Wrongful Termination Court Case Against the Children’s Hospital of Central California

October saw a victory for plaintiffs who filed a wrongful termination case against the Children’s Hospital of Central California. Children’s Hospital of Central California is a pediatric hospital that can be found just north of Fresno in California. 

This particular case was based upon a long standing 18-year old employee of the Children’s Hospital of Central California who was improperly drug tested on his day off; which was eventually found to be in violation of the employee’s constitutional right to privacy.

In the state of California, drug testing of current employees is subject to a more stringent analysis by the legal system in comparison to pre-employment drug testing. Employers who drug test current employees must identify a compelling reason that supports their decision to drug test, i.e. a reasonable belief that an employee was intoxicated on the job. This type of situation would strengthen the argument that drug testing the employee was a reasonable action.

Testing an employee during their off-duty hours is seen as particularly invasive and is more likely to be found as invasive by the courts.

It would seem that juries support the courts general opinion on the matter as the jury made its decision on this case on October 16, 2014 after both sides presented their arguments. They found that the employee’s privacy had been violated and that this violation of his rights had resulted in his wrongful termination, which is in violation of California employment law. As a result the plaintiff was awarded $1,035,000.00.

If you feel you are being bullied or mistreated by your employer, please get in touch with one of the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

Retaliation and Wrongful Termination: California Family Physician Sues Major Health Organization

A retaliation and wrongful termination suit was filed by a prominent California family medicine physician against one of the largest health maintenance organizations in the nation, Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center. Jay Espejo, M.D., M.P.H., claims he was fired in retaliation after he reported a colleague’s, John Miguel, M.D., pattern of misconduct, i.e. unnecessary prescriptions, and the clinic’s alleged long term pattern of providing medical treatment and prescriptions according to patient demand rather than what is actually medically necessary. Dr. Espejo was employed at the medical center since 2011 and was promoted to partner in June.

According to the suit, Dr. Espejo was fired only two weeks after his promotion to partner. He filed suit for wrongful termination and retaliation claiming that his firing was a result of his reporting that his fellow doctor exhibited a disturbing pattern that enabled “doctor shopping” and involved the prescribing of narcotic drugs without medical need apparent in the patient requesting the prescription. Dr. Espejo claims he saw his fellow physician, Dr. Miguel, provide prescriptions for patients who had histories of suspected drug abuse and who were also exhibiting easily identifiable drug-seeking behavior.

Dr. Espejo claims that Dr. Miguel’s behavior was in direct violation of the Controlled Substances Act on multiple occasions. Espejo’s legal counsel cites emailed responses from Kaiser Permanente regarding the violations as evidence that they created a culture in the workplace that both enabled and supported physicians catering to their patients’ demands, which enabled drug-seeking behavior and abuse, doctor shopping, etc. rather than providing the quality (and necessary) medical care that they should have been offering.

For questions or more information regarding wrongful termination as a result of speaking out against improper conduct in the workplace, please contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Creationist Fossil Hunter Sues University After He is Fired

Mark Armitage is a fossil hunter. He was also the manager of the California State University, Northridge’s (CSUN) biology department’s electron and confocal microscopy suite. But after making a discovery he dreamed of for years in May of 2012, he was fired. 

While digging in Montana, Armitage found one of the largest Triceratops horns ever discovered in the Hell Creek Formation, which is a legendary stack of fossil-bearing rocks said to date to the last days of the dinosaurs. He drove the discovery back home to Los Angeles, California, and put it under the microscope. His study revealed both fossilized bone and preserved layers of soft tissue. He was shocked. He published his findings in February of 2013 in Acta Histochemica, a journal of cell and tissue research. He was fired two weeks after publishing on his findings.

He is now in the middle of what many view as a long shot legal battle. His intentions? He wants his job back. He filed a wrongful termination suit claiming religious intolerance as motivation for his dismissal. Armitage is a young-Earth creationist. He also states that his findings of soft tissue in the fossil support his belief that his Triceratops horn and other similar specimens date to the time of the “flood” referred to in the Holy Bible. An event he dates at about 4,000 years ago. Armitage claims that associates at the University could not stand working alongside a creationist who had his work published in a legitimate scientific journal. He feels this is the reason for his termination.  

Those in support of the University point out that religious intolerance claims in this case may have a hard time standing up if the case goes to trial. The associate vice-president of marketing and communications at CSUN stressed during an email communication that Armitage’s position at the university was “temporary.” Armitage also openly admits to engaging students in discussions frequently on topics related to his personal beliefs and the well-preserved cells in the Triceratops horn as proof that they’re young – no more than 68 million years old according to Armitage. US anti-discrimination laws require employers to accommodate employee religious beliefs and practices to a reasonable degree unless doing so causes the employer “undue hardship.”

In this particular instance, Armitage’s personal and/or religious views were such that the institution/employer’s goals were undermined when Armitage shared his thoughts and beliefs with various biology and/or paleontology students.

If you have been wrongfully terminated and you need expert advice on how to proceed, get in touch with the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Recruiting Manager Files Overtime Suit Against Robert Half

On September 5, 2014, a California recruiting manager filed an overtime suit against Robert Half International Inc. The recruiting manager, Theresa Daniels, worked at Robert Half as a recruiting manager from January 2014 through June 2014. She filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court in California.

The suit filed by Ms. Daniels made a number of claims, including:

• The company misclassified her and other, similar employees as exempt from overtime.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, did not have managerial duties that would classify them as exempt from California overtime laws.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, did not have managerial authority.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, had only a minimal role in supervising employees and not authority to make employment related decisions regarding other employees.
• All recruiting managers, Theresa Daniels included, were strictly monitored and tightly controlled by both the company policy and their direct supervisors.

