ADP Facing Fired Manager’s Disability Bias and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, a former manager filed a mental disability discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit alleging ADP violated labor law.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The Court: U.S. District Court Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:2022cv00898

The Plaintiff: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff in the case, Nathaniel Rutledge, was a manager for ADP from March 2019 until the company terminated his employment on August 27, 2021. After the death of his brother, Rutledge was instructed to join a video call with ADP’s Director of Associates, Sonya Everett, and Lead Investigative Security Agent, Michael Paulhus. Everett told Rutledge they were conducting a wellness check because there were indications Rutledge was “struggling.” According to the plaintiff, they did not indicate what prompted the situation. They immediately began asking a series of questions that felt like an interrogation, repeatedly demanding the plaintiff turn on the camera even though he wasn’t feeling well and was uncomfortable doing so. After Rutledge said he didn’t want to continue the call without being told what the meeting was about, the company placed him on leave and advised him he was required to obtain clearance from their Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider before returning to work. Rutledge assured the EAP counselor he had no mental issues that affected his work, but the counselor recommended Rutledge see a therapist anyway. He did not, and two days later, the counselor sent a letter to the defendant notifying them of Rutledge’s non-compliance. When Rutledge was again invited to a video call the same day, he declined, stating that the last one made him very uncomfortable. Rutledge was fired the next day. The company claimed his refusal to take the video call was insubordinate. The company claimed they terminated his employment because he refused to participate in ongoing psychological treatment.

The Defendant: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff Rutledge filed disability harassment, wrongful termination, and emotional distress claims. The defendant in the case, ADP, is a payroll services company.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

FEHA explicitly prohibits an employer from harassing an employee because of a mental disability. To successfully argue a disability harassment claim, the plaintiff must show the following:

(1) they are a member of a protected class

(2) they were subject to unwelcome harassment

(3) the unwelcome harassment was based on their protected status

(4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with their work performance (by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment); and

(5) the defendants in the case are liable for the harassment

However, for the case to move forward, the plaintiff must only show that the defendant regarded them as disabled, thus creating a protected class and making them a part of the protected class. The defendant’s immediate motions to dismiss were denied.

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

Former Dollar General Store Employee Claims Age & Disability Discrimination

The case Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC involved a dispute between a former employee, Galarsa, and her former employer, Dolgen California LLC, a retail company that operates Dollar General stores in California.

The Case: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

The Case No.: F082404 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2021)

The Plaintiff: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

Galarsa, the plaintiff in the case, claimed she was wrongfully terminated from her job and discriminated against based on her age and disability. Dolgen California LLC hired Galarsa in 2008 as a store manager and later promoted her to district manager. In 2014, she was diagnosed with a medical condition that required her to take medical leave for several months. Upon her return to work, she got a demotion from district manager to store manager, resulting in reduced pay and benefits. Galarsa alleged that her demotion was a form of discrimination based on her age and disability and that her subsequent termination was in retaliation for her complaints about the demotion.

The Defendant: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

Dolgen California LLC argued that Galarsa was terminated for failing to meet the company's performance expectations and that her demotion resulted from her inability to perform her job duties.

The Case: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of Galarsa, awarding her over $1.7 million in damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages. Dolgen California LLC appealed the decision, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict and that the damages awarded were excessive. However, the appellate court upheld the jury's verdict, stating that there was sufficient evidence to support Galarsa's claims of discrimination and retaliation and that the damages awarded were reasonable, given the circumstances seen in the case documents. Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of avoiding discrimination based on age and disability and the potential consequences of retaliating against employees who raise concerns about discriminatory practices.

If you have questions about how to file a California age discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Best Practice Medicine, LLC Employee Alleges Wrongful Termination

A former Best Practice Medicine, LLC employee filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the company fired him after he engaged in the protected activity of reporting alleged California Labor Code violations.

The Case: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The Court: Kern County Superior Court

The Case No.: BCV-22-102688

The Plaintiff: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jon Riley, was employed by Best Practice Medicine, LLC in California from April 2022 to August 2022 as a nonexempt hourly employee. While at the company, Riley reported labor law violations, citing off-the-clock work leading to minimum wage and overtime violations, missed meal and rest periods, etc. According to the plaintiff, his reporting of the alleged violations resulted in his termination (even though reporting this type of employment law violation is a protected act). Riley responded by filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Defendant: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The defendant in the case, Best Practice Medicine, LLC, specializes in emergency medical education, mobile high-fidelity medical simulation, and clinical staffing.

