California Law Protecting Whistleblowers Lacking Work Authorization from Retaliation

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Assembly Bill No. 2751 into being. The Bill amends a recently enacted law prohibiting employers from retaliating against undocumented workers who engage in protected activity. The amendment is in reference to Assembly Bill No. 263, which restricted employers’ ability to put disciplinary action in place for employees who misrepresented their personal information (criminal history, immigration status, etc.)

The new law makes it illegal under California law for employers to retaliate by targeting immigration status when employees lacking work authorization are exercising a protected right such as filing a complaint for unpaid wages. The new law would prohibit employers from responding to whistleblowers lacking proper work authorization with threats to contact immigration authorities, discharging the employee, etc. California law now prohibits this type of action unless employee updates to personal information are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge necessary for their job. The original bill’s intended purpose was to protect employees who are updating their work-authorization status, but it can be read to include protection for those wishing to update other information based on prior misrepresentations like criminal history. The amendment (AB 2751) clarifies the scope of the bill (AB 263) so that it specifically protects those employees who are attempting to update personal information in relation to name, social security number or federal employment authorization documentation. The amendment’s clarification allows employers to discipline/terminate employees who provides false statements not related to immigrate status, but continues to prohibit retaliation or disciplinary action against any workers who update records on lawful changes to immigration related information and documentation.

If you are unsure whether or not the new California law applies to your situation, you should contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik immediately for legal advice regarding your specific situation. 

Female Employees Sue Papa Murphy’s for Secret Filming in Workplace Bathrooms

Four women are suing the Martinez franchise owner of the popular Papa Murphy’s Take ‘N’ Bake Pizza. The suit is based on their allegations that their former boss secretly videotaped them in the employee restroom while using the toilet and undressing. The women claim they suspected their boss, Jason Lassor, of secretly taping them in the workplace’s unisex bathroom for three months before they eventually discovered a hidden camera inside of a cardboard box placed on a shelf in the bathroom.

Lassor already pleaded guilty to one felony count of child pornography and a misdemeanor unlawful electronic video recording charge. One month after pleading guilty, Lassor was sentenced to 120 days in county jail. His time was served by electronic home detention.

One of the four women (who will go unnamed as sex assault victims) was under 18. The women’s representation indicated that the situation was a significant breach of trust and that they were completely devastated when they learned of the filming device. They will continue dealing with the after effects of learning that their privacy had been so irrevocably breached by their employer for some time.

While the women had suspicions that they were being filmed for months prior to finding proof, they feared reprisal and workplace retaliation if they were to complain about their suspicions. When the video camera was discovered in January of 2013, the woman who discovered it called one of the other women who was at home at the time. She came to the place of business, picked up the camera and delivered it to the Martinez police. Lassor was arrested later that same day.

The suit filed by the women against the company and the franchise owner claims negligent supervision, training and retention as well as invasion of privacy, sexual discrimination, harassment and other workplace violations of employment law.

If you have questions regarding your rights to address uncomfortable work situations (suspected or otherwise) while avoiding employer retaliation in the work place contact the California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Whistleblower’s $25 Million Lawsuit Against Nike Heads to the Jury

In the course of the more than $25 million lawsuit proceedings against Nike, the jury heard two very different versions of events. Douglas Ossanna is a former Nike electrician, fired in early 2013. He claims that Nike fired him in retaliation after he reported unsafe working conditions for electricians at the approximately 600-acre campus in Washington County. Nike denies the allegations. Nike’s version of events has Ossanna being fired for playing a pickup basketball game on a court in the Bo Jackson Building when the facility was designated as off limits.

The more than $25 million lawsuit consists of $572,000 in economic damages, $1.5 million in non-economic damages and as much as $25 million in punitive damages. During the closing arguments, attorneys for the plaintiff argued simplicity. They claim a simple and clear-cut case of retaliation in the workplace. It was argued that Ossanna had made concerns clear regarding unsafe working conditions to at least six different Nike managers over a period of a few years. Ossanna claims none of his unsafe working conditions reports were ever investigated or resolved by Nike.

On top of being fired, Ossanna’s representation make it clear that he suffered harsh working conditions including excessive amounts of overtime in response to his reporting of problems with workplace safety.

Nike indicated that they did not retaliate against the electrician and that as a supervisor, he had access to every building on the Washington County campus. Nike’s attorney, argued during her closing argument that the decision to terminate Ossanna’s employment was consistent with other recent terminations in the company including a Nike employee was terminated for lying in order to receive a $20 gift card.

