City National Bank Faces California Whistleblower Lawsuit

In recent news, a former senior vice president for City National Bank alleges he was fired due to whistleblower retaliation.

The Case: Fausto Bustos v. Royal Bank of Canada et al

The Court: U.S. District Courts, California Central District

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-04879

The Plaintiff: Fausto Bustos v. Royal Bank of Canada et al

The plaintiff in the case is Fausto Bustos, former senior vice president for City National Bank. Bustos filed a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against his former employer in California Federal Court alleging he was fired due to whistleblower retaliation which is a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This particular Act allows California employees to sue their employers in federal court if their employer wrongfully terminates them or otherwise retaliates against them because they report unlawful practices or illegal acts. Bustos worked at City National Bank’s downtown Los Angeles location. After raising concerns about the bank’s lax internal controls, misconduct in accounting practices, and potential tax fraud that stemmed from a reorganization of the financial institution’s digital technology department, Bustos claims he was wrongfully terminated.

The Defendant: Fausto Bustos v. Royal Bank of Canada et al

The defendant in the case is City National Bank, Royal Bank of Canada’s U.S. subsidiary.

The Case:Fausto Bustos v. Royal Bank of Canada et al

According to the complaint, Bustos was hired as the bank’s VP of Digital Development Services Lead with their Business and Technology Services (BATS) division in 2015. In this position, Bustos was responsible for managing the Bank’s digital applications portfolio. He was also responsible for managing a number of project teams and contractors responsible for development. Only four months after his hiring, he received stellar employment reviews from his supervisors, and he was promoted to Senior Vice President by 2017. In the position of Senior Vice President, his job duties expanded, and did his oversight responsibilities. In 2018, following a reorganization of the department, Bustos claimed he saw significant accounting errors due to a lapse in financial controls that signified a significant risk to the bank as a whole, an internal investigation led to discovering approximately $5.4 million in misallocated invoices. Soon afterward, in a meeting with HR and the Vice President of Corporate Security, Bustos was accused of misappropriating funds from projects. However, later investigations showed these allegations against Bustos to be baseless, and perhaps retaliatory. Superiors at City National who resented Bustos and his team for calling attention to their misconduct and process deficiencies came up with a layoff plan that effectively got rid of Bustos and several of his team members within weeks. While they were “let go” due to a supposed reorganization, their jobs were soon listed on hiring websites, and internal memos discussed recruitment needs.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Defendant Failed to Establish Existence of Arbitration Agreement

In recent news, a skilled nursing facility faced with a lawsuit filed by a former employee attempted to compel arbitration, but there was a question about the existence of the cited arbitration agreement.

The Case: Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC

The Court: California Court of Appeals

The Case No.: A159815

The Plaintiff: Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC

The Plaintiff in the case, Maureen Bannister, is a former employee at Marinidence Opco’s skilled nursing facility. Bannister filed a lawsuit against the Defendants alleging discrimination, retaliation, defamation, etc.

The Defendant: Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC

In response to the complaint, Marinidence Opco, LLC, the defendant in the case, moved to compel arbitration, claiming that when they acquired the skilled nursing facility from the previous owner, Bannister electronically signed an arbitration agreement.

The Case: Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC

The plaintiff in the case responded to the defendant’s claims that she signed an arbitration agreement at the time of the facility acquisition by presenting evidence that she never saw the arbitration agreement during the onboarding process or touched the computer that she was supposed to have used to provide her electronic signature on the agreement. Accepting the evidence the plaintiff presented as establishing that she never signed the cited arbitration agreement, the court denied the defendant’s motion and held that the defendant failed to meet their burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that a valid arbitration agreement exists. (The system in place had no employee-specific usernames or passwords to access the onboarding portal, and social security numbers were available in personnel files). The defendant appealed, but the California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that there was substantial evidence indicating that the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff electronically signed an arbitration agreement. Without the use of unique usernames and passwords for each individual employee, it is difficult for employers to prove that a specific employee digitally signed an arbitration agreement.

If you need to discuss California state law or if you need to file a class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did General Atomics’ Wage Statements Violate Wage Statement Requirements?

In the General Atomics v. Superior Court case, the layout of the defendant’s wage statements are questioned in connection with mandatory wage statement requirements.

The Case: General Atomics v. Superior Court

The Court: California Court of Appeal

The Case No.: D07821l

The Plaintiff: General Atomics v. Superior Court

Plaintiff Tracy Green filed suit against General Atomics alleging that the company failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements in accordance with employment law requirements (in violation of Labor Code section 226(a)(9)).

The Defendant: General Atomics v. Superior Court

The defendant in the case is General Atomics. The company issued wage statements that included entries for regular rate of pay and overtime pay. The entries for regular rate hours and pay included all hours worked by an employee during the pay period, including overtime hours. The wage statements also identified the number of overtime hours, and calculated pay at a rate of 0.5 times the employee’s regular rate.

