Did Sunsweet Retaliate When Employee Notified HR of Discrimination?

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the court considered a case of alleged workplace retaliation when a Sunsweet worker spoke up about alleged discrimination and harassment at work.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The Court: Sutter County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CVCS23-0000742

The Plaintiff: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa, was a non-exempt hourly employee for Sunsweet Growers. Renteria-Hinojosa alleged that she submitted multiple complaints to HR and filed an EEOC charge due to sexual harassment and discrimination at work. According to the lawsuit, Renteria-Hinojosa was enduring harassment and discrimination daily when she reported for work. She claimed the company discriminated against her for being a “female dating other females” and that her complaints regarding the situation received no effective response. Eventually, Renteria-Hinojosa took a stressful leave from work (in April 2022) to escape the untenable situation. Renteria-Hinojosa also claimed Sunsweet’s non-exempt employees were not provided off-duty meal breaks because their work schedules were too rigorous. She filed a class action lawsuit citing California labor code violations.

The Defendant: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sunsweet Growers Inc., is a California employer. All California employers are required to comply with federal and state labor laws. According to California labor law, employers must provide their employees with a thirty-minute off-duty, uninterrupted meal break before the end of every 5th hour of work and a second meal break before an employee completes their 10th hour of work in one shift. According to the complaint, Sunsweet did not provide additional compensation to employees who missed their breaks.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the plaintiff claims harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations based on missed meal breaks and rest periods. The failure to provide employees with the missed meal breaks and rest periods or additional compensation for missing them led to inaccurate wage calculations and inaccurate overtime wage distribution, constituting additional alleged labor law violations.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace retaliation 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

AM Retail Group, Inc. Faces Workplace Retaliation Allegations

In recent news, AM Retail Group, Inc. faces allegations of workplace retaliation violating labor law.

The Case: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2023-00011858-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Brenda Cardenas, was employed by AM Retail Group, Inc. from January 2022t through April 6, 2022, classified as non-exempt and paid hourly. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, Cardenas was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and accurate calculations and payment of overtime wages.

The Defendant: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, AM Retail Group, Inc., is a corporation that owns and operates clothing stores and conducts a substantial amount of business in California.

The Case: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

According to the complaint, AM Retail Group, Inc. allegedly failed to pay their employees for all the hours under the employer’s control, including when the plaintiff and other employees were required to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening before clocking in for their shifts. As the time worked off the clock did not qualify for overtime premium payment, the plaintiff also claims that the defendant failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours the plaintiff and other eligible class members worked while “off the clock.” In addition to minimum wage and overtime violations, the plaintiff allegedly reported incidences of disability discrimination to HR. According to court documents, the plaintiff was enduring continual pressure, obligations, and mistreatment by supervisors due to her mental and physical state. According to the plaintiff, when HR failed to respond to her complaints, she was forced to resign due to the hostile, discriminatory work environment.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace retaliation lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced workplace retaliation attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County Retaliate Against an Employee

In recent news, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County allegedly retaliated against one of their employees. According to reports, the retaliation followed the employee's report of alleged safety issues in the company's workspace.

The Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The Court: California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino

The Case No.: CIVSB2218158

The Plaintiff: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The plaintiffs in the case, Madison and Marable, claim that the defendant failed to properly maintain standard safety measures in the office where employees were required to work. Beginning in March 2022, the plaintiff repeatedly reported the alleged safety issues to the company. According to the plaintiff, the company did not take the necessary action to protect the safety of its workers. The plaintiff alleges that the company retaliated against her as a direct consequence of the complaints by continuing to expose employees to ill co-workers and leaving employees unprotected in the office workspace.

The Defendant: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The defendant in the lawsuit, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County, is a nonprofit agency whose work benefits San Bernardino County residents. The organization is part of a National Community Action Network established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, known as President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" movement. The group is also part of the National Association for State Community Services Programs (CAPSBC). The group dedicates its efforts to minimizing and eliminating homelessness and poverty.

