Cinemark Faces Certified Class of Employees Alleging Overtime and Wage Statement Violations

A class of Cinemark movie theater employees claim that the company did not comply with state law requiring pay stubs to be accurate and itemized; detailing specifically the overtime pay rates. The group of 843 eligible California employees was recently certified for class action.

The estimated 843 employees located in California and employed by Cinemark who are eligible to join the class action lawsuit is based on calculations of legal counsel on the case who made their determinations based on the popular movie theater’s disclosures regarding the number of incorrect wage statements they issued to employees.

The federal judge on the case (Amey v. Cinemark USA Inc., 2018 BL 296573, N.D. Cal., No. 13-cv-05669) certified the class on August 16th, 2018. Certification of the class means that Cinemark USA Inc. will be required to provide the names and the contact information for any employees who received non-compliant pay stubs. Class members who do not opt out will receive a share of any payout or settlement that results from the case during pre-trail negotiations, mediation or a trial win. 

Employers are required to provide employees with detailed, itemized, and accurate pay stubs (a.k.a. wage statements) in order to assist employees in regulating their pay rate and overtime pay rate. Providing accurate wage statements creates transparency and allows employees to determine when they are not receiving the right pay for their work hours or the right rate of pay for their overtime hours specifically. California labor code requires more extensive pay stub disclosures than federal law. California law allows a $50 penalty per employee for the first pay stub violation and $100 for subsequent violations. As there are 26 pay periods in a year for employers who issue pay biweekly, pay stub violations can be very costly for employers.

If you have questions about California labor law pay stub requirements or if you are not receiving overtime compensation as required by law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Dealerships in Overtime Suit

A recent Supreme Court ruling found service advisers at car dealerships to be exempt under federal law from overtime pay requirements – much like car salesmen and mechanics. The ruling came down 5-4 that service advisers are sales people (even though they also fulfill additional duties such as greeting customers, and proposing various repair service, etc.) The ruling will affect more than 18,000 dealerships across the nation that together as a whole employ over 100,000 service advisers alone.

The case involved a Mercedes Benz dealership out of Encino, California and several of their current and former service advisers. Each side in the case interpreted the Fair Labor Standards Act differently…”any salesman…primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles” doesn’t have to provided overtime compensation.

The dealership’s arguments were based on their interpretation that the definition of salesman clearly included the service advisers. Their range of duties includes helping to diagnose mechanical issues, preparing price estimates for vehicle repairs, etc. Service advisers argued that they were not included in the definition of “salesman” as intended by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In a majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the “ordinary meaning of ‘salesman’ is someone who sells goods or services.” According to this ordinary meaning of the word, service advisers are, in fact, salesmen. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented arguing that because the service advisers do not sell or repair vehicles, they should not be exempt from overtime.

The Department of Labor changed its interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 2011; which led the issue to the high court. For decades prior to the 2011 change, the department operated under the assumption that employers were not required to provide service advisers with overtime compensation.

This decision was the second time the court has ruled on this case. The earlier litigation resulted in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling that service advisers were entitled to overtime. In 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the overtime question was sidestepped by an eight-member Supreme Court; advising the appeals court to take another look at the case. The appeals court again ruled in favor of service advisers.

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of car dealerships will have affect dealerships and service advisers nationwide.

If you have questions about overtime eligibility or overtime compensation as required by employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

San Diego-Based Tarr Inc. Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit

Tarr Inc. and Zenith LLC have agreed to pay $50,000 to victims in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. In addition to the monetary settlement, they have agreed to offer other relief in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement they entered with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

According to the lawsuit’s court documents, the San-Diego based company known as Zenith LLC fired a female employee just days after she advised them that she was pregnant. And this was not the only time they company exhibited outright pregnancy discrimination against an employee. They also allegedly refused to allow a different employee to return to her position with the company after taking maternity leave.

The dietary supplement company out of San Diego, California faced allegations that they were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act outlawing discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or other medical conditions related to either). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California after they were unable to reach a pre-litigation settlement agreement through conciliation.

When employers perceive pregnancy and motherhood as being incompatible with work and the workplace it places women at a great disadvantage. For many workers experiencing the thrilling, but nerve-wracking time during pregnancy, being fired from a job while pregnant (especially explicitly for being pregnant) is like a nightmare coming true. While pregnancy discrimination is unarguably illegal, it is a prevalent problem in today’s workplaces. When an employer exhibits this type of discrimination, they are breaking the law and victims deserve compensation.

If you are pregnant or were recently pregnant and you experienced discrimination in the workplace due to your pregnancy, please get in touch with the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$24M Settlement to End JPMorgan Discrimination Suit

In recent news, JPMorgan Chase and Co. agreed to a settlement to end the discrimination lawsuit from black advisers. Members of the class action lawsuit who alleged discrimination, six current and former employees of the New York-based bank, will receive $19.5 million. The members claimed that because they were black they were sent to less lucrative JPMorgan branches, denied professional opportunities, kept out of a program reserved for richer clientele, and paid less than their white colleagues.

In court documents, the plaintiffs claimed that the racial disparities are a result of the company’s systemic, intentional race discrimination as well as from Chase policies and practices that, due to their disparate impact on African-Americans, are unlawful.

Plaintiffs in the case are: Jerome Senegal (from Texas), Erika Williams (from Illinois), Brent Griffin (from Wisconsin), Irvin Nash (from New York), Amanda Jason (from Kentucky), and Kellie Farrish (from California). As part of the settlement agreement, JPMorgan also agreed to put $4.5 million in a fund set aside to back recruitment, bias training, a full review of branch assignments in light of the case findings, and a coaching program reserved for JPMorgan’s black advisers.

