Does Google Discriminate Against White Male Conservatives?

A former Google Engineer, James Damore, filed a class action lawsuit against Google claiming that they discriminate against white, male, conservatives after he was fired in August. Damore’s firing occurred after he posted a memo to an internal message board at the company presenting a very specific argument:

Damore’s memo argued that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are “biologically less capable” of engineering.

In response to his termination, Damore filed a class action lawsuit against Google in Santa Clara Superior Court. In his suit, Damore claims that Google unfairly discriminates against white men with conservative political views that are not “popular” with Google execs. 

Damore is not making allegations alone either. He is joined by another former Google engineer: David Gudeman. Gudeman spent 3 years working on a query engine for the company. According to his publicly accessible LinkedIn profile, Gudeman left Google in December 2016 and has since been self-employed.

The lawsuit states that it is intended to represent any employees of Google that have been discriminated against as a result of their “perceived conservative political views” by the company or due to their male gender or being a Caucasian. The plaintiffs specifically accuse Google of singling out and systematically mistreating employees that express views that deviate from the popular or “norm” at Google pertaining to various political topics raised in the workplace and/or issues that are relevant to Google’s policies and procedures in relation to employment or business. The lawsuit includes examples, such as: diversity hiring policies, bias sensitivity, social justice, etc.

The men are seeking monetary, non-monetary and punitive remedies.

Google stated that Damore was fired for violating the company code of conduct and promoting negative gender stereotypes in the workplace. The Labor Department is conducting a separate investigation into systemic pay discrimination at Google, but Google denies that there is a problem stating that they have found no pay gap in their own analysis.

If you need assistance filing a California wrongful termination law suit, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Based Newspaper Fires Employees Who Demanded Overtime With Expensive Consequences

Can a company fire an employee because they sued for back overtime? Recent news indicates that the answer is no – at least in California. This is exactly what Joong-Ang, publisher of Korea Daily (a Korean language newspaper based in California), found out when the court ordered him to pay $584,612 to three former employees.

The story began in June of 2013. Three of the newspaper’s employees filed a California overtime lawsuit alleging that they were not paid overtime wages as required by law. Only a couple months later – the three employees were fired from their jobs with Korea Daily.

Some claim this was a coincidence – which is arguable considering the fact that on the same day the three employees who filed suit were let go, all the employees at the same printing facility were also let go. Yet all the employees let go from that printing facility were rehired by another company that took over the operations – all except the three employees who filed a California overtime lawsuit against the newspaper. According to the three plaintiffs, they were not advised of the opportunity alongside their co-workers.

When they discovered what had happened, the three now unemployed workers added more claims to their suit including wrongful termination.

The courts sided with the plaintiffs. They won the case. The Korean language newspaper appealed, but late last month, Korea Daily lost their appeal.

According to California Labor Code Section 1199, it is illegal for an employer to fail to provide overtime wages in accordance with the Industrial Welfare Commission. As occurred in this case, the employees have the right to overtime wages and may exercise that right (in this situation by filing an overtime lawsuit). If the employer then terminates the employee for exercising their right to overtime pay, the worker could be entitled to additional “damages” due to wrongful termination.

So, essentially, Joong-Ang, the publisher of Korea Daily, was ordered by the court to pay $584,000 for firing employees who demanded they be paid overtime the company was required to pay by law. If you are a company in California make sure you are familiar with both federal and state overtime rules. Employees are entitled to overtime and are seeking restitution in court more than ever before.

If you are a California business that needs assistance with employment law violations or if you are a California employee who is not paid overtime pay, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Victims of Thomas Fire in California File Class Action Lawsuit Against California Utility

Nine plaintiffs allege that Southern California Edison, a Southern California utility company, sparked the biggest wildfire the state has seen in modern history. The joint suit cited negligence in regard to the fire ignited on the evening of December 6th, 2017.

The plaintiffs claim that if the utility company had behaved in a responsible manner, the Thomas Fire could possibly have been prevented. According to the lawsuit, negligence was apparent when the company performed construction near a facility without necessary safety precautions and in an unsafe manner that resulted in nearby vegetation catching fire. It was also noted that the company failed to maintain its facilities (both overhead electric and communications) in a safe manner and that Southern California Edison did not remove trees and/or vegetation that was encroaching on space surrounding utility poles.

The lawsuit also lists two other Defendants: Ventura City and the Casitas Municipal Water District citing their failure to have functioning generators available when they were needed that would have been able to help with water pressure during the fire.

The Thomas Fire left destruction in its wake. 242,000 acres were burned through. More than 1,000 structures of various sizes and purposes were destroyed or left with extensive fire damage. And thousands and firefighters and countless resources were required to extinguish the flames. The Thomas wildfire left more than 100,000 Californians displaced – their homes either destroyed or unlivable.

One major problem during the fight to extinguish the fire was a lack of water pressure being supplied to fire hydrants located in hillside neighborhoods and canyons of Ventura. Plaintiffs find it shocking that the City of Ventura failed to have a working backup generator on hand when it was desperately needed.

