Fired During her Battle Against Cancer, Tulare Woman Sues Harris Ranch Beef Co.

Yolanda Alcala, a Tulare woman who worked for Harris Ranch Beef Company for more than 20 years, filed a lawsuit at the Fresno County Superior Court claiming she was fired when she took medical leave to undergo chemotherapy after breast cancer surgery. Harris Ranch Beef Co., a Selma-based company, denies they faired Alcala.

Employment law requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations for employees when they have a disability or a severe illness. Common reasonable accommodations employers regularly make for employees include extending the worker’s medical leave or modifying the employee’s job duties. 

Alcala Claims She Was Fired for Taking Medical Leave to Receive Necessary Medical Treatment for Cancer:

Yolanda Alcala, the plaintiff, claims that when her long-time employer fired her, it felt like being disposed of like an old, used up rag. She turned to the law to get help because she wanted to see Harris Ranch Beef Company respect her rights as a worker as well as the rights of other workers in similar situations.

Harris Ranch Beef Co. Denies the Wrongful Termination and Disability Discrimination Allegations:

Harris Ranch Beef Co. tells a different story. They say that the story, as told by Alcala, is not what actually happened. Harris Ranch Beef Company Vice President for Risk Management and Human Resources, Mike Casey, claims the company is disappointed to hear about the pending litigation instigated by Alcala. He says the company complies with all state and federal laws and that they did not fire Alcala. Casey claims it was Alcala who chose to leave Harris Ranch Beef Company. Casey insists that the company provided Alcala with a superior health care plan that completely covered the costs of her cancer care and medical treatments throughout her two decades with the company. He also claims that Alcala’s complaint is full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations. They look forward to setting the record straight as the case proceeds.

The Company’s Claims of Inaccuracy and Misrepresentation Do Not Slow Alcala Down:

Alcala’s lawyer responded to the company’s claims on the plaintiff’s behalf, reaffirming that the company’s claims that Alcala was the one that terminated their working relationship of her own volition are not true. According to Alcala, there was a meeting in January 2018 where Alcala was terminated from her position without notice.

Allegations Included in the Lawsuit:

Alcala’s lawsuit includes numerous employment law violation allegations, including disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate a disability, retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, failure to engage in the interactive process, violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act, and wrongful termination. Before her cancer diagnosis and need for medical leave, Alcala had a record of being a dedicated and hardworking employee at Harris Ranch Beef Company receiving regular attendance bonuses and enjoying positive relationships in the workplace with both management and peers on the job.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file a disability 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.

Is Employer Liable for Violation if Employee on Disability Leave is Fired by Mistake?

During his time as a pharmaceutical sales representative, John Glynn’s doctor issued a medical certification designating his work status as “no work” because a severe eye condition, myopic macular degeneration, meant he was not able to drive safely. Glynn commenced a medical leave of absence. 

Does Your Workplace Have a Reasonable Accommodation Policy for Disability?

Glynn’s employer had a reasonable accommodation policy in place that listed reassignment to a vacant position as a potential accommodation when necessary to accommodate a disability. In spite of this written policy, Glynn’s application for another job at the company that did not require driving was denied. About six months into Glynn’s medical leave of absence, Glynn was terminated after an employee the company later described as a “temp” in the benefits department, decided Glynn was no longer eligible to continue with an “inactive status.” 

Was Glynn’s Termination While on Disability Leave an Honest Mistake?

The employer acknowledged this as a mistake about nine months later after Glynn filed suit. After conceding the error, the company offered to reinstate Glynn unconditionally with full back pay, but Glynn rejected their offer. Glynn stated that he refused the offer for reinstatement because when making the offer, the company did not specify a position. He did not believe they made the offer in good faith.

Glynn Filed Suit Claiming Numerous Employment Law Violations:

Glynn filed suit several months after being terminated while on disability leave, citing several employment law violations: disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, violating the whistleblower statute, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary adjudication against Glynn on his claims. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate the order dismissing the claims. The Appeals Court held that even if the employer made an honest mistake, a lack of “animus” does not eliminate liability for a disability discrimination claim. The Court also held that Glynn demonstrated he engaged in protected activity through the four emails included in the documentation in which he complained about the lack of reasonable accommodation for his disability. 

If you need to discuss how to file a disability 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.

Wayfair Employee Sues After Alleged Co-Worker Harassment

Emily Forsythe, a 33-year-old associate director of industrial engineering at Wayfair, filed a harassment lawsuit on January 3, 2020. Forsythe claims that during her time working for the Boston-based online furniture retailer, she was regularly harassed by a male colleague, she supervised on the job. The harassment continued for several months.

Forsythe Claims Wayfair Ignored Harassment Complaints:

Wayfair employs a significant portion of the area’s 20 and 30-somethings. Despite its status as a major employer of such a substantial portion of the population, they allegedly failed to respond appropriately to the harassment problem. Forsythe claims that they completely overlooked the harassment complaints and then proceeded to retaliate against her for filing a harassment complaint.

