Canyons Aquatic Club Facing Wrongful Termination, Whistleblower Retaliation and Sexual Assault Claims

A former swim coach, David Kuck, is suing Canyons Aquatic Club alleging wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation, and sexual assault. Canyons Aquatic Club hired Kuck as their head swim coach in July 2017. He started work with the organization the next month. Kuck came to Canyons Aquatic Club from SwimMAC, a nationally recognized club located in North Carolina. Kuck claims he was fired from his position with the Canyons Aquatic Club for blowing the whistle on crimes that implicate the late Jeremy Anderson, child sex crimes suspect.

Kuck’s attorneys filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court. They have stated publicly that the case is textbook whistleblower retaliation. President of the Canyons Aquatic Club, Carole Horst, responded to claims that personnel matters at the organization are “private matters” and they do not provide comment on private matters. According to the lawsuit, the club and its parent organization, USA Swimming, failed to respond to multiple complaints Kuck lodged regarding “predator” coach Jeremy Anderson, known commonly as Jay Anderson. According to the lawsuit, Kuck noticed and reported Anderson’s abusive behavior almost immediately after joining the swim club staff.

Anderson was an accomplished SCV swim coach. He was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals in Costa Rica last June on suspicion of performing lewd acts with a child. He died shortly after being taken into custody.

Kuck claims he was fired after he notified the Canyons Aquatic Club and USA Swimming and the regional arm over USA Swimming, Southern California Swimming, of a number of incidents in which Anderson committed acts of sexual abuse and other forms of abuse towards minor male swimmers.

According to Kuck’s lawsuit, he reported multiple instances of abuse (including sexual abuse) and despite these notifications, the club board refused to act unless they were told to do so directly by their supervising entity, USA Swimming. Kuck alleges that during this time period a former board member advised him that USA Swimming and the Canyons Aquatic Club board members were aware of Anderson’s conduct, but would not take action to stop it.   

Kuck took the matter outside the group, contacting officials from the Center for Safe Sport and Southern California Swimming in mid-November 2017. He sought immediate assistance and action regarding Anderson’s sexual abuse towards minor swimmers at the club. At the end of 2017, the board gave Kuck approval to terminate Anderson, but only after they were notified that the Sheriff’s Department was planning to carry out immediate action against Anderson at College of the Canyons where the swim club is located. While approval for termination of Anderson was granted, the board also forbid Kuck from vocalizing his concerns or notifying any staff or club member of the allegations or concerns. The board claimed the gag order was because they feared attracting lawsuits or inspiring more victims to come forward. 

As the investigation continued, more evidence of the sexual abuse was discovered. The criminal investigation into Anderson was made public in June 2019.

Retaliation against Kuck for whistle blowing allegedly began in December 2017. The club refused to pay his bonuses even though they were doing so for other employees. Right before he was terminated, Kuck claims he discovered the club had been operating illegally as a suspended California corporation. He notified the board. Kuck claims his refusal to stay silent as the club continued to operate illegally in violation of California law was another factor leading to his termination.

When Kuck approached the board regarding the culture that enabled past instances of abuse committed by Anderson, and other instances of bullying that continued to run rampant throughout the club membership, he was terminated. His wife, another coach on staff, was also terminated. The club also terminated the memberships of the Kuck’s three children. Kuck was not presented with his final paycheck upon termination, provide him with bonuses or vacation pay he was owed, or issue his final wage statement.

If you need to discuss how to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former J.P. Morgan Advisor’s Wrongful Termination Case Moves Forward

After being revived on appeal, a former J.P. Morgan Advisor’s wrongful termination lawsuit has another chance. The lawsuit has already failed to prevail twice (in arbitration and court), but the California wrongful termination lawsuit has one another shot thanks to the appeals court.

The lower court’s ruling was reversed by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling was vacated and the arbitration award that denied the plaintiff’s claims was vacated. According to an October 24th memorandum, arbitrators violated the Bradley Sayre’s (the plaintiff) right to due process when they refused to postpone hearings in July 2017 after Sayre’s attorney became ill and the California-based broker requested a delay to provide care for a newborn.

This decision provides Sayre with the chance to revive the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration claim alleging J.P. Morgan Chase Bank violated labor law regulations through wrongful termination. Sayre filed the claim in May 2015 after J.P. Morgan dismissed him from his job in March 2014. He seeks over $830,000 in damages for the loss of his book of business.

