Former Kohl’s Employee Not to Be Discriminated Against for Medical Marijuana Use

A former Kohl’s employee, Justin Shepherd, was fired for his use of medical marijuana after he was injured on the job and a drug test was conducted. A federal court judge in California determined that this employee may move forward with his lawsuit against Kohl’s, his former employer. Shepherd worked at Kohl’s Department Store for over five years before he was diagnosed with acute and chronic anxiety and given a recommendation for medical marijuana use. He did not inform his employer of his use of medical marijuana, but the company did update their policies to include rhetoric protecting California employees from medical marijuana use discrimination.

When Shepherd’s job injury led to a drug test that revealed his use of marijuana, he was terminated. When he sued for the alleged breach of contract, covenant of good faith, fair dealing and defamation, the court denied Kohl’s motion for summary judgment, but placed a few claims under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. This is a noteworthy case as there is still heavy discussion about the contradictions between federal law that still identifies marijuana as an illegal substance and state laws that permit marijuana use for medical and sometimes recreational use (depending on the state).

Shepherd worked as a material handler at Kohl’s in June 2006. When he was hired, he signed an agreement including a clause stating he was an at-will employee. By 2011 Shepherd had been promoted. He had also been diagnosed with acute, chronic anxiety with his doctor recommending medical marijuana use. Shepherd did not disclose his condition or treatment to Kohl’s. In 2012, the company policies were updated to include exceptions to its drug testing and substance abuse policies protecting California (and other applicable states) employees from discrimination for medical marijuana use in regards to hiring, firing, and other employment matters. Shepherd claims he took note of these policy changes and was depending on them when he decided to continue his anxiety treatment and stay at Kohl’s rather than look for new employment elsewhere.

In 2014, Shepherd was injured on the job. He went to a healthcare provider contracted with the company where a drug test revealed trace amounts of marijuana metabolites. Shepherd then showed his manager his medical marijuana recommendation and advised them that he only used it when off duty, and that the metabolites can stay in the system for quite a while. Shepherd was terminated for his “drug use.” He was told that he should have chosen to address his anxiety issue with a different medication. He filed suit quickly thereafter.

If you have questions about medical marijuana policies in your workplace or about what constitutes wrongful termination, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

The Ruling in Burns’ Wrongful Termination Suit vs. SDSU

In recent news, Beth Burns was victorious in her wrongful termination lawsuit against SDSU. The former San Diego State women’s basketball coach was awarded a $3.35 million judgment in San Diego Superior Court per jury decision. The case was founded on whistleblower retaliation accusations that occurred after Burns complained about potential Title IX violations at the college.  

The jury trial went on for a month. The jury consisted of five women and seven men who voted 9-3 in Burns’ favor after deliberating for two days. The 9-3 vote represents the minimum required by California civil court.

Burns is known as SDSU’s “winningest” women’s basketball coach. The wrongful termination lawsuit was drawn out into a three-year legal battle. She did not want to go through the process, but felt she had not other choice as she was being accused of physically hitting someone, others were saying she was not a good person, and she couldn’t accept that. She felt the legal battle was necessary in order to clear her name from the false accusations. 

In April of 2013 Burns was fired from her position as women’s basketball coach at the university. This was one month after her team won 27 games (breaking a school record) and only nine month after Burns’ contract extension through 2016-17 was granted paying her $220,000 per year plus bonuses and benefits. After her termination, she was out of work for a year before taking a job as an assistant coach at USC with a pay cut to $150,000 per year.

SDSU claimed that the reason for Burns’ termination was a “history” of mistreating her subordinates with a video from a February 2013 home game showing Burns elbowing assistant coach Adam Barrett who was seated to her right on the bench. Burns described the elbow as “incidental contact on a crowded bench.”  

The $3.35 million judgment was based on an award of $468,500 for past economic losses, $887,750 for future economic losses and $2 million for past and future non-economic losses and damages. 

If you have questions about wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation or a hostile work environment, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Bank Employee Sues for Wrongful Termination Seeking $2.6B

A former Wells Fargo bank employee is suing the financial institution for $2.6 billion due to allegations of wrongful termination. Just days after lawmakers encouraged the Department of Labor to look into Well Fargo’s actions against their employees when their workers made allegations of firing and other mistreatment for failure to meet strict sales quotas. These are the same strict sales quotas that had already resulted in the opening and closing of over two million unauthorized consumer accounts.