The suit seeks class action status and back overtime pay for unpaid wages.

Robert Half indicated that there are meritorious defenses to the allegations being made by Ms. Daniels and they will be defending themselves against litigation.

If you or someone you know are misclassified as exempt – preventing you from receiving the overtime pay you are entitled to at work, please contact your southern California employment law experts right away: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Californians Voting for Minimum Wage Increases

On Election Day, voters in four different states passed minimum wage increases. This builds on the momentum already created by more than a dozen other states that have done the same throughout the past two years. According to opinion polls, a significant number of Americans are in support of increasing the federal minimum wage – currently set at $7.25.

Here in California, three cities voted on minimum wage hikes: Oakland, San Francisco and Eureka. San Francisco and Oakland will see approximately 190,000 workers receive pay increases as a result of the minimum wage hike. Eureka workers, on the other hand, shouldn’t expect the same. Eureka rejected the measure. Over the past two years, 10 other cities and counties have done the same throughout California.

San Francisco currently has a minimum wage of $10.74. Voters passed an incremental wage increase that will reach $15 per hour by 2018. (76% voted yes and 24% voted no). An estimated 142,000 San Francisco workers should see a raise. Incremental wage increases will occur according to the following timeline: Increased to $12.25 in May 2015. Increased to $13.00 in July 2016. Increased to $14.00 in July 2017. Increased to $15.00 in July 2018.  Seattle passed a similar incremental wage increase in June, making them the two municipalities with the highest minimum wage.

Oakland currently has a minimum wage of $9.00 and voted for a wage increase that will reach $12 by 2015. (79% voted yes and 21% voted no). Approximately 40,000-48,000 workers should receive a raise as a result of the vote. The wage increase will occur in March of 2015 and will jump minimum wage from the current $9.00 to $12.25.

Eureka, California has a population of 27,000. It is reportedly the only place in the country that rejected a proposed minimum wage hike at the polls on Tuesday.

It is suspected that the changing landscape that leaves us seeing so much local support for wage increases is a result of the increasingly loud and powerful movement of low-wage workers who are calling attention to the struggles created by their low paying jobs. The last couple years have seen a number of fast food and retail workers step into the spotlight to go on strike to demand wage increases to $15/hour. These individuals and their stories are the likely reason behind much of the impetus felt for wage increases at a state and local level. A full-time worker that earns the federal minimum wage will earn a little over $15,000 per year. This is below the poverty line for any family of two or more.

If you would like to discuss federal, state and local regulations regarding minimum wage requirements, contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Ninth Circuit Ignores Legal Written Policy in Favor of Using Statistical Sampling to Certify Class

September 3, 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a certification of class in Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.: 800 nonexempt insurance claims adjusters claimed that they worked overtime and did not receive payment. This is in spite of the company’s written policy stating that nonexempt employees would be paid for all the hours they work.

The Ninth Circuit based their decision on the discovery that three common questions existed:

1. The existence of an “unofficial” Allstate policy that discouraged employees from reporting overtime.
2. Whether or not employees’ workloads forced them to work overtime (in excess of eight hours in one day or over 40 hours in one week).
3. If Allstate’s timekeeping method resulted in unpaid overtime or underpayment for overtime.

The court discovered that the adjusters weren’t responsible for the preparation of time sheets/clocking in and out. Instead the time cards were set to a default of eight hours each day and 40 hours each week. Supervisors could submit “exceptions” for hours that were worked outside of the default schedule. The Ninth Circuit decided that a common question did exist in relation to the question of whether the timekeeping method resulted in unpaid overtime for adjusters.  

The Ninth Circuit also held that liability for the problem and whether or not the employer should have known its employees were working off the clock could be resolved with statistical sampling. Although, it is important to note that the Ninth Circuit did not specify exactly how the issues could be resolved through statistical sampling.  

This decision could provide a basis for a legal standard, making an employer’s lawful written policy not enough to completely insulate the company from class certification questions. The recent decision is a deviation from previous rulings as in the Supreme Court’s decision in Walmart Stores v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

If you have questions regarding class certification or the method of timekeeping used at your place of business, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik for additional information. 

FedEx Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors According to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

The recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision in the FedEx case concluded that drivers are employees, not contractors. Their agreement supports the decisions of many other jurisdictions to date.

The ruling was directly related to the FedEx drivers in the Connecticut terminal of a FedEx ground package Systems Inc. unit. The ruling by the National Labor Relations Board that the drivers are employees and not independent contractors was founded on a wide range of factors that all favored employee status.

A four-member panel ruled over one dissenting vote that FedEx Home Delivery was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act in its refusal to recognize a union and appropriately bargain when they sought to represent the drivers. A closer examination of the relationship between the drivers’ and FedEx made it clear to the board that the drivers fit the criteria of classification as employees.

Traditionally, courts and governing agencies have utilized the now familiar “multi-factor” common law test in order to differentiate between workers who should legally be designated as employees and those who should be designed at independent contractors. Over time a new trend has gradually emerged in which the focus has shifted to include and some might argue, focus on, one single factor: who has control over the individual’s work. It has become apparent that this focus does not always rely on the use of power over the individual’s work, but simply the existence of the possibility to exert power/control over the individual’s work even if it hasn’t been invoked.

If you are unsure of your appropriate classification on the job and fear that you may be being denied benefits through misclassification as an independent contractor, contact the experts in employment law at southern California’s Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.