Magic Leap Tech Startup Facing Legal Battle: Wrongful Termination Suits Could Reveal Secrets

Magic Leap, one of the most hyped tech startup companies around, could be facing the potential leak of big secrets due to legal battles as two previous employees file wrongful termination suits. While their mixed reality work has been heralded as “mind bending” and is described as offering the ability to see virtual 3-D objects as if they were part of the real world, no one has actually seen any products – beta or otherwise. Their promise of creating a new platform that seamlessly blends digital and physical realities has many on tenterhooks, but without tangible evidence of their work, all the hype may soon fade away and leave the company a laughingstock.

Many are waiting to hear about specific product time frames and a chance to see some tangible evidence of the company’s claims, and they may get their wish in spite of the company’s intentions. Due to the upcoming legal battle surrounding two wrongful termination suits, Magic Leap’s secrets may be leaked to the public sooner than they planned.

Two computer scientists in the area of computer vision and robotics, Gary Bradski and Adrian Kaehler, filed the wrongful termination suits. Both claim that they were fired after they sought clarification of a paragraph in their employment agreements regarding consulting work outside of their work for the company.

A few days after Bradski and Kaehler filed wrongful termination lawsuits, Magic Leap filed suit accusing them both of misappropriating trade secrets and breaching contract. In the suit filed by Magic Leap, the two former employees are accused of using technology developed while working for Magic Leap for use in a new company the two developed or planned to develop.

The former employees claim these accusations are unfounded and are an attempt to avoid paying out stock options for termination for cause (over $20 million of stock rights are owned between the two).

If you have concerns regarding your employment contract, or if you suspect wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.  

Former Jimmy Choo Employee Claims Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

A former Jimmy Choo employee, John Ornelas, claims that after enduring harassment and discrimination at the hands of his supervisor for being gay, he reported the problem and was fired from the Beverly Hills store in retaliation.  The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 15th against the former employer, Jimmy Choo, and the former boss, Nikki Raffasha. The suit listed allegations of both wrongful termination and discrimination based on sexual orientation and race and seeks unspecified damages.

According to the suit, Ornelas was hired in 2011 as a Jimmy Choo sales associate. The nextyear he started work at the Beverly Hills store located on Via Rodeo Drive. After completing a month on the job, Ornelas claims that Raffasha started to insult and mock him regularly – often using derogatory terms describing both his race and sexual orientation. Ornelas further claims that the derogatory terms were flippantly used - even after the death of Ornelas’ partner of 12 years.

Ornelas claims that multiple reports submitted regarding the alleged harassment and discrimination had no results. He saw no improvement to the situation. In October 2015, the problem escalated when Raffasha took one of Ornelas’ sales and reported as her own. Ornelas states that he confronted his boss regarding the sale and that her response was to indicate that anyone would choose her over him – referring to him as “gay, Mexican trash.”

In response to this incident, management credited the disputed sale to Ornelas, but two days later he was fired from his job at Jimmy Choo.

If you have experienced discrimination on the job or if you have been fired from your job in retaliation for reporting a hostile work environment, please contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination and Retaliation Suit: California Firefighter Awarded $2.3 Million

In recent news, Todd Milan, 47, was awarded $2.3 million by a Solano County Superior Court jury in a civil wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit. Milan claimed that he was targeted by a couple of his superior officers after he informed the Division of Occupational Safety and Health of procedure irregularities during a residential fire that occurred on September 29, 2011. When entering the disabled man’s burning mobile home, Milan assumed Captain Erick Diez would enter alongside him. Diez never entered the burning structure, which was a violation of regulations requiring that firefighters always work in pairs. Diez’ failure to enter the structure left Milan inside alone for 90 seconds. Milan also claims that Diez did not have his gloves on when responding to the fire. The resident of the mobile home fire later died.

 

Workplace Retaliation: Similar to harassment and “hostile workplace,” workplace retaliation is not actually about people in the workplace exacting revenge or getting back at someone else for their behavior. Instead, it is focused more on making them afraid to complain or to assert their right. It is a subtle distinction, but necessary to delineate in certain situations where violations of employment law have occurred.  

 

Milan also claims that Fire Chief Paige Meyer advised Milan that he would be okay as long as his account of the fire matched those of other firefighters at the scene. Milan’s allegations made it clear that he claimed the City of Vallejo and the Fire Department covered up the events that occurred at this particular fire, which was the focus of an investigation by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. 

 

After this occurrence, Milan took an examination, which he did not pass. He claims that the Fire Department’s refusal to allow him to re-take the examination was in retaliation for his previous actions in reporting departures from procedure at the September, 29th, 2011 mobile home fire. At the time of the incident in question, Milan was an apprentice firefighter. He is now a teacher for a class for paramedics.

 

After a nine-week trial, the jury deliberated for two days. They awarded Milan with $2.3 million in compensation for past and future wage losses as well as emotional distress suffered as a result of the event.