The Plaintiff’s History at the Company:

Sayre, the plaintiff in the wrongful termination case against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, joined the bank as a branch-based Private Client unit in 2011 in San Diego. Before the San Diego position, Sayre ran a La Jolla office for Edward Jones for four years. He is currently listed as broker on record with USAA Financial Advisors out of San Diego, California according to public information databases.

According to Sayre, he was told to destroy marketing materials while working for the bank. The destruction of these particular materials would help the bank avoid liability issues in connection to a federal investigation of J.P. Morgan’s sale of collateralized derivative products. Sayre felt uncomfortable with the situation and filed internal complaints about the situation. He claims his managers purposefully arranged for his firing due to the internal complaints he made about the destruction of the potentially damaging marketing material.

The decision on appeal does not address the allegations made in Sayre’s original claim, but it is notable that the appellate court vacated an arbitration award. It is not a common result.

If you have questions about how to identify wrongful termination or if you need to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Is the Supreme Court Divided on LGBT Job Discrimination Case?

The Supreme Court appears divided as they struggle over whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT workers from employment discrimination. The cases under consideration are the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the place of the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court’s four liberal justices are expected to side with the employees terminated due to their sexual orientation or transgender status. The question was whether or not one of the court’s conservatives would join the four liberals in siding with the employees in either of the two highly anticipated cases. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that strong arguments favored LGBT workers. He also stated that there was a question of whether or not justices of the court should take the “massive social upheaval” that could follow such a ruling into account when coming to a decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two other conservatives, did not openly indicate their views on the matter, but Roberts did question how employers who hold religious objections to hiring LGBT individuals could be affected by the outcome of the cases.

In one of the cases, a skydiving instructor and a government employee (at the county level) were both fired because they were gay. 

In the second case, a transgender funeral home director named Aimee Stephens was fired. Stephens attended court the day of the arguments.

If the court were to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers LGBT individuals, it could lead to some required changes to:

·      Locker rooms

·      Bathrooms

·      Women’s Shelters

·      School Sports Teams 

The argument led to a discussion that lawmakers should be in charge of changing the law, not unelected judges. Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, apparently agreed with this sentiment stating that 1964’s Congress could not have imagined the law to apply to sexual orientation or gender identity cases when it was created. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presented the counter-argument that the Congress of 1964 also did could not foresee sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination.

A decision is expected in the early summer of 2020. 

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Vungle CEO Files Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, Zain Jaffer, former Vungle founder, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. He alleges that the mobile ad company wrongfully terminated him from his position in the role of CEO. In the lawsuit, Jaffer claims that Vungle violated the California labor code, citing the prohibition of discrimination and retaliation by employers based on an arrest or detention without conviction.

Defining Wrongful Termination: In terms of the law, wrongful termination is defined as any situation in which an employee’s contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment or a statute provision or rule in employment law. 

In October 2017, Jaffer was arrested after an incident involving his son. He was charged with performing lewd acts on a child and assault with a deadly weapon. The charges were later dropped. The San Mateo District Attorney’s Office stated that it did not believe Mr. Jaffer engaged in any sexual misconduct on the night of the incident. They also concluded that the “injuries” were a result of Mr. Jaffer being unconscious due to prescription medication.

After the incident was resolved, Jaffer started to look for options to sell his Vungle shares or pursue a different leadership position at the company. In the lawsuit, Jaffer claims he was looking forward to proceeding with a friendly relationship with the company, but instead, Vungle attempted to destroy his career by blocking his efforts to sell his shares or transfer his shares to family members. He also claims that the company tried to prevent him from purchasing company shares. 

Jaffer does not specify the amount he is seeking in the suit, but his attorney has gone on record stating that he suffered at least $100 million worth of harm and that the amount awarded for damages would be entirely up to the jury. She did note that an employee in a similar case won close to $20 million.

If you need to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$4.9 Million Settles Montebello Unified Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Former superintendent, Susanna Contreras Smith, is to receive a $4.9 million settlement after the appeal of her wrongful termination lawsuit. She and her attorney were also awarded $6 million in damages and attorneys fees. 

Cleve Pell, former chief financial and operations officer, also sued the district. He received $2.6 million in damages and attorney fees but has not settled yet.

Robert Alaniz, the district spokesman, stated that Montebello Unified is glad to have the matter settled. With the issue resolved, the district can move forward, focusing on its mission to offer excellence in public schooling, create positive learning environments, programs, and services so students can excel. 70% of the cost will be covered by the district’s insurance company, with the remainder coming out of the general fund. 