If you or someone you know is a victim of retaliation in the workplace, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik to find out how you get legal reparations for the damage to your career, your finances and your life. 

Employer Retaliation and Your Rights

Most people know that there are laws to protect them from harassment and discrimination in the workplace. What many don’t know is that there are also laws to protect them against employer or workplace retaliation. Employers are prohibited from “punishing” or retaliating against employees that make discrimination or harassment complaints, participate in workplace investigations, etc.

Employer retaliation comes in many forms not just the obvious firing or demotion. Employer retaliation can also come in more subtle forms: being denied a raise, being declined for a transfer to a more desirable position or location, being passed over for training or mentoring opportunities, etc.

To put it simply, retaliation is occurring when an employer punishes an employee due to their involvement in a legally protected activity. Retaliation can be defined as any action that negatively affects the employee’s job including: discipline, pay decreases, firing, demotion, reassignment, shift reassignment, etc. In situations where the retaliation is not quite so obvious, the U.S. Supreme Court indicates that the circumstances of the situation must be considered. A certain action, such as job transfer or shift reassignment, may not be an adverse action or employer retaliation in every situation, but in certain situations, for instance, a single parent with young children, something as seemingly harmless as changing their work hours could be deemed retaliation. Any situation in which the action taken by the employer deters a reasonable individual in the situation from making the complaint or cooperating with the investigation, etc. constitutes illegal employer retaliation.

If you need to discuss specifics to determine whether or not you might be the victim of employer retaliation, please call Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, California employment law specialists, immediately so we can help you determine your legal options.

Former Goodwill Manager Files Wrongful Termination Suit

Pamela Dietz, former human resources manager for Goodwill Industries in Lorain County recently filed a lawsuit against the agency. She claims wrongful termination after being fired for investigating a suspected theft scheme within the organization. Dietz filed the suit in Lorain County Common Please Court. The suit is detailed, spelling out her discovery of the theft she alleges was occurring as well as the attempts made by Goodwill Industries to cover up the problem. Dietz was employed from Feb. 18, 2013 through October 2013 when CEO Steve Greenwell fired her.

The second defendant named in the suit is Jack Arbogast. He is described in the lawsuit as the director of donated goods. Dietz is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for emotional stress as well as lost wages. The alleged theft scheme is described in the suit. Items donated to Goodwill were resold by Arbogast, a Goodwill employee, and the employee’s husband. The sales were handled through the eBay auction website. Dietz claims she discovered the theft scheme through another employee coming to her with the information in September 2013. Larry Abetya came to her with the request for time off due to “stress and anxiety” in connection with his personal relationship with Arbogast. Abetya advised Dietz that Arbogast took a 1994 Geo Prism from Goodwill and gave it to Abetya. Abetya was involved in a car accident in the Prism in April 2013. The suit alleges that Arbogast regularly took donated goods from Goodwill (i.e. cars, speakers, a boat, a pool table, etc.) There were multiple accounts set up on eBay to sell the items stolen from Goodwill’s donated goods.

Dietz was out of a job by the end of October 2013.

If you are the victim of wrongful termination the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik can help you. Call us today.

Getting Paid: Bonuses, Wages and Commissions

Under California statutory law, “wages” enjoy a very broad definition. Case law has included “bonuses” in the definition. Why does that matter to California employees?

If you are discharged, any wages you have earned up to and including the date of termination are due and payable – immediately on the date of termination. Employees who find themselves in the regrettable situation of being let go or fired (or even in need of quitting) should expect payment in full of all wages earned prior to signing any release, etc. California employers who fail to pay wages in a timely manner (that is, on the date of termination) can find themselves subject to waiting time penalties, interest and/or attorney’s fees.

Waiting Time Penalties: California employers who fail to pay wages due an employee on the date of their termination “willfully,” the wages of said employee will continue as a penalty from date of termination (at the same rate) until paid or other appropriate action is taken.

Interest: The court awards interest on all due and unpaid wages at an annual rate of 10% accruing from the date wages were due/payable.

Attorney’s Fees: When action is brought for nonpayment of wages, benefits, etc. reasonable attorney’s fees can be awarded to the prevailing party by the court.

California law has employees leaving a job covered. There should be no reason to lose wages already earned. There should not even be a reason to wait for wages already earned.

To resolve non-payment issues with previous employers quickly and professionally, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.