Voters Approve Changes to Paid Sick Leave in San Diego

June 7th, 2016, voters in San Diego made a new law that comes with a virtually immediate effective date. This new law will require area employers to move forward with efforts at compliance immediately in order to avoid being in violation of employment law.

The ordinance was originally approved in August 18, 2014. It was scheduled to become operative on April 1, 2015. One month after its approval, petitions were filed by opponents to suspend the law. The City Council voted to submit the matter to voters during the June 7, 2016 election and in so doing, allowed voters to demonstrate that they approved. The law will not apply retroactively, and will not be operational until 10 calendar days after the council adoption of a resolution that declares the election’s results (unless a separate, earlier date is designated in the resolution itself).

The San Diego law is applicable to all employers and their covered employees. A covered employee is one that performs at least two hours of work within the San Diego city boundaries for an employer for one or more calendar weeks in the year, is entitled to state minimum wage or is a participant in a State of California Welfare-to-Work Program. Exceptions are in place for those paid under a special license at below minimum wage, those working for publicly subsidized summer programs or other short-term youth work programs, student employees, program counselors, camp counselors, and independent contractors.

For additional information regarding the application of sick leave and minimum wage laws, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Investigates Ralph’s/Kroger and Stanford University Data Breach

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are currently investigating recent reports of data breaches involving Ralph’s/Kroger and Stanford University. The breach occurred at the big-three credit bureau Equifax, Inc. (NYSE:EFX) and affects both current and former employees of grocery retailer The Kroger Co. (NYSE:KR) and Stanford University.

Kroger Co. is a grocery retailer that does business through a chain of popular grocery stores including QFC, Fred Meyer and Ralphs. Kroger Co. notified employees about the data breach in a letter sent out May 5, 2016 that advised them of the situation. It noted that there was an apparent data breach perpetrated by unknown individuals. These unknown individuals apparently accessed the company’s [Equifax’s] W-2 Express website through the use of default log-in information that was based on a combination of Social Security numbers (SSN) and birth dates.

The W-2Express service is a service provided by Equifax to larger employers like Kroger Co. in order to provide electronic access to employee W-2 forms through the Equifax website. The site database currently has more than 431,000 current and former Kroger employees registered. Data accessed on the site included W2 forms (listing SSNs, addressed, and salaries).

As pointed out by Dailey, the spokesman for Kroger, the popular grocery store chain conglomerate is not the only company to rely on Equifax for electronic access to employee W2 information; nor are they the only company to rely on a combination of SSN and birth date to access the data. Dailey even surmised that it could be the standard setup Equifax relies on for the system.

One month previous to the Kroger/Equifax data breach, Stanford University notified 3,500 of their current and former employees of a similar problem when their data was accessed for purposes of identity theft through the W-2Express database run by Equifax. Northwestern University had a similar issue with 300 employees’ salary and tax data files being accessed through Equifax’s W-2Express portal as well. W-2 data is particularly valuable to thieves interested in identity theft because it contains a large portion of the information they need to request fraudulent tax refunds.

If you have concerns regarding a potential breach of your personal information and you need to discuss your rights with an experienced attorney, please contact us at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We are a leader in our field, experienced and knowledgeable in the representation of employees and consumers who have become victims of data breaches and other labor code violations. Visit our site or contact us directly for more information about how we obtained over $1.3 billion in awards through the course of our long and successful track record in the industry.

Former Exec Filed Wrongful Termination Suit Against RAPP Advertising Agency

Greg Andersen, a former executive with RAPP agency, filed a wrongful termination suit alleging that his termination was due to his complaints about his claims regarding CEO Alexei Orlov’s discriminatory behavior. RAPP is an Omicon-owned direct marketing agency of which Greg Andersen previously served as President (until he was fired in April of 2016). Andersen claims that Orlov’s behavior created a hostile work environment with frequent comments and behaviors exhibiting discrimination against women and numerous racial/ethnic groups.

Andersen claims that the agency did not take appropriate action in response to his complaints regarding Orlov’s discriminatory behavior. The agency is aware of the claims being made by Mr. Andersen and state that his “termination” was due to his position with the agency being eliminated. In response to claims of discriminatory behavior and failure to act on claims of discriminatory behavior they point towards their policies preventing discrimination and retaliation.

Andersen filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Defendants listed in the suit are Rapp Worldwide and Rapp Worldwide California. Andersen seeks an unspecified amount in damages. In the suit Andersen alleges that RAPP failed to show basic respect for the civil rights of employees, the Andersen made numerous complaints regarding Orlov’s inappropriate behavior prior to his termination, and that a number of other employees at RAPP have since filed complaints with the company regarding Orlov’s behavior. Andersen claims that his termination came less than a month after Mr. Orlov became aware he had made a complaint.