When Does Termination Become Wrongful Termination? In legal terms, the phrase wrongful termination refers to a situation in which an employee’s contract of employment is terminated by their employer when that termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment in place, a statute provision, or any federal or state employment law.  

The Montebello Unified School District recently had financial difficulties that resulted in the hiring of a fiscal advisor, Mark Skvarna. Skvarna offered oversight for all the district’s financial decisions. In response to the settlement, Skvarna stated that there would only be a minimal impact on the Montebello Unified School District’s budget. He advised the district to close out any lawsuits they could. One-time settlements protect them from the difficulties of open liability.

If you have been wrongfully terminated from your job, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. 

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Finds Success After 2 Investigates Coverage

In recent news, a KTVU 2 Investigates report helped a woman’s wrongful termination lawsuit meet with success. The KTVU 2 Investigates report ended up being the spark necessary to lead the case to an award of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The woman in the case, Ivania Centeno, was allegedly wrongfully terminated over a family-leave discrepancy.

Centeno, a 13-year employee at South San Francisco’s Bon Appetit café, claimed she was let go in 2017 after she took time off to provide her dying mother-in-law with necessary care. Centeno fought for resolution in the case for over a year without much progress.

After the 2 Investigates coverage aired in February 2019 highlighting the situation and bringing to light the legal loophole in California preventing in-laws from qualifying employees for leave under family-leave laws, the case saw movement. According to California’s paid leave law, care of in-laws is covered, but under the California Family Rights Act, care of in-laws is not covered. The question becomes which law takes precedent and the answer is not quite clear. The problem will require legislative changes.

Centeno claims that Bon Appetit gave her permission to fly to Nicaragua to provide care when her mother-in-law became deathly ill. Her mother-in-law later passed away and Centeno headed back to return to the job at the restaurant. When she arrived, the restaurant fired her. They insisted both that she missed too many days of work and that her mother-in-law did not qualify under the family leave policy.

Company records show management blaming computer software at the company for the decision to terminate Centeno based on the trip to care for her mother-in-law combined with circumstances surrounding her recent and previous absences from work due to a work-related injury. The 2 Investigates team requested to interview the company to get some answers about the lawsuit, but they did not receive a response. In April, the case was finally resolved. Centeno was offered an undisclosed amount of backpay, unemployment benefits, and attorney fees plus court costs.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or denied family-leave time you are eligible for under employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

“2 Investigates” Features Wrongful Termination Lawsuit: Plaintiff Wins

In South San Francisco, California KTVU 2 Investigates completed a report on the situation of Ivania Centeno, a 13-year employee of Bon Appetit Café inside Genetech. Centeno alleges wrongful termination due to a family-leave discrepancy. The story helped spark an award for the plaintiff totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Centeno claimed she was released from her position in 2017 because she took time off to care for her mother-in-law who was dying; doing so was allegedly against the company's policy. Centeno attempted to fight for justice in her case for a year before 2 Investigates completed a report and aired it in a February segment that highlighted the situation and the more significant issue at hand: a legal loophole in California that prevents employees from accessing protection provided under current family-leave laws when the case applies to in-laws.

According to California paid leave law the care of in-laws is covered, but under the California Family Rights Act, care of in-laws is not covered. As the two laws contradict each other, and it is not clear which law takes precedent, legislative changes are necessary for any long-term resolution.

In the current case of Centeno and Bon Appetit Café, Centeno claims her mother-in-law because seriously ill and Bon Appetit granted Centeno permission to fly to Nicaragua to provide the needed care. Centeno traveled to Nicaragua and provided her mother-in-law with the necessary care until she passed. After her mother-in-law died, Centeno returned to the states to go back to her job. When she arrived, Bon Appetit fired her, insisting that she missed too many days of work and that caring for her mother-in-law was not a protected activity under the family leave policy.  

Management at the company claims that computer software made the decision to terminate Centeno. The trip to care for her mother-in-law, as well as previous absences due to a work-related injury, were input into the software, which then generated the conclusion to terminate Centeno's employment.  

In April 2019, the case was resolved with Centeno receiving an undisclosed amount of back pay, unemployment benefits, and an award of $211,795 in attorney fees and an additional $25,603 in court costs.

If you have questions about wrongful termination or what constitutes wrongful termination, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with the Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP location nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.