Former Coast Hills CEO Files Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Former Coast Hills Credit Union CEO, Jeff York, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit including 16 allegations of misconduct. The Coast Hills board chairman, Bill Anders, responded claiming that York is asserting “false allegations.” York filed the wrongful termination suit on July 6th, 2018, just a few months after he was allegedly terminated “without cause” after an administrative leave that began on February 6th, 2018.

Claims of misconduct made against Coast Hills include:

·      Wrongful Termination

·      Retaliation

·      Labor Code Violations

·      Defamation

·      False Light

·      Breach of Contract

York claims he endured a year-long period during which the credit union and its board of directors acted against York through various events and conduct.

The company claims allegations made by York are an attempt to sully the reputations of named directors and stating that they wish York had limited his claims to a suit against the credit union. They reiterate that just because claims are made in a lawsuit does not mean that they are true. Coast Hills continues to vigorously defend the credit union’s reputation, the reputation of their members, their staff and their volunteers. The credit union claims that in terminating York’s employment, as in all their personnel decisions, they were acting in the best interests of their members.

Both parties have retained legal representation.

York also alleged that numerous executives at the credit union pushed toward resigning or were terminated due to their support of York and his claims of misconduct on the part of the credit union. Since this information came to light, Lisa Harlow, a former Coast Hills senior vice president and chief human resources officer also filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination. Dave Upham, former executive vice president, Rob Covarrubias, former senior vice president, and Linda Van Dyke, former administrative assistant, have all made similar complaints against the credit union.

If you feel you have been wrongfully terminated or if you are experiencing retaliation in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Ruling Could Turn California Gig Economy Giants’ Contractors Into Employees

Uber and Lyft and other similarly situated gig-economy companies are lobbying for Californian democrats to override a recent court ruling that could require them to reclassify their independent contractors into employees. The April ruling was handed down by the California Supreme Court. The far-reaching ruling could make it significantly harder for companies across the industry to claim their workforces are not eligible employees under state wage laws.

Hoping to blunt the ruling’s impact, businesses are urging California political leaders to take action in their favor through legislation or executive action by the governor. Either move would make noise across the national debate regarding rights and roles of workers in today’s gig economy. The businesses affected by the ruling insist that it is stifling innovation and threatening the livelihoods of California workers. They seek a balance between the need for flexible, scalable work arrangements and the rights of California workers and that the definition and implication of said definition should not be simply left to the courts or determined based on old models.

In addition to many popular gig-economy businesses, the California Chamber of Commerce has been quite outspoken in opposing the new requirements indicating that the business model of today’s gig-economy companies does not lend itself to the strict structure of a traditional employer-employee relationship. The chamber argues that forcing this on the companies leaves them in an impossible position and prevents them from continuing forward with their business model. The chamber is attempting to get a legislative fix before the session closes at month’s end. Without this type of fix, they feel entire sectors of California’s economy would be left in jeopardy. As is – without a legislative fix of some sort – the on-demand economy may no longer be a viable business model, which could be devastating as people depend on it.

The California Labor Federation reiterates their support of the ruling and insists they will resist efforts to suspend or reverse. Their stance is based on record highs of income inequality and the millions of working families struggling to make ends meet in what has become an unfair economy. They feel protecting California’s workers should be the top priority of California’s leaders rather than protecting big corporations.

If you have questions about minimum wage, overtime pay, or other employee rights provided by federal and California laws, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

AT&T Faces Sales Representative Overtime Lawsuit

An AT&T/Charter retail store employee, Andrew Prizler, filed a lawsuit (Prizler v. Charter Commc’n, Inc., S.D. Cal., No. 3:18-cv-01724) alleging that his overtime pay was miscalculated because the sales commissions and bonuses were not accurately included in the calculations. 20 of Charter’s appearances in federal court in the past 5 years (3.3%) were for wage and hour cases. For AT&T, it’s 216 cases (10.9%).

When a company calculates an employee’s overtime pay rate, federal law requires that commissions and bonuses be counted in as part of their regular rate of pay. The regular rate of pay is multiplied by one-and-a-half. When an employer does not include amounts that should be included in the “regular rate of pay,” it can significantly decrease their overtime pay rate.

Prizler, the plaintiff, filed suit on July 27th in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The proposed class action was filed on behalf of all other retail employees with AT&T/Charter who earn commissions and/or bonuses. (The lawsuit also named two Charter subsidiaries: Spectrum and Time Warner Cable).