 

If you have information regarding workplace retaliation, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

$15 Million Wrongful Termination Suit v. California State Bar

The $15 million wrongful termination lawsuit (Oehler v. The State Bar of California et al., case number BC610699, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles) that hit the State Bar of California echoes allegations made by the bar’s former executive director pointing towards rampant ethical violations. Plaintiff Sonja Oehler’s LinkedIn profile lists her previous title as the bar’s former administrative specialist. Rather than being let go from her position for a lack of ability or dedication to the job or a necessary reduction in staff, Oehler alleges that she was fired from her job because she knew too much about rampant ethical violations: deceit, deception, incompetence and falsification of issues on the part of the bar.

Details of Alleged Ethical Violations Specifically Mentioned in the Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Include:

 A director required to attend a three hour hearing in San Francisco demanded that the bar cover the costs for a four day stay at San Francisco’s Palace Hotel. The bar agreed to pay.

A board member’s reimbursement claim for close to $30,000 denied by Oehler was later paid out of state bar funds.

Terminations because individuals were supposed “friends” of the prior leader of the bar (i.e. former executive director Joseph Dunn who sued the bar in 2014).

Former executive director, Joseph Dunn, alleged in his 2014 lawsuit that there was a massive cover-up of unethical practices on the part of the bar and that he was fired for exposing the problem. He also alleged that Jayne Kim, the bar’s chief trial counsel, purposefully purged the public backlog in order to inflate her own productivity. Additionally, Kim allegedly failed in her duty to prosecute unlicensed lawyers who preyed on immigrants; even after legislation was passed prohibiting the practice. In December, the bar said that a judge has agreed to appoint an arbitrator to come to a resolution in the Dunn suit.

Kim is also named in Oehler’s suit (as a defendant). In Oehler’s suit allegations indicate that Kim allowed the backlog of discipline cases to pile up until they were out of control and then moving 181 of the cases into a “deferred” state allowing the backlog to be reported without them. Once reported, the “deferred” case statuses were moved back to active. Oehler described the action as a “scam.”

Allegations make in the suit also claim that Kim dismissed ethics complaints made against herself when they should have been sent to an outsider that could address them impartially. It is also alleged that the bar failed completely to open hundreds of complaints regarding unauthorized practice of law resulting in fraud against Mexican nationals seeking U.S. citizenship.

Oehler alleged the acting executive director, Robert Hawley, retaliated against lawyers who attempted to provide wrongfully terminated employees with assistance.

Oehler’s suit seeks $10 million in financial losses due to her wrongful firing and an additional $5 million due to the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Oehler claims fraud, misrepresentation by the state bar (and other listed defendants), and deceit. As per these allegations, Oehler’s suit seeks punitive damages (not to exceed 10x damages due from wrongful termination and emotional distress).

Legal representation for the bar states that the bar denies the allegations made by Oehler. They believe that the lawsuit holds no legal merit. They plan to address the allegations in the “appropriate forum.”

If you have questions regarding wrongful termination or how to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Bikram Wrongful Termination Suit Filed

Former employees of Bikram Choudhury of Bikram Yoga appear to be making an orderly line when it comes to filing wrongful termination lawsuits. The latest in the line of filings includes allegations that a former teacher-training recruiter, Sharon Clerkin, was fired from her position with Bikram Yoga because she was pregnant and because she refused to play along with business practices described as “shady.”

Clerkin filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court including much of the following information. Sharon Clerkin began working with Bikram Yoga as a teacher. She moved from there to the Bikram industrial complex as a teacher-training recruiter/coordinator. This was her position with the company from 2010 until August of 2015 when she was fired. Her job included scouting for trainees and helping in their registration. During her time in the position, she increased registrants from 300 to 400. She claims her success in driving up the number of registrants stopped suddenly with the filing of a number of rape suits against Choudhury.

At this point, Clerkin was allegedly asked to misguide potential registrants regarding the fall 2014 training in Atlantic City: it was abruptly cancelled, then not cancelled, then pulled to a different venue, and then not as follows. According to the information Clerkin provided in the filing, she handled the teacher training session registration for the event originally planned for fall of 2014 in the Atlantic City hotel and the training was sold at $12,500 for a shared room or $16,600 for a single room. Six weeks prior to the start of the training event, Choudhury’s assistant, M. Shigenaga, advised Clerkin that the event was cancelled; in spite of the fact that 36 individuals had already paid their training fees. The next day, the plan changed – Choudhury decided to move the training even to California (in an unspecified venue). Clerkin allegedly received further instruction from Choudhury’s assistant to keep the venue/location change a secret in order to continue collecting registration fees from prospective students interested in the Atlantic City location training. In response to questions posed by Clerkin regarding potential reimbursement of registrants’ airplane tickets to the Atlantic City location, she was told to “mind her own business” according to the complaint filed. In response, Clerkin continued to process registrations, but did not take any payments. She did not feel comfortable doing so until a decision was made regarding the location of the training session.

