Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed by Sarkisian Against USC

Steve Sarkisian, former USC coach, filed a suit against USC alleging that the university wrongfully terminated him in October 2015. The complaint filed requests damages amounting to $12.6 million, but the plaintiff’s attorney indicated to popular media outlets that the former USC coach would be seeking substantially more than the original $12.6M. Sarkisian’s lawsuit alleges the university fired him without receiving accommodations ashe sought treatment for a “disability.”

Sarkisian’s claim is based on the classification of alcoholism as a disability. The former USC coach was on a flight taking him to enter an alcohol rehabilitation treatment center on October 12th when he received an email from the USC Athletic Director, Pat Haden. In the email, Sarkisian was advised that he was fired.

Sarkisian feels that the university failed to support him as the Head Coach when he was most in need of their help. The lawsuit states that instead of honoring the contract in place with Sarkisian and accommodating his disability, the university “kicked him to the curb.” The suit also defines Sarkisian as a “person with a disability” (at times) according to federal law due to his alcoholism in addition to the stress associated with the job of USC Head Coach that contributed to his dependency upon alcohol.

Sarkisian’s interpretation of the situation was that California law required the USC make reasonable accommodations for his disability with time off allowing him to obtain the necessary assistance and the ability to return to his job after treatment was completed. USC did not feel obligated by the referenced California law or the commitment made to Sarkisian.

A newly sober Sarkisian is now ready to return to coaching, but the university has replaced him. Sarkisian feels that the university has effectively “taken away his team, his income and a job that he loved” in not accommodating his need for treatment and holding his job for him until he successfully completed treatment. In addition, Sarkisian’s suit claims that the university’s actions were in violation of the contract in place as they refused to pay him money that he feels is owed to him according to the terms set down.

USC’s response to the claims and allegations was simple. USC’s general counsel stated that the facts were “mischaracterized” by the former coach and that the university will be defending their actions. In fact, the statement from USC’s general counsel went so far as to state that a substantial amount of the information included in the lawsuit is untrue. According to the university’s counsel, the former head coach repeatedly denied that he had a problem with alcohol to university officials. He never asked for time off for rehabilitation and he even resisted efforts on the part of the university to assist him with the issue. At that point, the university made it clear that additional incidents would result in termination by providing Sarkisian this information in writing. When additional incidents occurred, they followed through with the stated consequence: termination.

If you have questions regarding what constitutes wrongful termination or if you feel that you have been wrongfully terminated, please get in touch to discuss your situation with one of the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Staff Assistance Inc. Faces Claims of Overtime and Meal Break Violations

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a proposed class action Complaint against Staff Assistance, Inc. (SAI) on December 29, 2014 alleging labor law violations. The suit is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. A full copy of the complaint is available online, but a brief summary outlining the main points of the suit follows. 

SAI is a California based company that offers home health, palliative care, caregiving and hospice care services through an extensive network of employees. Licensed Vocational Nurses employed by SAI filed the suit listing allegations of numerous violations of California Labor Laws.

Allegations included in the suit against SAI:

·       Licensed Vocational Nurses were required to work unpaid hours, resulting in a failure to pay both wages and overtime.

·       Failure to provide accurate and complete wage statements (enabling the company to avoid payment of overtime wages).

·       SAI failed to abide by legally required meal breaks – according to California law, employers must provide all non-exempt employees that receive hourly wages with thirty minute meal periods before they complete five hours on the job. Failure to provide an uninterrupted meal period as required results in a penalty of one hour of pay according to the California Labor Code.

·       Failure to provide reimbursement for expenses incurred while employees fulfilled job duties (such as costs of travel/gas when traveling from job site to job site as assigned). This is in direct violation of California Labor Code Section 2802 requiring California employers to indemnify employees for any and all expenses that are incurred while in the course of fulfilling the requirements of their employment.

Allegations made in the suit indicate that the company’s practice to avoid paying overtime wages is based on uniform policy evident in SAI business records.

To get additional information about the class action lawsuit against Staff Assistance, Inc., please get in touch with one of the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik at (866) 771-7099 or get answers online here. The southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik can assist you out of offices in: Los Angeles, San Diego, or San Francisco. Get in touch if you need someone to help you fight unfair business practices, or violations of the labor law in the workplace. 