Details of the Case: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

As a nonexempt, hourly employee, Jon Riley was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. Best Practice Medicine, LLC allegedly failed to pay employees like Jon Riley for all the time they were under the company's control, including submitting to mandatory COVID-19 questionnaires and temperature checks before workers were allowed to clock in for their shifts. The off-the-clock work didn't qualify for overtime premium payment, which allegedly resulted in minimum wage and overtime violations. According to the lawsuit, shortly after Riley complained to his supervisor about the alleged unlawful employment practices at the company, Best Practice Medicine, LLC terminated his employment. Based on this, there is an alleged causal link between the protected activity (reporting labor law violations) and the company's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment. The case, Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC, is currently pending in the Kern County Superior Court.

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

Bright Horizons Childcare Center Faces Wrongful Termination Allegations

A teacher in a Christian childcare center alleges discrimination and wrongful termination. Parisenkova claims her former employer fired her for refusing to read LGBT books to the children in her care.

The Case: Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Courts

The Case No.: …0756 (pending)

The Plaintiff: Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons

The plaintiff in the case, Nelli Parisenkova, is a Christian childcare teacher formerly employed by Bright Horizons. Parisenkova claims she was mistreated at work and terminated because religious objections led her to refuse to read books to children that featured same-sex couples. The plaintiff claims she was aware that the reading material was in the classroom for years but wasn't required to read them to the children. However, the situation changed in April. According to the plaintiff, Katy Callas, the director at the Bright Horizons Studio City location, became aware of Parisenkova's religious objections to the books and refused the plaintiff's request for a religious accommodation. According to the plaintiff, the situation escalated into a hostile work environment that led to her wrongful termination. Parisenkova filed a wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit in the Superior Court of California.

The Defendant: Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons

Bright Horizons Children's Center, founded in 1986, is the largest childcare company in the nation, with hundreds of locations worldwide and more than 26,000 employees. The plaintiff, Nelli Parisenkova, worked at their Studio City location for four years caring for children aged five and younger. When Parisenkova requested an accommodation in response to the situation, the defendant allegedly denied the request, issued a counseling memo with false statements, terminated Parisenkova's life insurance benefits, assigned her mandatory diversity training, and encouraged her to resign. Bright Horizons faces unlawful retaliation, discrimination, harassment, religious harassment, wrongful termination, failure to accommodate, unlawful constructive discharge, and disparate treatment charges.

Details of the Case: Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons

The Bright Horizons childcare company is known as an outspoken supporter of the LGBT community, publicly sharing their support efforts, including their childcare centers' celebrations of LGBT History Month, Pride parades, and reading LGBT-themed books in their classrooms. Bright Horizons endorsed the Equality Act in 2019, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the federal anti-discrimination policy. Parisenovka claims that while her behavior on the job did not change during the years she worked at Bright Horizons, upper management's treatment of her abruptly changed when they received her formal accommodation request. She claims the company responded by leveling the full force of their allegedly anti-religious and uninclusive diversity policy at her trying to get her to quit through harassment and discrimination. According to the complaint, they fired her when they couldn't intimidate her into quitting.

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

Second Appeal in Sutter Home Winery Wrongful Termination Suit

The California Court of Appeal recently issued its decision on the second appeal in the Sutter Home Winery wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Case: Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeal, First District

The Case No.: A161923

The Plaintiff: Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

Thirty days after receiving a section 997 offer to compromise consisting of a $500,000 payment in exchange for dismissing all claims with prejudice, the plaintiff in the case, Siri, served the Trinchero Family Estates (aka Sutter Home Winery) with a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance.” The notice accepted the 998 offer while requesting that the court clarify her right to prejudgment interest. She also filed objections to the 998 offer and filed a motion asking the court to enter a judgment in her favor consistent with her conditional acceptance of the 998 offer and including prejudgment interest. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion but granted Trinchero’s motion to enforce the 998 offer.

