Wrongful Termination and Retaliation Suit: California Firefighter Awarded $2.3 Million

In recent news, Todd Milan, 47, was awarded $2.3 million by a Solano County Superior Court jury in a civil wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit. Milan claimed that he was targeted by a couple of his superior officers after he informed the Division of Occupational Safety and Health of procedure irregularities during a residential fire that occurred on September 29, 2011. When entering the disabled man’s burning mobile home, Milan assumed Captain Erick Diez would enter alongside him. Diez never entered the burning structure, which was a violation of regulations requiring that firefighters always work in pairs. Diez’ failure to enter the structure left Milan inside alone for 90 seconds. Milan also claims that Diez did not have his gloves on when responding to the fire. The resident of the mobile home fire later died.

 

Workplace Retaliation: Similar to harassment and “hostile workplace,” workplace retaliation is not actually about people in the workplace exacting revenge or getting back at someone else for their behavior. Instead, it is focused more on making them afraid to complain or to assert their right. It is a subtle distinction, but necessary to delineate in certain situations where violations of employment law have occurred.  

 

Milan also claims that Fire Chief Paige Meyer advised Milan that he would be okay as long as his account of the fire matched those of other firefighters at the scene. Milan’s allegations made it clear that he claimed the City of Vallejo and the Fire Department covered up the events that occurred at this particular fire, which was the focus of an investigation by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. 

 

After this occurrence, Milan took an examination, which he did not pass. He claims that the Fire Department’s refusal to allow him to re-take the examination was in retaliation for his previous actions in reporting departures from procedure at the September, 29th, 2011 mobile home fire. At the time of the incident in question, Milan was an apprentice firefighter. He is now a teacher for a class for paramedics.

 

After a nine-week trial, the jury deliberated for two days. They awarded Milan with $2.3 million in compensation for past and future wage losses as well as emotional distress suffered as a result of the event.

 

If you have information regarding workplace retaliation, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Caretaker Sues Betty White for Unpaid Wages and Rest Period Violations

In recent news, Betty White is being sued by a former caretaker. The caretaker turned plaintiff was a long time, live-in employee named Anita Maynard. Maynard filed suit in Los Angeles alleging that Betty White did not pay her overtime and did not allow her breaks as required by California state labor law.

Betty White is most well known for her work on the TV show, Golden Girls. The popular TV show featured four older women who lived together in Miami, Florida that were experiencing the joys and pains and annoyances of their “golden years.” Betty White played the role of the spacey, but sweet Rose alongside Dorothy, Blanche and Sophia (Dorothy’s mom in the show). The show is widely known and many recognize it from the theme song along, “Thank You for Being a Friend.” The actress is now 94 years old.

Maynard claims that she was a live-in domestic worker for Betty White for over 20 years. During this time, she alleges that White did not provide her with payment for overtime hours even though she put in more than 14 hours on a typical day. Maynard’s complaint, includes additional allegations:

·       That White required Maynard to work six days/week without overtime rates for the sixth day.

·       That since discontinuing employment on March 11th, Maynard has not received all of her earned wages or vacation pay due.

·       That she earned less than the legal minimum wage according to California state labor law.

Maynard seeks wages owed, penalties and attorney’s fees through the court. A representative for Betty White responded to the legal actions by stating that Betty White has worked with thousands of people throughout her lifetime and none of them have anything negative to say about the well-loved actress. She went on to describe Betty as a kind person who is simply nice to everyone she runs into and will continue to make her purpose in life making other people happy.

If you need additional information on what qualifies for overtime pay and/or how to recognize violations of wage and hour laws, please contact one of the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Sharing of Tips Between Workers: Appeals Court Upholds Limit

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) ruled that businesses could not enforce a policy of tip sharing amongst workers even if their tipped employees are paid minimum wage. The ruling upheld a 2011 U.S. Labor Department rule in a 2-1 decision. In upholding the rule, the 9th Circuit noted that it was “reasonable” and appropriately consistent with the Congress’s goal to make sure that tips stay with employees who received them for their service.

 

Definitions to Know: What is “Tip Sharing Among Workers?”

 

When employers, supervisors or businesses collect tips that are left by customers for their waiters, casino dealers or other service employees that are then “shared” with backend support staff (i.e. dishwashers, bussers, hosts, etc.)

 

The 9th Circuit overturned district courts in both Nevada and Oregon. The ruling largely applies in those states where employers are required to provide workers with minimum wage in addition to any tips received: California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Minnesota, and Alaska. Previously, the labor department banned employers from using the distribution of “shared tips” to employees who do not normally receive tips (i.e. backend workers).

 

The basis for this legislation is that the tip received never belongs to the employer and therefore the employer does not have the authority or right to take it and redistribute it – it is not the employer’s money. Those in support of the rule prohibiting tip sharing urge employers to turn to higher pay for backend employees instead of using “tips” from other staff to subsidize a low pay rate.

 

While, the discussion of tip sharing is far from over, those in support of the 2011 U.S. Labor Department rule preventing enforced policies of tip sharing amongst workers, see this ruling as a move in a positive direction. Others question the effect that this movement will have on the pay of backend workers who depended upon the additional cash to supplement their income.

 

If you have questions regarding the legality of company policies such as tip sharing amongst workers, get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

"Top Chef" Finalist Settles Wage and Overtime Lawsuit

Top chef is a television series aired on the Bravo channel. On the popular TV show, unknown chefs looking to make it big in the restaurant world are able to compete for the title of "Top Chef". In addition to the general prestige that comes with winning the title, the purpose of the competition is to win the ultimate chef's “Top Chef” prize package, which includes $125,000 and a food showcase at the Food and Wine Classic in Aspen, Colorado. Bryan Voltaggio was a contestant on the sixth season of Top Chef. Near the end of the season, Voltaggio was one of the top finalists who went on to create and own four very popular restaurants: VOLT, Lunchbox, RANGE, and Family Meal. 

In recent news, several previous employees of "Top Chef" star Bryan Voltaggio have been attempting to negotiate a settlement of their federal lawsuit filed against him. (The settlement's terms were confidential and disclosed in a U.S. District Court document). Legal representation for the parties in the case was not able to discuss the terms of the agreement.  

The group of former employees sued Voltaggio in September of 2014. He was accused of violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions stated in the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to Court recorded documents it was a mandatory obligation that the employees appear at work at least three hours before the appointed shift time. They were also required to stay from two to six hours after they had clocked out for the day. Plaintiffs were also required to work "off the clock" which means they had to work as they would during a shift, but could not clock in and receive payment until the scheduled shift had started. 

What is Off the Clock Work?  

When discussing employment law and payment for wages earned, Off the Clock Work refers to the legal right of every non-exempt employee to be compensated for their hours worked. Hours worked refers to all time an employee is required to be on duty, on the premises of their workplace, or other location employee is required to be in order to fulfill work duties. When an employee is required to work without “clocking in” or counting their hours for payment, this is often referred to as off the clock work.

When Voltaggio was informed of these charges he responded to the accusations with an email stating that his attorney was reviewing the claims. He also stated that he was sure that the plaintiffs were incorrect; that he did nothing wrong.  

If you have additional questions about off the clock work, or what qualifies as a failure to pay overtime, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

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.