Discrimination & Workplace Retaliation: KKK Hood Placed in Worker’s Station

Isiah Washington, a 27 year old African American factory worker, claims he was fired in retaliation after he reported what can only be described as an inappropriate action taken in the workplace: racist co-workers hung a Ku Klux Klan “hood” in his workstation. This alleged act of racial discrimination also constituted a hostile work environment for the former employee of Sierra Aluminum Company in Riverside, California. As a result of the occurrence last April, Isiah filed a racial discrimination suit against the company.

Washington claims that the “hood” was clearly a symbol of the KKK, one of the most violent and ruthless organization in the history of the country. He also claims that when it was reported, the company not only didn’t respond, but they didn’t even pretend to take it seriously, even though Washington noted that this particular incident was the final move in a months long campaign of discrimination. He stated that he was scared and felt very threatened in the situation. When he asked his supervisor to “please take it down” the supervisor blew Washington off. He states that the supervisor started talking to other employees and that they all began laughing. Washington remembers that he was scared for his life and “everyone was laughing” (including his supervisor to which Washington had just reported he incident). Washington claims in the lawsuit that the offensive (and terrifying) white sheet remained above his workstation for another hour while he continued his work. He clarifies that he did not see it as a prank or a joke, but as an intimidation technique – a threat.

Washington filed a complaint with the company’s HR department about the incident. It was ignored. The firm actually claimed that the “sheet” must have been blown in with a gust of wind. Seeing the action as a threat that wasn’t addressed in any way by the company, Washington alleges he had to continuously watch his back on the job – resulting in extreme emotional distress, fear and even anxiety. From that day on, Washington had to put up with derogatory comments from his co-workers.

At Washington’s request, the company agreed to move him to a different shift, but he ran into trouble again a few months later. After accidentally cutting his thumb on some aluminum, Washington covered the cut with a band-aid. On the following day, his supervisor questioned him about the incident – wondering why he had accessed the First Aid box on site. He replied and advised his supervisor that he was fine at which point the supervisor insisted that Washington visit the company driver and that he allow someone to drive him. Wary because of the recent negative activity in the workplace, Washington declined the ride to the doctor and advised the supervisor he could drive himself. The supervisor became angry and advised Washington he could no longer go to the company doctor. He went anyway and received clearance to work. When he returned to work the next day, he was fired. The reason he was offered for his termination was that he did not follow company policy.

Washington feels that the company obviously used this situation as an excuse so they could fire him, which could be referred to as wrongful termination.

If you have concerns about discrimination in the workplace, workplace retaliation or wrongful termination, please contact the experienced southern California employment law attorneys with your questions at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Dick’s Sporting Goods Facing Class Action for Texting Program

A proposed class action against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. has been filed in California federal court. Accusations that the sporting goods retailer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allege that the company sent text messages to consumers after they had opted out of the subscription based alert advertising program. Plaintiff, Phillip Ngiehm, states that he originally agreed to participate in the marketing program, but that he opted out in December 2015 by texting the word “stop” as instructed. According to the terms of the program, this would result in a halt of messages from the program to the subscriber – effectively removing him from the subscriber list.

Dick’s acknowledged that they received the termination of his consent to receive automated text ads, but the advertising messages continued. In fact, Ngiehm received an immediate response when he texted “stop” in order to halt his involvement in the program:

“You have been unsubscribed and will no longer receive messages from us. Reply ‘help’ for help.”

After receiving this acknowledgement, he received eight text messages. This led to the filing of the lawsuit that Dick’s Sporting Goods is currently facing. Plaintiff’s attorney states that all the SMS texts that were received by the plaintiff after he opted out as instructed, were sent without his consent and were thus unauthorized. This leaves the messages in violation of the TCPA. He seeks certification of a national class of people who were in receipt of messages from Dick’s Sporting Goods that were unauthorized. He estimates that the number of eligible class members could be in the thousands. The suit will seek statutory and treble damages as well as an injunction to prohibit Dick’s Sporting Goods from distributing unwanted advertisements by text. The suit will also seek attorneys’ fees and associated costs.

If you have questions regarding class action status and what it means to be eligible for class action membership status, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We can assist you in determining how California labor law applies to your situation. 

CVS $7.5M Wage Deal to Cover One Thousand Pharmacists

Final approval has been granted for the $7.4 million settlement between CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and the class of over 1,000 pharmacists. Pharmacists lodged allegations of unlawful denial of overtime pay when working over six days consecutively. The final approval hearing was held in Los Angeles Superior Court with Judge Elihu M. Berle granting the final approval for the proposed settlement.