Details of the Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

In addition to allegations that the defendant supported an unsafe work environment and allegedly retaliated against the plaintiff when she engaged in a protected act (reporting a hazardous work environment), the lawsuit includes claims that the defendant violated other labor laws. On top of creating an unsafe work environment and retaliation, the lawsuit alleges the company failed to relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and provide employees with ten-minute rest periods (when they work more than four hours).

If you have questions about how to file a California retaliation 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Physician’s Whistleblower Claims to Proceed Against UCLA

In recent news, the Court of Appeal reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Regents of the University of California (and others), in the whistleblower retaliation action brought by Arnold Scheer, M.D., M.P.H., plaintiff.

The Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The Court: Court of Appeal of State of California, Second Appellate District Division Three

The Case No.: B303379

The Plaintiff: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The plaintiff in the case, Scheer, brought whistleblower claims in three causes of action. Scheer alleged violations under Labor Code Section 1102.5, Government Code Section 8547 et seq., and Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5. According to court documents, Dr. Scheer alleged the company retaliated against him for whistleblowing about various issues and concerns connected to patient safety, mismanagement, fraud, illegal conduct, and economic waste.

The Defendant: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The defendant in the case, the Regents of the University of California, successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the wrong standard was applied to the case in trial court, and citing Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal. 5th 703 (2022).

Summary of the Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the California Supreme Court clarified the legal framework that applies to claims under Labor Code Section 1102.5. The recent opinion requires the plaintiff to meet a less burdensome standard for whistleblower claims under Section 1102.5. While Lawson did not specifically discuss Government Code Section 8547.10, the case did require the state Supreme Court to analyze nearly identical language, so the appellate court concluded Lawson’s legal framework can be applied to the Government Code claim in Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of California. The Court of Appeal found that the Defendants based their argument seeking summary adjudication of Scheer’s Labor and Government Code claims on a legal standard inconsistent with Lawson. Based on this contradiction, the court reversed and remanded the claims. Regarding Scheer’s Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, the appellate court concluded that Lawson didn’t change the legal framework. However, the appellate court concluded there was a triable issue of material fact regarding the stated reasons for termination, so this claim was also reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

If you have questions about California employment law, retaliation, or need help filing a California whistleblower 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.

Ex In-N-Out Employee Claims Wrongful Termination After Reporting Safety Violations

An ex In-N-Out Burger employee claims he was wrongfully terminated by In-N-Out Burger, a California restaurant chain. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims he was fired in retaliation after reporting a number of alleged COVID-19 safety violations.

The Case: Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger

The Court: State of California Superior Court, Los Angeles County

The Case No.: 21 STCV1 7 045

The Plaintiff: Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger

The plaintiff in the case, Becerra, is a former In-N-Out Burger employee. Becerra claims that he noticed some apparent Covid-19 safety violations, and reported them to the company. According to the allegations, Becerra was terminated shortly thereafter in retaliation. The plaintiff worked as a butcher for the company from July 2015 through May 25, 2020.

The Defendant: Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger

The defendant, In-N-Out Burger, a popular California restaurant chain, alleged Becerra has “falsely used his sick time” and accused him of lying about suffering from asthma. In-N-Out claims that the plaintiff’s reporting of alleged Coronavirus safety violations in February 2020 was the final straw, and Becerra was fired 3 months later. Becerra claims that he was improperly written up by the company and that he was actually fired in retaliation for reporting the Covid-19 safety violations.

The Case: Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger

Additionally, the plaintiff claims that he was improperly disciplined multiple times during his employment when he needed to take protected time off. According to the plaintiff, even when he provided valid reasons supported by documentation for protected time off, In-N-Out would write him up for the approved leave. For example, after a domestic violence incident on January 5, 2018, the plaintiff reached out to the InNOutCares team to report the situation and request a couple of days off to recover. HR reassured him that the missed days would not count against him/would be excused. However, the plaintiff was actually written up and disciplined for the “uncovered” absences. He also claims that the supporting documents regarding the domestic abuse were deleted from his employee file.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wrongful termination 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.

