Burns v. SDSU in Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, Beth Burns, the former women’s basketball coach, took the stand in the trial for her wrongful termination lawsuit against San Diego State University (SDSU). Burns was the coach of the San Diego State women’s team prior to her abrupt termination in April 2013. She was advised not to speak about the incident publicly by her legal counsel so when she took the stand, many were waiting to hear what she had to say on the subject. She was the first witness in her wrongful termination lawsuit against SDSU.

In speaking to the jury of seven men and five women in the San Diego Superior Court, Burns stated her case for 45 minutes. Judge John Meyer, presiding, adjourned court for the day and scheduled Burns to take the stand again for further testimony the following Wednesday, at which point, the university’s attorneys would be able to take the opportunity to cross-examine (either Wednesday or Thursday).

By the time the trial is completed, it is expected that four weeks will have passed and dozens of witnesses will have had their say (including Elliot Hirshman, SDSU president, Jim Sterk, athletic director, and Steve Fisher, men’s basketball coach). Many expect that the rare glimpse the proceedings will provide into the goings on of a college athletic department may not be very flattering.

Burns was with SDSU for 16 years. She was the all-time “winningest” women’s basketball coach. At the time of her termination (April 2013), she had just completed a school record 27-win season with her team. Burns claims she was fired without cause (breach of contract) and whistleblower retaliation based on claims that she was seeking equal opportunities for the women’s basketball program at the time of her abrupt termination. When she was fired, Burns was in the first year of her five-year contract extension. She was being paid $220,000 annually (before bonuses). Due to her termination, she had to take a different job that resulted in a drastic decrease in pay. She now works on Cynthia Cooper-Dyke’s staff at USC making $150,000 per season.

Burns seeks $1.5 million in damages for breach of contract. She also seeks $3 million for the whistleblower retaliation and punitive damages.

According to the university’s legal counsel, Burns was unable to control her emotions and the University felt that none of its employees should have to go to work “concerned about being confronted by their out-of-control boss.” The conflicting views of the case presented by opposing counsel is predictable, but it will still be an interesting case to watch unfold.

If you need to discuss wrongful termination with an experienced southern California employment law attorney, get in touch with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We can assist you in determining the appropriate legal action for your specific situation! 

Hyperloop Technologies Accused of Wrongful Termination by Co-Founder

The co-founder of Hyperloop Technologies recently slapped the company with a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that he was not only wrongfully terminated, but that his character was defamed by the company. CTO Brogan BanBrogan, as well as other former employees, sued Hyperloop Technologies alleging that they were forced out because they spoke to investors in the company about cultural issues within the “futuristic firm.” Additionally, they allege that they were forced to enter into contracts that weren’t in the company’s best interests by venture capitalists, Shervin Pishevar and Joe Lonsdale.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of California and included scathing details of Pishevar’s activities while BamBrogan was involved in the company. The documents even include a photo of Pishevar. The description of the photo provided by the plaintiffs indicate that Pishevar was approaching the plaintiff’s desk with a “noose coiled in his hand.” They allege the message was clear and that this moment was followed by another incident later in the same day when the company offered their final letter in response to the plaintiffs’ letter (a group of eleven Hyperloop One employees).

The company stated that they would make no “core” changes and that “three heads would roll.” This referred to three of the plaintiffs: Pendergast and Mulholland, who were fired, and BamBrogan who they planned to demote and force to take a leave of absence (they advised he would not be terminated as long as he promised to behave). If the group of eleven employees accepted the proposal, the company promised not to “pursue them to the ends of the earth.” Plaintiffs allege the company’s official response to their letter even threatened economic and legal warfare by “millionaires with extensive networks.”

BamBrogan states that his involvement in the company began with Hyperloop Technologies took on Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s challenge to put together a super-fast transportation system. BamBrogan states that Pishevar felt it was a business opportunity and hired BamBrogam (previously employed by Musk’s SpaceX) to lead the company. He was offered 6% of the company’s shares. Pishevar retained 90% of the shares.

BamBrogan states that the relationship was difficult from the start, but culminated in improper business deals and the noose episode mentioned above. A meeting following the company’s official response occurred, but when it didn’t go well, BamBrogan and others were either fired or simply left the company on their own. BamBrogan sought a restraining order against Pishevar in response to the situation. Hyperloop Technologies indicated that they saw the suit as unfortunate and delusional – a cliché response to what they referred to as a failed coup.

If you have been wrongfully terminated from your job, please get in touch with an experienced southern California employment law attorney as soon as possible so we can help you. The lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are available to talk to you today. 

Two Austin Drivers Accuse Uber of Wrongful Termination

In May, Uber Technologies, Inc and Lyft, Inc. abruptly removed their services from Austin, Texas. As a result, thousands of drivers in the area lost their jobs. Two of those former drivers, Todd Johnston from Uber and David Thornton from Lyft, filed two proposed California class action lawsuits. In response to new regulations that were implemented, the two companies moved out of Austin, Texas.

The plaintiffs’ attorney indicated that the success of the suits depend upon the same common issue that Uber and Lyft have been battling in various forums: the question of whether drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. The two previous drivers cited the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) as a basis for their lawsuits. According to the statute, employers who have 100 or more employees working 20 or more hours a week (on average) must provide 60 days notice before a mass layoff or plant closure resulting in a mass layoff. The goal of this particular legislation was to provide workers with the opportunity to find alternative employment, find and arrange for any necessary or advantageous retraining, make accommodations for loss of pay, etc.

