#MeToo Movement Brings to Light a Growing Problem with Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

In the wake of the recent #MeToo movement, many are starting to speak out about the fact that mandatory arbitration agreements may be particularly bad for women. When the #MeToo movement resulted in more and more female workers coming forward to report instances of sexual harassment in the workplace at companies like Fox and the Weinstein Company, many of them quickly realized that they would not be able to seek justice in the courts because of arbitration agreements they were required to sign as employees. 

For instance, Gretchen Carlson, former Fox News anchor, signed a required mandatory arbitration agreement. She sued former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes for sexual harassment and received an undisclosed settlement. But she was not able to sue Fox News for their rose in allowing the sexual harassment to continue. Dozens of other women who experienced similar situations at Fox found themselves in the same situation.

As more women come forward to speak out about sexual harassment on the job, many are putting the pressure on Congress to take action and restrict or even eliminate arbitration clauses from US workplaces.

Recent Legislative Actions:

October 2017 – The Mandatory Arbitration Transparency Act was introduced. The Act prohibits businesses from including a confidentiality clause in arbitration agreements in connection with discrimination claims.

December 2017 – The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act was introduced exempting sexual harassment cases from mandatory arbitration.

February 2018 – 56 state attorneys general (5 from US territories) weighed in with a letter urging congressional leaders to vote on the bills.

March 2018 – The Arbitration Fairness Act was proposed, which would let workers and consumers decide where they should pursue their legal claims.

October 2018 - The latest bill, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act, would prohibit employers from banning class-action claims.

If you need to speak with an experienced California employment law attorney because you are experiencing labor law violations and aren’t sure how to seek justice, please get in touch with us at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Pastor Denies Wrongful Termination Claims of Pregnant, Unwed Teacher

Reverend Tang, the pastor of a Leimert Park Catholic church testified that the decision not to renew the contract of one of teachers at the Transfiguration School, Kourtney Liggins, was a joint decision between himself and the interim principal of the school associated with the parish. He specified that the decision was not based on the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried. Liggins’ contract was not renewed in 2013. She filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court that specifically alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation.

Rev. Tang claimed during his testimony that parents of students lodged complaints that the plaintiff was late to work regularly and that she was frequently on her phone sending text messages while she was in her classroom. He denied allegations that he held it against her that she was pregnant and not married, or for having children from a previous marriage that resulted in a divorce.

Liggins’ suit named the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the Transfiguration School, Reverend Tang and the principal of the school in September 2013, Evelyn Rickenbacker as Defendants. In the summer of 2012, Liggins was seven months pregnant. She alleges that at that point in time, Reverend Tang specifically advised her that her situation, being pregnant and not married, would “morally corrupt the impressionable teenagers at the Transfiguration School.

Liggins, who is now 48 years old, complained about the situation to school officials, but according to lawsuit documents their response was to tell her to pray about it.

Rickenbacker was removed from the list of defendants in the case, but Tang insists that he and Rickenbacker decided jointly not to renew Liggins’ teaching contract for 2013-14. Tang, pastor of the Church of Transfiguration, did note that the Catholic church frowns on women in Liggins’ situation, but stated that the official teachings of the Catholic Church have been interpreted in a pastoral sense. In fact, close to half of the parents at the school are single parents.

Prior to Rickenbacker filling the role, Liggins’ sister, Michele Yerima was principal of the Transfiguration School. She resigned in March 2013, but remained as acting principal. Tang cited Yerima’s involvement in the administration of the school as part of the problem with the case as he claims that many of the parents who lodged complaints about Liggins’ frequent tardiness did not leave their names in fear of retaliation from her sister. Tang claimed that parents were afraid of her; that was her reputation.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you need to discuss instances of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

New Bill Could Protect the Rights of US Workers to Access the Court System

On Oct. 30th, 2018, House Democrats introduced the Restoring Justice for Workers Act, a bill intended to protect the rights of millions of US workers to access the court system. The Act would ban companies from requiring workers to sign arbitration clauses and would impact millions of workers across the nation.