Some of the behavior cited in the suit that Andersen claims Orlov exhibited include: referring to women as “fat cows,” declining to promote females because they were “too pretty” so “no one would take them seriously,” and using descriptions such as someone being “miserly with money because he was Jewish.” According to Andersen’s allegations, Orlov also dismissed complaints regarding other executive’s lewd comments to female employees in order to protect their careers. Additionally, Andersen states that Orlov exhibited age discrimination with comments such as not wanting to see RAPP filled with “people in their forties and fifties.”

This lawsuit against RAPP is another example indicating that there could be a major problem with diversity and inclusion in the advertising industry. Alongside other suits in recent news, the RAPP lawsuit is leaving many debating the issues of women and minorities in positions of power in advertising.

If you have questions regarding discrimination in the workplace or if you need to discuss problems with diversity and inclusion in your workplace, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Magic Leap Tech Startup Facing Legal Battle: Wrongful Termination Suits Could Reveal Secrets

Magic Leap, one of the most hyped tech startup companies around, could be facing the potential leak of big secrets due to legal battles as two previous employees file wrongful termination suits. While their mixed reality work has been heralded as “mind bending” and is described as offering the ability to see virtual 3-D objects as if they were part of the real world, no one has actually seen any products – beta or otherwise. Their promise of creating a new platform that seamlessly blends digital and physical realities has many on tenterhooks, but without tangible evidence of their work, all the hype may soon fade away and leave the company a laughingstock.

Many are waiting to hear about specific product time frames and a chance to see some tangible evidence of the company’s claims, and they may get their wish in spite of the company’s intentions. Due to the upcoming legal battle surrounding two wrongful termination suits, Magic Leap’s secrets may be leaked to the public sooner than they planned.

Two computer scientists in the area of computer vision and robotics, Gary Bradski and Adrian Kaehler, filed the wrongful termination suits. Both claim that they were fired after they sought clarification of a paragraph in their employment agreements regarding consulting work outside of their work for the company.

A few days after Bradski and Kaehler filed wrongful termination lawsuits, Magic Leap filed suit accusing them both of misappropriating trade secrets and breaching contract. In the suit filed by Magic Leap, the two former employees are accused of using technology developed while working for Magic Leap for use in a new company the two developed or planned to develop.

The former employees claim these accusations are unfounded and are an attempt to avoid paying out stock options for termination for cause (over $20 million of stock rights are owned between the two).

If you have concerns regarding your employment contract, or if you suspect wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.  

Wells Fargo Settles Transgender Discrimination Suit in California

Marco “Marlo Kaitlin,” a former Wells Fargo employee, claims she was harassed and mocked to the point that brought her near to suicide. Her lawsuit against Wells Fargo was filed with Los Angeles Superior Court last July 14th. She alleged wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress on the part of Wells Fargo. She claims it all started with her decision to transition from a man to a woman.

Throughout the negotiations, part of Gallegos’ case was dismissed due to a long history of job performance issues and what the company referred to as absenteeism. Wells Fargo claimed that they had a strong commitment dating back 25 years to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. They also publicly stated that they believed discrimination of any kind against any group is wrong. They responded to Gallegos’ allegations by stating that the claims were wrong and inconsistent with how Wells Fargo treats its employees.

Facts of the Case According to the Lawsuit:

·       When Gallegos was hired for the Wells Fargo El Monte consumer call Center in August of 2010, she was male.

·       In December 2010, Gallegos started treatment to support the transition from male to female. Gallegos also began to wear women’s clothing more often.  

·       In May 2011, Gallegos’ boss told her she would “go to hell” for her behavior and that they were “unnatural” and an “affront to God.” Gallegos complained to another supervisor, but in response the supervisor receiving Gallegos’ complaint simply became extremely critical of her work. Gallegos’ attempts to transfer to another area at work (the Spanish speaking call center) were mocked, but she was given the new position. Yet colleagues immediately began using demeaning comments (i.e. referring to her as an “ugly woman” and nicknaming her “The Mask.”) Gallegos again lodged a complaint with a supervisor, but saw no appropriate response. She eventually changed her name from Marco to Marlo Kaitlin.

·       In spite of Marlo’s request that her co-workers use her new name, they continued to use her old name. Male co-workers consistently taunted her by greeting her with phrases meant to cause discomfort (i.e. “What’s up, man?” or “How you doing, man?”)

