Pilots to Receive $19M Settlement from Southwest Airlines

In order to settle a recent lawsuit, Southwest Airlines Co. will pay close to $19 million to pilots. The lawsuit alleged that Southwest Airlines did not grant benefits to their pilots who took short-term military leave.

The lawsuit against Southwest was filed by Jayson Huntsman in July 2017 and represented Huntsman along with his fellow pilots. The lawsuit claimed that when a Southwest pilot took short-term military leave, their paid sick leave did not accrue, and they did not receive matching retirement contributions. This lack of benefits applied to short periods of military leave lasting 14 days or less.

Southwest pilots taking short-term military leave of 14 days or less were denied these basic benefits even though benefits were provided to pilots who took other comparable forms of leave (i.e. bereavement, union duty, jury duty, etc.)

Southwest Airlines will provide pilots 100% of their sick leave benefits that they did not receive for this type of short-term military leave from 2008 to the date of preliminary approval. They will also receive 77% of the average sick leave benefits for those affected between 2001 and 2007, which is expected to be valued at more than $13 million according to settlement documents.

According to the settlement, a $5.8 million fund will be created to offer retirement benefits for 401k payments for the years 2001 through 2013. Southwest Airlines will also agree to pay $1,000 to each of the pilots who were affected, but who are no longer employees with the ability to make use of sick leave. The airline will also change the sick leave policy so short-term military leave will no longer be excluded from leaves during which pilots can accrue sick leave from this point forward. This change will provide millions of dollars in future benefits to the class members. Southwest also agreed in the settlement to provide pilots with more information about retirement credit and contributions received for periods of short-term military leave.

If you are being denied benefits by your employer or if you need information on how to join a class action, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

More Employees Continue to Come Forward in Google Age Discrimination Case

Almost 300 people have come forward to join the class action lawsuit against Google alleging age discrimination in the workplace. The lawsuit originated in 2015 and was originally filed by Robert Heath. The lawsuit was certified as a class-action a year later in 2016.

Cheryl Fillekes joined the case in 2015. She alleged that due to her age, Mountain View-based Google would not hire her for an engineering position she was fully qualified to handle. She alleged the action violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In documents provided to the court, Fillekes claimed that a recruiter advised her of the necessity to include her dates of graduation on her resume so that the company could see how old she was.

In fall of 2016, Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that more software engineers could join the lawsuit. The suit covers more than 40 engineers who sought jobs at Google, but claim they experienced age discrimination during the process.

Google’s spokesperson, Ty Sheppard, made it clear that the company feels the allegations made are without merit and that Google will continue to provide a vigorous defense. He also cited Google’s strong policies barring discrimination of all kinds, including age discrimination. In response to other claims Google has made in legal channels that they maintain policies guarding against age discrimination in the workplace, Judge Freeman replied that having a policy in place does not necessarily prevent employees from filing suit against a company or shield the company from the lawsuit – particularly when the evidence and allegations indicate discrepancies between written policy and action. Most companies are well aware at this point about anti-discrimination and go to great lengths to ensure that their written policies comply.

Google, everyone’s favorite search engine giant, has been accused of age discrimination before. In 2004 a lawsuit was filed and eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. It’s not a secret that the tech industry of Silicon Valley is young. The Huffington Post reported that the median age of workers as of 2017 at Google and Menlo Park-based Facebook was only 29 years old.

If you have been a victim of age discrimination in the workplace or any other type of workplace discrimination, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Spotify Dealing with Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Hong Perez, a former sales executive for Spotify filed a lawsuit claiming gender discrimination, equal pay violations and defamation. The lawsuit was filed in New York Supreme Court and claimed that Spotify’s US Head of Sales, Brian Berner, excluded women from numerous networking trips to the Sundance Film Festival in 2016 and 2017. Perez referred to the trips as “boys’ trips.” She also referenced drug use on the trips and claimed that one of the male employees got into a “fight” during one of the trips.

Perez’ lawsuit lists other cases of gender discrimination at Spotify. One such case included a male Spotify managers trip to an Atlantic City strip club. Another discussed a male employee of Spotify who received a promotion after a sexual harassment complaint was filed against him. Still another alleges that a Spotify Human Resources executive told staff in the midst of a meeting what his favorite curse word was, and it happened to be a derogatory slur against women.