The utility company declined to comment on the pending lawsuit as the Cal Fire investigation is currently in progress. Ventura City’s Water General Manager expressed his sympathy for those who lost their homes and/or were displaced by the Thomas Fire and added that the city doesn’t comment on pending litigation, but that they did commend both the firefighters and Ventura Water crews for their response during the emergency.

The Municipal Water District also declined to comment citing the pending nature of the litigation. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.

If you have questions regarding corporate liability, or filing a class action lawsuit in California, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Walmart Class Action Suit: Cashiers Allege Retail Giant Knows Seating is Feasible

In early January 2018, the 80,000 member class of Walmart cashiers alleging that the big box store was in violation of state law due to the failure to provide them with seating on the job made the notable claim that when the company provided seats to cashiers with disabilities, they conceded that seating for cashiers was feasible. This claim that the company has already (through their actions towards cashiers with disabilities) acknowledged that the work of a Walmart cashier permits seating was made in California federal court in support of allegations in their suit.

The class argued that in light of last year’s California Supreme Court ruling that companies are required to provide seats if the work can be done sitting down, the big box store’s obvious acknowledgement that the work can be completed while sitting leaves them with no excuse for not allowing all their cashiers to sit.

When determining how best to accommodate cashiers with disabilities, both Walmart’s safety and compliance department and Walmart’s own Americans with Disabilities Act experts tested and later approved ergonomic reaches and ranges of motion relevant to the work of a seated cashier stationed in the ADA check-out lanes. Walmart chose the specific seat to be offered to disabled cashiers themselves in order to ensure that the situation would be acceptable for both the company’s findings regarding required work and situational necessities.

The action was originally launched by Lead Plaintiff and former cashier, Kathy Williamson, in the Superior Court for Alameda County in summer of 2009. It was moved to federal court at a later date. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila granted the motion to certify class in 2012, finding that there was a common nature of work amongst the California Walmart cashiers. He also concluded that a trier of common facts could pinpoint exactly what designated tasks could be performed while cashiers were seated.

The Defendant appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the decision in June. This was just two months after the state Supreme Court defined the state’s seating rule in the Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. decision. In this decision, the court determined that employees must be provided with seats if the work they are completing can be done in a seated position even if they aren’t performing the same task all day long. The class of Walmart cashiers argued that the Kilby decision controlled the case and that Walmart has shown on numerous occasions that being seated would not prevent their cashiers from performing their duties (i.e. Walmart productivity study, and study on negative perception in 2007). The case is scheduled to go to trial in fall 2018.

If you have questions about class action lawsuits or if you feel unfairly treated in the workplace, please contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP to discuss potential violations.

Will “Bohemian Rhapsody” Firing Have Bryan Singer Suing Fox?

Bryan Singer, well known as the director of X-Men, was recently fired from his new movie Bohemian Rhapsody. The termination occurred after his unexplained disappearance from the set. 20th Century Fox terminated Singer after he went missing citing unexpected unavailability and other charges of unprofessional behavior – specifically unprofessional behavior towards actor Rami Malek on the set.

Now Singer is claiming that his unexplained disappearance was due to the fact that he needed to care for a “gravely ill” parent and that when he tried to get the time off, Fox refused. According to Singer’s statement, there were fewer than three weeks to shoot remaining and he asked Fox for time off to deal with a parent’s pressing health matters in the United States. He noted that the experience was very taxing and took a serious toll on his own health. According to Singer, Fox refused the time off request and terminated his employment as director. Singer claims that he wanted nothing more than to finish the project as planned, but that events were out of his control and he was forced to put his health and the health of loved ones before his dedication to honoring the legacy of Freddie Mercury and Queen through the making of Bohemian Rhapsody.

As there has been a lot of focus on sexual misconduct in connection with Hollywood lately, it is no surprise that attention is being drawn to allegations of sexual misconduct connected to Singer’s current circumstances. They are not the first. These types of accusations have followed Singer throughout his career. Also indicating a problem is the fact that Singer’s long-time publicist recently dropped him as a client – without offering any explanation for the surprising move. If sexual misconduct charges are officially thrown at Singer, being fired from a movie will be the very least of his troubles.

Yet Singer’s claims could also be true. It’s possible that he was fired after taking a brief break to care for an ill parent and get his own health in order. If that’s the case, he could have a case of wrongful termination.

According to California labor law, employees can be rightfully terminated for unexplained absences or being unprofessional/clashing with co-workers. They cannot, however, be rightfully terminated due to a medical leave or a disability.

In accordance with the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act, an employee is provided 12 weeks unpaid leave when an immediate family member has a serious health condition. When the employee wishes to return to work (within the specified time frame) the employer must give their job back.

Considering Singer’s commonly known reputation, it’s likely that Fox’s version of events leading up to his termination are accurate. In fact, it has previously been reported that Fox put certain “parameters” in place prior to securing Singer for his role in the movie – one of which was to have a Directors Guild of America representative on set to monitor filming. Singer was also warned prior to being brought on to the project that they would not tolerate inappropriate/unprofessional activities from him during filming.