The Defendant: Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

Per section 998(b), the 998 offer stayed open for 30 days after Trinchero made the offer, during which the parties disagreed on whether Siri’s acceptance of the offer would trigger a right to receive prejudgment interest. On appeal, the decision was reversed, and the Court of Appeal clarified that a 998 acceptance must be “absolute and unqualified” for a binding settlement. The plaintiff’s acceptance did not fall into that category. The plaintiff’s Notice of Conditional Acceptance specified that it was conditional and introduced new terms to the bargain as proposed in the original 998 offer (the plaintiff’s right to obtain clarification from the court regarding prejudgment interest). Based on this argument, the court decided that conditional acceptance did not create a binding settlement enforceable under Section 998.

The Case: Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

In some cases, a conditional acceptance may be a counteroffer to the original offer. If accepted, the conditional acceptance would generate a binding, enforceable settlement under section 998 as the counteroffer was accepted, and the second party agreed to the additional or altered terms. However, as the conditional acceptance here did not depend on additional terms that the second party agreed to, this does not apply in Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Senior Vice Presidnet Receives Largest Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Verdict in LA County

When a former senior vice president filed suit against Farmers Insurance Group for wrongful termination, the result is believed to be the third-largest such verdict in the state and the largest in Los Angeles County.

The Case: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

The Court: CA Superior Court - Los Angeles County

The Case No.: CVPS2200395

The Plaintiff: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

Rudnicki was employed at Farmers for 37 years at the time of his termination. He started as a trial attorney in 1979. According to his August 2017 complaint, he rose from supervising attorney to senior vice president in 2013. At that point, Rudnicki was being prepared to offer his deposition testimony in Coates v. Farmers Insurance Group Inc., an equal pay case in California federal court. His testimony included knowledge about past sex bias in the companies’ legal group and withheld pay data. Instead, farmers fired him in retaliation for the testimony he was prepared to offer in the class pay bias lawsuit by the companies’ female in-house lawyers. Rudnicki filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in response to the situation.

The Defendant: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

In the end, the Coates case was settled. And according to Rudnicki’s complaint, the number of women in management positions in the legal department rose significantly during his tenure as vice president.

Details of the Case: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

The court’s findings in Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al. varied. Based on the merits of the wrongful termination lawsuit (and additional claims included in the complaint), a California Superior Court judge awarded Rudnicki over $155 million. Specifically, the jury found that Rudnicki’s role as a potential witness in the Coates case served as substantial motivation for his firing and awarded him $3.4M in past economic damages, $1M in future economic damages, and $1M in noneconomic damages. In addition, the jury found the retaliation in violation of multiple state laws. The jury did reject Rudnicki’s claim that age discrimination and disability discrimination played a part in his termination.

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

Former Farmers Insurance Attorney Awarded $155 Million by Jury in California Retaliation Suit

A jury awarded a former Farmers Insurance Attorney that sued for wrongful termination and retaliation $155 million.

The Case: Andrew Rudnicki v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Farmers Insurance Group

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District

The Case No.: BC630158

The Plaintiff: Andrew Rudnicki

The plaintiff in the case, Andrew Rudnicki, ran Farmers Insurance’s in-house branch legal offices. He claims he was wrongfully terminated and that other civil rights of his were also violated. Rudnicki describes the decision to terminate his employment as discriminatory or retaliatory. According to the lawsuit, Rudnicki was with Farmers for 37 years before he was fired. He started as a trial attorney in 1979 and rose from supervising attorney to senior vice president.

The Defendant: Farmers Insurance & Farmers Insurance Group

When Rudnicki was being prepared to offer deposition testimony in another case, Coates v. Farmers Insruance Group Inc., the trouble started. Rudnicki was aware of certain pay data that the company withheld that probably instigated the Coates case, an equal pay case in California federal court. Rudnicki had information regarding sex bias occurring in the companies’ legal departments, as well. The Coates was eventually settled, and Rudnicki pointed out that he played a part in significantly increasing the number of women in management jobs during his tenure as vice president.

Details About the Case: Andrew Rudnicki v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Farmers Insurance Group

According to the jury, Rudnicki’s role as a witness (or a potential witness) in the sex bias case was a substantial motivating factor behind his termination from Farmer’s. The jury’s verdict came down in favor of Rudnick including $150 million in punitive damages. It’s been said the $150 million award is the third-largest of its kind in the state and the largest ever seen in Los Angeles County.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a class action wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.