Farmers Insurance Co. Sued by Female Attorneys for Pay Discrimination

Female attorneys employed by Farmers Insurance Co. filed suit alleging that the company paid them less than the male attorneys employed by the company. The pay discrimination class action group reached a $4.1 million deal with the insurance company in California federal court. The settlement amount is to be split amongst 300 women who either are or were employed by Farmers as attorneys working as claims litigators throughout the past 4-5 years. The agreement requires that Farmers Insurance Co. hire an outside human resources professional to consult on an independent basis.

Also as a part of the resolution of the case, Farmers agrees to a three-year injunction that sets down a new set of rules for treating female employees. In addition to hiring the independent human resources consultant, Farmers will be required to abide by the rules set down in the injunction. The rules include a requirement to allow attorney employees to openly discuss their pay rates with one another, the conducting of a statistical analysis of pay rates each year, strive to promote more female lawyers in the company, move more women employees into higher pay grades, etc.

The lead plaintiff, Lynne Coates, alleged that a male colleague handling a similar workload and job duties was paid from $150,000-200,000. In comparison Coates’ salary was capped at $100,000. When Coates lodged a complaint, she was “demoted” from her position in the company as an attorney and asked to handle other, lesser duties.

The suit was filed in April of 2015. It involved both federal and California state equal-pay laws. It was also among the first of this type of suit to test California’s new Fair Pay Act (effective 2016). The settlement discussed and agreed on between the parties is still waiting for approval from the U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California with a June 23rd hearing already scheduled.

If you have questions regarding pay discrimination or California’s state equal-pay laws, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Driving a Truck For Deluxe Auto Carriers? You May Owed $$$

On March 23, 2016, the San Diego labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Core-Mark International, Inc. alleging that the transportation company failed to lawfully compensate their Truck Drivers for all their time spent working, including time spent while not driving the company's trucks. The class action lawsuit against Core-Mark International, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2016-00009669-CU-OE-CTL. To read a copy of the Complaint, please click here.

The class action lawsuit alleges that Plaintiff and other truck drivers working for the Core-Mark in California are paid on a piece-rate basis. The lawsuit claims that the truck drivers are not paid all minimum wages for all their hours worked because of Core-Mark's alleged failure to record all time worked. 

Many trucking companies pay their truck drivers by the mile or by the load.  These types of payment schemes do not pay truck drivers for all the time they actually work, including time when the wheels are not spinning on the road, including but not limited to the work performed during pre-trip and post-trip inspections and time spent allegedly waiting for loads to be ready for transport.

There are other truck drivers in California working for trucking companies that should be getting paid minimum wages.  Deluxe Auto Carriers (or Excel Transporting & Towing) truck drivers are likely owed minimum wages and payments for missed meal and rest periods

According to the company's website, Deluxe Auto Carriers provides services in the automobile transport industry.  If you are a truck driver for Deluxe Auto carriers, and would like to file a Deluxe Auto Carriers lawsuit.  Click here to speak to an attorney with experience handling trucking cases.

California Supreme Court Says Employers Should Provide a Seat

The California Supreme Court recently found that workers whose jobs can be done at least in part while sitting, should be forced to stand by their employer. Many employees will agree that fulfilling a job while standing can take its toll – particularly when discussing long term employment. The Supreme Court’s decision regarding suitable seating cases will allow employees to literally take a load off by requiring employers to give their workers chairs.

Bowlin, a member of the class action lawsuit against CVS, cited long term health issues due to standing (including varicose veins, etc.) The class action suitable seating lawsuit against CVS, popular pharmacy chain, is one of dozens filed throughout California in the last several years. All cite allegations against employers that require their employees to stand. The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous, clarifying labor law in a way that will make it fairly difficult for employers to deny their workers with a chair on the job.

Justice Carol A. Corrigan explained more regarding what employment situations fall into this category: when an employee spends a large part of the workday in a single spot completing job duties that can be done while sitting down (even if other job duties need to be completed in a standing position).

The “totality of the circumstances” determines whether or not a worker is entitled to have a seat on the job. This totality of circumstances consists of: whether a job duty can be completed from a sitting position, whether the seated employee would disrupt job performance, and the physical layout of the workplace and its suitability for seating. Having said that, the court also stated that employers should not design workspaces to “further a preference for standing” and that, in fact, employers should consider whether or not the workspace could be reasonably rearranged in order to accommodate a chair.