When asked about the lawsuit, an AT&T spokesperson responded that the defendant was reviewing the complaint and the allegations claimed by the plaintiffs in the case. They also stated that their policy is to always follow the law – including wage and hour laws. Charter did not respond when asked for comments regarding the suit.

If you have questions about overtime pay calculation or if you feel you aren’t being paid the overtime you deserve, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Nike Faces Lawsuit Alleging Systemic Gender Discrimination

Two women formerly employed by Nike claim in a recently filed lawsuit that women are devalued and demeaned by the company through systemic gender discrimination. The two former employees, Kelly Cahill and Sara Johnston, claim that they were paid significantly less than male co-workers for similar work and that they were also passed up for promotions due to their gender. The suit was originally filed in Nike’s home state of Oregon by the two former employees seeking class action status. The federal suit alleges that Nike violated the Equal Pay Act.

The plaintiffs want the court to order the company to institute new policies that would alter the way the company treats women, providing equal opportunity for employees regardless of their gender and combatting the negative effects of their current (and past) unlawful employment practices. The plaintiffs also seek reinstatement at Nike and back pay.

The spokesperson for Nike cited Nike’s long-standing commitment to inclusion and diversity and claimed that the company opposes any type of discrimination. She also went on to say that Nike is committed to competitive pay and benefits for all employees. She declined to answer specific questions about the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs point to respected news sites in their complaints (The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times) as having described Nike’s culture as allowing gender bias and sexual harassment. Additionally, is has been reported that the CEO, Mark Parker, apologized to employees at the company over the handling of workplace misconduct allegations and 11 or more executives have left the company in the last several months. Other changes happening at Nike that could be related to the current legal trouble is that Nike announced pay increases for 7,000 employees last month. The company described the move as an attempt to support a culture where employees can feel included and empowered.

According to the Suit, Cahill was a former Nike producer and director from 2013 to 2017. She left the company due to a “hostile work environment” and ineffective handling of complaints to HR. She also alleges that she was paid $20,000 less than a male co-worker with similar job duties. Cahill also claims that a former Nike vice president used derogatory names to refer to women and singled out a female employee for overly harsh criticism by yelling at her repeatedly in public.

Complaints were allegedly filed to HR about the employee by Cahill and other women at Nike, but the Nike vice president was promoted in 2017. According to reporters at The Wall Street Journal, he was forced to leave the company in April.

Johnston, the second plaintiff, was employed by Nike from 2008 to 2017. She alleges that she received inappropriate sexual messages and nude photos of himself by a male co-worker after a Nike-organized party. After telling him to stop sending her messages that were not related to work, he continued to send inappropriate messages and photos. He also later started to refuse to attend meetings that she organized at work. The harassment was reported to Johnston’s supervisors, but the response she received from one of the supervisors was that the Nike culture revolved around alcohol and that the rise of the internet and cell phones have simply make drunk messages of that nature a part of the current generation. Johnston complained to HR about the situation, but the male co-worker was shortly after promoted to a management position that required her to work closely with him. She claims she was denied higher ratings on her annual review in retaliation for her response to the situation and her complaints of sexual harassment. Johnston also alleges that her starting salary was $2,000 less than a male co-worker for the same job. She claims she had more relevant work experience and superior credentials and even helped train him on the job.

If you are experiencing discrimination in the workplace or workplace retaliation for reporting violations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Southern California Car Wash Company Allegedly Cheated 800 Workers Out of Overtime Pa

A southern California car wash mogul, Vahid David Delrahim, will pay back $4.2 million in back wages and penalties after allegedly cheating 800 workers out of overtime pay and destroying evidence. The decision followed a two-year court battle with federal authorities.

The Los Angeles native failed to provide workers at a dozen different California locations with minimum wage or overtime payment. The car washes were located in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. The consent decree was approved by the U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Olguin ordering Delrahim to pay:

·      $1.9 million in back wages

·      $1.9 million in damages to workers

·      $400,000 in civil penalties

The case is being called a landmark case as it sends a powerful message to employers that the Department of Labor will use powerful law enforcement and litigation tools to protect employees and level the playing field for law-abiding employers. According to the judgment, Delrahim ordered his employees (many of whom are Spanish speakers unfamiliar with U.S. and/or California labor law) to work off the clock at the start of each shift. He also ordered them to clock out when business was slow but remain at the car wash for when business picked back up. This resulted in many hours on site without payment.

