Female Employees Sue Papa Murphy’s for Secret Filming in Workplace Bathrooms

Four women are suing the Martinez franchise owner of the popular Papa Murphy’s Take ‘N’ Bake Pizza. The suit is based on their allegations that their former boss secretly videotaped them in the employee restroom while using the toilet and undressing. The women claim they suspected their boss, Jason Lassor, of secretly taping them in the workplace’s unisex bathroom for three months before they eventually discovered a hidden camera inside of a cardboard box placed on a shelf in the bathroom.

Lassor already pleaded guilty to one felony count of child pornography and a misdemeanor unlawful electronic video recording charge. One month after pleading guilty, Lassor was sentenced to 120 days in county jail. His time was served by electronic home detention.

One of the four women (who will go unnamed as sex assault victims) was under 18. The women’s representation indicated that the situation was a significant breach of trust and that they were completely devastated when they learned of the filming device. They will continue dealing with the after effects of learning that their privacy had been so irrevocably breached by their employer for some time.

While the women had suspicions that they were being filmed for months prior to finding proof, they feared reprisal and workplace retaliation if they were to complain about their suspicions. When the video camera was discovered in January of 2013, the woman who discovered it called one of the other women who was at home at the time. She came to the place of business, picked up the camera and delivered it to the Martinez police. Lassor was arrested later that same day.

The suit filed by the women against the company and the franchise owner claims negligent supervision, training and retention as well as invasion of privacy, sexual discrimination, harassment and other workplace violations of employment law.

If you have questions regarding your rights to address uncomfortable work situations (suspected or otherwise) while avoiding employer retaliation in the work place contact the California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Pennsylvania Grocery Salesman Files Suit to Seek Overtime Pay

A Pennsylvania grocery distributor claims he is entitled to overtime pay from his employer. According to the federal suit he filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Brian Place claims his regular salary didn’t compensate for the number of hours that he worked as Sure Winner Foods’ sales administrator. The Maine based distributor specializes mostly in frozen foods.

Brian Place alleges that the distributor violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act. Place complains that he worked for Sure Winner Foods from February 2014 through April 2014. During the three month time period, Place traveled to various stores in central and eastern Pennsylvania. His job duties required that he stock products on store shelves for Sure Winner Foods clients. Place alleges that he spent substantially more than a full 40 hour work week on his standard schedule, received a fixed salary and that he was classified as exempt from overtime pay.

According to Mr. Place, his exempt status was incorrect and other employees at the distribution company are in similar positions with no recognition or pay for overtime. He alleges that he and other individuals filling similar positions in the company were (and are) being cheated out of wages they deserve. The suit specifies overtime pay violations specifically between 2011 an 2014. Mr. Place is seeking individual relief and collective relief from Sure Winner, urging other employees to step forward.

According to the Department of Labor site, employers must pay at least time and a half wages to any and all employees who work one or more hours over the 40-hour workweek mark. To discuss any of the many exemptions to the rule, contact the California overtime pay experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Failure to Pay Overtime Has Navy Federal Credit Union Making News

In recent news, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Navy Federal Credit Union failed to pay appropriate overtime wages. Accusations were made against the Vienna based federal credit union by some of the branch workers. The original suit was filed by Anthony Lee out of Clark County, Nevada on May 27^th in the U.S. District Court, but he plans to seek class action status so others can join in the suit. Mr. Lee has been a member services representative at Navy Federal Credit Union for almost six years. This position is categorized as non-exempt from overtime (according to the suit filed).  Lee claims that he and other workers in jobs with similar duties have been frequently required to work off the clock both before their shift starts and after it ends. The total of the “off the clock” work was approximately 30-45 minutes per day per employee. The lawsuit alleges that this practice of requiring off the clock work before and after shift work is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In addition to allegations that the Navy Federal Credit Union violated FLSA, Lee claims that one of his previous managers in the workplace referred to him by the “N” word on multiple occasions. In response, a statement was issued by Navy Federal: “The fair treatment and well-being of our employees is of the utmost importance to us…we take this claim seriously and are looking into it.”

The Navy Federal Credit Union is the largest credit union in the United States employing approximately 11,000 employees worldwide. It’s possible that up to 500 of their workers might be a part of the class action started by Lee in regards to FLSA violations, etc. The suit will be seeking a declaratory judgment that the allegations made were illegal as well as an injunction preventing further similar activities. Damages are unspecified, but will include waiting time penalties as well as court costs.

Class action lawsuits serve an important function in the workplace. They provide employees with the opportunity to come together and assert their rights under California Labor Laws and federal employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik with questions on class action suits in California. 

$2.4 Million Settlement for Guest Thai Workers Awaiting Approval by U.S. District Court

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced June 3, 2014 that EEOC and four Hawaii growers settled for $2.4 million in response to a suit alleging that Thai guest workers supplied by labor contractor Global Horizons, Inc. were discriminated against based on race and national origin. The proposed settlements are still waiting for approval by the U.S. District Court for District of Hawaii, but as they follow the court’s ruling earlier in the year that Global Horizons was in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through their engagement in what was described as a pattern of harassment and discrimination against the Thai workers, many expect quick approval.

