Famed California Art School Faces Wrongful Termination Lawsuit from Estate of Former Otis College Director

The estate of former Otis College Director, Bruce W. Ferguson sued famed California art school, Otis College of Art and Design, alleging wrongful termination. Ferguson passed away in 2019 after amassing numerous notable career achievements during his lifetime.

About Former Otis College Director, Curator Bruce W. Ferguson:

In 1993, Ferguson founded the art space SITE Santa Fe, a destination in New Mexico, and organized parts of editions of the Venice Biennale, the Bienal de São Paulo, and the Biennale of Sydney. His final professional position was president of the Otis College of Art and Design. His time at the famed California art school ended only months before he died at age 73, but controversy abounds now that he is gone. 

The Former Director's Estate Files a Wrongful Termination Lawsuit:

Ferguson's sister, Anne Marie Ferguson, filed a lawsuit in the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that the school forced Ferguson out of his position, discriminating against him due to his illness associated with his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. When filing, Anne Marie Ferguson listed the school as well as "Does 1 to 10" as defendants. The designation "Does 1 to 10" refers to various John or Jane Does that may be added to the suit as the case progresses.

Allegations Made in the Wrongful Termination Lawsuit:

Ferguson's sister claims that the famous art school rushed to fire him due to his disability and need for accommodations. According to the suit, the Otis College board's claims of poor performance were a fabricated "pretext" to justify firing Ferguson. One of Anne Marie Ferguson's attorneys said he's never seen…" an employee get a raise, a diagnosis of cancer, and then fired all within a matter of months."

Ferguson's History on the Job at Otis: 

Ferguson took the job as President at Otis in 2014 and was diagnosed with cancer in 2018. In early 2019, Ferguson privately disclosed his illness to Gail Buchalter, the chair of Otis's board. Last February, he advised Otis faculty of his diagnosis. A group of faculty members submitted a letter of "no confidence," citing low morale at the school and the need for transparency in leadership. (The former director's estate regards this letter as the pretext the school used to justify Ferguson's dismissal). Last March, Ferguson was preparing to undergo chemotherapy when he was placed on administrative leave. According to the suit, one board member told him he was "axed."

The Estate Claims Otis Violated Employment Law:

According to the estate's attorneys, the school's actions violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, or disability, as well as the American's with Disabilities Act. In addition to discriminating against Ferguson due to his diagnosis and perceived disability, the estate alleges retaliation.

If you have questions about discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination in California workplaces, 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 Principal Claims for Catholic School Files Wrongful Termination Suit

A former principal at a Catholic elementary school in La Mirada, 38-year old Bobbie Castillo, claims she was wrongfully terminated. According to the suit, when she told her supervisor that she was pregnant (in 2014) and would be going on maternity leave, the Rev. Joseph Visperas responded, “You’re coming back in two weeks, right?”

Reverend Joseph Visperas is pastor of St. Paul of the Cross Catholic Church. Castillo described his voice as serious when he made the above remark about being back in two weeks from maternity leave.

The pregnant Catholic school principal eventually responded by filing a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Plagiarized Material or Too Much Maternity Time?

Castillo filed suit in October 2015 in Los Angeles Superior Court, listing the Archdiocese of Los Angeles as Defendant. A jury will hear the case. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles claims Castillo lost her job after she allegedly plagiarized material included as part of the school’s accreditation renewal requirements. Castillo maintains she was terminated from St. Paul in March of that same year because of her pregnancy and because she exposed misconduct perpetrated by others there at the school.

History of Castillo’s Wrongful Termination Case:

Castillo started working at the school as a seventh-grade teacher in 2007. She was promoted to principal by Visperas four years later. Before her two-month maternity leave (Oct. 2014-Jan. 2015), while she was principal, she took a similar amount of maternity leave time in 2009 while she was a seventh-grade teacher. Castillo testified that she worried about the odd remark Visperas made about her maternity leave because it was made in March, which is the month that principals are usually offered contract proposals for the upcoming school year. According to Castillo, she never received a contract until she returned from maternity leave the next February. Castillo also claimed that not long after his first odd remark about her maternity leave, Visperas advised her he was going to have members of the staff rate her. The combined factors left her worried about her job status.

