Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Results in $725,000 Settlement

June 16, 2015 - Kelly O’Haire, former San Francisco Police Department lawyer, sued the city and the Police Department in 2013. She claims that she was fired because she made accusations that the chief mishandled a domestic violence investigation. City officials recently agreed to pay $725,000 settlement.

When O’Haire worked for the SFPD, she was in internal affairs. In 2009, she recommended that then Deputy Chief Suhr be fired after a friend called in to report that her boyfriend had been physically abusive. While Suhr encouraged the woman to file a police report, he did not attempt to arrest the boyfriend. O’Haire states that this was in violation of department policy. O’Haire was demoted to captain.

Two years later, O’Haire was promoted to chief and within weeks he fired O’Haire. Her supervisor was also fired. Suhr claims that both terminations were a part of efforts to cut costs. After a judge refused to toss out the case, the settlement was announced. The judge and the city’s Board of Supervisors will need to authorize the payout.

Since her dismissal from the police department, O’Haire has been unable to find work as an attorney. O’Haire is working as an investigator with the University of California, Berkeley. City lawyers apparently decided to offer a settlement after it was discovered that other employees that the police department let go to “cut costs” were allowed to stay on the job after notification of termination so that they could maximize their retirement benefits. In comparison, O’Haire was not allowed the same opportunity.

If you have questions regarding wrongful termination or in what instances being fired is illegal, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination Suit: California Woman Fired for Deleting a 24/7 Location Tracking App from her Phone

June 12, 2015 - California’s own Myrna Arias is a former employee of Intermex. While she worked for the company she was issued an iPhone. As an employee of the money transfer company she was also required to download Xora (which is an application/tool designed to help businesses to streamline their scheduling and travel routes for employees in the field).

Myrna Arias was allegedly fired for uninstalling the location-tracking application. Her boss required it to be downloaded on the company issued phone for company’s use in maximizing employee time while on the clock.

Her boss allegedly admitted to Ms. Arias that use of the app meant that her location would be tracked both during AND after business hours as the app ran 24/7. Ms. Arias stated that he even went so far as to brag that he knew the exact speed she was traveling at any given point during the day or night.  

Myrna Arias states that she didn’t have an issue with the application tracking her through GPS function during her work hours, but that she definitely objected to the continued use of the tracking application during non-work hours. She complained about it to her boss, John Stubits, telling him that it was an invasion of her privacy. He replied to her complaints in an unsatisfactory manner. Reminding her that she was required to keep her phone on 24/7 in order to accept phone calls from clients. She deleted the application in April 2014. 

The use of this type of employee tracking app is a new phenomenon that is becoming more and more popular. Some see this type of application as a major cause of the breakdown of traditional boundaries between professional and private lives. 

Arias filed suit in Kern County Superior Court seeking damages over $500,000.

If you would like to discuss the possibility that you are a victim of wrongful termination, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Southern Californian Cosmetologist Claims She Was Fired for Getting Pregnant & Preparing for Maternity Leave

June 10, 2015 - A cosmetologist, Shana Wilson, is suing the Sherman Oaks salon that denied her breaks and then fired her for getting pregnant and preparing for maternity leave. Her allegations of the abusive conditions at the salon are similar to other allegations being made in similar businesses in other California cities.

Ms. Wilson filed suit against Nail Garden and her supervisors at the salon, Marc and Sally Awad. Allegations include in Wilson’s suit include pregnancy discrimination and harassment, wrongful termination, failure to prevent harassment, workplace retaliation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, etc. Suit was filed seeking compensation (of an unspecified amount) and punitive damages as well as a desired injunction that would prevent the Nail Garden salon from continuing the same treatment in the future.

Wilson claims she was hired as a licensed cosmetologist in February 2014 after demonstrating her abilities for the Awads. Her job duties included: styling hair, manicures, pedicures and waxing. During her employment, Wilson indicates that she regularly received praise regarding her work from both clients and her employers. Her hairstyling was seen as particularly excellent and was featured numerous times on their Nail Garden social media sites.

Even so, Wilson claims that as soon as she became pregnant (three months after being hired) she was harassed. When she started to have stomach pains in response to bending over to perform pedicures for clients, she requested a reprieve from that particular job duty. Sally Awad started to criticize Wilson’s work and reduced her hours from a full 40-hour work week to 32 hours.