Pharmacists included in the class action work or previously worked in three different CVS California regions. They filed a claim that they worked the “seven-day week,” but were not paid overtime. The judge noted that the plaintiffs believed they had viable claims, but that they were also aware that CVS did not believe their practices were in violation of wage and hour laws. The judge felt the settlement was fair and reasonable and that the plaintiffs were appropriately weighing the benefits of prevailing against risks posed by trial and potential delays of appeals, etc.

No class members objected to the settlement. Only seven class members opted out. Claims were filed for 85% of workweeks at issue in approving the settlement/deal. Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees of $2.49 million was also approved by the judge.

The three suits were filed in October 2013 alleging violations of California labor code on the part of CVS pharmacy due to requirement of pharmacists working over six days in a row without payment of overtime (time and a half for any hours worked on the seventh day of consecutive work). Preliminary approval was granted by Judge Berle in July after parties used the help of a mediator to come to a tentative agreement.

The agreement will result in each class member receiving approximately $2,846. The actual amount will depend upon the number of workweeks the pharmacist worked during the time period designated by the class action.

If you have questions regarding the class action process or any other southern California employment law issue, please get in touch with the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. We can answer your questions and provide you with the legal counsel you need. 

Quest Diagnostics Faces Allegations of Failure to Pay Overtime

The calculation of overtime requires that employers include any “extra” pay such as commissions or bonuses. When employers fail to do so, they are in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This is the issue that Quest Diagnostics faces in the class action overtime suit they are currently up against.

Lead plaintiff in the class action (Avila v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc. et al.) claims that the Company did not provide proper pay to hundreds of hourly employees. They failed to include automatic incentive payments when they completed overtime rate calculations. The named plaintiff was a referral assistant and testing assistant in the West Hills, California location. She claimed her typical work week was over 40 hours. She also alleges that when she was paid overtime, her non-discretionary bonuses (called “Recognition Quest” and “Goal Sharing Bonus” at Quest Diagnostics) were not included when they calculated her regular rate of pay. This is in violation of state employment law as well as federal law (Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA). She states that her employer miscalculated overtime in this way as a matter of policy. She also claims that over 500 workers can be included in the class that are or were affected by policies and practices addressed by the suit. The lawsuit alleges violations of both FLSA and California Labor Law. It also alleges violations through failure to provide timely wage payment when employment is discontinued and additional violations of California Unfair Competition Law.

Employers should remember that sums employees derive from employment (whether “promised” to them or stated in employment policy, i.e. commissions, earned bonuses, etc.) have to be included when completing calculations of the regular rate (or base rate of pay) in relation to overtime pay. When this is not handled correctly, employers can expect to eventually face a FLSA collective action like the one Quest Diagnostics is currently handling.

If you have questions regarding overtime pay calculations or class action status, please get in touch with the southern California employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

$12M Lyft Settlement: Company Refuses to Classify Drivers as Employees

In late January 2016, Lyft, a ride-hailing service out of California, agreed to pay a $12.25 million settlement in order to provide extra job security to members of a proposed class including both current and former drivers. The drivers filed suit against Lyft in California federal court. One of the more interesting terms of the settlement agreement for many is Lyft’s insistence that drivers will still NOT be classified as employees.

The suit filed against Lyft is just one of several that popular “ride” services are dealing with in both state and federal courts. Another popular ride service that is handling similar suits is Uber Technologies Inc. The numerous suits in the last few years against these types of ride providing companies seek a clearer delineation between employees and independent contractors (which is the current classification of drivers at such companies). In the suit recently settled against Lyft out of California federal court, the company made a few additional concessions that were included in the proposed settlement:

• Lyft conceded the right to terminate drivers at will enabling drivers to “turn down” rides without fear that they will lose their ability to drive for the company.
• Lyft agreed to create a “favorite driver” option for riders to use to designate their favorite drivers – providing drivers with the opportunity for additional benefits.
• Lyft conceded paying costs to arbitrate driver grievances.
• Lyft conceded the implementation of a prearbitration process. 
• Lyft conceded the provision of drivers with additional “rider” info (passenger ratings, etc.)

Lyft representation announced that the company was pleased with the resolution of the matter and that opportunity the settlement terms presented to preserve the flexibility of the drivers that is necessary for them to control their own driving schedule on the platform while still providing consumers with affordable, safe transportation as originally intended. The company designed their platform as a symbiotic relationship between driver and rider. The driver controls when they drive, where they drive and how far they drive and consumers get home safely.

