Paula Lopez, Former News Anchor, Files Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Paula Lopez, a former news anchor for KEYT/KCOY, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against NPG of California, owner of KEYT and KFFX stations. Lopez worked as a news anchor for the stations for close to 30 years before he was terminated in September 2015. At that time, Lopez was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and assaulting an officer.

Lopez pleaded no contest to DUI, refusing a chemical test, delaying a peace officer, and battery on a peace officer in a plea agreement. As a result she was sentenced to 120 days in jail and probation. She served 50 days in the electronic monitoring program.

Lopez filed the California lawsuit on September 2nd claiming that Lopez’s time with the station/s resulted in a loyal following of viewers through her distinguished and experienced work as one of the most trusted and vibrant television journalists on the Central Coast. Allegations were made the in spite of her history with the company, Lopez was discriminated against, demeaned and degraded on the basis of her sex, disability and Hispanic race/ancestry.

Allegations Included in the Lawsuit:

·       Lopez was denied equal pay based on gender.

·       Lopez was denied reasonable accommodation for her disability.

·       Lopez was denied reasonable accommodation for legal mandated interactive processes in relation to her disability.

Lopez insists that she wasn’t offered a fair agreement when NPG purchased the stations, stating that she was only offered a “minimal pay increase” even though she was already paid a significantly lower salary than CJ Ward, her male, non-Hispanic counterpart on the news show. General manager for the stations, Mark Danielson, responded that NPG does not comment on current or former employees or potential litigation.

Lopez claims that she took leave rom work after she “went missing for a day” in 2013. Reasons for this were related to a combination of symptoms and conditions in connection to anxiety, depression, and alcoholism – all of which the plaintiff claims she was in the process of having treated. Five months later, Lopez was arrested for public intoxication and was suspended from work without pay. Lopez mentions signing a “last chance agreement” in the lawsuit in an attempt to avoid being fired from her job. In the agreement, provisions required random drug and alcohol testing. Lopez claims that the station’s access to the results of these tests violated her privacy. Lopez also alleges that she was later moved to a station with “less stature,” given a more strenuous workload, and replaced on primetime by “younger” and “non-Hispanic” women. Lopez was terminated after her Sept. 6, 2015 DUI arrest.

If you have questions about wrongful termination or if you think that you may have been fired as a result of discriminatory practices in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Alleged Hack: Fired Employee Sues SF State for $1M

Mignon Hofmann, a former information security officer at San Francisco State, filed a lawsuit claiming that she was fired by the university in an attempt to sweep a 2014 hack involving significant exposure of student records “under the rug.” The student records that were involved in the breach included both financial records and password reset functions. Hoffman claimed that while there had been minor cases during her time at the university, the alleged 2014 hack was the most severe case she had ever seen.

The suit was filed in January in San Francisco Superior Court. Hofmann accused San Francisco State and the Board of Trustees of California State University of both wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation. According to court documents, Hofmann is seeking over $1 million in lost pension, lost earnings (past and future) and emotional distress.

While the University did confirm that there was a “security incident” and that “information that was publicly available was potentially accessed,” they denied that there was a breach of personal data claiming that as such, students were not notified and there is no cause for concern. Both the university and the Board of Trustees of CSU have issued a general denial of all allegations connected to the case.

Experts in the field acknowledged that situations in which IT professionals are fired to avoid breach disclosure as required by California state law do exist, but that it’s very difficult to determine or estimate how common the occurrence is because most are settled out of court in order to avoid the public discussion and entering of information on the public record.

In order to determine the validity of the case, the court will need to determine the extent of the breach and the information involved as both sides are making claims that vary widely from each other.

If you need to discuss California labor law or wrongful termination in more detail with an experienced southern California labor law attorney, please get in touch with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible. 

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.