Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed After Cal Women’s Water Polo Coach Fired

Richard Corso, former Cal women’s water polo coach, filed a California wrongful termination lawsuit against Athletic Director Mike Williams, Senior Associate Athletic Director Jenny Simon-O’Neill and Associate Athletic Director of Compliance Jay Larson. Corso seeks $1.38 million in lost wages.

In the suit, Corso alleges gender and age discrimination in the wrongful termination suit. Corso also alleges that in 2015, Simon-O’Neill, a senior woman administrator, said that the administrators were looking for the team to be led by a young woman. According to the suit, before the meeting the former Cal athletic director, Sandy Barbour, said she wanted to see women coaching women.  After the suit was filed, Cal Athletics denied the allegations, calling them false and/or fictitious.

Two months after 62-year old Corso resigned, the Bears hired 39-year old Coralie Simmons. Prior to being hired at Cal, Simmons led Sonoma State. Cal Athletics claims that their search included both male and female candidates. Simmons is currently the only female head water polo coach in the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation.

The wrongful termination lawsuit lists the UC Board of Regents and UC Berkeley as defendants and describes an internal inquiry into the training practices used by the water polo team in accordance with NCAA bylaws. According to the lawsuit, Larson told Corso in March 2015 of over-training violation suspicions. Two months later, O’Neill received an allegation regarding the potential over-training violations that led to an internal inquiry. Further in the lawsuit, it is alleged that the internal inquiry/investigation quickly turned into a crusade against Corso even though the eventual conclusion was that the allegations were “meaningless.”

Cal Athletics suggests differently, stating that the allegations were, in fact, indicative of very serious violations and that the NCAA Enforcement staff initially considered the case as a Level II violation prior to determining that it should be handled as a Level III. They further described the investigation as being “self-reported” to the NCAA and that at its conclusion; it resulted in a reduction of 48 hours of practice time.

Corso alleges that he exhibited exceptional performance, but was mistreated in spite of his record. He cites his 227-98 record as well as the team’s improved graduation rate. Corso took over the Bears in 2005. At that time, the team was described as “lacking” both in academic and athletic standards. The peak of Corso’s Cal career was in 2011 when the Bears advanced to the final game of the NCAA Championships where they lost to UCLA. The Bears are currently 9-1 in their current season, led by new head coach Simmons.

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

Catholic Teacher Files Wrongful Termination Suit: Fired After Sharing Gay Marriage on Social Media

Kenneth Bencomo, a former Catholic high school teacher, claims he was fired from his job after his legal marriage to his same-sex partner. Bencomo states in the lawsuit that until he was fired, he was unaware of the church’s stance on homosexuals and gay marriage. Bencomo, now 49 years old, was raised Catholic and graduated from an all-male Catholic high school in La Verne.

Bencomo and his same-sex partner, Christopher Persky, met in April 2003. The two were among a large group of same-sex couples that married when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that gay weddings could resume in California for the first time since 2008. Bencomo was fired from St. Lucy’s Priory High School in Glendora, California in July 2013. The firing occurred less than two weeks after Bencomo publicly shared news of his nuptials through social media.

Bencomo filed suit against St. Lucy’s in March 2014 citing wrongful termination claims in violation of public policy as well as violations of state Labor Code and breach of employment contract. The attorneys representing the school filed a motion for dismissal on the grounds that the school was founded by a Catholic-affiliated organization and therefore has immunity from the claims included in Bencomo’s suit. Bencomo’s attorney argues that the school’s argument for dismissal is a misguide application of the ministerial exception.

During Bencomo’s deposition, he was asked about his knowledge of the Catholic Church’s view of gays and gay marriage. Bencomo stated that at the time he took the job at St. Lucy’s, he had no idea what the Catholic Church’s stance was regarding being gay. He further stated that he learned about the church’s position on the matter when he was terminated. He said that he doesn’t remember who it was that told him that it was okay to be gay, but that you couldn’t act on it. Bencomo stated that he didn’t believe that the information he was provided was an actual representation of the Catholic Church’s official viewpoint on gays.

If you feel that you may have been wrongfully terminated from your job, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Social Media Giant, Snapchat, Facing California Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

There seems to be a tech company constantly in the news facing a lawsuit – recent news has given the spotlight to the social media giant, Snapchat. The plaintiff in the case alleges wrongful termination.

The plaintiff, Anthony Pompliano, claims he was fired after alerting supervisors to potential misrepresentation on the part of the company. Pompliano filed the California wrongful termination lawsuit in January 2017. He claims that Snapchat intentionally misled their investors in order to inflate Snapchat’s valuation prior to its initial public offering (IPO). In addition, Pompliano alleges that Snapchat has actively sought to destroy his career since the termination.

According to news reports, Pompliano filed his California wrongful termination lawsuit against Snapchat alleging that he advised his supervisors on the job of Snapchat’s activity, mainly alleged misrepresentation of growth metrics. Snapchat hired Pompliano in August 2015. Prior to working with Snapchat, Pompliano worked for Facebook. Pompliano alleges that he was given false information during the hiring process that resulted in him taking a job with Snapchat. The company has a fierce rivalry with Pompliano’s previous employer, Facebook, another social media giant that has been on the seen years longer than the relatively new Snapchat. Pompliano claims that Snapchat fraudulently enticed him away from his position with Facebook to run Snapchat’s new user growth and engagement team. After working for Snapchat for only three weeks, it became apparent to Pompliano that Snapchat has falsely represented the Company’s growth, among other things.

In court documents, Pompliano states that during his time with Snapchat he learned that the metrics he was provided during his hiring process were false. Upon realizing this, Pompliano notified the Snapchat Vice President of Finance. Allegedly, some of the company’s superiors agreed with Pompliano, but afterward he was fired. Pompliano claims that Snapchat only hired him in order to obtain Facebook’s proprietary information. He further claims that he did not breach any agreements that he had with his previous employer, Facebook.

Pompliano claims he was fired because Snapchat accurately perceived that he would not turn a blind eye to continued misrepresentations of Company data to the public, advertisers, prospective employees, investors, etc. In addition to terminating his employment, Pompliano claims that Snapchat sought to destroy his career and his professional reputation through false misrepresentations about his termination. While Snapchat (and their maker, Snap Inc.) claim the allegations have on merit, Pompliano’s suit seeks to prevent the company from misrepresenting why his was fired.

If you have questions about wrongful termination or what constitutes a wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

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.