The original plaintiff, driver Patrick Cotter, filed suit against Lyft in September 2013. He alleged that the company’s classification of drivers as independent contractors was inappropriate as they were treated like employees. He also alleged that the company’s policy to “skim” 20% of drivers’ tips as an “administrative fee” was in violation of California labor law. He cited company required inspections of drivers’ vehicles (personal cars) and insurance policies, the company’s right to fire at will, mandatory policies and training, etc. as actions more suited to the role of an “employee” according to California labor law and that drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. The suit was originally proposed as a nationwide class action, but at a later date was limited to California drivers.

The counsel for the plaintiffs saw the terms of the proposed settlement as positive even if they did not attain all that they hoped for with the legal proceedings. Lyft did not agree to reclassify drivers as employees as other “sharing economy” services have recently (i.e. Shyp, Instacart, etc.), but they did agree to make changes that will provide significant benefits to their drivers.

If you would like additional information about misclassification of employees as independent contractors, we would love to discuss it with you. Contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

Desperate Housewives Star Files Retaliation Lawsuit

Many have heard of the popular TV series called the Desperate Housewives. Of those who watch the show, almost all should be familiar with Nicollette Sheridan. She has been called the most “risqué” of the women on the show. In most recent news, she may be better known for her recently filed lawsuit.

According to Sheridan, she got into a verbal argument on set with the writer/creator of the show, Marc Cherry. She claims that the argument ended when Cherry slapped her. According to Sheridan, this was battery. According to Cherry, this was stage direction.

Sheridan responded to the incident by complaining to the network as well as the show’s producer. The next year, her character, Edie Britt, was killed in the midst of the show. Sheridan saw this as retaliation for her complaints regarding the “battery” on set the previous year and filed a lawsuit claiming such. The lawsuit was twice dismissed by trial courts and revived twice by the court of appeal.

What secret, sordid detail led to such an intriguing on again, off again response from the courts? It’s not nearly as intriguing as one might expect from a plaintiff known for being “spicy.” In fact, it’s downright boring. The question that is causing the confusion is this: Did Sheridan have to file an administrative complaint with the Labor Commission before suing?

According to the court of appeals, she did not have to file such a complaint. Their decision was based on a brand-new labor code stating:

“A person is not required to exhaust administrative remedies…unless the section under which the action is brought expressly requires it.” The sections referenced in this case are not seen to “expressly require” it as they use the term “may” instead of “shall” in regards to filing a claim with the Labor Commission. The court of appeals does not feel that the word “may” indicates a mandatory requirement. This resulted in the reinstatement of her case allowing Sheridan the opportunity to seek resolution in court.

If you need to discuss on the job battery or if you have other questions regarding southern California employment law, please get in touch with the experienced attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.  

Can a California Employee be Terminated from Work for a DUI?

Consider this scenario: A California resident was driving under the influence on his own time and in his own vehicle. He was pulled over and subsequently charged with a DUI (driving under the influence). His employer responded to the charges by suspending driving privileges. When he could not get the charges dismissed, he was unable to find another position at the company that did not require him to drive a company vehicle. As a result, he was terminated from his employment. The employee was eventually convicted on the DUI charges, served 2 years of probation, and then the conviction was dismissed. The issue on appeal was applying Labor Code Section 432.7 to determine of the employer was in violation of labor law; wrongfully terminating the employee on the basis of criminal records information.

Labor Code Section 432.7:

·       Prohibits California employers from asking employees to disclose information regarding an arrest or detention that did not result in a conviction.

·       Prohibits California employers from basing employment or conditions of employment, job offers, promotions, etc. on a record of arrest or detention that did not result in a conviction.

In this particular scenario, the employer responded to the suit by filing a demurrer which requests a dismissal of a complaint due to it failing to state a valid cause of action. The argument presented was that the employee was convicted which precludes his Labor Code Section 432.7 violation and wrongful termination claims. The employee countered that his conviction occurred post-termination and that it was “likely” to be dismissed. He requested that the court delay proceedings in order to allow time for the resolution of his pending motion to expunge the conviction.

The trial court sustained the employer’s demurrer and dismissed the employee’s complaint. They found that the protection of Section 432.7 of the Labor Code was for situations in which the arrest/detention did not result in a conviction. Since this employee’s DUI charge did result in a conviction, the protections did not apply. They also found that the employer is not required to wait to see if an employee will successfully complete their probation and have their conviction expunged before taking adverse action in response to the employee’s arrest/conviction. On appeal, the court upheld the previous decision in favor of the employer stating that Labor Code Section 432.7 does not prevent an employer from questioning an employee about an arrest pending trial or from basing an employment decision on an arrest that results in a conviction. There are no limitations placed on the statute in regards to whether or not the conviction occurs before or after said employment decision.

If you need additional information regarding southern California labor law or if you have a question about wrongful termination, please get in touch with the experienced attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.