Female Disney Executive Filed Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A former female Disney executive filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, a California Corporation, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV08350

The Plaintiff: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Asta Jonasson, is taking the network, parent company Disney, and John Ridley to court, claiming they engaged in gender, racial, and economic discrimination and wrongful termination.

During her ten years with ABC under Ridley and IFPRPC(Ridley’s International Famous Players Radio Picture Corporation), Jonasson claims her salary went unchanged and was lower than the standard for her position at the company. According to the complaint, she was also overlooked for promotions. Jonasson brought her concerns to Ridley regarding the alleged pay disparity, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination multiple times. She also states that she complained to ABC about unlawful discriminatory actions but saw no corrective action. In 2021, a white woman was hired to perform tasks Jonasson was already performing, but at a significantly higher pay rate. Jonasson eventually put her grievances in writing and was allegedly “pink-slipped” in 2022. Claiming her firing was a direct result of her written complaints of labor law violations, Jonasson filed a California wrongful termination lawsuit listing the studio, Ridley, and the parent company, The Walt Disney Company as defendants.

The Defendant: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The case has a trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley (Oscar winner Ridley is the co-host of Deadline’s Doc Talk podcast), and ABC, face multiple alleged labor law violations, including:

• Discrimination in violation of the FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of the FEHA

• Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation

• Violation of the Equal Pay Act

• Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Negligent supervision and retention

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

In Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, the plaintiff seeks a jury trial and various unspecified damages from the trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley, and ABC.

Not the Only Labor Law Allegations Disney Faces:

Disney is facing more allegations regarding gender discrimination in a class action suit from potentially thousands of past and present employees, claiming the company shows a pattern of gender discrimination and pay disparity favoring male employees. The class action was filed in 2019 by Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. It includes claims that female employees receive lower pay rates than male counterparts with similar job duties in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. After repeated failures to get the class action discrimination lawsuit tossed out, the action seeks at least $150,000,000 in lost wages for female Disney employees, with the potential for damages to grow to more than $300,000,000.

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

Meta Worker Claims He Was Wrongfully Terminated Due to His Muslim Faith and Palestinian-American Heritage

A former Meta-engineer claims he was wrongfully terminated due to his heritage and Muslim faith.

The Case: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The Court: California District Court of Santa Clara County

The Case No.: 24CV440543

The Plaintiff: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The plaintiff in the case, Ferras Hamad, is a former Meta software engineer. On June 4, 2024, Hamad filed a complaint alleging the company discriminated against him for his Palestinian-American heritage and Muslim faith. According to the complaint, one of Hamad’s job duties was to assess the quality of Instagram integrity filters related to Gaza, Israel, and Ukraine and investigate any severe issues (including users complaining their posts were censored or curbed). In December 2023, Hamad stated that after joining a “Palestine SEV” chat, he noticed irregularities in how pro-Palestinian posts were flagged for content removal. His investigation of the SEV related to a Palestinian photojournalist, Motaz Azaiza. Azaiza, a user with over 17 million followers, was one of the most famous Palestinian photojournalists during the conflict in Gaza. The situation led him to raise concerns over how Meta handled these posts. According to Hamad, he did not receive similar scrutiny or adverse employment actions when responding to SEVs connected to Ukraine or other world events.

The Defendant: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The defendant in the case, Meta Platforms, claims that Hamad was dismissed for violating Meta’s data access policies, which is known to result in immediate termination.

The Case: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

In the case Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms, Hamad, the plaintiff, and former Meta software engineer, claims he was fired after his investigation into why Meta limited the reach of a Palestinian photojournalist’s post led him to discover that the user’s content was incorrectly labeled “pornographic.” According to the complaint, Hamad documented his findings and immediately started receiving communications from supervisors at Meta who were not on his team alleging he violated company policy. Hamad claims he later confirmed with a Meta security team member that his actions did not violate company policy and he handled the SEV appropriately. On December 25, 2023, Azaiza, the photojournalist whose content was the subject of the SEV, posted a screenshot showing how Instagram incorrectly labeled the Gaza coverage as “pornographic.” Meta allegedly fired Hamad for violating the company’s data policy on February 2, 2024.

If you need to discuss filing a wrongful termination lawsuit in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys are available to assist you from their offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Ambulnz Fail to Stock Necessary Life-Saving Equipment for EMTs?

In recent news, a former employee filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that DocGo’s Ambulnz failed to provide essential life-saving equipment for their EMTs.

The Case: Chase v. Ambulnz

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 19STCV36675

The Plaintiff: Chase v. Ambulnz

The plaintiff in the case, Chase, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleged that DocGo’s Ambulnz did not stock necessary life-saving EMT equipment and tools, frequently failed inspections by the County, and failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses when they purchased the necessary life-saving equipment and tools using their personal funds.

The Defendant: Chase v. Ambulnz

The defendant in the case, Ambulnz, has approximately 3,500 field-based paramedics and EMTs offering patients a full suite of Mobile Health home medical services. According to the plaintiffs in the case, DocGo’s Ambulnz violated labor law; the company faces claims of wrongful termination.

What is Wrongful Termination?

Wrongful termination in California refers to the unlawful firing of an employee in violation of state or federal laws. When employees are terminated for reasons such as discrimination, retaliation, or exercising their legal rights, they can seek protection from employment law and hold California employers responsible by pursuing legal action through litigation or negotiation. If a California employer wrongfully terminates an employee, they may be liable for damages that could include back pay, compensation for emotional distress, or reinstatement.