Months of Harassment Lead to a Lawsuit Alleging Employment Law Violations:

Emily Forsythe responded to the company’s non-response and retaliation by filing a lawsuit on January 3, 2020. According to the lawsuit, Forsythe was harassed over several months by a coworker she supervised on the job as Wayfair’s Associate Director of Industrial Engineering in 2019. In the documents, Forsythe described the situation claiming that the man doggedly pursued a relationship with her, making repeated (and unwanted) physical contact. When Forsythe rejected his advances, he allegedly started sending combative messages to both her and other employees at Wayfair. 

One Example of the Harassment Cited in Forsythe’s Lawsuit:

While at the Wayfair facility in Perris, California, the plaintiff claims that the male coworker took it upon himself with no expressed or implied invitation from Forsythe to stare at her chest and then run his hand down from her cleavage across her breast to her waist. When she moved out of his reach, he laughed and walked away. Later that day, again, without an invitation from the plaintiff, he started to talk to Forsythe about internet dating applications, aired speculations about the pair of them dating while noting their consistent conflicts, and invited Forsythe to spend the day together then go to dinner. She refused. He repeated the same invitation as both were leaving the workplace, and Forsythe refused again. He later told 3rd parties that he and Forsythe were dating.

Many other examples were included in the lawsuit, similar to the one detailed above.

Harassment Allegedly Followed by Retaliation in the Workplace:

In Forsythe’s lawsuit, she also alleges that another Wayfair employee later discriminated against her in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Forsythe claims she was excluded from meetings and email communications. Forsythe claims they received Forsythe’s harassment claims but concluded they were unfounded as other employees denied her allegations. When Forsythe announced her intention to file a discrimination complaint, Wayfair fired her. She was terminated on September 22, 2019. In a statement responding to the lawsuit, Wayfair denies the allegations. They insist they take all reports of misconduct seriously and that they conducted a thorough investigation into the matter in response to Forsythe’s complaints, but did not find any merit to the allegations.

Forsythe claims she suffered emotional distress due to Wayfair’s failure to handle her complaints appropriately and is seeking back pay, court fees, and damages. Her legal counsel found Wayfair’s handling of the matter insensitive, inadequate, and unusual, claiming that they relied on denials issued by the alleged harasser and retaliator to come to the conclusions that there was no misconduct.

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

Will the Promo Industry See Changes Due to California’s New Gig Worker Law?

California’s new “gig worker” law, Assembly Bill 5, requires California companies to classify independent contractors as employees if the work they perform is a regular part of the company’s business (effective January 1, 2020). The law was designed to offer independent contractors with a more stable work environment with access to workers’ compensation, minimum wage and overtime protections, unemployment and health insurance, paid sick days, etc.

Backlash from the “Gig Worker” Law, Assembly Bill 5:

The law was originally designed in response to perceived problems with how drivers were classified by Uber and Lyft, but is not limited to these companies or even the gig economy industry as a whole. While the law was authored as a solution to an evident problem, there is backlash from both workers and employers in different industries. Postmates and Uber fought back against AB5 by filing a lawsuit alleging that the new legislation violated the constitutional rights of individuals and exhibits unfair discrimination against tech platforms and workers using them to make a living.

Some Jobs and Business Types Are Exempt from California’s “Gig Worker” Law:

There are various professions and types of business that are exempt from Assembly Bill 5. Exempted professionals and businesses number more than 50, but include doctors, lawyers, insurance agents, dentists, hair stylists, accountants, real estate agents and other creative professionals.

In addition to the lawsuit filed by Postmates and Uber, lawsuits were filed on behalf of freelance writers and freelance photographers in federal court in Los Angeles. The suits representing writers and photographers allege that AB5 restricts free speech and the media. Independent truck drivers based out of California were the first to succeed in challenging AB5 - they received a temporary injunction.

Will the Promo Industry Be Affected by Assembly Bill AB5? 

It is not yet clear whether or not Assembly Bill 5 will affect the promotional products industry; it is not specified in the legislation. According to the legislation, some marketing professionals and direct sales salespeople are exempt depending on how they are compensated for their work. Many California businesses are insisting that the law will damage their business. The law is currently limiting sales reps in their ability to secure national accounts with headquarters in California; accounts are on hold as they check with their legal departments and watch for news updates to determine how the new freelancer law will affect their standard practice.                                                

If you need to talk to someone about misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification lawsuit, 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.

The Number of California Small Businesses Facing Employment-Related Claims Continues to Increase

Large corporations frequently face allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, but these employment law claims are not unique to large corporations. The headlines are full of discrimination lawsuits against big names like Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and Ford and the associated multi-million dollar settlements. Yet under California state law protections, workers at smaller, California businesses can file suit alleging employment law violations. Many of these small business lawsuits are filed against dental practices. 