This clarification of employment law is expected to affect almost every industry across California. Employers will no longer be able to legally require employees to stand on the job all day in a fixed spot if the tasks required for the job can be completed while the employee is seated.

If you have questions regarding how this clarification of employment law will affect your workplace, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Employment Law History: California Increases Minimum Wage

California is making history again, but this time the history will be recorded in the legal treatises studied by employment law attorneys. When the governor signed Senate Bill 3, California became the first state in the nation to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022. This increase will provide six million California residents with increased earnings.

Many cite this increase as a big step in the fight for gender justice as six out of every ten minimum wage workers in the state are female (with women of color being disproportionately represented in the group). 23% of minimum wage employees in the nation are women of color. In comparison, women of color only represent 16% of the American workforce as a whole. More than 1/3 of California’s minimum wage employees also have children under their care for which they need to provide financial support.

The numbers regarding the minimum wage worker demographic in California made Senate Bill 3 a lead bill in the 2016 Stronger California campaign that many have heard discussed. The campaign was chaired by Equal Rights Advocates with top advocacy coalitions acting as co-lead. It has become known as a historic bid to ensure that California’s women and communities as a whole will enjoy economic security. This 2016 Stronger California campaign also enjoyed a celebratory victory in 2015 when the California Fair Pay Act was passed, creating the strongest equal pay law in the United States.

Many California minimum wage workers see the increase as a tremendous help that will drastically alleviate financial problems associated with low income. Today’s minimum wage workers tend to worry check-to-check, work multiple jobs, and stress about having enough to cover the bare necessities. This makes Senate Bill 3 very popular amongst this group. They see it as a positive move in the right direction and hope that the positive movement will continue. There’s still more work to be done in order to ensure economic security. The Stronger California campaign also works toward policies and budget changes to address issues with: poverty, accessibility of child care, promotion of fair pay and job opportunities, and family friendly employment.

If you have questions about California’s Senate Bill 3 or the 2016 Stronger California campaign, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik. 

Lyft Settles California Overtime Lawsuit

Lyft and Uber are both very similar businesses that allow any person to sign up as a driver and when they are needed, they go to the given pick up spot and take their customer where ever they ask to go. The companies take pride in being very lenient and easy - allowing their workers to have a full personal life while still keeping a good paying job.

After being hit with several lawsuits filed towards Lyft from thousands of the company's drivers, saying they were seen as independent contractors rather than employees, Lyft has decided to settle. This agreement to settle leaves Uber, a similar car ride service, alone to face the driver's lawsuits that state that they should get sick days and overtime pay alike all other employees. 

According to resources Lyft has agreed to the final terms of the lawsuit and also to paying a total of $12.25 million to the affected drivers. The settlement will give the drivers conditions that apply more to the independent contractor, even though the lawsuit was filed to achieve employee status.

The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is that the employee receives more benefits and rights, but is more controlled by their employer. Whereas an independent contractor has far more flexibility in their schedule and payment, but do not get overtime pay, sick days, or any other benefits that an employee may receive.

The drivers claim that they were not being given the benefits, but were being controlled more than they should have been. Lyft has addressed the benefits matter by saying hey will be giving "portable benefits" to their workers but have not stated what this entails.

Arbitration clauses were in both Uber's and Lyft's driver agreements, but were disregarded by the plaintiffs when the lawsuits were filed originally. Lyft has agreed to pay for the arbitration fees as part of the settlement. Uber's arbitration clause was rendered invalid by the judge, but the same didn't go for the clause in Lyft's agreement.

If you are in need of assistance regarding a misclassification in the workplace or unpaid overtime, please contact the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We would be glad to assist you. 

Yellowstone Worker Sees Red: Claiming Retaliation Over Asbestos Report

A Yellowstone National Park maintenance worker named Jon Kline reported that he and several other employees at the park were exposed to asbestos at Old Faithful Inn, a hundred year old lodge/hotel at the park. After submitting the report, Kline claims he was subjected to workplace retaliation from the park concession company, Xanterra Parks & Resorts, a subsidiary of Anschutz Corp. The company holds contracts to operate facilities focused on tourist attraction at a number of U.S. national parks including: Oregon’s Crater Lake, California’s Death Valley, Arizona’s Grand Canyon, and Utah’s Zion National Park.

