Alleged Hack: Fired Employee Sues SF State for $1M

Mignon Hofmann, a former information security officer at San Francisco State, filed a lawsuit claiming that she was fired by the university in an attempt to sweep a 2014 hack involving significant exposure of student records “under the rug.” The student records that were involved in the breach included both financial records and password reset functions. Hoffman claimed that while there had been minor cases during her time at the university, the alleged 2014 hack was the most severe case she had ever seen.

The suit was filed in January in San Francisco Superior Court. Hofmann accused San Francisco State and the Board of Trustees of California State University of both wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation. According to court documents, Hofmann is seeking over $1 million in lost pension, lost earnings (past and future) and emotional distress.

While the University did confirm that there was a “security incident” and that “information that was publicly available was potentially accessed,” they denied that there was a breach of personal data claiming that as such, students were not notified and there is no cause for concern. Both the university and the Board of Trustees of CSU have issued a general denial of all allegations connected to the case.

Experts in the field acknowledged that situations in which IT professionals are fired to avoid breach disclosure as required by California state law do exist, but that it’s very difficult to determine or estimate how common the occurrence is because most are settled out of court in order to avoid the public discussion and entering of information on the public record.

In order to determine the validity of the case, the court will need to determine the extent of the breach and the information involved as both sides are making claims that vary widely from each other.

If you need to discuss California labor law or wrongful termination in more detail with an experienced southern California labor law attorney, please get in touch with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible. 

Burns v. SDSU in Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, Beth Burns, the former women’s basketball coach, took the stand in the trial for her wrongful termination lawsuit against San Diego State University (SDSU). Burns was the coach of the San Diego State women’s team prior to her abrupt termination in April 2013. She was advised not to speak about the incident publicly by her legal counsel so when she took the stand, many were waiting to hear what she had to say on the subject. She was the first witness in her wrongful termination lawsuit against SDSU.

In speaking to the jury of seven men and five women in the San Diego Superior Court, Burns stated her case for 45 minutes. Judge John Meyer, presiding, adjourned court for the day and scheduled Burns to take the stand again for further testimony the following Wednesday, at which point, the university’s attorneys would be able to take the opportunity to cross-examine (either Wednesday or Thursday).

By the time the trial is completed, it is expected that four weeks will have passed and dozens of witnesses will have had their say (including Elliot Hirshman, SDSU president, Jim Sterk, athletic director, and Steve Fisher, men’s basketball coach). Many expect that the rare glimpse the proceedings will provide into the goings on of a college athletic department may not be very flattering.

Burns was with SDSU for 16 years. She was the all-time “winningest” women’s basketball coach. At the time of her termination (April 2013), she had just completed a school record 27-win season with her team. Burns claims she was fired without cause (breach of contract) and whistleblower retaliation based on claims that she was seeking equal opportunities for the women’s basketball program at the time of her abrupt termination. When she was fired, Burns was in the first year of her five-year contract extension. She was being paid $220,000 annually (before bonuses). Due to her termination, she had to take a different job that resulted in a drastic decrease in pay. She now works on Cynthia Cooper-Dyke’s staff at USC making $150,000 per season.

Burns seeks $1.5 million in damages for breach of contract. She also seeks $3 million for the whistleblower retaliation and punitive damages.

According to the university’s legal counsel, Burns was unable to control her emotions and the University felt that none of its employees should have to go to work “concerned about being confronted by their out-of-control boss.” The conflicting views of the case presented by opposing counsel is predictable, but it will still be an interesting case to watch unfold.

If you need to discuss wrongful termination with an experienced southern California employment law attorney, get in touch with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We can assist you in determining the appropriate legal action for your specific situation! 

San Gabriel Police Officers May Be Headed to the Supreme Court to Talk Benefits

In 2013, former San Gabriel Police Officer Danny Flores (joined by 14 other current and former officers) sued the city citing allegations of unfair calculations of overtime pay rates. After District and Federal courts ruled in favor of the police officers on the issue, they could be headed to the Supreme Court to discuss police benefits as the city looks to appeal.