JPMorgan has been hit with alleged discrimination before. Last year the bank was accused of willfully violating the U.S. Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act from 2006-2009 as well as a reckless disregard for the rights of a minimum of 53,000 minority borrowers. Other banks have been scrutinized for similar practices.

Last year, a black employee filed a complaint alleging that Goldman Sachs removed her from profitable accounts and overlooked her for promotions. Earlier this year Wells Fargo faced claims of cultivating gender-bias within the organization’s wealth-management operations.

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace or if you have other questions about labor law violations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Southern California Burgers & Beer Restaurant Chain Faces Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

The popular Southern California Burgers & Beer restaurant chain faces a sex discrimination lawsuit alleging that they are in violation of California employment law by maintaining a mostly female server workforce. The suit was filed in San Diego by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Allegedly, Burgers & Beer violated federal employment law by denying male applicants the same employment consideration they offered females applicants.

The Southern California restaurant chain has routinely rejected male applicants and employees seeking server positions since 2015 – based simply on their sex. According to the EEOC, Burgers & Beer maintains a server workforce that consists of approximately 90% female servers. This violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on sex.

According to its website, Burgers & Beer has six restaurant locations: Temecula, Yuma, El Centro, etc. The lawsuit against the restaurant chain was filed only after the EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through a conciliation process. The EEOC now seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the chain from unlawful discrimination based on the basis of sex in the future. They also seek compensatory and punitive damages for the victims of the sex-discrimination.

The EEOC, reflecting on the case, stated that the denial of an applicant of even the opportunity to compete for a job based strictly on their gender is a violation of federal law – even if the employer is working off the assumption or the knowledge that their patrons would prefer to be surrounded by servers who are limited to one sex or the other. They further clarified their position by stating that presumed preferences are not an excuse for discrimination of any kind and that the EEOC would continue to pursue employers exhibiting this type of discriminatory hiring practice.

If you are concerned about discrimination in the workplace or if you have been the victim of discrimination during the hiring process, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Scope of Gender-Discrimination Lawsuit Against Salk Limited by Judge

In recent news, a California judge limited the scope of a gender-discrimination lawsuit filed against by Salk Institute for Biological Studies by cancer researcher, Beverly Emerson, by throwing out a retaliation claim. The judge dismissed the claim on August 30, 2018.

The claim was made by molecular biologist Beverly Emerson. She claimed that the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California purposefully let her contract expire in December 2017 because she filed a gender-discrimination lawsuit. (The gender-discrimination lawsuit was filed by Emerson in July of that same year).

A key piece of evidence for Emerson’s retaliation claim was an email from the institute’s former president, Elizabeth Blackburn. In the email Blackburn suggested the litigation could hurt Emerson’s career, but the court ruled this email as confidential material that should not be presented before jurors. Emerson alleges gender-discrimination based on systemic bias at Salk that resulted in limited pay, limited professional advancement, and limited access to resources and funding for research.

In the course of the August 17th hearing in San Diego, California, the Salk Institute’s legal counsel argued that most of the cited events that occurred during Emerson’s 30 years at the institute happened too long ago to be included in the suit (i.e. a delayed promotion). According to California state law people have only one year to file a lawsuit including charges of gender discrimination after an event or incident occurs, unless they have proof to present that the gender discrimination was a continuing occurrence.

Emerson’s legal counsel responded with instances that illustrated just such a pattern of recurring gender bias. Judge Eddie Sturgeon noted that when viewing the evidence as a whole, the court “cannot conclude as a matter of law that there is no continuing violation.” Emerson’s gender-discrimination suit is scheduled for trial on December 7th.  

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

Whistleblower Lawsuit Filed Against Local California Business

Susanne Bjornson, a former employee of a local home furnishing store, filed a whistleblower lawsuit claiming wrongful termination and emotional distress. Bjornson claims that her previous employer falsified a declaration and forged her signature in order to defeat a valid Workers’ Compensation claim. Bjornson filed an employment lawsuit in the Santa Barbara Superior Court against Celadon House.

Celadon House operates retail furniture stores in both Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. Bjornson, who was employed at the Santa Barbara retail location, alleges she was working on the day that one of her co-workers was injured in the course of moving some furniture. The employee who sustained the injury filed a Workers’ Compensation claim.

According to the plaintiff’s legal counsel, Celadon House did not carry Workers’ Compensation insurance (a violation of California law). The two owners of Celadon House, Kelli Thornton and Cherisse Sweeney, allegedly prepared a Declaration including Bjornson’s name without her knowledge or consent. In the Declaration, it stated that the injured employee had not moved furniture on the day they sustained their injury and that the employee did not report the injury. Allegedly, one of the two Celadon House owners then completed the false Declaration with Bjornson’s forged signature.

Bjornson insists she was never questioned by the two owners or anyone else at the company about the injury or the day the injury was sustained and that the statements that are being attributed to her in the official Declaration document are false. Due to the false Declaration, the injured employee’s Workers’ Compensation benefits were denied. Soon after the denial, Bjornson was notified of the Declaration. Bjornson, fearing that she could be implicated in an unlawful act, felt compelled to immediately resign her position with Celadon House.

The plaintiff’s counsel argues that as the working conditions were so intolerable that Bjornson, as a reasonable person, had no other alternative than to resign her employment, it constitutes a “constructive” discharge of employment – meaning that the resignation is equal to termination.

If you have questions about what constitutes wrongful termination or if you have been wrongfully terminated, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.