Was She Fired Because She Was Pregnant?

Castillo claims she was wrongfully terminated because she got pregnant and because she reported misconduct other at the school engaged in, including charging some of the student’s parents for unworked bingo game hours. According to Castillo, the replacement the school found for her was no longer of child-bearing age. Castillo also claims that when the book was turned in (including the section she allegedly “plagiarized”), she was in labor, and there was no evidence that she drafted the portion indicated.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit or 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.

Fired During her Battle Against Cancer, Tulare Woman Sues Harris Ranch Beef Co.

Yolanda Alcala, a Tulare woman who worked for Harris Ranch Beef Company for more than 20 years, filed a lawsuit at the Fresno County Superior Court claiming she was fired when she took medical leave to undergo chemotherapy after breast cancer surgery. Harris Ranch Beef Co., a Selma-based company, denies they faired Alcala.

Employment law requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations for employees when they have a disability or a severe illness. Common reasonable accommodations employers regularly make for employees include extending the worker’s medical leave or modifying the employee’s job duties. 

Alcala Claims She Was Fired for Taking Medical Leave to Receive Necessary Medical Treatment for Cancer:

Yolanda Alcala, the plaintiff, claims that when her long-time employer fired her, it felt like being disposed of like an old, used up rag. She turned to the law to get help because she wanted to see Harris Ranch Beef Company respect her rights as a worker as well as the rights of other workers in similar situations.

Harris Ranch Beef Co. Denies the Wrongful Termination and Disability Discrimination Allegations:

Harris Ranch Beef Co. tells a different story. They say that the story, as told by Alcala, is not what actually happened. Harris Ranch Beef Company Vice President for Risk Management and Human Resources, Mike Casey, claims the company is disappointed to hear about the pending litigation instigated by Alcala. He says the company complies with all state and federal laws and that they did not fire Alcala. Casey claims it was Alcala who chose to leave Harris Ranch Beef Company. Casey insists that the company provided Alcala with a superior health care plan that completely covered the costs of her cancer care and medical treatments throughout her two decades with the company. He also claims that Alcala’s complaint is full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations. They look forward to setting the record straight as the case proceeds.

The Company’s Claims of Inaccuracy and Misrepresentation Do Not Slow Alcala Down:

Alcala’s lawyer responded to the company’s claims on the plaintiff’s behalf, reaffirming that the company’s claims that Alcala was the one that terminated their working relationship of her own volition are not true. According to Alcala, there was a meeting in January 2018 where Alcala was terminated from her position without notice.

Allegations Included in the Lawsuit:

Alcala’s lawsuit includes numerous employment law violation allegations, including disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate a disability, retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, failure to engage in the interactive process, violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act, and wrongful termination. Before her cancer diagnosis and need for medical leave, Alcala had a record of being a dedicated and hardworking employee at Harris Ranch Beef Company receiving regular attendance bonuses and enjoying positive relationships in the workplace with both management and peers on the job.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file a disability 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.

Is Employer Liable for Violation if Employee on Disability Leave is Fired by Mistake?

During his time as a pharmaceutical sales representative, John Glynn’s doctor issued a medical certification designating his work status as “no work” because a severe eye condition, myopic macular degeneration, meant he was not able to drive safely. Glynn commenced a medical leave of absence. 

Does Your Workplace Have a Reasonable Accommodation Policy for Disability?

Glynn’s employer had a reasonable accommodation policy in place that listed reassignment to a vacant position as a potential accommodation when necessary to accommodate a disability. In spite of this written policy, Glynn’s application for another job at the company that did not require driving was denied. About six months into Glynn’s medical leave of absence, Glynn was terminated after an employee the company later described as a “temp” in the benefits department, decided Glynn was no longer eligible to continue with an “inactive status.” 