In 2011, the EEOC sued Global Horizons, as well as multiple growers in Hawaii and a couple growers in Washington State. The high-profile human trafficking case alleged that Global Horizons misled poor Thai workers that were forced to pay high fees in order to enter the United States as guest workers. Once on US soil, the Thai guest workers were then subjected to substandard housing, passport confiscation, harassment on the job, passport confiscation, etc.

Four separate proposed consent decrees would benefit approximately 500 Thai workers (those who worked between 2003 and 2007). Under the proposed consent decrees, defendant Mac Farms would pay $1.6 million, Kauai Coffee would be $425,000, Captain Cook Coffee would pay $100,000 and Kelena Farms would pay $275,000. Payments would go to the alleged discrimination victims in amounts to be determined by the EEOC.

For more information regarding equal employment or discrimination in the workplace, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, your California discrimination and employment law experts. 

Examples of Employment Discrimination: Common Forms of Discrimination in the Workplace

The basic definition of employment discrimination is when an employee is treated unfavorably because of their race, their skin color, their disability, religion, age, gender, national origin, group affiliations, etc. Discrimination is illegal in any facet of employment. That means that the illegality of discrimination extends beyond simply hiring and firing practices.

Some common forms of discrimination in the workplace include:

• Indicating a preference amongst candidates in a job advertisement
• The exclusion of potential employees during recruitment
• Discrimination when deciding upon promotion and lay-off candidates
• Denial of the use of company facilities or the disruption of the use of common workplace facilities
• Discrimination when assigning leave (maternity, disability, retirement options, etc.)
• Denial of employee benefits due to discriminatory factors
• Payment of equally experienced and qualified employees in the same position, performing the same job duties, different salaries

Employers who make assumptions based on race, gender, age, etc. are breaking the law. It’s also illegal for an employer to make assumptions regarding an employee’s capabilities because of disabilities. In addition, employers are prohibited from withholding opportunities on the job because of the employee’s relationship with someone of a certain race, age, ethnicity, etc. Discrimination sometimes comes in the form of harassment based on personal traits that are protected by the law.

Employers are required to inform all employees of their rights under EEOC laws, but if you need more information or if you have questions regarding its application to your workplace, contact the California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Whistleblower’s $25 Million Lawsuit Against Nike Heads to the Jury

In the course of the more than $25 million lawsuit proceedings against Nike, the jury heard two very different versions of events. Douglas Ossanna is a former Nike electrician, fired in early 2013. He claims that Nike fired him in retaliation after he reported unsafe working conditions for electricians at the approximately 600-acre campus in Washington County. Nike denies the allegations. Nike’s version of events has Ossanna being fired for playing a pickup basketball game on a court in the Bo Jackson Building when the facility was designated as off limits.

The more than $25 million lawsuit consists of $572,000 in economic damages, $1.5 million in non-economic damages and as much as $25 million in punitive damages. During the closing arguments, attorneys for the plaintiff argued simplicity. They claim a simple and clear-cut case of retaliation in the workplace. It was argued that Ossanna had made concerns clear regarding unsafe working conditions to at least six different Nike managers over a period of a few years. Ossanna claims none of his unsafe working conditions reports were ever investigated or resolved by Nike.

On top of being fired, Ossanna’s representation make it clear that he suffered harsh working conditions including excessive amounts of overtime in response to his reporting of problems with workplace safety.

Nike indicated that they did not retaliate against the electrician and that as a supervisor, he had access to every building on the Washington County campus. Nike’s attorney, argued during her closing argument that the decision to terminate Ossanna’s employment was consistent with other recent terminations in the company including a Nike employee was terminated for lying in order to receive a $20 gift card.

If you or someone you know is a victim of retaliation in the workplace, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik to find out how you get legal reparations for the damage to your career, your finances and your life. 

Workers Sue Crabtree and Evelyn Over Missing Meal Break Pay

California courts recently heard accusations against a luxury skin care product manufacturing company, Crabtree & Evelyn Ltd. The Connecticut based company was founded in 1972. They have grown to include several hundred retail locations all selling a range of products: fragrances, soaps, lotions, home spa products, etc. Former employees claim that they were denied mandated meal breaks and rest periods. Three plaintiffs filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court: Irina Eremina, Fernando Hernandez and Lillian Zamora. The plaintiffs indicated that they believed Crabtree & Evelyn was in violation of California Labor Law when they failed to provide duty-free meal and rest periods. They also claim that the company manipulated pay stubs/time sheets to make it look as if breaks and meal breaks had been provided and used. In addition to not receiving their required break times, workers were not compensated for overtime accumulated by working through said breaks and meal breaks.

Proposed class is seeking a jury trial and financial restitution (for unpaid wages, attorney costs, etc.), but potential class members have not yet been defined. The three plaintiffs filed a grievance with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency in February in an effort to settle the matter, but didn’t hear back within the 33-day period required prior to filing suit under California state law. This fulfilled the requirement (under California’s Private Attorney General Act) to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to presenting claims to the court.

If you fear you may need to talk to someone about potential violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) in your workplace, contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today.