The wild story is now nearing an end with a group of former Wells Fargo employees banding together to file a class action lawsuit in California seeking $2.6 billion in damages. Damages being sought will be on behalf of all Wells Fargo employees who endured penalties for not meeting outlandish sales quotas over the past 10 years. Allegations being made against the banking giant include: unlawful business practices, failure to pay wages, failure to pay overtime, wrongful termination and unlawful penalties against employees.

According to the two original plaintiffs (both former Wells Fargo employees), the Wells Fargo managers required employees to meet a quota of 10 accounts per day and progress reports submitted several times throughout each day. Any workers who fell short of these requirements were reprimanded for failing to meet expectations. According to the suit, the employees were unable to meet the outlandish requirements without resorting to fraud. It continues to specify that the biggest victims of Wells Fargo’s illegal activity are the employees who were fired because they did not meet the cross sell quotas by engaging in the fraudulent scam that increased profits for CEOs. Plaintiffs insist that there are thousands of loyal employees who were either fired or demoted because they did NOT resort to illegal tactics for purposes of meeting impossible cross-selling quotas.

The plaintiffs allege that employees who attempted to meet the unrealistic goals without opening unauthorized accounts engaging in other, similarly fraudulent behavior, lost wages and benefits, as well as suffering humiliation, anxiety and embarrassment.

If you have questions or concerns regarding wrongful termination, workplace retaliation, or seeking class certification, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Employee Claims Unum Wrongfully Terminated her Benefits

Leticia Salgado, a Los Angeles woman previously employed as a food service associate, alleges that her disability benefits were wrongfully terminated by Unum Life. Salgado file her complaint on October 7th, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Unum Life Insurance Co. of America. She alleges Unum Life violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Helpful Terms and Definitions:

Disability Benefits: Income received by an individual from a disability insurance policy. The income is distinct from any income due to a workers compensation plan.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) dates all the way back to 1974. It is a federal law setting minimum standards that apply to most voluntarily established pension and health plans in the private industry. The Act serves as a means of protection for individuals making use of these plans.

Leticia Salgado’s allegations included in the complaint begin in 2013. Salgado was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and soon thereafter she became disabled. According to the plaintiff’s claims, she was initially paid disability benefits. The benefits continued for two years, but at that point the disability benefits were terminated by Unum Life (the Defendants). Salgado, the plaintiff in the case, holds Unum Life Insurance Company of America responsible due to a breach of contract.

Salgado seeks long-term disability payment at the rate of $1,192 per month plus interest and any additional relief that the court feels is appropriate.

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

Samsung Advices New Galaxy Note 7 Owners to Turn Phones Off Immediately

If you are the proud owner of a new Samsung Galaxy Note 7, Samsung needs you to turn it off immediately. The alert was issued soon after release of the highly anticipated new smart phone when it became clear that there was an identifiable trend of the product spontaneously catching fire. The alert came directly after Samsung halted all production of the devices now best known for their dangerous glitches.

Samsung made an official corporate statement on the issue, assuring the media and the public that it was also planning to request that all carriers and retail partners worldwide to stop sales and exchanges of the Galaxy Note 7 immediately to allow Samsung time to investigate the problem. They also made it very clear in their public statement that any consumers who own the original Galaxy Note 7 or the replacement Galaxy Note 7 devices should turn them off and stop using them immediately.

In response to the situation, the company’s stock dropped more than 5% after the announcement.

The product, 5.7 inch Galaxy Note 7, was released by Samsung in August 2016 as an anticipatory move due to Apple’s impending release of the new iPhone 7 in the fall. Yet almost immediately after the exciting new product was launched, reports of phones catching on fire started to circulate. The company has indicated that faulty lithium-ion batteries were overheating and causing the devices to ignite. As of early September 2016, Samsung had recalled millions of devices across the world. When Samsung offered replacement phones, they started to spontaneously combust as well. One user reported that his replacement device caught fire and it wasn’t even plugged in. Another device began to smoke while aboard a Southwest Airline plan prior to departure resulting in the cancellation of the flight. (This incident is still being investigated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Samsung users were advised to stop using the power down their Original Note 7 phones in early September, but after the increasing incidents, Samsung is now issuing similar warnings regarding the replacement devices that were supposed to act as a solution to the problem.

According to the U.S. Federal Regulators, Samsung users affected by this problem are entitled to a full refund.

