Wrongful Termination Suit Results in $3M For Catholic School Teacher

A California jury recently awarded over $3.5 million to a former Catholic school teacher, Kourtney Liggins, who alleged that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles fired her from her position as the science teacher at LA’s Transfiguration School for being pregnant and unwed. Kourtney Liggins’ lawsuit alleged wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Transfiguration School is a Catholic parochial school that is linked with the Church of Transfiguration. The Transfiguration School was founded in 1832 by Varela. It was opened for registration to children of any religion/faith in 1969. The Transfiguration School has higher than average academic standards and was the winner of the National Blue Ribbon Schools Award in 2011. 

Legal Definitions:

Wrongful Termination – A situation in which an employee’s contract of employment is terminated by the employer and the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, a statute provision, or employment law.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – A situation in which an individual or entity acts abominably or outrageously with the intention of causing another to suffer severe emotional distress. It often occurs in the form of a vocal threat of future harm.

Major news outlets reported that jurors were in deliberation for less than a day before they announced their decision – finding in favor of Kourtney Liggins, ex-science teacher for the Catholic school in Los Angeles.

The panel of jurors found the archdiocese and Reverend Michael Tang, former pastor of the Church of the Transfiguration, liable in the case. Liggins, now 48 years old, says that when the situation occurred in 2012, she was seven months pregnant. Tang took her aside and advised her that her pregnancy would “morally corrupt” her science students there at the school. In 2013, her teaching contract was not renewed.

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

Did You Sign an Arbitration Agreement?

Did you know that millions of US workers are currently “barred” from the court system? Did you know that you may be one of them and not even realize it? Approximately 60 million American workers have signed arbitration agreements or arbitration clauses and they may not have even realized they were doing so.

Close to 50% of all non-unionized workers employed at companies in the United States are subject to arbitration agreements (according to the Economic Policy Institute). This number has more than doubled since the early 2000s. Major employers across the nation have adopted them as standard, including: Uber, Google, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Walmart, Macy’s, and more.

The increase in the use of mandatory arbitration agreements is making it increasingly difficult/impossible for employees to seek justice when they are victims of wage theft, discrimination in the workplace, retaliation, harassment, overtime violations, etc. The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing employers to prohibit class-action claims from workers in arbitration only increased the incentive for companies to include arbitration clauses right in their employment contracts for new hires.

The practice was once limited to business to business contract disputes, but it is now extending to legal disputes with employees and consumers. This change occurred after a significant Supreme Court ruling in 2001 related to sexual harassment. In Circuit City Stores Inc. v. Adams, an associate working at a Circuit City store in California sued the company for sexual harassment. The associate’s name was Saint Clair Adams. He said he was harassed by his co-workers because he was gay. He, like all the other employees of Circuit City, had signed an arbitration agreement stating that all disputes with the company must be resolved through private arbitration. The company argued their case in federal court, insisting that Adams was required to move his claim to arbitration due to the agreement.

The judge on the case sided with the plaintiff, Adams, and cited the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act allows companies to resolve contract disputes through arbitration but includes a provision that excludes employment contracts. The judge’s ruling was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The argument didn’t die with the appellate court though. Circuit City took the case to the Supreme Court where the lower court’s ruling was overturned – extending the reach of arbitration clauses to nearly all employment contracts. The justices based their decision on a close reading of the employment exclusion in the Federal Arbitration Act, which reads, “but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.” The justices interpreted this to mean that “transportation workers” were exempt from mandatory agreements; and that non-transportation workers would be required to take their claims to arbitration.

Another Supreme Court ruling in May 2018 made it even more difficult for workers to seek justice or force a company to change working conditions. The case was Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and the court decided that it is legal for employers in the United States to prohibit employees from joining together to file suit against the company claiming discrimination, wage theft, or other common workplace violations.

Do you have questions about how to deal with workplace violations when there is an arbitration agreement in place? Call one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Infosys Facing Allegations of Failure to Pay Overtime

A former employee of Infosys, Anuj Kapoor, filed an overtime lawsuit against the company. It is not the first and will likely result in a US Department of Labor investigation. Kapoor was involved with a CVS project in Rhode Island and filed suit against the company in June. Kapoor alleges that Infosys made him work over 1,000 hours of overtime without providing him with overtime pay.

Kapoor, plaintiff, alleges that he worked an estimated 1,084 overtime hours for the company between May 2015 and June 2017 and that they were over and above his weekly 40 hours. He also alleges that the overtime hours worked resulted in zero compensation. Not only was not provided accurate overtime wages, but he was not provided any wages for the additional hours at all.

Kapoor isn’t the only employee of Infosys who has made this type of allegation against Infosys. Infosys has run into overtime claims before. The company paid $26 million in 2008 to the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The payment settled a previous investigation into allegations of unpaid overtime.

The company, Infosys, denies the allegations. They not only insist that Kapoor’s allegations are unfounded, but they state that they will defend themselves in the action. Infosys’ spokesperson states that they comply with employment law throughout the United States. Additionally, the Defendant noted that the current case based on Kapoor’s allegations has no connection to past allegations and that the decade-old case in California has no relevance to the current case.

Infosys is not the only Indian IT company that has faced overtime lawsuits from their employees. Wipro, another Indian IT company, was sued by one of their employees for unpaid overtime. In the current regulatory environment in the United States, lawsuits and complaints are definitely raising concerns and companies operating in “gray areas” are finding that allegations cannot be ignored or easily swept aside.

If you need help seeking overtime pay from your employer or if you have questions about overtime regulations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Some Companies Are Responding to Worker Demands to Limit Arbitration

In response to the social and political climate, some companies are already starting to limit arbitration on their own. Mounting pressure from employees as well as the general public after the #MeToo movement had several Silicon Valley tech giants altering their policy and no longer requiring workers to take their sexual harassment cases to arbitration. The first to make the change were Uber and Microsoft. Google and Facebook announced plans to follow suit not long after.

While the change is heading in the right direction, some employees are still unhappy with the state of affairs. They say the exclusion for sexual harassment claims is nowhere near enough. For example, Google experience major backlash after a recent article in the New York Times offered details about how the tech giant paid out millions in exit packages for male executives who were accused of sexual harassment, while staying silent about the actual harassment.

Anger over this situation only added to the already mounting frustration at Google over ethical and transparency issues. The tension built up to a walkout on November 1st. Over 20,000 Google employees and contractors walked off the job in protest of Google’s method of dealing with sexual harassment claims. Employees demanded that Google executives end forced arbitration for discrimination claims (including sexual harassment, racial discrimination and gender discrimination), amid other demands. The company agreed to some of the employee’s demands a week later, but only agreed to drop mandatory arbitration for claims of sexual harassment and assault.

Organizers of the walkout were glad that Google responded with some positive change, but were disappointed that they ignored completely the opportunity to address widespread racial and gender discrimination claims.

If you need to discuss discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace, and you aren’t sure where to start, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

#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.