$90M Spent by Popular Ride Share and Food Delivery App Companies to Avoid Better Pay for Drivers

Uber, Lyft, and Doordash…all familiar names to most Americans. The three have not only become household names because of the services their companies provide, but because they seem to be constantly in the news facing lawsuits from their drivers. Most recently, Uber, Lyft and Doordash are actively fighting against legal actions seeking better pay for their drivers. In fact, they will spend an estimated $90 million just to avoid paying their drivers higher wages.

The three companies, along with other gig companies, have spent months attempting to talk the California legislature out of passing a bill that would effectively strengthen the employment protections of their “drivers.” The bill is now on the verge of final passage with a solid endorsement from the governor. And the chance to talk the legislature over their way of thinking seems to have come and gone. In response, the three powerful gig companies have contributed $30 million each to support a ballot initiative protecting them from the requirement to classify their drivers as employees.

This makes the campaign one of the most expensive in the history of California, right behind the $105 million campaign by dialysis companies last year to beat Proposition 8 because it would have placed limits on how much they charge for their services. In comparison, supporters of the measure were only able to gather $20 million.

The action taken by Uber, Lyft and Doordash creates a virtual $90 million war chest and is another example of how the “big money” is usually not aligned with the interests of the ordinary citizen. This type of big spending is usually a bargain for the donors involved. They stand to gain a lot more from defeating this type of ballot measure that goes against their interests (or supporting the passage of a bill that enriches them) than they are required to spend to make a difference. The $30 million contributions per gig company seems far less substantial when compared to the annual revenues of the companies actively supporting the campaign.

Uber collected $15.7 billion in revenue in the second quarter (that ended June 30th).

Lyft collected $867.3 million in revenue in the second quarter (that ended June 30th).

Both the companies are losing significant revenue (Uber lost $5.2 billion and Lyft loses $644 million in the most recent quarter), but their losses would have been much more significant if they were required to cover the cost of their drivers’ fuel, vehicle maintenance, maintain workers compensation coverage, pay taxes, etc. These are type of expenses that would require reimbursement if the classification of their drivers were to leave them eligible for employment protections under FLSA.

If you have questions about unpaid overtime or if you need to find out how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

National Implications of Unpaid Home Care Overtime Lawsuit?

A Los Angeles County unpaid home care overtime lawsuit could have national implications. The Ninth Circuit Court recently ruled that home care providers paid through the state or county can file suit for unpaid overtime citing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Prior to this case, workers paid by the state or county to provide home care were exempt from overtime laws at both the state and federal level.

The introduction of a new Department of Labor (DOL) regulation changed the scenario in 2015, but the change didn’t occur without some kickback. The new regulation was set to go into effect on the first day of 2015, but a federal court in Washington, D.C. blocked it. This ruling was overturned later that same year. In response to the legal action, the DOL decided the new regulation would not be enforced until Nov. 12, 2015 (even though it was initially set to go into effect on January 1, 2015).

In California, compliance with the new regulation was pushed until February of 2016. This prompted an LA County home care worker (In-Home Supportive Services (HSS) program employee) to file a lawsuit to recover 13 months of unpaid overtime (overtime that would be due in accordance with the original “effective” date of the new regulation, Jan. 1, 2015). LA County moved to dismiss arguing that the county was simply acting as part of the larger state and under the 11th amendment, had immunity in this situation.

District court ruled in favor of LA County and stated that home care workers could not recover wages from prior to Nov. 12, 2015, the date “enforcement” started. Both parties filed an appeal, escalating the case to the Ninth Circuit Court.

The Ninth Circuit Court judge maintained that the county had 11th amendment immunity and also that home care service providers could file suit to recover unpaid overtime wages earned as of the original Jan. 1, 2015 effective date of the new DOL regulation. The ruling could mean a significant financial blow for LA County since the county currently employs an estimated 170,000 home care workers in the IHSS program. Additionally, the implications could easily reach outside of this particular case in this specific county. The ruling could open the door to further collective actions filed by home care workers employed through various government programs with more collective actions likely to pop up in different counties.

William A. Dombi, President of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) disagrees. He went on record stating that holding county-level government employers liable for overtime wages during a time period when federal court specifically vacated the requirement is unfair. He also noted that any impact would be limited by the two-year limit on filing FLSA actions.

If you have questions about overtime violations or if you need to discuss your rights as an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

The Hooters Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settlement

In recent news, two male employees at a Hooters restaurant claim they were sexually harassed by a male boss while on the job and then retaliated against when they complained about their boss’s alleged misconduct. Both filed sexual harassment lawsuits against the Hooters restaurant chain. The first plaintiff, Paul “PJ” Cagnina, obtained an undisclosed settlement in May 2017. The second plaintiff, Scott Peterson, appeared to come to a settlement regarding the case in July 2019. 