Kline alleges that Xanterra Parks & Resort began to give him poor work reviews and eventually declined his contract renewal after the incident with asbestos exposure last March that he properly reported to authorities. The employee retaliation claim that Kline filed is still pending. In describing the circumstances where he and others were exposed to asbestos he states that they were told “not to worry about it” and that it was “safe.” The exposure occurred while he was part of a crew working on steam lines wrapped in asbestos at the Old Faithful Inn, originally opened in 1904. His opinion of the situation was that it was not worry free or particularly safe.

Asbestos got loose from an old pipe insulation when broken pipes that occurred during the winter began to emit steam in March. The pipes were restored in order to provide heat to the west wing before the plumbing could be turned on. The asbestos was present in at least eight rooms in the west wing of the seven-story structure known as Old Faithful. Workers were not alerted to the presence of asbestos before they tore into the walls to get to the ruptures. The asbestos was cleaned up by a certified company prior to opening the popular Yellowstone hotel to guests the following May. The Old Faithful Inn is ranked as one of the world’s largest log structures and is very well known. In fact, it’s one of the most stunning and immediately recognizable hotels in the entire U.S. national park system.

As a result of four workplace safety citations due to exposure, Xanterra paid $15,300 in fines last September. Workers involved were not wearing appropriate safety gear. They were provided with inadequate respirators thus exposing them to the cancer-causing substance (according to representatives from the Wyoming Occupational Safety and Health Administrator). Xanterra representatives declined to comment on the case or respond to allegations, but did state that the safety of their employees and guests are a top priority.

If you have questions regarding workplace retaliation and how to recognize labor law violations in southern California, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today.

Chipotle Employee Claims of “Sexually Charged Atmosphere” Result in Lawsuit

A former Chipotle employee, Ariana Castaneda, filed a lawsuit against Chipotle claiming that the managers at the Woodland Hills store where she was employed created a “sexually charged atmosphere” and behaved inappropriately in the workplace, harassing her regularly. Castaneda claims that her Chipotle managers intentionally ordered her uniform shirt too small repeatedly. She worked for Chipotle from December 2013 through February 10th, when she was fired. She was employed as a lead kitchen worker at the restaurant on Canoga Avenue.

Sexual Harassment: harassment in the workplace (or in any professional or social situation) that involves the making of unwanted sexual advances, obscene remarks, obscene gestures, etc.

Discrimination: unjustly treating or treating prejudicially different categories or types of people. It is most commonly referenced in relation to negative treatment in the workplace due to race, age, religion or sex.

Workplace Retaliation: action on the part of co-workers, supervisors or employers to make an individual in the workplace afraid to complain, stand up for their rights or seek legal recourse. Retaliation is often confused with harassment and creating a hostile workplace or environment, but it is specifically aimed at those who have information or situational knowledge that others do not want reported.

Wrongful Termination: when an employee’s employment or contractual agreement for work is terminated by their employer under circumstances where the termination breaches terms agreed on by contract, terms of employment or by law.

Castaneda’s lawsuit also claims that she was not the only one being sexually harassed. She states that the four managers on site sexually harassed other female workers at the southern California Chipotle location and that they even used the security cameras to spy on female customers that they through were attractive. She seeks unspecified damages on allegations including: discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment and wrongful termination.

The plaintiff named Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. along with the four managers in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit. She claims that her position at the restaurant required her to wear a certain uniform, but that her black uniform shirt was purposely ordered too small by the managers. Castaneda, when she complained about the shirt being too small and requesting a larger size be ordered was asked by a manager if it was because her [breasts] were too big. While another shirt was ordered, it was also too small. Castaneda also alleges that one of the Chipotle managers would forcibly hug her and also touch her underneath her shirt when his hands were cold from holding ice or cold drinks, etc. She also cited inappropriate comments managers made about other female employees of a sexual nature, mocking comments made to her personally due to a negative remark that was made on the popular review website, Yelp.

If you are suffering from sexual harassment in the work place or fear that you were wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik so we can help you.