In June 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the current and former San Gabriel Police Officers who sued over the way the city factored their benefits program into their overtime pay. Regardless of the ruling, the city of San Gabriel announced they would keep fighting the allegations. The city filed a petition for a rehearing of the case, but the petition was denied. On June 21st, the City Council agreed that they would appeal to the Supreme Court. This is the final step on the judicial ladder. The Supreme Court has not yet decided if they will take up the case.

The Facts of the Matter: Flores v. City of San Gabriel

The officers cited the city’s cash-in-lieu-of-benefits provision as a violation of employment law. The provision states that the city of San Gabriel employees can collect pay rather than health benefits. For instance, a city employee who already has health benefits can receive additional pay instead of the benefits their city job offers. The officers argue that the additional pay was not factored in during the city’s overtime pay rate calculations and that doing so could result in $5-10 per hour differences for city employees.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision written by Judge Andre Davis held that the City did not show that it attempted to comply with Fair Labor Standards Act, which left the plaintiffs eligible for liquidated damages.

If you need more information about the Fair Labor Standards Act or if you need to discuss overtime pay calculations that you suspect could be in violation of employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

10,000 Workers Joined Together in Chipotle Wage Theft Class Action Suit

Chipotle has long been known for its amazing burritos. But there’s something new that it’s becoming well known for: angry workers! They’re all over the news. Right now, close to 10,000 current and former Chipotle employees are joined together in a class action wage theft lawsuit against the much-loved Mexican food franchise. According to court records, the suit started two years ago when a former manager located in Colorado filed. But since then almost 10,000 workers have joined the class action. To keep things in perspective, that is equal to almost ¼ of the Chipotle franchise’s current workforce.

What is a Class Action? This is a type of lawsuit through which one or a number of persons can sue a separate party on behalf of a larger group of persons. The “larger” group of persons represented are referred to as “the class.” The reason behind the class action lawsuit can vary widely, but issues being disputed will be common to all members included in the “class” and the people affected are so numerous handling each suit individually would be impractical for the court.

What is Wage Theft? Wage theft is a general phrase commonly used in employment law to refer to a number of different violations resulting in employers not providing pay to employees/workers for time worked or job duties completed. In the current case, the wage theft occurred through off-the-clock work and failure to pay overtime. These are two very common forms of wage theft that employers perpetrate in efforts to maximize their own profits (at the cost of their employees). 

The initial complaint against Chipotle, filed in Colorado in September 2014, included accusations that the company forced employees complete unpaid overtime with required duties “after” they clocked out for their shifts (sometimes referred to as off-the-clock work). Workers also claim their presence was required at mandatory after-shift meetings and that those who “closed” had to complete cleanup off-the-clock. According to allegations made in the lawsuit, Chipotle maintained company-wide policies that supported this type of behavior: management was urged to require off-the-clock work to reduce expenses and maximize profits.

If you have questions about what constitutes “off-the-clock” work, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhomik to discuss your situation.  

Golden State Phone and Wireless Faces Wage Allegations and Class Action

Israel Padron, a San Luis Obispo local, recently filed a class-action wage and hour suit against Golden State Phone and Wireless, his former employer. He alleges that he was not provided with appropriate overtime compensation. The complaint was filed July 20, 2016 on behalf of other employees in similar situations in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Israel Padron claims that Golden State Phone & Wireless’s practices were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiff’s complaint included allegations that he worked over 40 hours per workweek between October 2012 and September 2015 and did not receive overtime pay as deemed appropriate by law. He claims that the company miscalculated the overtime rate of pay as they failed to include the value assigned for bonuses and/or commissions applicable to his position with the company.

Employers that either require or allow employees to work overtime are required to provide pay as dictated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employees covered by the FLSA must receive overtime pay anytime they work in excess of 40 hours in one workweek. The overtime pay is required to be at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. The FLSA (with some specific exceptions) requires employers to include bonus payments as a part of the employee’s regular rate of pay when they are calculating their overtime pay in accordance with minimum rates of overtime pay set down by FLSA.

Padron requests that he receive a trial by jury in order to resolve the lawsuit and seeks compensatory, consequential, general and special damages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest on due and/or unpaid wages, legal fees, and other relief that the court may deem justified.