If you have questions or concerns regarding the safety of your Samsung Note 7 or if you have similar concerns regarding another product and need to discuss your legal options, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Celadon Being Held to the Ruling in Favor of Drivers by the Eighth Circuit Court

In recent news, the Eighth Circuit was asked to reconsider their decision favoring a class of workers suing Celadon Trucking Services, but they refused to budge on the layoff notice ruling. In refusing to reconsider their ruling, the Eighth Circuit repeated their prior conclusions that the commercial trucking company should have provided drivers with notice prior to laying them off.

The Eighth Circuit’s brief order stated its intent to stand firm behind the July rejection of Celadon’s argument that it did not have a legal duty to provide a 60 day Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act notice in connection to the termination of over 400 Continental Express Inc. truck drivers. The mass layoff occurred after the company purchased Continental at the end of 2008 for $24.1 million.

The appeals court denied Celadon’s petition that took issue with the panel’s conclusion that the district court found the situation to be more than just a sale of assets. This conclusion effectively transferred the responsibility for providing workers with notice from Continental to Celadon. Celadon’s petition argued that the ruling was in conflict with both the Eighth Circuit and the U.S Supreme Court precedent. They pointed to questions of exceptional importance that they indicated the full appellate court should hear. They also included a challenge to the panel for endorsing a legally flawed basis for determining damages and liability for damages for the employees in connection to the rejection of claims that the lower court’s decision was founded on inadmissible evidence.

The class argued against Celadon’s attempt to have the case reconsidered in circuit court stating that the commercial trucking company had no new arguments to be considered and did not specify which evidence was objectionable. They argued that Celadon’s request for reconsideration was not valid because the district court and Eight Circuit panel did not commit any clear errors.

The suit was filed by drivers in January 2009 seeking damages under the WARN Act. The drivers obtained class certification for 449 employees (including full-time workers of Continental’s operations in Little Rock, Arkansas employed on Dec. 4, 2008, and suffering a employment loss as defined by WARN Act, but not in receipt of the mandatory 60 days notice of a plant closing/mass layoff.

The case was referred to a magistrate judge in order to establish whether the workers had sown that all 449 individuals qualified as class members. According to documents of the court, three individuals were excluded from the class before the workers were awarded $2.1 million in statutory damages.

Additionally, the Eighth Circuit panel defended the district court’s actions in denying Celadon’s motion to decertify the class of workers and in rejecting many of the findings of the magistrate judge. They found that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

If you have questions or concerns regarding class certification, mass layoffs or mandatory notice of plant closure or mass layoffs, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

California Orchid Farm Accused of Pregnancy Discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Dash Dream Plant, an orchid farm located in Dos Palos, California, 65 miles northwest of Fresno. Officials state that the California business broke federal law when they refused to give women their jobs back after completing maternity leave. At least four women are involved in the suit, making the same pregnancy discrimination allegations against the company.

The Defendant: Dash Dream Plant, Inc. Dash Dream holds over 140,000 square feet of land and utilizes multiple greenhouses to handle wholesale and personal orchid based orders. They keep an experienced staff on hand, claiming over 20 years of experience. The business began in Korea and expanded to the United States in the late 1990’s. The Dash Dream Plant facility is designed to facilitate both wholesale and retail orders with a retail location within the farm. The farm grows: Cybidiums, Dendrobiums, and Phalaenopsis Orchids in a variety of colors.  

Officials involved in the case state that during Dash Dream Plant staff meetings, managers advised women in attendance not to get pregnant because there were already “too many of them.” They also advised workers that the next to get pregnant should just consider themselves fired from their position with the orchid farm.

Pregnant workers in California are protected by both state and federal employee laws. They have the right to take pregnancy leave without penalty. In fact, California is one of the best states in the nation for pregnant workers and/or workers who plan to have or adopt children. Employers are required by law to respect the right to take disability leave or pregnancy leave in accordance with California pregnancy leave laws.

The law related to this lawsuit states that businesses that have 15 or more employees have to hold a job for women who will be returning from maternity leave. When advised of the lawsuit and the allegations included, Dash Dreams did not respond with a comment.

The southern California employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have the experience needed to help workers in California. Having served as legal representation for both employees and employers in the southern California area, we offer a unique perspective of both sides of the legal argument in employment law cases. If you need assistance with pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch as soon as possible.