On July 16th, Hooters attorneys filed paperwork with the Los Angeles Superior Court stating that the part of the case filed by Scott Peterson was resolved. No terms of any settlement were divulged.

The original suit was filed in March of 2016 seeking unspecified damages and a court order requiring Hooters to stop allowing sexual harassment and retaliation on the job. In court papers, the company stated that they have a strict policy the forbids any form of sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation and the attorneys for the defendant argued the plaintiffs did not suffer any damages.  

Peterson, one of the plaintiffs in the case, claimed his boss touched him inappropriately, talked about him in a sexually demeaning way while they were in meetings with Hooters general managers, and sent photos to the plaintiff of a female co-worker claiming to have slept with her.

Cagnina, the other plaintiff in the case, claimed that his boss threw him down on the ground in the parking lot after a bikini contest at the Hooters in Costa Mesa and engaged in a simulated act of sex with the plaintiff in front of other people still on site. Cagnina also claimed that his supervisor repeatedly tried to get him to go skinny dipping with women who worked at the restaurant who were Cagnina’s subordinates on the job. Cagnina claims that when he was being honored as a new general manager, the boss publicly referred to unflattering and sexually demeaning nicknames like PGay and “cagina.”

Both plaintiffs claimed they experienced retaliation in the workplace after they complained about the boss’ alleged behavior with Peterson claiming he was ultimately fired as a result of complaining about the misconduct.

If you need to file a discrimination lawsuit or if you have been wrongfully terminated, the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch today so we can help you protect your rights.

Will Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Force Google HR Changes?

The recent settlement Google reached for an age discrimination lawsuit included wide range change in the company’s HR practices – particularly their recruiting practices and employee surveys. This lawsuit was different than others with similar claims due to the management changes the plaintiffs demanded. It is a good example of the potential impact discrimination lawsuits can have on hiring and firing.

The original complaint was filed in 2015. The Google age discrimination lawsuit alleged that the median age for U.S. workers is 42, but that Google’s median employee age is 29. The suit further claimed that Google favored job applicants under 40 in their hiring process. The lead plaintiff in the case was Cheryl Fillekes, who has a Ph.D. in geophysics. She was invited to four separate job interviews with Google from the age of 47+, but she was never hired. She claimed it was due to age discrimination and filed a complaint in federal court in California.

The age discrimination class action case was settled in federal court for $11 million. Over 200 parties were involved. As a result of this case, Google was required to train their employees and managers regarding age-based bias. They also had to create a subcommittee for their recruiting operations that focused solely on age diversity in their engineering departments. Google will need to make sure that their marketing reflects age diversity, and that employees leaving the company are surveyed about any possible discrimination.

The plaintiffs in the case hope that the training and survey requirements included in the settlement raise awareness of the issue of age discrimination as well as help to decrease bias against older, highly experienced tech professionals who struggle to find employment. The purpose of the subcommittee is to make sure the hiring process is not structured to discriminate against older applicants and the increased diversity in marketing materials is intended to encourage a more diverse group of applicants.

If you have experienced age discrimination during the hiring process or in the workplace, please get in touch with the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP so we can help.

Muslim Employee Brings Claims of Harassment and Discrimination

L.A. Department of Water and Power (DWP) is facing a harassment and discrimination lawsuit from an employee. Saiara Shams filed the lawsuit in L.A. Superior Court alleging she was the target of derogatory comments about her religion made by co-workers. She also alleged that her co-workers retaliated after she reported wasteful contracts and that she was blocked from promotions at the company.

Shams claims she was the victim of a years-long campaign of harassment, retaliation and discrimination in the workplace. A spokesman from the company, DWP, refused to comment other than to state that litigation was pending, and they take any allegation of discrimination seriously. Other DWP cited in the lawsuit did go on record publicly regarding the lawsuit: Ana Romero, Henry Williams, Zebbra Corbin, and Glenn Barry.

Shams was born in Bangladesh but moved to California in 1997 and became an American citizen in 2000. She was employed by DWP on their team managing the power grid. She was the only Muslim woman in the department. Romero, cited earlier, was her supervisor. Romero allegedly made fun of her accent, made comparisons between her and Islamic terrorists, advised her to take an English writing class because she wasn’t US-born, and openly voiced her regret over not hiring a Latinx person.  