If you have questions about overtime pay or if you have been denied overtime pay by your employer, please contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Minor League Strikes Out on Wage Claims: Judge Decertifies Collective and Class Actions

Former minor league players who filed a lawsuit claiming Major League Baseball engaged in minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act may feel as if they struck out at the end of a very big game as a federal Magistrate judge in San Francisco sided with the MLB recently when players attempted to have their lawsuits certified as a collective action and class action, respectively.

Previously the judge conditionally certified the proposed collection action under the FLSA (as of October 2015). Yet in the latest ruling, the judge granted the MLB’s motion to decertify. The judge also denied the players (Plaintiffs) request to certify their state law wage and hour claims as a class action. Most see the decertification and denial as a major win for the MLB.

What Are Collective Actions and Class Actions? They both involve groups of plaintiffs joining together in a lawsuit, but they aren’t exactly the same. The most important difference between the two is that plaintiffs who want to be involved in a collective action may simply opt in to the group. Comparatively, those who would not like to be included in a class action must “opt out” or find themselves bound by the resulting judgment on the case.

Plaintiffs in this case allege that the MLB and its clubs were in violation of the FLSA and other, similar, state wage and hour laws. They claim they were paid a total of $3,000-$7,000 over the course of a season lasting five months even though they were working anywhere from 50-70 hours each week throughout the season. The former players also claim that they were paid less than minimum wage, they were denied overtime pay, and they were required to “train” during the off season without compensation.

The July 21, 2016 Order from the Magistrate Judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion that state wage and hour claims be certified as a class action. He stated that the plaintiffs’ failed to meet specified legal requirements. He stated that there would be no simple method of identifying who would be a member of the class in various states. He stated that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the “typicality” requirement was met as the court was unable to determine if representatives for different states presented claims collectively that were typical of the class as a whole. He also stated that the common questions raised by law were not predominant in the face of individual concerns. Conclusively, even though the Judge found the “numerosity” requirement to be met, and the “commonality” requirement to be met, and that the class representatives could protect the interests of the class, he refused to certify.

If you have questions or concerns regarding class certification or if you need to discuss your eligibility to act as representative in a proposed class action, please get in touch with an experienced employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Hyperloop One Files $250 Million Countersuit Against Co-Founder BamBrogan

Claiming that BamBrogan’s wrongful termination lawsuit and the allegations made within it were a malicious attempt to ruin the company’s reputation, Hyperloop One filed a $250 million countersuit in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The company claims that former CTO Brogan BamBrogan was part of a group of four company employees that engaged in both improper conduct and abusive behavior. Hyperloop One is a transportation startup involved in developing a high-speed shuttle. The countersuit states that BamBrogan and the three additional employees (referred to in their countersuit as “the Gang of Four”) actually manufactured conflict and incited rebellion in the workplace in an attempt to seize control of Hyperloop One.

The countersuit includes accusations that the “four” engaged in increasingly disruptive behavior ending with them literally staging a coup in May 2016. They asked certain employees to sign a threatening letter that demanded the company’s board members release their shares and significantly alter the company’s equity structure. The also allege the BamBrogan planned to start a competing company, Hyperloop Two, and that he actively discouraged current and prospective investors of Hyperloop One hoping that they would instead choose to invest in his new company. The countersuit alleges that when BamBrogan’s plan failed, he and the others filed the lawsuit as a media ploy full of lies intended to smear Hyperloop One.

The countersuit specifically states that BamBrogan left the company abruptly a week prior to the filing and sued his former colleagues for wrongful termination as well as claims of failure toward fiduciary duty. BamBrogan’s restraining order against Afshin Pishevar, former head of legal counsel and brother of co-founder Shervin Pishevar, was based on allegations that he placed a hangman’s noose on BamBrogan’s chair as a threat of violence. A Los Angeles judge dismissed it last week. Hyperloop One claims that the photo of the noose on BamBrogan’s chair was a sham, calling it the “stuff of tabloids.”

BamBrogan’s claims that Shervin indulged in a pay-to-play arrangement, paying a public relations vendor from Pramana a salary well above average ($400,000) while they were “dating” were labeled a “salacious personal attack” in the countersuit. Hyperloop One claims none of it is true.

Legal counsel for the plaintiff, BamBrogan, responded to the countersuit by stating that they were basing their counter on pure fiction and that the truth would be shown through evidence.

If you have questions about an instance of wrongful termination or concerns regarding legal grounds for suing, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.