According to the suit, one week after Wilson asked about taking maternity leave, Marc Awad advised her that she was fired due to “complaints about her nail work” from clients. Wilson claims that she was fired because she was pregnant and was planning to take maternity leave. Wilson also alleges that during her time at Nail Garden, her supervisors had her take clients during her breaks and that she did not receive the required itemized statement of hours worked and wages earned. She claims that Nail Garden purposefully failed to compensate her for the full amount of hours she put in on the job.

The problem is so widespread amongst salons that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced that he will establish a task force to look into the matter as many are claiming that employees at such establishments are being short-changed and asked to work in unsafe working conditions.

If you need additional information regarding appropriate workplace conditions, wrongful termination or pregnancy discrimination, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik./contact

Supreme Court to Review Nixed $90M Rest Break Verdict Handed Down by Appellate Court

June 4, 2015 - A $90 million judgment against ABM Industries, Inc. was first overturned by an appellate court and is now to be reviewed by The Supreme Court of California. The judgment was handed down in response to a suit alleging that ABM Industries, Inc. kept a class of security guards “on call” during breaks. Appellate court held overturned the settlement on the grounds that California employment law doesn’t require that employers relieve workers of all their work duties while they are on break.

The damages award was vacated by appellate court in December 2014 and is now set to be reviewed by The Superior Court of California.

ABM Industries, Inc., a facilities management company, allegedly had a policy in place requiring that their security guards carry their radio during break times. This effectively left them on call even during their breaks/rest times employees claim is a violation of California labor law.

The three-judge appellate court panel supposedly voted unanimously to reverse the summary judgment ruling; vacating the $90 million award. The basis for their decision was that while they were required to keep their radios on during their breaks, they used the time to engage in non-work activities. They pointed out that the question at hand was whether or not being “on call” constitutes performing work and their conclusion was that it does not.

ABM feels that the claims that requiring their employees to carry radios during breaks constituted a failure to provide them with adequate rest breaks were “absurd.”

The case began in 2005 with claims made by lead plaintiff, Jennifer Augustus, that ABM’s policy requiring guards to carry radios during break times was in violation of California state’s Labor Code.  In February 2012, the security guards filed for summary judgment requesting that Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley award approximately $103 million in damages in response to the allegations.

Judge Wiley’s response came in July 2012 when awarded the security guards $89.7 million in damages on account of improper breaks throughout the 10-year period addressed by the class action and including over 14,000 class action members (past and present ABM security guards).

ABM, of course, appealed Judge Wiley’s decision,  claiming that it was unprecedented and in defiance of both law and reason. They also claimed that letting the ruling stand would end up crippling California companies without even providing any actual benefit to California employees. They claimed that, if upheld, the decision would force California employers to require that employees take their rest breaks outside of work sites and without their own personal cell phones.

The question quickly became one of differentiation between meal breaks and rest breaks and which labor codes applied in which instance. In December, the panel noted that the state’s Industrial Welfare Commission wage order that covers rest breaks did not actually include reference to requiring that employees be “relieved of all” work duties. This in comparison to the section covering meal breaks where it was covered. They concluded that the IWC knew what they were doing when they differentiated between the two. As of January, plaintiffs in the case were still debating their options and planning their next move in regards to the case.

If you need additional information on how to respond to workplace requirements regarding meal times, rest breaks and relief from work duty; contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Workplace Claims: Should Workers Be Paid for Mandatory “Call Ins?”

June 1, 2015 - Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC workers are raising the question of whether or not retail employees who are required to call in to see if a shift is available or not should be paid simply for the mandatory call. It’s a new type of workplace claim that will be put to the test in federal appellate court.

Plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit seek payment for mandatory calls in their workplace. The petition for interlocutory appeal to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals followed a rare grant from U.S. District Judge George H. Wu to file due to what he referred to as the “novelty” of the legal question being presented.

Since the only precedent for the case is Judge Wu’s original dismissal followed by his grant to file for interlocutory appeal, the 9^th Circuit holds a lot of power in their hands. They will be the deciding factor. The employment law industry will either see this new and “novel” issue nipped in the bud or they could see an entirely new and fertile area for workplace grievances leading to worker lawsuits. This case could result in a new area of claims for employees as many large chains have call in policies for their workers.