Was Glynn’s Termination While on Disability Leave an Honest Mistake?

The employer acknowledged this as a mistake about nine months later after Glynn filed suit. After conceding the error, the company offered to reinstate Glynn unconditionally with full back pay, but Glynn rejected their offer. Glynn stated that he refused the offer for reinstatement because when making the offer, the company did not specify a position. He did not believe they made the offer in good faith.

Glynn Filed Suit Claiming Numerous Employment Law Violations:

Glynn filed suit several months after being terminated while on disability leave, citing several employment law violations: disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, violating the whistleblower statute, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary adjudication against Glynn on his claims. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate the order dismissing the claims. The Appeals Court held that even if the employer made an honest mistake, a lack of “animus” does not eliminate liability for a disability discrimination claim. The Court also held that Glynn demonstrated he engaged in protected activity through the four emails included in the documentation in which he complained about the lack of reasonable accommodation for his disability. 

If you need to discuss how to file a disability 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 Juul Employee Sues San Fran Vaping Co. Alleging Harassment and Wrongful Termination

On December 20, 2019, former Juul employee Kai Yin “Carrie” Chuang filed a complaint with San Francisco Superior Court, alleging she was the victim of sexual harassment. Chuang also claims the San Francisco vaping company wrongfully terminated her employment after reporting harassment incidents to her superiors. 

Chuang worked at Juul, as well as its predecessor company Pax Labs. She was employed as a supply chain manager starting in 2017 through 2018. Chuang claims that three different male Juul employees made unwanted sexual advances to her on multiple occasions. The incidents involved suggestive comments and inappropriate physical contact. According to the lawsuit, Chuang reported the incidents to her supervisors at Juul. Still, the managers discouraged her from pressing the issue and did not conduct a thorough investigation of her claims.

Alleged Incidents of Workplace Harassment:

While on a business trip in 2017, a male employee requested the Chuang come to his room and “sleep with him.” When Chuang refused, the male co-worker touched her inappropriately and kissed her against her will.

Juul executives allegedly spread false rumors that Chuang accepted bribes from a vendor, indulged in a romantic relationship with vendor representative, and downloaded company files and shared them with an ex-employee in violation of company policy. Chuang claims the executives spread these rumors in retaliation for reporting the abusive incidents.

Was Chuang Wrongfully Terminated?

In December 2018, Chuang was terminated from her position with Juul. In February, Chuang filed a complaint. She received a right-to-sue notice the same day. Chuang’s lawsuit seeks back pay, lost fringe benefits, and additional monetary relief. A specific amount is not specified in the lawsuit.

How Did Juul Respond to the Harassment, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Allegations?

Juul claims that Chuang did not raise allegations until months after her separation from the company. They also claim that an internal investigation was completed in response to her complaints. Juul insists Chuang’s claims have no merit and that they are dedicated to creating and sustaining a safe, comfortable workplace for all employees that is free from all forms of harassment.

If you need to discuss harassment or workplace retaliation, 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.

Delta Facing Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Former Delta Airlines flight attendant, Ida Gomez Llanos, 79 years old, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging age discrimination after she was fired (Gomez Llanos v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.). 

Gomez filed the wrongful termination lawsuit on November 15, 2019, in California Superior Court. Gomez claims she started work as a flight attendant for Delta in November 1962. Additionally, Gomez claims the airline terminated her employment on June 6, 2019.

Delta Faces Employment Law Violation Allegations:

According to the lawsuit, Gomez Llanos faced both age discrimination and a hostile work environment at Delta Airlines.

Gomez Llanos was allegedly fired following numerous allegations: 1) that she stole company-owned items from one of the Delta aircraft for her personal use, 2) spiked her coffee with alcohol, and 3) failed to fill her assigned position on the job (specifically paying another flight attendant to cover her shift on an international flight). Gomez Llanos was the company’s most senior flight attendant; as such, other employees resented the privileges and salary that the seniority granted. Other employees allegedly voiced their resentment by lodging official complaints to management.

