Getaround Employs a New Tactic to Defeat Employee Lawsuits

Gig economy businesses continue to face lawsuits demanding answers regarding whether or not workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors. Many gig economy companies rely on contract work for their business model. These companies have seen the most significant increase in misclassification lawsuits. As the number of misclassification lawsuits increased, so did the number of tactics businesses used to manage the employee lawsuits. These tactics have included PR campaigns, lobbyists, presenting legal arguments that they are not employers – just software programs, and more. The recent lawsuit filed against Getaround Inc. has resulted in a new tactic.

Getaround Inc. assists people hoping to rent their personal vehicles out online. But at the moment they may be best known in certain circles for employing an uncommon legal tactic to a common issue in today’s world. In a preemptive strike against a class action lawsuit, Getaround mailed out dozens of checks to former workers with paperwork attached asking them to sign away their legal right to sue. The interesting part is that a provision included in the documents stated the deposit of the enclosed check counted as an agreement to waive the right to sue – even without signing the included contract. Almost everyone who received the paperwork deposited the check.

The tactic is not unheard of, but it seems to be particularly effective in the gig economy. This may be due, in part, to the fact that industry workers lack financial stability. Attorneys asked to respond to the topic have described it as “insidious” since most former workers can’t afford to seek legal counsel for advice on depositing the check or holding out for a larger payout from an eventual lawsuit. Low wage workers are particularly vulnerable to this type of legal maneuvering.

The legal strategy in Getaround’s case highlights how creative gig companies are willing to be to avoid scrutiny of their worker classification methods. Many gig companies of this nature are not profitable, and reclassifying workers and providing employment benefits would mean even less profitability for the company. Many gig companies throughout California are still in a flat spin following California Supreme Court’s sweeping ruling last year limiting the scope of work they can classify as “contract” labor.

Settling worker claims using the “Pick Up Stix” tactic (as it is often referred to) is unusual in the gig economy, but this may be largely due to the fact that most gig economy companies require workers to sign class-action waivers as part of their arbitration agreements.

Are you misclassified on the job? If you have questions about what it means to be classified as an independent contractor versus an employee, don’t hesitate to get in touch with an experienced employment law attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Our convenient locations in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago make it easy for us to be your advocate and seek the justice and compensation you deserve.

Abrishamian Requests Class Certification in Employment Law Suit Against TotalMed

On June 28th, 2019, Natalie Abrishamian filed a first-amended class action complaint against TotalMed Staffing, Inc. alleging numerous California labor law violations. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles. The allegations included in the complaint were: failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to authorize or permit meal breaks, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair business practices.

Abrishamian, a nurse employed through TotalMed Staffing, a Wisconsin employment staffing agency authorized to do business in California, was assigned to work Kaiser Permanente Panorama City inside California as a non-exempt, hourly wage traveling nurse. The 13-week assignment began on November 5th, 2018, and ended on February 2nd, 2019. Abrishamian was assigned three 12-hour shifts each week. On approximately December 13th, 2018, the plaintiff's employment was terminated. The plaintiff was out of work two months before the agreed-upon end date of her employment.

Issues About the Case:

1.        Defendant Did Not Take "Per Diem" Payments into Account When Calculating Overtime Rates

2.        Defendant Did Not Provide Payment for Mandatory Training and Orientation Specific to the Job

3.        Defendant Did Not Provide or Authorize Employees to Take Mandatory Meal Breaks and Rest Breaks

4.        Defendant Did Not Provide Employees with Accurate Wage Statements as Required

5.        Defendant Engaged in Unfair Business Practices

The class action will apply to current and former employees of TotalMed Staffing, Inc. who were employed during the class time period (anywhere from 4 years before the original filing through the date of the hearing). Plaintiffs' legal counsel has filed a demand for jury trial. Abrishamian seeks class-action certification from the court on behalf of each of the following classes included in the complaint: Per Diem Class, Unpaid Time Class, Meal Break Class, and the Rest Break Class.

 If you have questions about California labor law violations or if you are not receiving overtime pay, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Call or come by one of the Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP locations nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.

Farmworkers Overtime Pay Lawsuit Before Washington Supreme Court

The Washington Supreme Court will decide whether or not farmworkers must receive overtime wages – after striking down agricultural pay practices twice in recent years. While a hearing isn't yet set, both sides are preparing their case with potentially hundreds of millions of dollars a year in additional costs at risk. According to state law, workers receive overtime pay after eight hours a day or after a 40-hour week. The question before the Washington Supreme Court is whether or not the state law requiring overtime pay should apply to farmworkers. Naysayers insist that inflicting this high cost on a vital portion of the state's economy is unreasonable. But does exempting agriculture from paying workers time-and-a-half for overtime hours violate the state constitution?