The plaintiffs claim that Uber and Lyft’s departure from Austin, Texas resulted in 10,000 drivers contracted to operate in the city being “laid off.” According to the wording in the above cited statute, this type of action (resulting in the “laying off” of more than 500 workers) calls for an appropriate notification. Legal experts viewing the case indicate that the plaintiffs face an uphill battle as for the statute to apply to the situation, laid off workers must have been “employees.” Uber and Lyft classify their drivers as independent contractors – a classification that comes with significantly different rights and benefits in comparison to workers classified as employees.

In April an unrelated lawsuit reached a settlement with terms dictating that drivers are to be considered independent contractors – not employees. Having noted that, we have yet to see a definitive court ruling on this particular issue. So while it will be an uphill battle for these plaintiffs to establish themselves as “employees” of Uber and Lyft in the eyes of the court, the possibility is there.

If you have questions regarding what constitutes a misclassification, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Pasadena Trader Joes’ Settling Wrongful Termination Suit

A former employee of a Pasadena Trader Joe’s filed a wrongful termination suit alleging he was fired for complaining about an instance of sexual harassment. The incident occurred during a holiday gift exchange. The former employee, Paul D. Roberts, complained after receiving a gift resembling a male sex organ at the 2014 Christmas party at one of the Trader Joe’s grocery stores located in Pasadena, California where he worked at the time.

Trader Joe’s recently settled the suit with court papers in Los Angeles Superior Court indicating that the case was resolved without divulging specific terms of the settlement. Robert originally sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. His suit alleged wrongful termination, sexual harassment, failure to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, negligence and workplace retaliation.

Trader Joe’s denies any wrongdoing on the part of the company in connection with the settlement and states that Roberts was treated “lawfully” during his employment at the Pasadena location – at all times.

Court documents indicate that Roberts was originally hired on as a crew member at Trader Joe’s in Pasadena on Lake Avenue in February of 2007. The cited Christmas party gift exchange occurred in December of 2014. Employee attendance was “expected” bordering on “implicitly required” according to the lawsuit Roberts filed. The day of the party, Roberts was not scheduled to work at the store, but he felt his attendance was necessary in order to maintain a positive relationship with his supervisors and co-workers.

Upon Roberts’ arrival at the party, he noted that his co-workers seemed excited to see him arrive and anxious to see him open his gift. The gift was handed to him by a co-worker, Armina Asefvasziri, according to court documents for the case. Roberts opened the wrapped package and was immediately “shocked, embarrassed and humiliated” as he discovered that the gift was a small penis with testicles that would “grow” when submerged in water. He was distraught by what he saw as an obnoxious and offensive item, especially as he received it in front of his supervisor and the co-worker who gave it to him was female. He stated that he left the party and later filed an internal complaint. He told supervisors at Trader Joe’s that if he had provided a similar gift to a female co-worker, he would have been reprimanded or even fired. He stated in court documents that he only received nonchalant responses – his supervisors did not take him seriously. In January 2015, a human resources representative for Trader Joe’s advised Roberts that the incident/complaint was being investigated, but according to statements made in the lawsuit, Roberts was fired two days later.

If you need additional information about wrongful termination or help determining whether or not you have legal grounds for suing your employer for wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Exec Filed Wrongful Termination Suit Against RAPP Advertising Agency

Greg Andersen, a former executive with RAPP agency, filed a wrongful termination suit alleging that his termination was due to his complaints about his claims regarding CEO Alexei Orlov’s discriminatory behavior. RAPP is an Omicon-owned direct marketing agency of which Greg Andersen previously served as President (until he was fired in April of 2016). Andersen claims that Orlov’s behavior created a hostile work environment with frequent comments and behaviors exhibiting discrimination against women and numerous racial/ethnic groups.

Andersen claims that the agency did not take appropriate action in response to his complaints regarding Orlov’s discriminatory behavior. The agency is aware of the claims being made by Mr. Andersen and state that his “termination” was due to his position with the agency being eliminated. In response to claims of discriminatory behavior and failure to act on claims of discriminatory behavior they point towards their policies preventing discrimination and retaliation.

Andersen filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Defendants listed in the suit are Rapp Worldwide and Rapp Worldwide California. Andersen seeks an unspecified amount in damages. In the suit Andersen alleges that RAPP failed to show basic respect for the civil rights of employees, the Andersen made numerous complaints regarding Orlov’s inappropriate behavior prior to his termination, and that a number of other employees at RAPP have since filed complaints with the company regarding Orlov’s behavior. Andersen claims that his termination came less than a month after Mr. Orlov became aware he had made a complaint.

Some of the behavior cited in the suit that Andersen claims Orlov exhibited include: referring to women as “fat cows,” declining to promote females because they were “too pretty” so “no one would take them seriously,” and using descriptions such as someone being “miserly with money because he was Jewish.” According to Andersen’s allegations, Orlov also dismissed complaints regarding other executive’s lewd comments to female employees in order to protect their careers. Additionally, Andersen states that Orlov exhibited age discrimination with comments such as not wanting to see RAPP filled with “people in their forties and fifties.”

This lawsuit against RAPP is another example indicating that there could be a major problem with diversity and inclusion in the advertising industry. Alongside other suits in recent news, the RAPP lawsuit is leaving many debating the issues of women and minorities in positions of power in advertising.

If you have questions regarding discrimination in the workplace or if you need to discuss problems with diversity and inclusion in your workplace, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

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.