The Case: General Atomics v. Superior Court

The plaintiff in General Atomics v. Superior Court claims that the defendant failed to identify an accurate rate of pay for overtime wages. According to the plaintiff, the company showed .5 times the regular rate of pay instead of the required 1.5. The plaintiff did not claim that the employer incorrectly calculated overtime pay or that they failed to pay the accurate amount of pay. The Defendant moved for summary adjudication, arguing that their wage statements were compliant because they showed the applicable hourly rates; standard contractual hourly rate and overtime rate, as well as the hours worked at each rate. General Atomics’ motion was denied in trial court. The defendant responded by challenging the trial court’s order by petition for writ of mandate. The California Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate, so the trial court vacated the order and entered an order granting General Atomics’ summary adjudication motion. The court found that due to the complexities of determining overtime compensation in various contexts, the format used by the defendant was acceptable, and that format appropriately conveyed the information required by Section 226 and allowed employees to determine using simple math whether they were paid at an accurate rate.

If you need to discuss violations of California state law 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.

California Appellate Court Allows Former Drinker Biddle Lawyer’s Suit to Continue

A former Drinker Biddle attorney’s lawsuit alleging fraud, negligence, and breach of contract, is allowed to continue.

The Case: Avetisyan v. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

The Court: Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist.

The Case No.: B294671

The Plaintiff: Avetisyan v. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Former Drinker Biddle attorney, Ani Avetisyan, sued her former law firm in 2014. She filed suit shortly after being fired from the firm’s litigation department. According to Avetisyan, she started work at the Drinker Biddle firm in 2012 and regularly received performance reviews stating she needed to improve in three areas: legal research, analysis, and writing. The plaintiff alleges that the chair of the litigation department during her time at the company later said that the firm wanted her to succeed and stay at the firm, and would continue her employment as long as she could perform at the level of an average associate. She was also told the firm would give her plenty of notice if they were going to terminate her employment. Avetisyan alleges the firm fired her in December 2013.

The Defendant: Avetisyan v. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

The defendant in the case is Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. The firm currently employs more than 1,300 attorneys, professionals and consultants, and operates in over 20 different locations throughout the United States, Shanghai, and London. The firm handles transactional, litigation, and regulatory cases for emerging startups, multinational corporations, etc.

Progression of the Case: Avetisyan v. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

LA County Superior Court dismissed Avetisyan’s claims (breach of oral, written, and implied contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation). According to the trial court, the plaintiff failed to establish any misrepresentation made by Drinker Biddle, or any reliance on the alleged misrepresentations. However, according to the California Court of Appeal, Second District, the vague retention promise is not fatal to the plaintiff’s oral contract claim, and Avetisyan, former Drinker Biddle attorney and plaintiff in the case, can proceed with a lawsuit alleging the firm breached an oral contract they terminated her from her position in the firm’s litigation department.

If you have questions about how to respond to a breach of contract or if you’ve experienced other labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Is VW a Joint Employer Alongside California Independent Franchised Dealerships?

The Ninth Circuit is looking at joint employer claims in connection to California salespeople at independent franchised dealerships and the German automaker, Volkswagen. VW claims salespeople are overreaching with their claims, but if the Ninth Circuit finds that they are a joint employer, they could be liable for the commissions lost during the 2015 emissions-cheating scandal.

Details of the Case: Robert Saavedra et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case No.: 20-17327

VW Asks Ninth Circuit to Affirm October Decision:

In October, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer’s decision closed out the consolidated wage and hour action. Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America asked the Ninth Circuit to affirm the decision they cited as “carefully reasoned.”

The Plaintiffs: Robert Saavedra et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al.

Plaintiffs in the case are former salespeople Robert Saavedra, Armando Rodriguez and Mickey Gaines. The plaintiffs allege that due to the 2015 "clean diesel" emissions-cheating scandal Volkswagen sales experienced a significant drop that dramatically hurt their overall income. The sales people, employed by independent franchised dealerships, argued that Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America Inc. worked with the franchise dealers to provide the employment opportunity and provide compensation to the plaintiffs. If the court finds for the plaintiffs on the joint employer argument, the cited Volkswagen entities would be liable for ensuring salespeople’s wages and hours were compliant with California state law.

The Defendant: Robert Saavedra et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al.

Volkswagen claimed that the plaintiffs continue to attempt to create an employment relationship where none exists. Volkswagern further argues that offering training, certifications and incentives does not constitute the amount of control necessary to indicate control over pay or working conditions that make them a joint employer according to the law. VW entities insist that plaintiffs in the case created the employment relationship in order to keep the suit alive after it was dismissed twice by Judge Breyer (first in September 2019, and again in June 2020).

Overview of the Case: Robert Saavedra et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al.

