Morgan Stanley Faces Wrongful Termination and Reverse Discrimination Claims

In recent news, a former Morgan Stanley executive claims wrongful termination and reverse discrimination.

The Case: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The Court: United States District Court Southern District of New York

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-07638

The Plaintiff: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Meyersburg, was Morgan Stanley’s Managing Director and Head of Executive Service. During his time in the position, Meyersburg accumulated many accomplishments and successes for the company, including massive growth, productivity, and profitability in his department when other departments struggled to make a profit. In April 2023, Morgan Stanley started announcing a series of layoffs due to the Firm’s financial underperformance. Most layoffs were completed by combining and collapsing teams performing similar functions. Meyersburg’s Executive Services Team didn’t see many adjustments or layoffs due to their excessive success and productivity. However, despite his documented strong performance and the success of the Executive Services team while under his leadership, on May 11, 2023, Morgan Stanley told Meyersburg he was being terminated from his position. The company replaced him with a Black female with significantly less experience and qualifications. The company provided no performance or work-related deficiency for Meyersburg’s termination. Instead, his termination was allegedly the Firm’s attempt to comply with its Diversity and Inclusion objectives, which would mean the Firm illegally fired Meyersburg because of his sex, race, and/or color.

The Defendant: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The defendant in the case, Morgan Stanley, did not make a public statement regarding the allegations.

The Case: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The case is one of many that target corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and practices that allege reverse discrimination. The influx of legal actions targeting corporate diversity and inclusion practices seems inspired by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions in June. However, even before the decision to strike down affirmative action in the college admissions process, reverse discrimination cases increased as internal concerns around DEI increased. Recent cases targeting corporate diversity policies supporting reverse discrimination attempt to translate the court’s race-blind stance toward college admissions to the workplace.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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 Starbucks Employee Awarded $25.6 Million in Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, a former Starbucks employee was awarded $25.6 million for wrongful termination claims.

The Case: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

The Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

The Case No.: 19-19432

The Plaintiff: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Shannon Phillips, is a former Starbucks regional manager. In her wrongful termination lawsuit, Phillips claims Starbucks fired her because she's white. Phillips filed her California wrongful termination lawsuit in 2019, claiming she was being designated the scapegoat in Starbucks's effort at damage control following an incident caught on video that went viral online. The viral video showed two black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, during their arrest at a Philadelphia Starbucks coffee shop. The incident's exposure sparked so much outrage across the country that Starbucks temporarily closed its shops to provide anti-bias training for employees.

The History of the Case: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

The case concerns an incident at a Starbucks in the Rittenhouse Square area of Philadelphia in April 2018. Two black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, went to Starbucks. According to Nelson, he asked to use the restroom and was told it was for paying customers only. A Starbucks employee approached the two men's table and asked if they wanted to order. According to Robinson, he replied that they were okay and waiting for a business meeting. A manager then called 911, stating that there were "two gentlemen ... refusing to make a purchase or leave." Neither man heard the manager tell them to leave. The incident resulted in an eight-minute video of the arrest as three police officers reported to the scene to question the two men before handcuffing them and leading them out of Starbucks. Nationwide outrage led to protests and a public relations crisis for Starbucks. The chief executive issued a public apology and closed stores nationwide to provide anti-bias training for all 175,000 employees across the U.S.

The Repercussions: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

Part of the terms of the settlement Starbucks reached with Nelson and Robinson included a pledge to continue taking actions to address discriminatory incidents. In her complaint, Phillips noted that no corrective action was taken against the manager of the Rittenhouse Starbucks, who is black, and who promoted the store manager who made the 911 call that led to the arrest. A few weeks after the arrest, Phillips was told to suspend a white manager at one of the chain's Philadelphia stores due to accusations of discrimination. Phillips fought the allegations because she claimed the allegations were "factually untrue." According to Phillips, she was fired shortly after objecting to the white manager's suspension.

The Defendant: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

In the complaint, Phillips states that her race was a "motivating and/or determinative factor" in her termination. Still, the defendant in the case, Starbucks Corp., denies firing Phillips because of her race.

The Case: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

After six days at trial, a federal jury in New Jersey unanimously agreed to award Phillips $25 million in punitive damages and $600,000 in compensatory damages. Phillips is also seeking damages for back and future pay.

If you have questions about 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 various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Compass Group Faces Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

In recent news, Compass Group, a multinational corporation, faces discrimination and wrongful termination allegations after a former employee claims she was fired for refusing to participate in a “diversity” program she felt blatantly discriminated based on race and gender.

The Case: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al.

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

The Case No.: 23CV1347 KSC

The Plaintiff: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Courtney Rogers, is a former Internal Mobility Team recruiter for Compass Group USA. While Rogers was working for the company’s human resources department in 2022, the company introduced “Operation Equity,” a new “diversity” program in which only “women and people of color” were invited to participate. The program was promoted as offering special training and mentorship alongside guaranteed promotion. Rogers expressed her concerns that the “diversity” program was openly discriminating against white males, denying them employment opportunities and benefits made available by Compass to women and people of color through the program. The initiative directly conflicted with Rogers’ religious belief that all people, regardless of race or gender, are created equal, so she requested accommodation by assigning her to a different project. A senior HR officer assured her there would be no retaliation against her for expressing her beliefs, and she could be assigned different responsibilities as accommodation. However, within two weeks, Rogers was fired.

The Defendant: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Compass Group USA, Inc., is one of the largest employers in the world and the parent company of many recognizable names like Bon Appétit Restaurant Management, Wolfgang Puck Catering, TouchPoint, etc.

