AT&T Executive Fired Over Racist Texts Files Suit

Aaron Slator, AT&T’s former Head of Video Content and Advertising Sales filed suit against the company for breaching his employment contract and for defamation after his 2015 firing. The termination occurred during the regulatory review of AT&T’s $49 billion acquisition of DirecTV.  Legal counsel for the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County court arguing that the former executive was cleared during the investigation of allegedly racist text messages discovered on his phone by his executive assistance in 2013. Slator was fired over the incident in 2015 after another executive assistant filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit. 

Slator claims that AT&T advised him of their thorough investigation of the 2013 incident and assured him his job was secure. Two years later Slator was fired without any new evidence, new allegations, or new investigations into the matter. AT&T defends its actions insisting that diversity and inclusion are core values that are important to the company. They feel strongly about the situation and stand behind their termination of Slator and feel that his allegations are baseless and will result in a dismissal.

Slator’s firing made headlines across the country. He was the head of content acquisition and advertising for AT&T’s cable TV, broadband Internet, and wireless Internet services. He was also involved in the DirecTV acquisition, approved by the FCC and completed in 2015. In the lawsuit, Slator alleges that his executive assistant filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2013 alleging rampant racial discrimination by AT&T executives (listing Slator by name). Allegations included a detailed description of the racist text messages found on Slator’s phone. But AT&T’s internal investigation concluded that there was no discrimination.

Slator claims that he offered to resign, but was assured by AT&T that doing so was not necessary. He completed advisory training with an equal employment opportunity consultant in 2014. Yet the original allegations from the 2013 incident resurfaced in the 2015 lawsuit filed by a different executive assistant. Simultaneously, AT&T was sued by a unit of Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios for alleged discrimination against African-American-owned media companies. Slator’s legal counsel points to the intense public and legal scrutiny resulting from this situation when claiming that AT&T needed someone to take the blame and that the someone became Slator. The executive assistant’s claims were dismissed in California Superior Court, but this did not occur until months after Slator’s termination.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you know someone who has been wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

LA Radio Personality Appeals in Wrongful Termination Suit

A popular former radio personality for Los Angeles’ Spanish-language radio station K-Love 107.5 claims that her former employer Univision Communications Inc. wrongfully terminated her from her position at the radio station. Sofia Soria brought high rations, but was fired for alleged tardiness. The truth of the situation was that Soria was battling a stomach tumor at the time in question and required a stomach surgery (or so Soria alleged).  Soria’s California Wrongful Termination appeal was heard in November 2016.

According to allegations Soria made in court documents, she was diagnosed with a stomach tumor in late 2010. She attended a year’s worth of doctor’s appointments that caused a number of absences from the K-Love radio program. Soria claims that she informed her employer of her need for surgery in late 2011. Soon after, Soria claims she was terminated from her job after fifteen successful years with K-Love. In response, she filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in January 2013 alleging that her program had consistently high ratings at the time she was fired, for which she was rewarded with pay raises and bonuses on a regular basis and for which she was commended in performance reviews. The court found in favor of Univision.

Soria appealed the lower court’s decision. On November 3rd, the California Appeals Court heard arguments supporting Soria’s argument that she was wrongfully terminated. Originally, Univision argued that Soria was never actually disabled and had never requested accommodations or medical leave for the issues she was alleging in the suit. Univision had also previously argued that the tumor ended up being non-cancerous and was, therefore, not a threat to Soria’s health. Therefore from Univision’s perspective, Soria missed a number of shifts without just cause and was terminated for her frequent tardiness for the job. Prior to Soria’s appeal, the Defendant was granted summary judgment.

On appeal, Soria’s attorneys pointed out that while the tumor was eventually shown to be benign, her doctors suggested that it remained a threat to Soria’s internal organs, thus presenting a threat to her health and requiring surgery. Also noted during her appeal was that medical appointments were necessary for biopsies, monitoring, etc. Univision felt it was Soria’s choice to schedule appointments during work hours, but the appellate judge wasn’t so sure. Could there have been something more they could have done to support their employee when she needed it? Soria’s representation also noted on appeal that while Univision claims they terminated her for tardiness and absences, there was no documentation or mention in past performance evaluations of the issue.

Also noted was that under the Family Rights Act the only requirement for accommodation is to verbally note that surgery is required. Soria’s potential disability discrimination claim that would have been eligible according to the Fair Employment and Housing Act was negated by her termination.

If you have questions about employment law or the appellate process, please contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

The Ruling in Burns’ Wrongful Termination Suit vs. SDSU

In recent news, Beth Burns was victorious in her wrongful termination lawsuit against SDSU. The former San Diego State women’s basketball coach was awarded a $3.35 million judgment in San Diego Superior Court per jury decision. The case was founded on whistleblower retaliation accusations that occurred after Burns complained about potential Title IX violations at the college.  