Romero, according to court documents and an interview with The Times, allegedly made fun of Shams’ accent, compared her to Islamic terrorists, told her she “needed to take an English writing class because she was not born in the U.S,” and lamented that she would have rather hired a Latinx employee. Shams claims that the harassment and discrimination escalated with other employees getting involved. The comments began to come more frequently if there was a terrorist attack.

Shams claims that she reported the behavior repeatedly, but that management at DWP did not stop or punish those who were involved in the harassment, discrimination and retaliation.

If you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, our employment law attorneys have the resources and experience companies fear in litigation. Let us help you protect your rights as a California employee. 

Discrimination Lawsuit: Wilshire Hospice Allegedly Denied Reasonable Accommodations for Disability

Victoria Thorp, a former employee of Wilshire Health and Community Services alleged in a recent discrimination lawsuit that she requested reasonable accommodations for her disability and was denied. She also claims that Wilshire Health fired her due to the request for reasonable accommodations.

Thorp filed the discrimination lawsuit against Wilshire Health on August 8th, 2019. Allegations include discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination.

Thorp was a full-time employee of Wilshire as a licensed registered nurse. Her employment with the company started on Sept. 26, 2017. She was diagnosed with a serious medical condition qualifying as a disability under applicable provisions of California Fair Employment and Housing Act on October 28, 2017. After her diagnosis, Thorp claims she informed her managers as well as Wilshire human resources of her disability and requested accommodations that would enable her to fulfill her job duties and continue in her employment with the company. According to the lawsuit, Wilshire and its managers involved in the incident refused to even engage with Thorp in discussing how the situation could be managed.

Thorp claims that the company refused to provide her with accommodations even though she was completely honest in her communication regarding the matter and offered them all the necessary medical information. According to the timeline presented in the lawsuit, Wilshire took action on March 28, 2019. They allegedly made false accusations that Thorp violated her stated physical restrictions, informed her that no further accommodations would be offered, denied her the chance to apply for other vacant positions with the company that she was qualified for (in violation of Fair Employment Housing Act) and forced her to take a leave of absence.

Less than a week later, Wilshire demanded Thorp appear to sign documents and turn in her phone and laptop. The demand was for her immediate appearance, and Thorp requested a postponement until she had a chance to confer with legal counsel. Her request was allegedly refused. Wilshire then issued Thorp a letter of termination.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you are being denied reasonable accommodations for a disability, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Our employment law attorneys have the resources and experience to help you protect your rights in the workplace.

YouTube Facing Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by their LGBTQ Creators

In recent news, GNews!, a group of LGBTQ creators, are suing YouTube, the popular video platform, and their parent company, Google. The group is alleging that YouTube restricts their abilities to generate revenue with their videos due to their sexual orientation. The discrimination lawsuit was filed in federal court in California in August 2019 and is seeking class action status.

The plaintiffs’ legal counsel argues that YouTube regularly engages in discriminatory, anticompetitive, and unlawful conduct. The standard practice is harmful to LGPTQ, a protected group of persons under California law. A spokesperson from YouTube responded to the lawsuit on record stating:

“We’re proud that so many LGBTQ creators have chosen YouTube as a place to share their stories and build community. All content on our site is subject to the same policies. Our policies have no notion of sexual orientation or gender identity and our systems do not restrict or demonetize videos based on these factors or the inclusion of terms like “gay” or “transgender.” In addition, we have strong policies prohibiting hate speech, and we quickly remove content that violates our policies and terminate accounts that do so repeatedly.”

The GNews! group consists of Bria Kam, Chrissy Chambers (BriaandChrissy), Chase Ross (uppercaseCHASE1), Lindsay Amer (Queer Kid Stuff), and Amp Somers (Watts The Safeword). The group’s lawsuit claims that YouTube labels their uploads offensive and sexually explicit, but only because of their sexual orientation and that their videos are consistently demonetized. They also claim that YouTube changes the GNews! thumbnail videos and excludes them from content recommendations. As a result of YouTube’s actions, the group claims that they receive suppressed view counts.

The group further claims that while YouTube actively discriminates against their account due to the creators’ sexual orientation, the company does nothing to enforce their own content policies against LGBTQ harassment. The group of LGBTQ creators published a video on YouTube discussing YouTube’s mishandling of homophobic speech by one of their users and YouTube CEO’s apology for the situation described in the high-profile case involving a far-right YouTube commentator named Steven Crowder who mocked gay Vox journalist Carlos Maza on the platform. GNews! claims this was simply a PR exercise and that YouTube does not take these issues seriously.

If you have questions about how to protect your rights in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Our employment law attorneys have the resources and experience companies fear in litigation.