The policy of requiring that employees and applicants sign arbitration agreements is now common practice. In fact, most sign one before they are ever officially hired. By signing the arbitration agreement, workers are essentially waiving their right to sue the company for potential violations of labor law (i.e. sexual harassment, racial discrimination, age discrimination, wage theft, wrongful termination, etc.) According to the terms of an arbitration agreement, employees with legal claims would need to take those claims to private arbitration; a forum without a judge or jury and with almost no government oversight. A fairly secretive process, private arbitration means that workers are significantly less likely to win their cases. If they do prevail in their case, they generally receive far lower settlements than if the case had been handled in the court system.

The new bill is fairly simple – employers would not be allowed to require that workers sign arbitration agreements and would also be prohibited from retaliating against anyone who chooses not to sign. It would be illegal to require employees to waive their right to join a class action lawsuit or file legal claims in arbitration as a group or class.

Supporters of the bill see it as a great stride in the right direction as forced arbitration is stripping American workers of their day in court; their chance to hold employers responsible for employment law violations (i.e. wage theft, overtime violations, discrimination, workplace retaliation, wrongful termination, harassment, etc.)

To make it through both chambers of Congress, the bill would need bipartisan support, but supporters do not expect Republican leaders to show much interest as they haven’t been interested in other legislation aimed at limiting mandatory arbitration in the past. Whether the bill is passed or not, controversy over mandatory arbitration agreements continues to escalate.

If you have questions about mandatory arbitration agreements or how to join a class action lawsuit, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Did CoreCivic Exploit Immigrant Detainee Labor?

On April 17th, 2018 a federal class action lawsuit was filed accusing private prison CoreCivic (previously known as Corrections Corporation of America) of exploiting immigrant detainees. The detainees performed work in the ICE detention facilities, particularly Georgia’s Stewart Detention Center. According to the complaint, the private prison company violated state and federal labor laws.

CoreCivic is the largest private prison operator in the nation. It has also been the target of multiple lawsuits in a number of states where it maintains detention facilities. Allegations have included:

·      Inadequate Medical Treatment

·      Employee Misconduct

The company has previously been fined millions of dollars through different government agencies for various contractual violations. Previous coverage of the scandals indicates that there is a common issue threaded throughout the connected stories: a company willing to cut corners and exploit prisoners to increase their profit margin.

While there is no legal precedent uniformly restricting officials of corrections facilities from requiring healthy prisoners to perform labor, the legal status of detained immigrants is a different issue. Immigration violations are civil, therefore the detention of an immigrant is civil in nature with most detained immigrants having no criminal record/history. Regardless of these facts, detained immigrants at Stewart are subjected to prison-like conditions.

The lawsuit also indicates that CoreCivic’s use of immigrant detainee labor to pad their profits is a plan/pattern of systematically withholding basic necessities from detained immigrants to ensure an available (captive) work force to clean, maintain, and operate the facilities for below minimum wage due to threat of criminal prosecution, solitary confinement, etc. The suit refers to the actions as CoreCivic’s deprivation scheme and claims that it ensures that the people detained within Stewart provide the billion-dollar corporation with a ready supply of available labor that is necessary to operate the facility: sweeping, mopping, waxing floors, scrubbing toilets, cleaning showers, washing dishes, cooking, doing laundry, etc. In exchange for their labor, detained immigrants are paid somewhere between $1 and $4 per day by CoreCivic (slightly more on occasion for double shifts). Detainees are paid nowhere near federal minimum wage.

The lawsuit was filed by Wilhen Hill Barrientos, Margarito Velazquez Galicia and Shoahib Ahmed. Plaintiffs noted that the detained immigrants were willing to work for the extremely low wages because they needed the money to purchase necessities like hygiene items and make phone calls.

If you have questions about federally mandated minimum wage or if you are not provided minimum wage by your employer, please contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Is Riot Games Supporting a Sexist Workplace?

Riot Games, a product of Tencent Games (a division of Tencent a multi-billion dollar Chinese technology company specializing in various internet services such as video games, social media and artificial intelligence), is facing a lawsuit alleging that the company created and fostered a “bro culture,” violated the California Equal Pay Act, and failed to prevent harassment in the workplace. The case was filed on behalf of former employee, Jessica Negron, current employee, Melanie McCracken and other female employees of the company.