In the lawsuit, Perez states that the same HR Head advised Perez that he had a “soft spot” for one male employee accused of harassment and went easy on him for this reason. The CFO allegedly remarked at a town hall meeting that he did not care about diversity at the company. Perez also claims that higher compensation is provided to male employees. She also accused Berner of defamation. After Berner accepted free tickets to New York’s Madison Square Garden, he was reprimanded. To avoid disciplinary action, Berner blamed Perez. The situation escalated until Berner fired Perez from the company.

Spotify responded to the suit and the allegations it contained by publicly stating that they do not tolerate discrimination of any kind at any level of the company. They referenced their inability to comment on specific details related to the pending litigation, but insisted the claims made in the lawsuit file by Perez were without merit.

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

Application of California Law in Non-Compete Litigation?

In a recent East Coast/West Coast conflict, courts in Massachusetts consider the application of California Law in a non-compete litigation. Massachusetts courts are not the only courts to come up against this particular issue either. Other courts around the country have also been asked to study the application of California law in litigation based on non-competition agreements. Generally speaking, non-competition agreements are not enforceable in California. So, employees who have worked in another state or in situations where the agreement contains a forum selection clause outside of the state of California are rushing to file in California court or present other state courts with the argument that California state law should be applicable. Either action would offer them the hope of avoiding mobility restrictions.

The Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts recently found themselves asking the question, “Should California law regarding non-compete agreements be applied to cases and agreements outside of the state?”

The issue was considered in connection with the case FTI, LLC, et al. v. Duffy, et al. in which three of the plaintiffs’ former employees resigned. Shortly after resigning they filed suit in California seeking a ruling that the non-compete agreements were unenforceable. Five months later, the plaintiffs filed suit in Massachusetts alleging a breach of the non-compete agreements, as well as other violations (i.e. trade secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, etc.) The defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of the California suit. One former employee also moved to dismiss the claims citing a lack of personal jurisdiction. 

The Massachusetts court did not stay the case. In situations when duplicative lawsuits are filed in multiple jurisdictions, the later-filed action is typically stayed, but courts have discretion and can give preference to the later-filed action when doing so best serves the interests involved in the case. In this case, the court held that the two seemingly duplicative lawsuits actually had minimal overlap. The California case sought to void the non-compete agreement. The Massachusetts case focused on other claims. Additionally, the agreement was governed by Maryland law and a court in California would have no greater expertise or ability to apply Maryland law than a Massachusetts court. The court held that Massachusetts had an equally strong interest in the case due to the fact that the plaintiffs alleged defendants committed a number of business torts during the time of employment cited by court documents.

The Massachusetts court also denied the employee’s argument that the case lacked personal jurisdiction. The court found that the employee had sufficient minimal contacts through his supervision of six employees in the state, regular travel to the state of Massachusetts in order to fulfill supervisory duties, and that he billed more than 130 hours to the company while working in Boston in the year 2014 alone. The court also found that since the employee filed a suit in California (revealing that he was willing to travel across the nation to litigate a case) he would not be unfairly burdened by the need to defend himself in a Massachusetts court simply because he resided in New York.

If you have questions about California state law and how it applies to your non-compete agreement, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

KBP Foods Fighting Suit Claiming Labor Law Violations

Six employees of Overland Park-based KBP Foods LLC filed a lawsuit including allegations that the giant OP fast-food franchisee purposefully used faulty equipment for timekeeping. The suit claims that the company’s timekeeping system utilized a thumbprint scanner that consistently malfunctioned, which prevented their employees from clocking in when starting their shift or ending a break. Employees cite a failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wage and failure to pay employees for all wages earned on the job.

The company owns 581 different restaurants throughout the country with KFC and Taco Bell being the most recognizable. In fact, the suit claims that KBP Foods is the largest KFC franchisee in the nation. KBP is accused of knowingly using equipment that failed to properly record time for employees’ shifts due to frequent malfunctions, including overtime hours. The lawsuit also alleges that corporate officers went so far as to put a policy in place that required employees to clock out but remain on site to complete standard (and required) closing operations.

Due to the company’s policy, many store managers consistently deleted hours worked from employee time cards/sheets in order to deprive them of wages and overtime pay for hours they completed on the job. The plaintiffs allege the company did so in a willful act intended to reduce labor costs for the company and earn incentives paid to management for maintaining overall labor costs below a designated threshold.