If you aren’t sure whether your current situation qualifies as wrongful termination, please get in touch with an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$1.35M Verdict Goes to Self-Storage Employee in Wrongful Termination Case

The California appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision in a wrongful termination suit that awarded a former self-storage employee, Eva O’Brien, $1.325 million. The award covered wrongful termination and punitive damages. Eva O’Brien was awarded:

·       Compensatory Damages: $325,000

·       Punitive Damages: $1,000,000

·       And the cost of legal fees

The case was against Dennis E. Baca, the owner of Airport Self Storage located in Livermore, California.

When the lower court issued their decision, Baca motioned for a new trial. His motion was denied. When the motion was denied, Baca appealed the lower court’s decision arguing that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. He also argued that the award for damages was excessive and accused O’Brien’s legal counsel of misconduct in the process of the trial.

Baca and his self-storage facility manager, Laura Read, hired O’Brien at $15/hour as a “relief clerk” in November 2010. In addition to being the facility manager, Read is described as being Baca’s “longtime companion.” O’Brien was to work three days each week at the self-storage facility and the other two days of the work week at the company’s business office. The self-storage business also does business as Baca Properties, owners of various commercial assets.

In early summer 2022, O’Brien discovered she was pregnant and advised her manager, Read, even though she was warned by a co-worker that Baca would be unhappy hearing the news. In a meeting between Read, Baca and O’Brien on October 7th, Baca berated O’Brien, throwing a rental agreement at her and accusing her of only thinking about her family, “making so many mistakes,” not paying attention, complaining that her “belly” was going to get so big it would prevent her from doing her work and also complaining that after that she would be breast feeding and “causing more problems.”

According to court documents, that’s not where the berating ended. Allegedly, Baca then got in O’Brien’s face and asked her if she wanted to give notice. O’Brien said no, and Baca told her to get back to work advising her that he was, “not going to take care of [her].” Baca didn’t fire her allegedly because he didn’t want her to collect unemployment, but he did advise another associate at the company that he was going to make her quit and asked another of her co-workers to confiscate her keys to the facility. A few days after the meeting in which Baca first demanded O’Brien give notice, she was told not to answer the phone, collect checks or use the computer. She was instead told to clean, dust, and mop (including cleaning the windows and toilet). These were all duties that she had not been responsible for previously.

A few days later, she was sent home from work after only three hours on the job. She filed a claim with the Employment Development Department for a reduction of work hours. This was not the last time she was sent home early from work (losing a significant number of hours). According to court documentation, the facility manager began the search for O’Brien’s replacement directly after the October 7th meeting and scheduled them to begin work on October 19th. When O’Brien reported for work on the 21st, she was advised that the owner wanted her to go home. When she called her manager to ask when she should return to work, she was told, “We see that you filed for unemployment. We no longer need your services.” Baca included a forged note with O’Brien’s last paycheck to give the appearance that O’Brien had given notice. He later admitted to the court that he wrote the note for that purpose. The court concluded that this action was an “intent to create beneficial evidence if O’Brien sought unemployment benefits for being fired.”

Baca was described as a micromanager and after her treatment on the job and her wrongful termination, O’Brien was treated for both depression and anxiety. She was awarded $25,000 for economic loss and $300,000 for emotional stress by the jury. After Phase II of the trial, the jury decided that the facility owner’s behavior was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent. As a result, O’Brien was awarded $1 million in punitive damages in addition to the other awards.

If you have been the victim of wrongful termination or if you are experiencing discrimination in your workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Alleged Age Discrimination at Hewlett-Packard Results in Lawsuit

Another age discrimination complaint has been lobbed at Hewlett-Packard, tech giant. The most recently filed age discrimination lawsuit was filed by Bryant Fonseca, 55, a San Diego resident. Fonseca sued in San Diego Superior Court, seeking class-action status. A Hewlett-Packard spokeswoman responded by email stating that the Palo-Alto based company doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

Bryant Fonseca was a Hewlett-Packard employee as a research and development buyer for close to 40 years. He claims that the tech giant terminated his employment at the Rancho Bernardo location last May as part of their 2012 plan to reduce their workforce that targeted older employees.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, Fonseca completed the required step in the process that is often skated over, filing a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing. He was granted the right to sue. Yet the interesting part of this step in the legal process is that the department has received more than 32 complaints citing age discrimination at Hewlett-Packard since July 2012. Of the 32 complaints, seven were aimed directly at the Hewlett-Packard San Diego location. Also interesting, 24 of the 32 complaints were given permission to sue the company. (Seven were dismissed or withdrawn and one was closed as it was not in the department’s jurisdiction).

In a review of age discrimination complaints to California state officials last year, USA Today found that of 12 leading tech companies since 2012, Hewlett-Packard claims the top spot. (Cisco Systems was second on the list with 11 complaints). Hewlett-Packard officially denies that their workforce reduction plan targets older workers for layoffs instead stating that their selection process is “neutral.”

If you are experiencing age discrimination in the work force or if you have been forced into a hostile work environment of any type, we want to help you. Contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.