Riot Games, most well-known for its hit game, League of Legends, is facing a long list of allegations that all point to the claim that the company and its top management foster a culture of sexism and discrimination toward women. Some of the allegations included in the more than 150 count suit are:

Female employees regularly belittled at staff meetings.

Female employees being promised pay raises and promotions that were then given to male coworkers.

Female employees made fun of and sexually objectified.

An email list of “Hottest Women Employees” was distributed that ranked female employees.

Inappropriate sexual jokes about rape, defecation, and masturbation were common place.

Concerns regarding the inappropriate workplace behavior brought to Human Resources were dismissed as “snobby.”

The women involved in the suit are seeking back wages and punitive damages. According to the Tencent financial report for the second quarter of 2018, the company’s revenue was recorded at over 11 million USD. The suit follows an investigation from Kotaku, an international gaming network, that was concluded only three months prior. The investigation highlighted the company’s culture, describing it was toxic masculinity. The Kotaku report claimed that females at the company were blocked from promotion because they didn’t fit the “gamer” mold. It also claimed that female new hires were kept under extreme scrutiny to judge whether or not they matched the company’s “culture;” a difficulty that male new hires did not have to deal with.

Following the report, Riot Games, claimed changes were made in the workplace. Women involved in the lawsuit claim that many of the worst offenders at the company faced zero consequences. For example, once male employee in a position of leadership was allegedly allowed to retain his leadership role even though he regularly made sexual comments on the job and even allegedly drugged and raped another employee.

The class action lawsuit will include both former and current employees of Riot Games.

If you need to discuss gender discrimination in the workplace or if you are being sexually harassed on the job and feel that you have no recourse, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Did Misclassifying Drivers as Contractors Save Uber $500M?

In recent news, a lawsuit claims that the popular ridesharing firm, Uber, saved more than $500 million by misclassifying their drivers as independent contractors. The California class action seeks justice in response to Uber allegedly ignoring a previous ruling issued earlier in the year.

The class action lawsuit was brought to California federal courts on behalf of local business, Diva’s Limousine. The suit alleges that Uber unfairly stole business from traditional taxi service-based companies by using deceitful methods and unethical tactics that purposefully skirted around the law. According to the complaint, Uber low-balled drivers’ wages in order to increase the company’s profit margin through misclassification of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The plaintiff claims that these deceitful methods/tactics are a workaround that goes against the ruling issued previously this year by the California Supreme Court in the case Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. The plaintiff also claims that by ignoring the previous ruling to misclassifying drivers, Uber stands to avoid payment of approximately $9.07 per hour in expenses/benefits to their drivers (i.e. minimum wage, mandated breaks, unemployment compensation, social security, Medicare, etc.)

Uber employees across the world have been fighting this particular battle and it has not been an easy fight. Late in 2017 a London tribunal classified drivers as employees. This directly conflicted with rulings in US courts where the opposite was believed to be true. Uber is currently appealing a lawsuit in Brazil resulting in similar findings. A Philadelphia courtroom ruled earlier this year that the provisions under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act prevented UberBlack drivers from being classified as employees. This was the first ruling of its kind; classifying Uber drivers as non-employees under federal law.

If you have questions about misclassification or if you have been misclassified by your employer, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

On The Border Mexican Grill Face Race Harassment Lawsuit

On The Border, a popular Tex-Mex restaurant faces race harassment allegations. According to the suit, Michael Carethers, an African-American cook at the restaurant’s Holtsville, NY location, was regularly subjected to verbal assaults including harassment and offensive language from his co-workers. Allegedly, the co-workers used offensive racial slurs and other offensive terms to refer to Carethers. According to the suit, the restaurant failed to stop the harassment.

According to the lawsuit, On the Border’s management was aware of the situation and, in some cases, present during the time of the harassment. Management failed to stop the abuse or address the situation by disciplining those employees who were involved. The complaint states that the harassment was occurring multiple times per week.

Discrimination based on race (and other bases) is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also prohibits retaliation for reporting or openly opposing discrimination. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Pre-litigation settlement discussions through conciliation were not successful. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent this situation from recurring.

According to the company’s website, On the Border is the U.S.’s largest casual Mexican restaurant chain and currently has more than 140 locations with 6,000 employees across the country.

If you need to discuss an issue of discrimination in the workplace or if you have been discriminated against during the employment application process, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.