Sexual Harassment Case Against Army Results in $820,000 Settlement

Starkey, a former military police trainee, claimed she was fired because she filed a sexual harassment complaint against her supervisor, Sgt. Wayne Lord. She filed suit in 2014. On Wednesday, her sexual harassment lawsuit against the army resulted in a settlement of $820,000. Legal representation for the plaintiff indicated that this settlement payment is one of the largest that the military has agreed to in order to resolve a sexual harassment allegation in history.

The settlement was reached shortly before the case was set to go to trial.

Starkey, the plaintiff in the suit, alleged that her supervisor at the time, Sgt. Wayne Lord, texted her hundreds of sexually explicit messages and nude photos of himself at all hours. This treatment occurred while Presidio of Monterey employed her. This is an Army installation located in California. Starkey alleges that she was terminated after filing the complaint regarding the sexual harassment. She claimed that Sgt. Lord was popular at work and she was ostracized and then fired because she dared to name him in the report and report his behavior. According to the plaintiff’s legal counsel, the Army was aware of Lord’s history of sexual harassment, but Starkey’s direct supervisor at the time of her termination was Lord’s wife, who also worked at the installation as a lieutenant.

Starkey feels that the Army should have supported her as their trainee officer who had been incessantly harassed. But instead of doing so, the Army terminated her from her position. Her accused harasser, who had a history of sexual harassment on his record, was simply assigned to a new job with no apparent repercussions, a police position for the Dept. of Defense (DOD).

Everyone knows how important the chain of command is in the Army, but in this instance, it served to severely limit Starkey’s ability to obtain protection from harassment. A known sexual harasser was allowed to supervise a female trainee officer and that same harasser’s spouse was put in a position of direct supervision of the same trainee – making the wife of the harasser the person to which the harassment would need to be reported.

If you have concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace, please contact your southern California employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

$15 Million Wrongful Termination Suit v. California State Bar

The $15 million wrongful termination lawsuit (Oehler v. The State Bar of California et al., case number BC610699, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles) that hit the State Bar of California echoes allegations made by the bar’s former executive director pointing towards rampant ethical violations. Plaintiff Sonja Oehler’s LinkedIn profile lists her previous title as the bar’s former administrative specialist. Rather than being let go from her position for a lack of ability or dedication to the job or a necessary reduction in staff, Oehler alleges that she was fired from her job because she knew too much about rampant ethical violations: deceit, deception, incompetence and falsification of issues on the part of the bar.

Details of Alleged Ethical Violations Specifically Mentioned in the Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Include:

 A director required to attend a three hour hearing in San Francisco demanded that the bar cover the costs for a four day stay at San Francisco’s Palace Hotel. The bar agreed to pay.

A board member’s reimbursement claim for close to $30,000 denied by Oehler was later paid out of state bar funds.

Terminations because individuals were supposed “friends” of the prior leader of the bar (i.e. former executive director Joseph Dunn who sued the bar in 2014).

Former executive director, Joseph Dunn, alleged in his 2014 lawsuit that there was a massive cover-up of unethical practices on the part of the bar and that he was fired for exposing the problem. He also alleged that Jayne Kim, the bar’s chief trial counsel, purposefully purged the public backlog in order to inflate her own productivity. Additionally, Kim allegedly failed in her duty to prosecute unlicensed lawyers who preyed on immigrants; even after legislation was passed prohibiting the practice. In December, the bar said that a judge has agreed to appoint an arbitrator to come to a resolution in the Dunn suit.

Kim is also named in Oehler’s suit (as a defendant). In Oehler’s suit allegations indicate that Kim allowed the backlog of discipline cases to pile up until they were out of control and then moving 181 of the cases into a “deferred” state allowing the backlog to be reported without them. Once reported, the “deferred” case statuses were moved back to active. Oehler described the action as a “scam.”

Allegations make in the suit also claim that Kim dismissed ethics complaints made against herself when they should have been sent to an outsider that could address them impartially. It is also alleged that the bar failed completely to open hundreds of complaints regarding unauthorized practice of law resulting in fraud against Mexican nationals seeking U.S. citizenship.

Oehler alleged the acting executive director, Robert Hawley, retaliated against lawyers who attempted to provide wrongfully terminated employees with assistance.

Oehler’s suit seeks $10 million in financial losses due to her wrongful firing and an additional $5 million due to the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Oehler claims fraud, misrepresentation by the state bar (and other listed defendants), and deceit. As per these allegations, Oehler’s suit seeks punitive damages (not to exceed 10x damages due from wrongful termination and emotional distress).

Legal representation for the bar states that the bar denies the allegations made by Oehler. They believe that the lawsuit holds no legal merit. They plan to address the allegations in the “appropriate forum.”

If you have questions regarding wrongful termination or how to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

The Price of Free Labor for Fenox Venture Capital Firm

The conclusion of a US Labor Department investigation is that Fenox Venture Capital’s labeling of 56 employees as interns was in violation of labor law. The conclusion of the investigation means that the firm is required to provide the mislabeled employees for three years of “free” or unpaid work totaling $331,269 in back wages and damages.

Definitions You Should Know:  

What is an Intern? A trainee (often a student or recent graduate) that works, usually without compensation, at a certain trade, occupation or company in order to gain valuable work experience.

The investigation began in late 2014. Investigators discovered that the San Jose, California based firm illegally labeled 56 workers as interns between September 2011 and September 2014. By doing so, the company obtained free labor that both US and Japan born workers should have received compensation for. The “free labor” was spread over a wide variety of tasks, but included recruiting for the firm and screening startups for potential investment. This is notable because these are two of the venture capital firm’s key functions.

According to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers are required to pay interns if certain criteria apply to the situation. One such criterion is if the interns in question are performing work that the company would hire someone to do otherwise. It is fairly unusual for a venture capital firm to be found in violation of labor law. Yet this is only the latest in a series of events damaging the health of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley has also recently become known for a culture that is hostile to women, its willingness to conspire to keep salaries lower with inter-company agreements not to compete for workers (2015), and use of immigrant labor (2014). A number of lawsuits and labor code violations have kept Silicon Valley popping up in the news regularly and left many questioning where the investigations will lead next.  

If you are interested in additional discussion of misclassification of employees or mislabeling of employees as interns, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

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.