Discrimination Case Filed by Ex-Wilson Elser Attorney

Jodi Ritter, a former nonequity partner of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker sued the firm with claims that she was subjected to harassment and discrimination for her choice to have children. She left the firm in late 2012.

Ritter described the state at the firm by stating, “By contrast, women who did not have children and who availed themselves of affairs with partners were systematically rewarded and treated better than women who chose to have children and families.”

The firm, in response to the claims made in the suit, said that the allegations were baseless and lacking in any legal merit. They advised that they would be vigorously defending themselves and they were looking forward to the adjudication of the matter. The firm filed Motion to Dismiss on Friday claiming that claims are wholly without merit and precluded by the arbitration clause of her partnership agreement.  

Ritter spent five years as a special narcotics prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office before joining Wilson Elser in 1997. She stated that she didn’t have any problem meeting her billable hour quota and that she received bonuses and raises consistently until she became pregnant. Ritter announced her pregnancy in 2002. The chair of the firm’s labor and employment litigation practice, Ricki Roer, allegedly pulled Ritter aside and said, “That’s why women can’t move up in this firm.” Roer continued to explain that getting pregnant could have a negative impact on any attempt Ritter had to move up as a female in the Wilson Elser firm. Roer continued by saying that women who do get pregnant in the workforce make it harder for women who want to make a career because it makes women look weak.

Ritter gave birth to twins in January 2003. After three months of maternity leave Ritter’s twins were still in intensive care. She requested additional time. She was advised that her job could not be held if she could not return after the three months. Ritter said she had to get permission to spend one more month with her twins from the regional managing partner. In May of 2003, Ritter was required to attend a Women’s Bar Association event. Her twins were having health issues. After four hours, she asked a partner at the table, Jerold Ruderman, if she could leave to care for her sick children. She claims he said no and that she couldn’t leave an empty seat at the table where Mr. Ruderman’s wife (a sitting judge) was seated.

Ritter was transferred to the firm’s White Plains office approximately one year after her children were born.

Ritter also claims:

• Roer was known to rebuff women’s requests for childcare accommodations.
• When her husband became ill, the firm’s only concern was her ability to maintain her billable hours.
• Women in the firm who made themselves available to male partners were protected.

Upon her firing in December 2012, Ritter was told that the firm had too little work to sustain her position. She argued that she had a number of open cases as well as a number of clients preparing to send her more work. At that time she had billed 1,930 hours. She was one week away from billing 1,950 hours. And her average billing from years past was 2,000 hours per year.

Ritter filed suit because, she claims, the firm affected her ability to further he career. She worked there for more than 16 years. As Ritter’s attorney said, “She gave her life there.” Ritter is seeking damages based on lost wages and pain and suffering as well as punitive damages.

For more information on discrimination in the workplace or wrongful termination please contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Undisclosed Settlement Amount Agreed Upon in Neiman Marcus Wrongful Termination Suit

Neiman Marcus recently settled a wrongful termination lawsuit. The suit was filed by former Neiman Marcus employee, Amir Peleg, who claims that he was fired for being gay and Jewish. Peleg asked for $40 million in punitive damages and $16 million in compensatory damages for economic loss as well as emotional pain and suffering. A Los Angeles County court clerk recently announced that the department store giant settled the wrongful termination lawsuit. The jury trial for the case began on September 2^nd, 2014. It was still in progress when both parties agreed to a settlement agreement. The details of the agreed upon settlement were not released to the public and neither attorney could be reached for comment regarding the settlement.

Peleg is 59 years old. He is a former salesman for the Neiman Marcus fragrance department located in Beverly Hills. He claims that he was harassed about both his sexual orientation and his religion by his supervisor. His supervisor, Miryam Emamian is an Iranian woman of Muslim faith. It was noted in court that she refused to approve time off for Jewish holidays and that she made derogatory comments when he requested vacation time to go visit Israel. Peleg also claimed that his direct supervisor, Emamian, kept portions of bonuses he was given for exemplary sales. (Bonuses were in expensive beauty products). She was fired in 2008. Peleg’s attorney said that his client was an exemplary employee and a top associate with close to $1 million in sales/year. After his dismissal from Neiman Marcus, Peleg had to move out of his home and file for bankruptcy.

Neiman Marcus claims that Peleg was dismissed because he provided thousands in free samples of expensive face cream product and that the product he gave away as “free samples” eventually made its way to a Chinese website where it was sold for profit.