According to the lawsuit, when the thumbprint scanner fails to clock an employee in for their shift or at the end of a break, the manager on duty is supposed to manually enter the info into the restaurant’s back office computer, but this was rarely if ever done, resulting in employees who were underpaid and/or not paid for overtime hours worked. The timekeeping system in place also made it necessary for managers to run reports daily after the registers were closed. Plaintiffs allege that managers have the employees clock out prior to shutting down the registers in order to run the day’s reports; leaving the employees working off the clock for the closing procedures.

Plaintiffs in the suit seek class action status. They seek payment of unpaid wages, overtime wages, attorney fees and other compensation that the court deems appropriate.

If you have questions about California labor law or if you are not being paid overtime wages you have earned, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Shell Refinery has $7.7M Wage Deal on the Table for Pipeline Workers

Shell Oil owns a number of pipeline terminals and refineries. A putative class of workers pulled from both are likely to see the $7.7 million wage and hour settlement for their case approved. The California federal judge, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney, has already granted preliminary approval “preliminarily.”

The judge praised the settlement and advised counsel they had done a good job. She did request changes and clarifications including an amended settlement schedule to provide her with time to consider a revised version. She advised parties she would most likely allow the deal to move forward within the week.

David Berlanga, plaintiff, filed suit in January 2017 alleging wage and hour claims and listing four California energy facilities as Defendants in the case:

·      Shell Pipeline Co. LP’s terminal facility in Carson

·      Shell subsidiary Equilon Enterprises LLC’s oil refinery in Martinez

·      CRI Catalyst Co LP’s production facilities in Martinez

·      CRI Catalyst Co LP’s production facilities in Pittsburg

Allegedly, the companies did not provide rest breaks free of job duties or accurate wage statements to employees. Berlanga filed claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act as well as the state’s Unfair Competition Law. He was seeking back wages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and an updated workplace policy in compliance with the law.

The class would include plant operators (since January 2013) who have been required to keep their radios on or respond to calls during their rest breaks that are mandated by state labor law. According to the law, employers must relinquish control over how employees spend time during breaks and employees must be relieved of all their job duties – including the obligation to remain on call.

The settlement is the result of a private mediation in April and will include up to $1.9 in attorney’s fees (or a quarter of the common fund). And incentive award of $7,500 for each of the six class representatives is also sought although the judge indicated this may be too high.

If you have questions about California mandated rest breaks or if you are not receiving accurate wage statements as required by law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Settlement Between Former Employee and NFL Network Approved

A settlement was approved for a lawsuit brought against the NFL Network by a former wardrobe stylist, Jami Canton. Canton claimed a slew of labor law violations, including: sexual harassment, age discrimination, workplace retaliation, wrongful termination and defamation. The settlement was approved by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern after Jami Cantor filed a motion to resolve the suit seeking civil penalties. In exchange for the settlement, Cantor agreed to drop all claims.

Donovan McNabb and Eric Davis, former NFL Network analysts, were both fired in January by ESPN after a month-long investigation into claims of inappropriate behavior on the job made by Cantor. Cantor, as an aggrieved employee, will receive 25% of the approved settlement amount while the other 75% will be distributed to the state Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). The LWDA is a cabinet-level state agency responsible for coordinating workforce programs and oversight of seven different departments that deal with benefit administration and upholding and enforcing employment laws of the state of California.

Cantor filed the California lawsuit in September. In the complaint she claimed she began work in 2006 and was employed at the NFL’s Culver City studio. As part of her job, Cantor claims she was responsible for creating a wardrobe closet to make sure that talent would have clothes to wear for the NFL shows. During the course of her employment, Cantor alleged that she was subjected to numerous instances of sexual harassment at the hands of a number of different NFL employees. Claims of harassment included: inappropriate touching, inappropriate references, inappropriate comments, texted photos of a sexual nature, etc. All this while Cantor repeatedly made it clear that the advances were unwanted and not reciprocated.

Cantor claims that nothing was done in response to her complaints and that rather than assisting her with the situation, the NFL made her life more difficult by increasing her workload and decreasing her hours. In addition to the harassment claims, Cantor levied a number of other labor law violation complaints against her former employer, including: failure to pay overtime, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for business expenses, and wrongful termination.

Cantor was fired in October of 2016. She claims she was falsely accused of stealing clothing from an employee. She also claims that internal video would prove that she had not taken anything. When she was terminated, Cantor was 51 years old. Her replacement was 30 years old.

If you have questions about overtime pay, harassment in the workplace or wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.