The jury trial went on for a month. The jury consisted of five women and seven men who voted 9-3 in Burns’ favor after deliberating for two days. The 9-3 vote represents the minimum required by California civil court.

Burns is known as SDSU’s “winningest” women’s basketball coach. The wrongful termination lawsuit was drawn out into a three-year legal battle. She did not want to go through the process, but felt she had not other choice as she was being accused of physically hitting someone, others were saying she was not a good person, and she couldn’t accept that. She felt the legal battle was necessary in order to clear her name from the false accusations. 

In April of 2013 Burns was fired from her position as women’s basketball coach at the university. This was one month after her team won 27 games (breaking a school record) and only nine month after Burns’ contract extension through 2016-17 was granted paying her $220,000 per year plus bonuses and benefits. After her termination, she was out of work for a year before taking a job as an assistant coach at USC with a pay cut to $150,000 per year.

SDSU claimed that the reason for Burns’ termination was a “history” of mistreating her subordinates with a video from a February 2013 home game showing Burns elbowing assistant coach Adam Barrett who was seated to her right on the bench. Burns described the elbow as “incidental contact on a crowded bench.”  

The $3.35 million judgment was based on an award of $468,500 for past economic losses, $887,750 for future economic losses and $2 million for past and future non-economic losses and damages. 

If you have questions about wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation or a hostile work environment, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Bank Employee Sues for Wrongful Termination Seeking $2.6B

A former Wells Fargo bank employee is suing the financial institution for $2.6 billion due to allegations of wrongful termination. Just days after lawmakers encouraged the Department of Labor to look into Well Fargo’s actions against their employees when their workers made allegations of firing and other mistreatment for failure to meet strict sales quotas. These are the same strict sales quotas that had already resulted in the opening and closing of over two million unauthorized consumer accounts.

The wild story is now nearing an end with a group of former Wells Fargo employees banding together to file a class action lawsuit in California seeking $2.6 billion in damages. Damages being sought will be on behalf of all Wells Fargo employees who endured penalties for not meeting outlandish sales quotas over the past 10 years. Allegations being made against the banking giant include: unlawful business practices, failure to pay wages, failure to pay overtime, wrongful termination and unlawful penalties against employees.

According to the two original plaintiffs (both former Wells Fargo employees), the Wells Fargo managers required employees to meet a quota of 10 accounts per day and progress reports submitted several times throughout each day. Any workers who fell short of these requirements were reprimanded for failing to meet expectations. According to the suit, the employees were unable to meet the outlandish requirements without resorting to fraud. It continues to specify that the biggest victims of Wells Fargo’s illegal activity are the employees who were fired because they did not meet the cross sell quotas by engaging in the fraudulent scam that increased profits for CEOs. Plaintiffs insist that there are thousands of loyal employees who were either fired or demoted because they did NOT resort to illegal tactics for purposes of meeting impossible cross-selling quotas.

The plaintiffs allege that employees who attempted to meet the unrealistic goals without opening unauthorized accounts engaging in other, similarly fraudulent behavior, lost wages and benefits, as well as suffering humiliation, anxiety and embarrassment.

If you have questions or concerns regarding wrongful termination, workplace retaliation, or seeking class certification, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Chipotle Now Facing Alleged Racism Allegations in Another Lawsuit

Chipotle is having a rough year – at least in regards to legal allegations. From class action food poisoning lawsuits, animal welfare issues, drops in both sales and stock price…the popular restaurant chain can’t seem to catch a break in 2016. What are they facing now? Chipotle is making news again, but this time because they are facing allegations of racial discrimination and harassment at one of their California franchise locations.

The California lawsuit filed by Sheqweshu Clark, a previous employee at the El Segndo, California location, states that Latino managers assign day shifts to other Latino employees, but leave “black” staff, like herself, with the less desirable night shifts. But this is not the only claim being made by Clark in the recent lawsuit. She also alleges that management denied there was a problem with either shift assignment or discrimination and then fired Clark a few weeks later without offering an explanation. Clark claims she when she attempted to confront by Chipotle supervisors about preferential treatment, she was summarily dismissed and advised that “black girls” always have “attitude.” Formal allegations included in the lawsuit against Chipotle include: retaliation, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, racial discrimination, and failure to prevent harassment.

Chipotle is not commenting on the allegations at this time, but do state that they have received the suit and will consider its merits in order to determine a course of action. The Chipotle spokesperson did advise that, generally speaking, the filing of a lawsuit constitutes a series of allegations, but does not actually represent proof of wrongdoing.

If you have questions about wrongful termination, discrimination in the workplace, or workplace retaliation, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible.    

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.