Did Delta Welcome Complaints Against Senior Employees Like Gomez Llanos?

Gomez Llanos also alleged in the lawsuit that Delta welcomed any complaints against senior employees as it supported their efforts to get rid of their most senior flight attendants. By welcoming any criticism of their oldest employees, they could justify the eventual termination of their employment.

According to the lawsuit, Gomez Llanos went above and beyond in her job as Delta flight attendant. She claims she continued to receive commendations and awards from the airline for her exemplary behavior throughout her years of service. The plaintiff’s legal counsel intends to hold the airline responsible for their intolerable actions and alleged discrimination, retaliation, and harassment violations.

Delta’s Response to the Age Discrimination Allegation:

Delta’s spokesperson insists that the airline stands by its decision to terminate Gomez Llanos’ employment. The airline claims that when company policy is identified as violating employment law or when inappropriate conduct is reported, the airline conducts a thorough investigation and determines the most appropriate response. The airline considers several factors, including overall performance and length of employment. 

If you need to file an age discrimination lawsuit or if you need to discuss other employment law violations, 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. 

Wonderful Citrus to Pay $5 Million for Defaming Former Worker

James Jordan, a former employee of Wonderful Citrus Packaging LLP, claims he was fired by the company after 26 years on the job. Jordan also alleges that the company spread rumors that he embezzled money from the company during his time with them. The Tulare County man was awarded close to $5 million after taking his accusations against the country’s largest citrus supplier to court.  

The federal district court awarded Jordan almost $5 million in damages on October 10th in response to the defamation and wrongful termination lawsuit he filed against his former employer. Jordan’s former employer, Wonderful Citrus Packaging LLP, is best known for their boxes of Halo brand mandarin oranges that are known for being small and easy to peel.

Jordan, the plaintiff, filed the lawsuit in March 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The suit listed his former employer, Wonderful Citrus, as the Defendant on the grounds of age discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of contract, defamation of character, emotional distress, and a violation of California’s good faith and fair dealing laws.

According to court documents, Jordan was fired on November 3rd, 2017 despite being a loyal employee for over 25 years. When he was fired, he was 54 years old and was not offered any valid explanation for the termination. He claims he was replaced by someone who was significantly younger with less experience and qualifications. Before Jordan was fired, the company sent two emails out to 3-400 employees each notifying them of Jordan’s termination and clearly indicating that there had been criminal activity involved (i.e. theft and embezzlement). Allegedly, the company continued spreading rumors to about Jordan being involved in criminal activity to justify the firing including rumors of changing timecards and stealing from the company.

The plaintiff’s legal counsel argues that the company engaged in a “sham investigation” involving threats and coercion. By using these underhanded tactics, the company fabricated a reason for Jordan’s termination. Jordan’s legal counsel indicated that the company employed threats of termination when interviewing Jordan’s co-workers and subordinates. One employee being interviewed about the situation even passed out from anxiety.

Wonderful argues that Jordan was previously a loyal employee, but eventually became “self-dealing.” The company insists that it obtained info suggesting Jordan was stealing from the company in 2017. They claim that when they found out about the theft, they responded by terminating his employment. The company insists that Jordan’s suit is frivolous and a further attempt to support his own bad behavior.

 Evidence was presented for four weeks during a jury trial conducted by Judge Anthony W. Ishii. For four weeks evidence was presented revealing Wonderful Citrus did not have reasonable grounds for their accusations and that they did not have proof of their accusations. They made no offer to attempt to settle before the verdict of the jury was announced.

The jury found that the company was not in breach of contract. They also found that the company’s statements about Jordan were false and damaging to his reputation in his industry. They specifically found that the company did not determine the truth of the embezzlement accusation and that they acted with ill will towards the plaintiff when they made the accusations about stealing and embezzlement from the company.

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.