The Case: Chase v. Ambulnz

In the case Chase v. Ambulnz, the plaintiff claims Ambulnz engaged in multiple labor law violations, including failing to pay all wages earned, minimum wage violations, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to pay full wages upon termination, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses, workplace retaliation, etc.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact 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 Blue Origin’s Program Manager Claims Wrongful Termination

A wrongful termination lawsuit alleges Blue Origin LLC violated several labor codes, and the plaintiff demanded a jury trial.

The Case: Craig Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

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

The Case No.: 23STCV28816

The Plaintiff: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Craig Stoker, is the former program manager of Blue Origin's BE-4 rocket engines and primarily worked out of the company's Woodland Hills, California location. Stoker filed a wrongful termination complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, including a detailed narrative about Stoker's efforts (over seven months) to escalate concerns about safety and a hostile work environment at Blue Origin.

The Defendant: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

The defendant in the case, Blue Origin LLC, allegedly "brushed off" multiple complaints regarding CEO Bob Smith's explosive response to employees when issues frequently led to employees violating safety protocol to meet unreasonable expectations and impossible deadlines. According to court documents, Blue Origin was working on fulfilling a contract with ULA that required communicating any issues that could impact rocket engine delivery a year in advance. While Stoker wanted to communicate information regarding a probable delay to ULA, Smith allegedly instructed him not to do so. After concluding an internal investigation, Blue Origin decided that Smith did not violate company policies or create a hostile work environment. Stoker objected. He also claims in the lawsuit that he later found out no one from the engine program was interviewed as part of the internal investigation. Stoker was terminated seven months after initially raising his safety concerns.

The Case: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

In the case Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC, Stoker claims he was wrongfully terminated in response to his complaints regarding the company's CEO creating a hostile work environment that caused employees to disregard safety measures to meet unreasonable deadlines on projects. While the company states their internal investigation found that Smith did not violate company policy or create a hostile work environment, Blue Origin announced Smith was stepping down from his role as CEO in September (after a tenure of close to six years). His tenure was marked by numerous successes, including growing the team from less than 1,000 people to over 12,000 and landing multiple high-profile and high-value contracts with NASA. However, his tenure was also not without serious controversy. In addition to Stoker's claims, Smith faced allegations of supporting a culture of sexism among senior executives at the company.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.

Gina Carano Sues Disney for Wrongful Termination

In recent news, Gina Carano filed a wrongful termination lawsuit after being fired from Disney’s The Mandalorian. In an interesting twist, problematic social media posts instigated her termination, but another social media post led to her ability to seek resolution through the legal system.

The Case: Gina Carano v. The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc.

The Court: US District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: S2:2024cv01009

The Plaintiff: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Carano, is a former Disney+ “The Mandalorian” actor. Carano played the former Rebellion soldier Cara Dune during two seasons. After Carano shared problematic social media posts in 2021, Lucasfilm announced they no longer employed Carano. In response to the abrupt dismissal, Carano filed a wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit in California federal court seeking more than $75,000 in compensatory damages and reinstatement as Dune in “The Mandalorian” series. Carano seeks a jury trial. Elon Musk funds Carano’s wrongful termination lawsuit through X (formerly known as Twitter).

The Defendants: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

The defendants in the case, the Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc., took action against Carano after a February 2021 Instagram post (since deleted) making an implied comparison between being a conservative in the modern setting to being Jewish during the Holocaust. Before this, she was called out for other right-wing social media posts stating opinions about the 2020 presidential election, mask requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic, and opinions regarding other people’s declared pronouns that incited critics to declare her racist or transphobic and demanding that Disney/Lucasfilm fire her from “The Mandalorian.”

The Case: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

While problematic social media posts instigated the original incident, a different type of social media post led to the filing of Carano v. The Walt Disney Company. Legal counsel for X reached out to Carano after she responded to one of Elon Musk’s posts offering to help individuals who lost their jobs based on activity on the social media platform. X hired legal counsel to look into Carano’s story and assist her in seeking an appropriate resolution. X states they support Carano’s suit as a sign of their commitment to free speech.

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 Pfizer Director Alleged Wrongful Termination

A former Pfizer Analytics Director claims Pfizer fired him after he attempted to expose the company’s FCPA violations.

The Case: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The Court: Superior Court of State of California, County of San Francisco

The Case No.: 4:23-cv-03908-DMR

The Plaintiff: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The plaintiff in the case, Frank Han, a former director of global compliance analytics at Pfizer, filed a whistleblower suit claiming he was fired from his position with the drugmaker because he tried to expose FCPA violations at the company. According to Han, he raised compliance concerns and possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations to an immediate supervisor (along with additional colleagues) at Pfizer during a November 2021 virtual meeting. Before the meeting, Han received a higher-than-perfect score on his performance review. During his next performance review, he received a reduced score, and his supervisor advised him his performance wasn’t aiding the desired results. The meeting escalated, and his supervisor allegedly demanded Han quit. After Han’s request to report to a different supervisor was denied, he received another performance review with an even lower score. Running the complaints up the official chain at Pfizer resulted in an investigation. However, the result of the investigation was that Pfizer decided no further action was necessary. A month later, Han was fired.

The Defendant: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The defendant in the case, Pfizer, is a pharmaceutical giant. During Han’s work from 2019 to 2021, he claims he discovered evidence of payments of $168 million to potentially influential government officials (PIGOs) in China. The ex-Pfizer compliance officer attempted to address the possible violations indicated, but the following chain of events ended in his firing and a wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation lawsuit.

The Case: Frank Han v. Pfizer

In Frank Han v. Pfizer, the plaintiff originally filed his wrongful termination lawsuit in California state court. However, it was later moved to federal court. The lawsuit seeks lost wages, mental and emotional distress, legal fees, injunctive and declaratory relief, and interest, among other damages.

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.

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.