The lawsuit was filed by Mayra Casas and Julio Fernandez. The suit is based on California’s reporting time laws requiring a minimum amount of pay when an employee is required to report to work, but they aren’t needed or no work is available at the appointed time. California is one of eight states with similar reporting time laws (including New York). The California reporting time laws guarantees employees will receive up to 4 hours of pay when they report for an 8-hour shift that is cancelled, resulting in the employee being sent home without working. Up until this point, the focus has been on employees who physically report in to their workstations. Whether or not similar guarantees should be in place for call in claims is the current question.

In the current lawsuit between Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC and Casas/Fernandez, it has been pointed out that employees abiding by the retail chain store’s call in policy must arrange their entire schedule around the need to call in 2 hours prior to a potential shift. Sometimes employees are required to do so up to five times in one week. Legal representation for the plaintiffs are pointing out the difficulties this poses in regards to scheduling daycare, etc. as proof of the need for a change.  

For additional information on California workplace claims and California reporting time law, contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination Suit: Former VP Files Suit Against Blue Shield of California

May 20, 2015 - Blue Shield of California was named as the Defendant in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former chief technology officer (CTO). Aaron Kaufman, former CTO, claims he was fired one day prior to receiving a $450,000 bonus because he raised concerns about a costly contract. The former CTO claims that he repeatedly recommended that the insurer sign a fixed-price $1.6 million contract for a “Veritas data project”. He claims his repeated recommendations were denied by Blue Shield CIO, Michael Mathias, who instead opted in December 2014 for an open-ended $4.6 million contract through a different vendor.

Kaufman claims that at one point he was in Mathias’ office making the recommendation and that Mathias responded insisting that Kaufman leave his office and never bring up the $3 million cost savings issue again. According to Kaufman, Mathias did not provide an explanation for why he seemed beholden to the other, overpriced vendor.

Kaufman’s employment as CTO was terminated on March 11^th. The company cited alleged violations of Blue Shield’s travel and expense policies. The termination was completed the day before Kaufman was due to receive his $450,000 bonus (earned as of December 31, 2014).

A spokesman for Blue Shield disagreed with the complaints made by Kaufman, but didn’t want to provide additional comments regarding the suit.

Recently, criticism that Blue Shield of California behaves like a for-profit insurer has been rampant. The group even lost their tax-exempt status. In 2014, the company posted $13.6 billion revenue. They hold over $4 billion in their reserves. A former executive, Michael Johnson, has called on Blue Shield to return about $10 billion in public assets to the state accord to recent stories in the media. The organization also faces heavy pressure to lower its premiums for Californians.

If you need additional information on wrongful termination call or email the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Woman Claims Discrimination and Harassment: Suit Filed Against Facebook

May 11, 2015 - Chia Hong, a former Facebook employee, filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Facebook, alleging discrimination, harassment and that she was belittled during her time as a Facebook employee. Hong worked at Facebook first as a product manager and then as a technology specialist. Her employment lasted about three years. She was terminated in October of 2013. Hong claims that upon her termination, Facebook filled her position with a less qualified and less experienced male worker.

Facebook denies the allegations made by Hong while Hong goes into more detail regarding the inappropriate behavior. Hong states that company officials actually asked her why she didn’t stay home to take care of her kids. She also states that she was consistently and regularly ignored and that her professional opinions were belittled in workplace meetings at which she was among a notably smaller group of female employees. Hong also lodged allegations that she was required to organize parties/serve drinks for male colleagues. This was in no way a part of her job description as either a project manager or a technology specialist.

Hong is of Taiwanese descent and claims that she was told that she hadn’t been able to integrate well with the team at Facebook because she “looked and talked” different than the other team members.

Facebook denies that claims made by Hong – insisting that they did not mistreat her in any way during or after her employment with the company. They claim that they put great effort into diversity, gender and equality issues in the workplace and they believe they have done well in improving in those areas.

The case against Facebook involves a multitude of factual disagreements. Hong insists that her treatment at the company was sub-par with numerous instances of discrimination because she was female and because of her race. Facebook insists that the record will show that Chia Hong was treated fairly as an employee.

If you need help because you are experiencing gender discrimination or harassment at work, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.