California Supreme Court Determines Method for Evaluating Whistleblower Retaliation Claims

In recent news, the California Supreme Court considered the question of how best to evaluate whistleblower retaliation claims.

The Case: Wallen Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The Court: Ninth Circuit Central District of California

The Case No.: 8:18-cv-00705-AG-JPR

The Ruling: Wallen Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

In a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court decided that California courts should adhere to California law when considering claims of workplace retaliation instead of what is referred to as the “well-worn” framework the U.S. Supreme Court established. The framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court puts the final burden to prove intentional discrimination on the worker. The new ruling by the California Supreme Court states that a California employee only needs to prove that an act of whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” to the employer’s decision to terminate their job, demote them or take disciplinary action.

What the Ruling Means: Wallen Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

Under the new standard, the whistleblowing only needs to be one reason - it could be the only reason, but it could be one of many reasons - that an employee is fired from their job. Under the previously accepted standard, the whistleblowing act needed to be shown to be the sole reason or the “real” reason for the adverse action. The California Supreme Court’s ruling essentially made it easier for California whistleblowers to win when they file a wrongful termination lawsuit or other California retaliation lawsuit after they “blow the whistle” on their employer for illegal acts, practices, or policies.

The Case: Wallen Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The California Supreme Court’s opinion was penned by Justice Leondra Kruger in response to a question posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding which evidentiary standard should apply when they evaluate whistleblower retaliation claims. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was, at the time they posed the question, considering a workplace retaliation claim brought by Walen Lawson, a territory manager for Lowe’s home improvement stores in Southern California.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wrongful termination 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.

California Retaliation Case Could Help Determine the Evidentiary Standard for Claims

In recent news, the Supreme Court will consider the question of which evidentiary standard should be used for certain retaliation claims.

The Case: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The Court: Supreme Court of California

The Case No.: 19-55802

The Plaintiff: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

Wallen Lawson, the plaintiff in the case, started working as a Territory Manager for PPG in June 2015. As a Territory Manager, Lawson’s duties include merchandising products in Lowe’s Home Improvement store displays were stocked, and displays were in good condition. While working as Territory Manager, Lawson reported directly to Clarence Moore, a Regional Sales Manager. Moore oversaw approximately a dozen Territory Managers, including Lawson. Territory Manager job performance was measured based on (1) his ability to meet sales goals each month, and(2) scores received during what PPG called “Market Walks.” The Market Walk involved the Territory Manager and Regional Sales Manager visiting various stores together so the Regional Sales Manager could ascertain if Territory Managers had successfully built a relationship with the retailer.

The Allegations: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The plaintiff claims he was directed by his supervisor to manage a product in a way that fraudulently pulled a slow-selling product from inventory. The plaintiff refused and reported the situation to the PPG ethics hotline (twice). The second time Lawson made a report to the ethics hotline, there was an investigation. During that same time, Lawson began receiving poor ratings for his performance, was given a performance improvement plan, and was eventually fired.

The Defendant: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The Defendant in the case, PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (“PPG”), manufactures paints, stains, caulks, and other products for homeowners and professionals, and sells its products to retailers such as The Home Depot, Menards, and Lowe’s.

Details of the Case: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

After the plaintiff was fired, he filed a complaint against PPG alleging that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower. After applying the McDonnell Douglas test, the trial court concluded the plaintiff failed to carry his burden to raise triable issues of fact, and the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court should have applied the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6 which would have transferred the burden of proof to the employer once the plaintiff demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the whistleblower activity was a contributing factor in the retaliatory act. The Ninth Circuit approached the Supreme Court of California with the question of which takes precedence when retaliation claims are brought pursuant to section 1102.5 of California’s Labor Code: the evidentiary standard set forth in section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code or the McDonnell Douglas test? The Supreme Court will need to determine which should be used as the relevant evidentiary standard.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss retaliation in the workplace, 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.