The Case: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

In the case Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., the plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks relief from “Religious Creed Discrimination” (a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The lawsuit seeks financial compensatory damages resulting from Compass’ discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, as well as asking the court to require Compass’s senior human resources management to participate in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Fair Treatment training, classes, and oversight to prevent a repeat of retaliation against other employees in the future.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace 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 Target Employee Claims Wrongful Termination

A former Target employee claims the massive box store wrongfully terminated her.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 34-2022-00316991

The Plaintiff: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

Torres, the plaintiff and former Target employee in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging Target violated labor law. Torres claims that she was fired due to a disability and that Target failed to provide hourly, non-exempt workers with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

The defendant in the case, Target Corporation, faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failure to pay wages when due

The allegations constitute violations of various applicable Labor Codes, including California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged violations would give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

According to the complaint and the plaintiff's allegations, Target wrongfully terminated Torres, an employee allegedly subject to protected activity. Torres claims that Target subjected her to adverse employment actions, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed the company of her asthma disability. The company fired Torres after informing them of her disability, which led her to claim a causal link between the protected activity and Target's decision to terminate her employment.

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.

Foodservices Giant Faces Religious Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

A food services corporation recently found itself facing serious employment law violation allegations.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The Court: United States Court for the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01347-TWR-KSC

The Plaintiff: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Rogers, worked as an Internal Mobility Team recruiter for the defendant. During her time with the company, Rogers consistently received positive performance feedback from her colleagues and supervisors. However, she claims that the defendant fired her after she would not endorse, promote, or participate in a program she felt was blatantly discriminatory (based on both race and gender). Rogers filed a discrimination and wrongful termination federal lawsuit on July 24, 2023.

The Defendant: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

Compass Group USA, Inc., is the defendant in the case, one of the largest corporations in the world. According to the plaintiff, Compass Group USA Inc. initiated a program they falsely labeled a “diversity” initiative. According to the plaintiff, the program was designed to prevent white men from participating in promotions and benefits. Courtney Rogers discussed her concerns with the company and requested accommodations to work in a different area. According to Rogers, she advised the company the program conflicted with her strongly held religious beliefs that hold all people equal regardless of race or gender. According to court documents, HR assured Rogers that the company would not retaliate against her for her beliefs and that she would receive a different assignment as an accommodation. However, that same HR representative terminated Rogers’ employment two weeks later. In their first meeting, Rogers was assured she was doing excellent work, but her termination letter two weeks later stated she was being terminated for unsatisfactory performance.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

In the case, Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al., Compass describes their program initiative as “Operation Equith,” calling it a diversity program offering qualified members special training and mentorship with the promise of guaranteed promotion within the program. The program was only available to women and people of color. The lawsuit demanded a jury trial seeking relief from religious discrimination, citing a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and violations of wrongful termination public policy. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and mandatory training for the company’s senior management in human resources.

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

Rite Aid Faces Allegations of Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination

A former RiteAid employee filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, sexual harassment, workplace retaliation, and discrimination based on an allegedly inappropriate text exchange with her RiteAid district manager.

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The Court: Superior Court of Fresno County

The Case No.: 19CECG00569

The Plaintiff: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Hanin Atalla, claims that during her employment at RiteAid, she engaged in a text exchange with her RiteAid district manager in which the district manager sent her lewd photographs. The text exchange occurred off-site and after hours, and the plaintiff and the district manager knew each other before the plaintiff’s employment at RiteAid. The plaintiff sued for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The Defendant: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The defendant in the case, Rite Aid Corp., is a drugstore chain (Thrifty Payless, Inc., dba RiteAid).

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

In Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., the trial court granted summary judgment regarding all claims in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s conclusion stating that the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of material fact regarding the requirement to show that the manager was acting in the capacity of a supervisor during the January 4, 2019 text exchange. They agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff had an extensive texting relationship with the district manager, and pairing that with the facts that the text exchange in question was offered outside of the workplace and after work hours led them to conclude it was a personal exchange based on their personal friendship rather than a work exchange. The Appellate court also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion regarding the wrongful termination claims - that the evidence indicates that the plaintiff was not terminated but that she resigned.

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 Xceed Vice President Claimed Wrongful Termination and Age Discrimination

A former Xceed Financial Credit Union Controller and Vice President of Accounting filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming she was fired due to age discrimination.

The Case: Elizabeth Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The Court: Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct.

The Case No.: 19STCV28608

The Plaintiff: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Castelo, was employed by Xceed as a Controller and Vice President of Accounting. Xceed notified Castelo her employment was being terminated in November 2018, with the termination effective December 31, 2018.

The Defendant: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The defendant in the case, Xceed Financial Credit Union, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on November 19, 2018. The agreement was titled “Separation and General Release Agreement,” among other things, it specified Castelo’s severance payment in consideration for a full release of all claims, including a release of age discrimination claims.”

The Case: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

According to the documents in the case Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union, Castelo remained employed by the defendant through December 31, 2018. Xceed paid Castelo the remainder of the payment agreed to in January 2019. Castelo accepted the $132,334.00 payment. The plaintiff made no effort to revoke the Separation Agreement until August 13, 2019, when she filed a complaint against Xceed alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination violations. The parties agreed the action would be submitted to binding arbitration in October 2019 (per an arbitration agreement in place in 2013). The arbitrator granted summary judgment in favor of Xceed on the ground’s that the release in the separation agreement barred the plaintiff’s claim. Castelo claimed the release violated Civil Code Section 1668 and moved to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court denied the motion to vacate and entered judgment confirming the arbitration award in favor of Xceed. On appeal, the court confirms the trial court’s decision. Section 1668 applies to a release of liability for future unknown claims. However, when Castelo signed the separation agreement, she already believed her termination was due to age discrimination. Since Castelo was aware of the alleged violation when she signed the agreement, Section 1668 does not apply.

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.