Religious Discrimination: EEOC V. Abercrombie & Fitch

August 24, 2015 - When Samantha Elauf went in for her job interview with Abercrombie & Fitch, she wore the headscarf traditional for a practicing Muslim. During the interview, her headscarf was not mentioned or discussed, but the store did take note of its presence and decided not to offer Elauf a job at the store after considering that she had most likely worn the headscarf for religious reasons and that it would be in violation of the store’s “Look Policy.”

The “Look Policy” at Abercrombie & Fitch violates the wearing of “caps” stating that this look is too informal for the image the company desires to project. In response, the EEOC sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Elauf’s behalf.

The EEOC received a summary judgment from the district court based on its claim that the store was in violation of Title VII when they refused to hire Elauf.

This decision was reversed in appellate court on the ground that employers cannot be held liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice unless the applicant/employee first provides the employer with knowledge of their need for a religious accommodation or exception to policy/procedure, etc.

The United States Supreme Court then reversed the decision of the court of appeals. The Supreme Court held that for an applicant to prevail in this type of disparate treatment claim they need only show that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. They did not need to show that the employer had actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation.

According to this line of reasoning, the hiring officers’ assumption and discussion of Elauf’s perceived need for an accommodation could be seen as a motivating factor even though the issue was not pointed out or discussed with her in person during the job interview.

If you have questions or need additional information about religious discrimination in the workplace or during the job hiring process, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Inability To Work With Your Supervisor Doesn’t Mean Disability

August 21, 2015 - Is being completely unable to work with your supervisor going to be accepted as a “disability” as defined by employment law? One clinical assistant dared ask this question in California court in Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Found. putting it to the test in court.

Michaelin Higgins-Wiggins worked in Sutter’s Shared Services Department. During the course of her employment, she went to her doctor because her job (her supervisor and the human resources department specifically) were causing her to experience stress. After discussing the issue with her doctor, she received a diagnosis regarding the situation: adjustment order with anxiety. She took the issue and her resulting diagnosis to her employer and was granted a leave of absence. The leave of absence lasted approximately 30 days.

After returning to work, Higgins-Williams received a poor performance review from her supervisor followed by a number of negative/contentious interactions with the same supervisor. Higgins-Williams responded by filing a disability accommodation request, citing her previously mentioned diagnosis and the situation on the job with her supervisor and the human resources department resulting in stress/anxiety. She was granted additional leaves of absence. After time off for leaves of absence totaling longer than a year, her employment with Sutter was eventually terminated. 

Higgins-Williams felt she was discriminated against due to her disability and that she was wrongfully terminated. She filed a lawsuit including these allegations. However, the trial court and Court of Appeal both agreed that Higgins-Williams was not disabled as defined by employment law. They found that an inability to work under a specific supervisor who is causing anxiety and/or stress as a result of standard oversight of the employee’s job performance, did not constitute an actual mental disability according to the terms provided by FEHA.

If you have questions about what constitutes disability discrimination on the job, contact thesouthern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Paid Sick Leave Law Resulting In Courthouse Custodian Hour Cut

August 19, 2015 - The California paid sick leave law went into effect across the state on July 1st. 6.5 million of the lowest paid workers in the state were provided with the right to call in sick and still receive payment for wages they would have earned had they not been sick and instead been able to work. One month after the new requirement went into effect, at least one group of workers benefitting from the change has found that there is also a price to pay: their hours are being cut. NOVA Commercial provides custodial services to a number of different government buildings. One such government building is the San Diego County Courthouse. NOVA Commercial recently informed their employees that they would be experiencing a cut in their hours. Employees speaking out anonymously state that the cuts are being made in direct response to the new law requiring that employers provide workers with three paid sick days each year.

In a meeting workers were advised that they would receive three sick days. They were also told that the company would be cutting their hours. Numerous employees of the company have verified this information. 