More California Workers Employed at Small Businesses Are Alleging Employment Law Violations:

 California workers enjoy protections under state law, and they are turning to these protections more and more often. In 2017, California ranked 3rd in the nation for employment lawsuit risk to small to medium-sized businesses specifically (Hiscox “Guide to Employee Lawsuits”). The Hiscox publication pulled data from both national and state agencies. So, according to the data, smaller California businesses faced a 46% chance of facing an employment law allegation compared to the significantly lower 10% national average.

Any business with at least one employee runs the risk of facing an employment law allegation or a wrongful employment claim.

Do Dental Practices Face a Higher Risk of Employment Law Violation Allegations?

The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) recorded 82 employment law-related claims in 2018. This number is up from the 66 employment law-related claims received in 2017. Experts attribute the increase to the growing number of legislative actions designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination and harassment. Additionally, changing legal views and interpretation of wrongful termination and the increasing number of employees seeking justice and retribution through legal measures add to the overall rising claims trend.

Employment Law Violations & California Small Businesses:

Large corporations generally survive costly litigation. However, the same is not true of California's small businesses. A small business facing a lawsuit can be quickly overwhelmed. A lawsuit alleging employment violations may ruin a small business entirely by draining them of both financial resources and employee morale.

One type of “small business” that faces this danger is dental practices. Most dental practices do not have general counsel on staff. Additionally, many do not have a human resources department to manage claims. The time investment to address allegations of employment law violations can take a toll on the dentist and create the potential for decreased quality of care. The average employment law violation claim (according to the 2017 Hiscox report) requires 318 days to resolve with an average settlement of $160,000.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file an employment 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.

California Workers File a Class Action Lawsuit Against Cannabis Companies

Casey Denning and Natalia Cole filed a California lawsuit suing Cannabis harvesting company Loud Buddha LLC and Pura Cali Management Corp, a cultivation contractor associated with Loud Buddha. The companies allegedly violated provisions of the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) and California labor law. According to the lawsuit, the companies forced workers to work long hours in an oppressive workplace with no overtime pay or meal breaks. They also allegedly failed to provide accurate wage statements. The plaintiffs filed on their own behalf as well as others in similarly situated positions with the cannabis companies.

According to Plaintiffs: Workers’ Duties Were Dangerous & Included:

• Cultivating marijuana plants

• Harvesting marijuana plants

• Bucking marijuana plants (removing buds and stems)

• Hanging marijuana plants

• Placing marijuana plants in large commercial freezers to be transported

According to the lawsuit, over 50 workers completed these job duties to total multiple tons of cannabis each year from the Pura Cali marijuana farm.

The Complaint Against Loud Buddha & Pura Cali: What Were the Alleged Violations?

1. Employees forced to work 12-hour days every day of the week.

2. Workers were expected to stay on the job site in a remote location, sleeping on cots. Workers were threatened with discipline if they failed to comply.

3. Employers failed to keep track of workers’ time accurately.

4. Employers failed to provide required meal breaks and rest breaks.

5. Workers were not reimbursed for work expenses (i.e., meals, travel, etc.)

6. Employers allegedly failed to provide overtime pay, paying workers $15/hour in cash.

7. Time records kept by the employer were allegedly unreliable and inaccurate – depriving workers of earned wages and failing to comply with FLSA record-keeping requirements.

Workers employed by the cannabis company are often referred to as “trimmigrants.” The trimmigrants are typically young and often undocumented seasonal workers. The abusive, arguably dangerous conditions endured by the trimmigrants working in Northern California’s Emerald Triangle have been going on for years. The chronicles of their situation include tales of murder, sexual assault, and disappearances.

If you have questions about how to identify employment law violations or if you need to file a California class-action 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.

New California Labor Laws: Are Changes Coming to Your Workplace?

Are new California labor laws bringing changes to your workplace? Have you already seen the new laws take effect at your place of employment? 2020 is said to be a year of reckoning for California businesses with sweeping new California labor laws going into effect to curb longtime employment practices that generate economic inequality and keep the power in the hands of employers.  

Many California companies will be forced to reclassify hundreds of thousands of independent contractors as employees in 2020. Doing so will leave the workers with access to broad labor law protections. Another new California labor law should prevent employers from forcing workers to sign closed-door arbitration proceedings to protect the employer from potentially expensive lawsuits and court proceedings. 

Other notable employment law changes California workplaces will need to embrace in 2020 include: 

A law requiring employers to offer workers a place for mothers to pump breast milk (other than.a bathroom). 

A law designed to make it easier for first responders to obtain workers’ compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

A statute banning discrimination in the workplace based on a hairstyle. For example, Afros, dreadlocks, cornrows, etc. 

A statute that grants organ donors additional guaranteed leave. 

An extension of whistleblower rights and protections to patient rights advocates assigned to county mental health centers. 

The changes to California’s employment law intend to improve job quality for the state’s workforce by addressing day-to-day issues on the job. Look for additional changes to California’s minimum wage law, corporate diversity, and discrimination labor law standards. California leads the way in labor law and is working to prevent employers from going around the set standard.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how new changes to California labor law may affect you, 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.