For more information on wrongful termination contact the California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Settlement Story: House GOP Settles Wrongful Firing Lawsuit

There is, seemingly, always a new wrongful termination story popping up in the news. Recent headlines point towards Olympia, Washington. In this particular wrongful termination case, the legal battle has been ongoing for three years.

The wrongful termination lawsuit was brought against the House by the former House Republican staff members. The staffers’ names were: John S. Archer, John Charba and William Engelhardt. Claims made by the men included: age discrimination, allegations that staffers were put under pressure to work on members’ campaigns as well as attend fundraising events.

Last month, a judge dismissed all but one of the claims: age discrimination.

House Republican Caucus chief of staff, Lisa Fenton, stated that the settlement of $120,000 was reached in order to end the three year long battle between the House Republican leadership and the three previous staff members who filed. The settlement agreement bars additional legal proceedings/action. The Republican House leaders did not admit to any wrongdoing.

Wrongful termination lawsuits are typically founded on claims of discrimination (age, religion, sex, nationality, etc.), retaliation (for instance, filing of or participation in a discrimination claim), refusal to commit an illegal act, departure from posted termination process or procedures, etc. Employees are protected from wrongful termination by California labor law. Winning a wrongful termination case tends to result in one of two things: reinstatement of the employee at the place of employment they were wrongfully dismissed from or monetary compensation for the wrongfully terminated paid out by the former employer.

A proven wrongful dismissal will tend to lead to two main remedies: reinstatement of the dismissed employee, and/or monetary compensation for the wrongfully dismissed.

For additional information on wrongful firing or wrongful termination please contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Netflix and Amazon Beat Blacklisting Lawsuit

Claims filed by Jerry Kowal against Netflix and Amazon included defamation and wrongful termination. The two companies, Netflix and Amazon, are competitors. They both provide online video content. But these two competitors got to share a victory together in court when the Los Angeles Superior Court judge Michael Stern dismissed claims against the two online video content giants. The claims were brought by Jerry Kowal, a former employee of both of the companies listed in the suit. He alleged that he had been wrongfully terminated by Amazon after Netflix blacklisted him.

Kowal worked at Netflix as a director of content acquisition. He had what he described as an exceptional reputation, but quickly noticed that the atmosphere at the company was cold, hostile and cutthroat. As a result, he decided to take a job at Amazon. He claims that shortly after he started at Amazon, Netflix attorneys sent a letter to Amazon accusing Kowal of unfair competition and insisting that they have access to search Kowal’s email accounts and computer/s for any business information belonging to Netflix. Kowal allowed that Netflix information could still be on his devices, but he adamantly denied using any of it for work at Amazon.

The burden of proof fell on Kowal. He needed to prove that there was a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claims. The judge decided that he did not meet the expected standard due to the fact that several of his allegations were based on speech protected by California Civil Code 47(b), which covers speech “made…in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law.” In this particular case, the letter Netflix sent to Amazon alleged unfair competition by Kowal.

For questions about wrongful termination, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, the southern California employment law experts. 

Yahoo Executive Sued for Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Termination

Nan Shi, a principal software engineer for Yahoo filed against Maria Zhang, senior director of engineering for Yahoo Mobile on July 8^th. The complaint was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California. According to the complaint Maria Zhang, the Yahoo executive, sexually harassed a woman who worked under her, Nan Shi.

Nan Shi worked for Yahoo since February 2013. She alleges that Zhang coerced her into engaging in sexual acts on numerous occasions in Sunnyvale, California with promises of a “bright future” dependent upon her agreement to participate. Nan Shi is seeking monetary and punitive damages. Yahoo is also named as a defendant in the suit. A representative for Yahoo advised that they believe there is no basis for the claims made by Nan Shi and that Maria Zhang is an exemplary Yahoo executive. They intend to fight the allegations and clear her name.  

Zhang’s mobile company, Alike, was acquired by Yahoo in 2013. She had previously worked with Microsoft and Zillow. In the complaint filed, Shi accuses Zhang of downgrading her performance reviews unfairly. Further accusations are aimed at the Yahoo human resources department personnel who Shi claims refused to conduct an investigation when she complained about advances being made by her direct supervisor.  According to Shi, instead of conducting an investigation into the matter as she requested, they put her on unpaid leave and eventually terminated her from the company.

For more information on sexual harassment in the work place or wrongful termination suits contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

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.