Other recent farm-pay lawsuits led the Supreme Court to find that piece-rate workers must be paid separately for rest periods and downtime.  The current overtime lawsuit launched off a 2016 lawsuit against a local dairy farm in Yakima County. Court records indicate that Jose Martinez-Cuevas and Patricia Aguilar, named plaintiffs in the case, worked at DeRuyter Brothers Dairy for just over a year. The owners sold the dairy settled the majority of the claims, but the Superior Court judge's ruling on overtime specifically was inconclusive. This case's main issue will skip the court of appeals as the Supreme Court agreed to take on the question.

In 1959 the Legislature exempted agriculture from the state's minimum wage law guaranteeing workers overtime pay. The lawmakers were acting under the 1938 federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Legal counsel for the plaintiffs argues that the federal agricultural exemption has historic racism at its roots. They claim Southern lawmakers created the exemption to limit the pay of black farmworkers. They argue that Washington lawmakers adopting the legislation did not consider the exemption's racist history. Arguments for the plaintiffs are based on a combination of the alleged racial history of the law excluding agricultural workers and the current racial makeup of the excluded agricultural workforce being close to 100% minority. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case insist the exclusion should be declared unconstitutional.

Those arguing against the Plaintiffs' case claim the fixation on the racial makeup of the current agricultural workforce has no relevance, noting that in 1959 the farmworker population was 85% white workers. They attribute the exemption to the nature of agriculture rather than racism. As an inherently seasonal business, proponents of the current interpretation of the law argue that overtime during certain times of the year is natural and necessary for the industry.

If you have questions about overtime law or who receives overtime pay, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with the location nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.

More than 2 Dozen Women File Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Against McDonald’s

In recent news, McDonald’s faces 25 new charges of sexual harassment in the workplace. Workers filed the 25 new lawsuits in:

·      Cincinnati, Ohio

·      Chicago, Illinois

·      Durham, North Carolina

·      East Haven, Connecticut

·      Gladwin, Michigan

·      Kansas City, Missouri

·      Los Angeles, California

·      Monterey Park, California

·      Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

·      Sacramento, California

·      St. Louis, Missouri

·      Tucson, Arizona

McDonald’s workers have filed additional civil lawsuits in Chickamauga, Georgia; Williamsburg, Michigan; and Davison, Michigan.

Plaintiffs that filed the 25 new suits allege that they were sexually harassed while working for the large fast-food chain. All the filings involve alleged incidents at either McDonald’s restaurant locations or corporate offices throughout the United States. Women who filed suit are as young as 16 years old. Alleged incidents include groping, indecent exposure, sexual propositions, and lewd comments directed at female McDonald’s employees from supervisors on the job. The filings were announced two days before the fast-food chain’s annual shareholder meeting in Texas.

In the fall of 2018, workers for the world-renowned McDonald’s in 10 different cities in the United States went on a one-day strike protesting sexual harassment. The strike came one year after allegations of sexual harassment at the hands of Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein came to light and inspired the #MeToo movement. The 25 new filings are part of a continued effort to address harassment and other unlawful workplace conditions. As the second largest employer in the world, McDonald’s has been recognized by many as in need of change.

One of the plaintiffs in the recent sexual harassment filings, Jamelia Fairley, stated that the fast-food chain does not keep workers safe. While on the job, Fairley had to deal with a co-worker’s unwanted touching, sexually explicit comments and repeated sexual propositions. The harassing co-worker even asked Fairley how much it would cost to have sex with her daughter, who was only one year old at the time. Fairley believes that every McDonald’s employee should be treated with respect in the workplace and hopes the new sexual harassment filings lead to change.

With the 25 new filings, there have been over 50 charges and suits filed against McDonald’s by employees or former employees during the past three years. McDonald’s responds to the lawsuits by offering assurances that they have instituted new manager and employer training and continue to progress in this area and citing the company’s new third-party managed hotline employees can access to report complaints of any variety that rolls out within the month.

If you have sexually harassed in the workplace or if you need to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. With numerous locations, including our San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago employment law offices, we have the resources, the knowledge, and the experience to successfully advocate for workers whose rights have been violated in the workplace.

Caltech Whistleblower Case Jury Trial Currently Underway

Farshid Roumi, a Caltech scholar, was allegedly fired for whistleblowing. Roumi worked in Pasadena-based Caltech’s engineering and applied science division. In 2017, Roumi filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging retaliation and wrongful termination.

Roumi claims that he was fired after he exposed misappropriation of funds from the Department of Energy. Superior Court Judge Monica Bachner is presiding in the downtown Los Angeles Stanley Mosk Courthouse courtroom.