·       She was given permission to use the women’s restroom, but a female co-worker was upset. 

·       Gallegos was excluded from meetings and mandatory training sessions with supervisors.

·       Gallegos eventually sought out Human Resources to advise them that the hostile work environment was too much for her and that she often considered committing suicide.

·       Gallegos was fired in August 2014 by a supervisor who stated that they had received “word from above” that the company could no longer employ her.

The case was resolved on May 25th through a settlement, but terms were not divulged.

If you have questions about what constitutes a hostile work environment or if you need to discuss wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Eddie Money Drummer Adds Sexual Harassment Claims to Discrimination Lawsuit

Eddie Money’s drummer, Glenn Symmonds sued for wrongful termination in October. More recently, his fiancé decided to join the suit with sexual harassment claims against Money. The original discrimination suit claimed that Money mocked his disabilities on stage and sexually harassed his fiancé (with repeated lewd advances). The sexual harassment claims were included in an amended lawsuit that was filed in California state court.

When Symmonds was fired, he claimed it was due to his age and disabilities (stemming from a combination of bladder cancer and a back injury). He also claimed that the sexual harassment of his fiancée, Tami Landrum, resulted in emotional distress. The case has recently been moved from Sacramento to Los Angeles.

In defining the “sexual harassment” she endured, Landrum states that Money made sexual comments to her repeatedly and frequently attempted to kiss her. Money also made lewd gestures at Landrum after dedicating a song to her on stage, etc. Symmonds stated that Money mocked his urinary incontinence (a result of chemotherapy) on stage, telling the audience that their tour was sponsored by Depends adult diapers.

According to the suit, the problem peaked in May of 2015 when Money dragged Landrum, Symmond’s fiancé, into a bathroom and blocked her exit. Symmonds confronted Money after Landrum told him of the situation and the entire band was laid off the next week. Within months, the entire band was back at work except Symmonds and Landrum. The two claim this is due to the confrontation and Symmonds’ disabilities previously noted.

Money’s legal counsel dismisses the lawsuit as “ridiculous” and points out that the addition of the sexual harassment claims only occurred when Symmonds realized that his age discrimination lawsuit had no merit. They claim that the plaintiffs shamelessly seek to “shake down” Eddie because he is famous.

Money claims that the entire band was released for the summer as Money intended to tour with his children. The plan the entire time was for the band to rejoin him at the end of the season. Several of the band members were disappointed, but according to Money, Symmonds and Landrum responded very poorly by writing disparaging posts online, claiming they had been fired, calling and leaving messages with concert promoters threatening them and advising them not to pay Money, etc. Money claims his decision not to invite Symmonds back to the band was not related to his age, any illness or disability or any alleged difficulties with his fiancé. He claims it was due strictly to the inappropriate reaction the plaintiff had upon hearing that Money planned to tour with his adult children for the summer.

If you have questions regarding workplace discrimination or sexual harassment on the job, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys from southern California’s Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Café Fights Muslim Discrimination Lawsuit

A Jewish-Muslim couple that owns Urth Caffe is denying accusations that seven women were forced to leave the California café because they were visibly Muslim. The West Hollywood café plans to counter-sue. The café is an artisanal coffee shop and restaurant with six different southern California locations. A discrimination lawsuit filed by the women on May 2nd alleges that they were made to leave the Laguna Beach café location last April because they were Muslim.

What is Discrimination? Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of people that fall into different or specific categories. The most common forms of discrimination in modern society are acts made on the grounds of race, age or sex.

Owners Shallom and Jilla Berkman, who are Jewish and Muslim, respectively, announced that they plan to counter-sue and stated that the entire discrimination lawsuit is a fraud on both the media and the California courts. The women were asked to leave, but the café insists that it was because they violated a policy stating that patrons must give up a table after 45 minutes during peak hours when the café is busy and others are waiting in line. The women (six of whom were wearing Muslim headscarves) insist that the restaurant was not full and that other customers who had been there just as long were not asked to leave.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Sara Farsakh, wrote a Facebook post that went viral stating that what started as a night out with friends ending painfully and embarrassingly – a reminder of what it is like to be visibly Muslim. The legal counsel for the café owners states that the lawsuit is part of a broader purpose to portray a “victimization narrative” of Muslims. It was also noted that the incident is both sad and frustrating, mostly because the political agenda is being pushed at the expense of one of the area’s most diverse and welcoming businesses.

If you need assistance with a discrimination claim or if you simply have questions about a potentially discriminatory situation, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.