and other everyday elements of the workplace activities of franchise employees (2014 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC). 

Using these definitions, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision that McDonald’s is not liable as a joint employer:

·      McDonald’s does not retain “control” over franchise employee wages, hours, or working conditions.

·      McDonald’s does not “suffer or permit” franchise employees to work.

·      McDonald’s is not a common-law employer since the common-law test focuses on whether an employer has the right to control how the goals of the company are met by employee job duties.

The Salazar case is an important one for franchisors, franchisees, and the entire franchising industry. The Ninth Circuit court recognized that franchisor could apply control over their brand and their trademark without being held responsible as a joint employer. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations, 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.

Ex-Dancer Sues Strip Club for Misclassification

The misclassification controversy is not exclusive to the gig economy. As the gig economy’s problems seem to escalate, problems are growing in other industries as well. In Daytona Beach, a former dancer at Grandview Live is suing the strip club claiming they owe her back wages because they misclassified her as an independent contractor when she was allegedly an employee.

Brittany Hall, former dancer at Grandview Live in Daytona Beach, claims that due to the club’s misclassification, she allegedly earned less than minimum wage and was not paid overtime. Hall, like the other exotic dancers at the club, was paid strictly in tips from customers. She worked at the strip club for over two years without overtime and receiving less than minimum wage, which attorneys for the plaintiff claim is fairly standard in the industry.

Hall claims Grandview Live owes her money because they violated wage and hour law by paying her less than minimum wage and failed to pay her overtime hours she was due. Hall also alleges that the club took tips from her in addition to their other employment law violations.

California legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 5 which will require companies to treat their workers as employees if they meet certain standards. The bill is set to go into effect January 1, 2020 and will have a massive impact on gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft and DoorDash. But it will also benefit workers like Brittany Hall, working in industries that have been around since before smartphones and apps were introduced.

Sometimes employers misclassify workers unintentionally. In some cases, it is an honest mistake. Other employers actively and purposefully misclassify their employees in order to maximize profits and minimize costs. Employers have major incentives to shift workers off their payrolls due to taxes, unemployment insurance, workers compensation premiums, etc.

If you are misclassified or if you are not being paid overtime wages for all your hours worked, please do not delay. Get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP so we can help.