Roumi finished his doctoral dissertation at Caltech in 2010, “Shape Changing Transformations: Interactions with Plasticity and Electrochemical Processes.” He currently works as the Chief Executive Officer of his own company, Parthian Energy.

The whistleblower retaliation lawsuit Roumi filed is not the first that Caltech will face. In 2014, a Caltech professor, Sandra Troian, filed a complaint alleging retaliation after she provided the F.B.I. with information about a researcher who released restricted data to Israel and then made it public. Troian alleged that retaliation followed in the form of false accusations of research misconduct, prevention of her participation in campus events, and being denied over $1 million in grant funding.

Caltech’s official policy clearly prohibits retaliation. To quote policy, Caltech  “prohibits retaliation against an individual who makes a good faith disclosure of suspected wrongful conduct.” The Institute also maintains whistleblower hotlines online or by phone.

If you need to discuss labor law violations or if you are experiencing retaliation in the workplace, take action to get the resolution you deserve. Get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw L.L.P. With conveniently located employment law offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago; we are here when you need help.

California Youth Prison Worker Threatened Black Co-Worker with Noose

According to a recent lawsuit, a maintenance worker at a California youth prison outside Los Angeles threatened a black co-worker, Gales, aged 57, with a noose. The maintenance worker who threw a noose over a light fixture at Ventura Youth Correctional Facility in May 2017 kept his job, but Darren Gales, the black co-worker to which the threat was made, was forced to go on leave after experiencing retaliation in connection with the event.

When Gales' co-worker threw the noose over a nearby light fixture and said, "someone or something needs to be hanged today," Gales, the sole black employee in the prison's procurement department, filed a discrimination complaint and let his manager know about the incident. He later overheard the maintenance worker who made the threat in a conversation with another manager in which the manager pledged to support the maintenance worker.

After overhearing this conversation, Gales went on a doctor-ordered medical leave to reduce both anxiety and stress. His physician extended the leave until January 2, 2018, when Gales returned to his job. Upon returning, Gales was told his job duties were revised in his absence – he was limited to desk duty and required to notify his boss every time he left his desk. Gales' benefits were reduced, and he received a disciplinary notice regarding the incident that started it all (well after the 30-day window to issue this type of notice passed).  

Gales was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder related to the alleged discriminatory incident and left his job again on February 7, 2018. He has not been able to return to the job. He seeks compensation for lost wages and benefits as well as damages for emotional pain and suffering.  

If you need to discuss an incident of discrimination in the workplace, please call one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP's various locations: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago. We are ready to be your advocate as you seek resolution for labor law violations in the workplace.

Is Starbucks Misgendering Trans Woman a Violation of Labor Law?

Starbucks recently claimed that misgendering or calling an employee by the wrong pronoun is not harassment, which is in direct contradiction to their employee guidelines. A former Starbucks employee, Maddie Wade, filed a complaint at the Fresno Superior Court in California suing the company for harassment and discrimination.

Wade, a former barista at a Starbucks in Fresno, alleges that when she began her transition, her manager at the time reduced her work hours and refused to call her by preferred pronouns. She also claims that her former Starbucks manager began posting transphobic material online through social media outlets. Wade claims that she was bullied and targeted by her manager at the Fresno Starbucks daily after she came out as transgender.

Allegedly, the mistreatment by her boss, Dustin Guthrie, escalated to unbearable levels and Wage had to transfer to a different Starbucks location. The harassment continued at the next Starbucks location. Wade claims her manager at the new site encouraged her to take the matter to the District Manager, and she did, but the situation was not resolved. After nine years of employment, Wade eventually left her position at Starbucks at the advice of her therapist due to the mental stress and “intolerable conditions” she was forced to endure.

Wade seeks general damages, special damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees from her former employer. She states that the loss of health insurance prevented her from receiving the treatment and procedures she needs to complete her transition. Wade also claims that Starbuck’s value marketing group for its LGBTQ employees on the Facebook page, Starbucks Partners – Pride Alliance Network, refuses to allow her to post on its wall.

It is ironic that as we enter Pride Month, Starbucks seems to be making moves counter to its public record highlighting LGBTQ acceptance. The company is reasonably well known for its LGBTQ acceptance: scoring 100 out of 100 on Human Rights Campaign’s 2018 Corporate Equality Index, releasing annual LGBTQ-focused products, rolling out trans-inclusive health care included in their benefits package, etc. Attorneys representing the massive coffee provider are filing a motion for summary judgment and arguing that there is not enough evidence to show that Guthrie was calling Wade by incorrect pronouns on purpose. Without proof of intent, the Defendant contends that the behavior in itself cannot constitute discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

If you have questions about filing a discrimination lawsuit or if you experienced discrimination in the workplace, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with employment law office nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.