In summer of 2015, Clerkin discovered she was pregnant. She took days off due to doctor’s orders. When she returned to work, she had been replaced. She was advised by Choudhury that she was a “failure” and that he should have fired her years ago. Clerkin’s husband was also fired from his position with Bikram Yoga. Choudhury allegedly even had his assistant call the police to escort the two off the Bikram Yoga premises.

If you have questions regarding treatment in the workplace or wrongful termination, please get in touch with the southern California employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed by Sarkisian Against USC

Steve Sarkisian, former USC coach, filed a suit against USC alleging that the university wrongfully terminated him in October 2015. The complaint filed requests damages amounting to $12.6 million, but the plaintiff’s attorney indicated to popular media outlets that the former USC coach would be seeking substantially more than the original $12.6M. Sarkisian’s lawsuit alleges the university fired him without receiving accommodations ashe sought treatment for a “disability.”

Sarkisian’s claim is based on the classification of alcoholism as a disability. The former USC coach was on a flight taking him to enter an alcohol rehabilitation treatment center on October 12th when he received an email from the USC Athletic Director, Pat Haden. In the email, Sarkisian was advised that he was fired.

Sarkisian feels that the university failed to support him as the Head Coach when he was most in need of their help. The lawsuit states that instead of honoring the contract in place with Sarkisian and accommodating his disability, the university “kicked him to the curb.” The suit also defines Sarkisian as a “person with a disability” (at times) according to federal law due to his alcoholism in addition to the stress associated with the job of USC Head Coach that contributed to his dependency upon alcohol.

Sarkisian’s interpretation of the situation was that California law required the USC make reasonable accommodations for his disability with time off allowing him to obtain the necessary assistance and the ability to return to his job after treatment was completed. USC did not feel obligated by the referenced California law or the commitment made to Sarkisian.

A newly sober Sarkisian is now ready to return to coaching, but the university has replaced him. Sarkisian feels that the university has effectively “taken away his team, his income and a job that he loved” in not accommodating his need for treatment and holding his job for him until he successfully completed treatment. In addition, Sarkisian’s suit claims that the university’s actions were in violation of the contract in place as they refused to pay him money that he feels is owed to him according to the terms set down.

USC’s response to the claims and allegations was simple. USC’s general counsel stated that the facts were “mischaracterized” by the former coach and that the university will be defending their actions. In fact, the statement from USC’s general counsel went so far as to state that a substantial amount of the information included in the lawsuit is untrue. According to the university’s counsel, the former head coach repeatedly denied that he had a problem with alcohol to university officials. He never asked for time off for rehabilitation and he even resisted efforts on the part of the university to assist him with the issue. At that point, the university made it clear that additional incidents would result in termination by providing Sarkisian this information in writing. When additional incidents occurred, they followed through with the stated consequence: termination.

If you have questions regarding what constitutes wrongful termination or if you feel that you have been wrongfully terminated, please get in touch to discuss your situation with one of the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination: Hacienda La Punete Unified Whistleblower Awarded $555K

July 22, 2015 - Betty Ruelas, a former employee of Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, raised concerns about some unusual invoices that were paid to a company running the school district’s after school program. Afterwards, she was forced into early retirement because of her questions regarding the unusual invoices along with a disability and a need to take family medical leave from her work. The questionable invoices were from West Covina-based Institute for Student Success. They were one of two vendors that constituted the operational end of the grant-funded after school programs for Hacienda La Puente Unified School District.

The questionable invoices came from a vendor who was a friend of Superintendent Cynthia Parulan-Colfer. Upon returning from a family medical leave, Ruelas immediately took note of the new vendor and the high numbers attached to their invoices. In Ruelas’ opinion, it was obvious that the vendor was receiving abnormally high compensation for work provided. Parulan-Colfer’s response to accusations about the unfair compensation was that the claims they were highly paid and the fact that she was a friend were unrelated. She claims that Ruelas’ claims were simply false and meant as an attack against the school district.

The claims regarding the invoices were not even addressed by the jury in the case. They stuck to the other two reasons for the alleged wrongful termination.

The vendor began operating the district’s after school program in 2010 and continued through the 2014-15 school year. After a number of questions regarding the invoices, Ruelas claims her superiors on the job harassed her until being placed on disability leave for stress/mental health (April 2012). Once she returned from disability leave, she was transferred to another department. The new department only increased the stress level on the job. When Ruelas requested a transfer back to her old department, the request was denied.

Ruelas again went on disability leave in May 2013. She had developed hives on her eyelids as a result of the severe anxiety that she was suffering at work. She was then forced to retire early at age 53 in July 2013.

On May 13^th, the jury ruled in Ruelas’ favor awarding her $555,000 in damages.

If you need assistance with wrongful termination claims or other southern California employment law issues, get in touch with the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.