After amendments were made to the suit, the salespeople claimed Volkswagen violated California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law with fraudulent omissions and their lack of disclosure regarding emissions-cheating. The October ruling dismissed these claims, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit to reverse Judge Breyer’s dismissal. Volkswagen expects the Ninth Circuit to reject the appeal.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from wage and hour violations, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

7-Eleven Touts Franchisee Suit Regarding Flexible Work Hours In California

In recent news, 7-Eleven faces allegations from California franchisees claiming employment law violations related to flexible work hours in California.

Details of the Case: Serge Haitayan et al. v. 7-Eleven Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:17-cv-07454

Serge Haitayan et al. v. 7-Eleven Inc.: The Plaintiff

Serge Haitayan, is one of 4 plaintiffs in the case that claimed 7-Eleven exerts unreasonable control over their business decisions, and as such, they should actually be considered employees under state law. However, Plaintiff “Paul” Lobana, another plaintiff in the case, owns three stores throughout the LA area. Under cross examination aimed at undercutting the plaintiffs’ claims that 7-Eleven exerts stringent control over franchise owners, Lobana admitted he grossed more than $200,000 in profits in 2019 while he was deducting business expenses on income taxes, and that he has the freedom to come and go from the 7-Eleven store whenever he wants. He was the 3rd plaintiff to offer similar testimony.

Serge Haitayan et al. v. 7-Eleven Inc.: The Defendant

7-Eleven Inc. claims that the arguments presented by the plaintiffs in the Serge Haitayan et al. v. 7-Eleven Inc. case threatens the stability of California’s entire franchise system if the owners prove the company owes them more than $11 million for business expenses.

Allegations Plaintiffs Made in the Suit:

Plaintiffs in the suit claim that 7-Eleven allegedly misclassified them as independent contractors, but treated them as if they were store managers.

Serge Haitayan et al. v. 7-Eleven Inc.: An Overview

Four California franchise owners sued 7-Eleven in 2017 on behalf of approximately 1,000 franchisee owners in California, but they were later denied class certification. In February 2021, Judge Fischer ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims fall under the older California Borello employment test rather than the newer ABC test. The Borello test was established by the California high court’s 1989 ruling on S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations and creates a looser standard (in comparison to the ABC test) that weights numerous factors with an emphasis on the control an employer exerts over workers. . On the second day of a video conference California federal bench trial in March 2021, Haitayan (plaintiff in the case), conceded that when working at the 7-Eleven franchise, he did set his own work schedule, take vacations whenever he wanted, and worked only 10-15 hours each week.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Does California Law Apply to Employment Activity on Indian Reservations?

Former Senior Vice President and General Manager of Harrah’s Resort Southern California, Darrell Pilant, sued Caesars Enterprise Services and Caesars Entertainment Inc. on wrongful termination claims. The claims were based on Pilant’s allegation that he was fired for opposing the resort’s plan to reopen because he feared for the health and safety of the resort’s employees. The case presents more than the obvious question of whether or not the company was within their rights to fire their GM, but it also brings up the question of whether or not California labor law applies on the Indian reservation.

Details of the Case: Pilant v. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC et al

Court: California Southern

Case No.: 3:20-cv-02043

In Response to Pilant’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit:

In November, the resort argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and for excluding an essential party in the suit due to its sovereign immunity, the Rincon Band. But their arguments did not convince the judge. This was in early December. By late December, the Rincon Band was attempting to intervene in the suit as a means of bolstering Caesars' arguments to dismiss, but in February 2021, the judge denied their arguments; refusing to let the tribe join the lawsuit. In March, the tribe appealed to the Ninth Circuit requesting the court pause the suit until a decision is made. Pilant claims it’s all part of a plan to prevent his wrongful termination lawsuit from proceeding as planned. It’s also notable that for decades, the Rincon tribe has strongly resisted the application of state jurisdiction on the reservation - especially in connection to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The Question of Applying California State Law on the Indian Reservation:

The most concerning aspect of the case from the perspective of the Rincon Band’s legal counsel is whether or not state law can regulate business on Native American land. The court will have to decide if California law applies to employment activity on the Indian reservation or not, and that affects the tribe’s interests, and ultimately, according to the tribe’s legal counsel, lends credence to the request to pause the wrongful termination lawsuit.

Pilant’s Response to the Request to Pause Wrongful Termination Lawsuit:

In his response to the request to pause the wrongful termination lawsuit, Pilant claimed that the Rincon Band’s filing was simply to delay his lawsuit. Pilant filed the complaint in San Diego county court in August 2020, but the case was transferred to the California federal court in October 2020 for jurisdictional reasons.

The History of the Case: Pilant v. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC et al

According to Pilant’s complaint, in late May 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom urged the San Diego-area tribal leaders not to reopen casinos. Just days after the letter from the governor, Pilant took a similar stand urging his supervisors and Caesars legal counsel not to reopen the resort. However, according to the plaintiff, the resort went ahead and reopened in May, within one week of the governor’s letter urging the opposite action. This dismissal of obvious safety recommendations urged Pilant to resign before the resort reopened, and sue the company for wrongful termination after they violated public policy.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.