Workers at NOVA Commercial earn $9 per hour with no additional benefits. Some employees have seen their hours cut from five days per week to four resulting in a total annual loss of 52 days per year (and three paid sick days). This amounts to a decrease in overall annual pay of $3,528 each year for these employees. Many employees are worried as this will make it difficult for them to pay rent, bills and even pay for uniforms as their kids are now returning to school for the fall. Some are even worried that it will mean they can’t put food on the table for their families. The County’s contract with NOVA does not prohibit the company from cutting hours and every NOVA employee signed an employment document that states that the company reserves the right to change hours, wages or working conditions without notice.

When asked about the document, it was stated that most of the workers are Latinos and many can’t read or understand English very well, making it difficult for them to know exactly what they are signing during the employment process. Claims are being made that the company took advantage of this during their job hiring – not explaining what the documents meant could actually happen in the future.

For questions about employment law and how it affects you in your workplace, contact the southern California employment experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination: Hacienda La Punete Unified Whistleblower Awarded $555K

July 22, 2015 - Betty Ruelas, a former employee of Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, raised concerns about some unusual invoices that were paid to a company running the school district’s after school program. Afterwards, she was forced into early retirement because of her questions regarding the unusual invoices along with a disability and a need to take family medical leave from her work. The questionable invoices were from West Covina-based Institute for Student Success. They were one of two vendors that constituted the operational end of the grant-funded after school programs for Hacienda La Puente Unified School District.

The questionable invoices came from a vendor who was a friend of Superintendent Cynthia Parulan-Colfer. Upon returning from a family medical leave, Ruelas immediately took note of the new vendor and the high numbers attached to their invoices. In Ruelas’ opinion, it was obvious that the vendor was receiving abnormally high compensation for work provided. Parulan-Colfer’s response to accusations about the unfair compensation was that the claims they were highly paid and the fact that she was a friend were unrelated. She claims that Ruelas’ claims were simply false and meant as an attack against the school district.

The claims regarding the invoices were not even addressed by the jury in the case. They stuck to the other two reasons for the alleged wrongful termination.

The vendor began operating the district’s after school program in 2010 and continued through the 2014-15 school year. After a number of questions regarding the invoices, Ruelas claims her superiors on the job harassed her until being placed on disability leave for stress/mental health (April 2012). Once she returned from disability leave, she was transferred to another department. The new department only increased the stress level on the job. When Ruelas requested a transfer back to her old department, the request was denied.

Ruelas again went on disability leave in May 2013. She had developed hives on her eyelids as a result of the severe anxiety that she was suffering at work. She was then forced to retire early at age 53 in July 2013.

On May 13^th, the jury ruled in Ruelas’ favor awarding her $555,000 in damages.

If you need assistance with wrongful termination claims or other southern California employment law issues, get in touch with the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Fontana Unified Police Dispatcher Awarded in Wrongful Termination Case

July 21, 2015 - Jolee Berdnik, a police dispatcher, formerly with the Fontana Unified School District, alleges that she was fired from her position as a result of reporting an officer who was accused of sexual assault and rape of fellow dispatchers. After a month long trial, the jury verdict came back in her favor, awarding the wrongfully terminated police dispatcher over $315,000.

Berdnik’s 2012 wrongful termination lawsuit claimed that she was let go in retaliation for reporting officer John Garcia’s alleged conduct. Her superiors responded to her report of Officer Garcia’s behavior by terminating her from her position.

Three other current and former employees of Fontana Unified’s police division have made claims that Officer Garcia sexually assaulted or raped them on the school grounds. All three attacks allegedly took place in 2010 and 2011. All three have obtained representation to pursue legal recourse. 

After an investigation into the allegations originally reported by Berdnik, Officer Garcia was fired from his job, but he was not brought up to face official criminal charges.

If you are unclear what it means to be wrongfully terminated from your position review the standard definition of the phrase below:

Wrongful termination – a broad term/phrase that has a very specific legal meaning. Many individuals are terminated from their positions. And many will feel that the loss of their employment is “wrongful.” But the legal definition of “wrongful termination” is limited to only those very specific circumstances in which an employee is fired from their job for an illegal reason.

Common reasons that constitute “wrongful termination” include: your sex, your age, your race, your religion, complaints of sexual harassment, or reporting company wrongdoing to authorities (whistleblowing).

If you need additional assistance in determining whether or not you have been the victim of wrongful termination, please get in touch with the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.