The back wages ordered by the court cover a period from 2013 to the present. It’s possible that more workers will be added to the case resulting in more money as the identity of all workers at all 12 car washes is not currently known. Delrahim was told to provide more names, addresses and workplace records within 30 days. The info was originally requested by the prosecutors in the case in 2016. The judgment will result in the employees receiving over $10,000 in back wages.

If you have questions about off the clock work or overtime payment, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Contractor Fined $1.9M in Response to Wage Theft Claims

Fullerton Pacific Interiors Inc., a California drywall contractor, was filed $1.9 million by California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for failing to allow rest periods for workers (and other wage violations). The violations allegedly occurred on 26 different construction projects in different locations throughout Southern California.

The fine was handed down from California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, a.k.a. the Labor Commissioner’s Office – a part of the California Department of Industrial Relations. The fine was processed because the California drywall company failed to properly compensate almost 500 workers for rest periods as required by state and federal labor law. During the course of investigation, the division also found that almost 300 workers were not paid for overtime hours and almost 30 workers were paid less than minimum wage.

From the summer of 2014 through the summer of 2016, Fullerton Pacific Interiors Inc. was under contract to perform drywall work at a number of recreation centers: hotels, casinos, etc. All were located in three California counties: Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino. The Labor Commissioner noted that many contractors who embrace unscrupulous methods may try to obscure wage theft by providing workers with pay on a flat rate basis rather than an hourly rate. Yet a daily or any other flat rate system of pay does not override minimum wage and overtime requirements as defined by law.

According to the findings of the investigation, Fullerton workers were completing taping and drywall installation at the work sites. They were paid a daily rate that did not consider their overtime hours on the job. They were offered a 30-minute meal period, but no rest breaks throughout the day.

The fine accounts for:

·      $1,892,279 payable to workers (with $798,664 for rest period violations, $386,685 for unpaid overtime, and $692,500 for wage statement violations)

·      $72,400 civil penalty

·      Workers that were not paid minimum age were owed a total of $14,431 unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and waiting time penalties

If you have questions about unpaid overtime or if you are not receiving meal and rest breaks on the job in accordance with state and federal labor law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Judge Refuses to Pause Franklin Templeton ERISA suit

Franklin Templeton’s motion to stay was denied by a California federal judge, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. The Defendant filed the motion requesting a stay pending the outcome of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but the judge denied the motion stating that she did not rely on the case before the appellate court when she granted class certification.

Plaintiffs in the case allege that Franklin Resources Inc. stacked its employees’ 401(k) plan with company products rather than offering better-performing funds. The judge’s decision to certify the class of workers making the allegations was based on the Ninth Circuit’s 1999 ruling in Bowles v. Reade – not on another federal judge’s opinion in an ERISA suit against USC as the Defendant, Franklin Templeton, claimed.

The Defendant argued that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on the appeal of the decision in Munro v. University of California would affect class certification in the case currently being considered before Judge Wilken. Wilken was not convinced. Wilken responded that it was possible the cited ruling could affect the case, but that Franklin Resources Inc. did not show that is was certain or even likely that it would. It was also noted that if it did affect the case it would simply affect class action status, not whether the case could be brought at all. The Defendant would have to face the claims of the lead Plaintiff, Marlon H. Cryer, (and other individuals) either way.

The judge also noted that the company would not face any significant penalty of harm if a stay were not issued as the Munro ruling would have a minimal effect on the case, but that workers could experience great harm if forced to wait to pursue their claims. A stay of this nature could last for over 2 years. Additionally, the judge pointed out that this type of ongoing injury to the plaintiffs would be difficult to quantify at the end of the case.

The original lawsuit against Franklin Templeton was filed in July 2016, including allegations that the firm breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA. Allegations were made that the Defendant had its 401(k) plan invest hundreds of millions of dollars into mutual funds with high fees managed by itself and its subsidiaries. Workers were granted class certification in July 2017. Judge Wilken consolidated the case with a similar proposed class action filed against the company by Nelly Fernandez in April. Fernandez sought class certification in May claiming that the company also engaged in prohibited transactions. Additional individual defendants were named.

If you have questions about ERISA or what constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.