Former Tinder Exec Attorneys File Motion to Dismiss Retaliatory Defamation Suit

Greg Blatt, the former Tinder CEO, filed a defamation lawsuit in response to claims made by Sean Rad and Rosette Pambakian. Rad and Pambakian are part of a larger group of Tinder founders and former execs who accused Blatt of sexual harassment and assault, amongst other allegations. Rad and Pambakian's legal counsel responded to the defamation lawsuit with a motion to dismiss. They based the motion on the argument that the defamation suit was an attempt to hinder protected speech through costly litigation. California's anti-SLAPP law prohibits this type of lawsuit.

Rad and Pambakian's attorney further argued that Blatt's defamation lawsuit was an attempt to muzzle their clients; to stop them from telling the truth about Diller and Blatt's wage theft and sexual assault coverup. They claim the defamation lawsuit is nothing more than an unlawful retaliatory lawsuit and, as such, is in violation of the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. Rad and Pambakian's legal counsel argued that the defamation suit was intended to launch a smear campaign against Pambakian and the individual who reported the sexual assault. The attorneys also indicate that Blatt only altered his course (requesting the complaint he himself filed now be sent to private arbitration) because he already reached his media objective through the public filing.

Blatt's attorney denies the accusations, claiming that they will prevail in court.

Both suits (Blatt's defamation suit and the new case filing) have been connected to the #metoo movement, which has seen many high-profile figures accused of sexual assault respond by filing defamation lawsuits. Blatt's attorneys insist that Rad and Pambakian are weaponizing the #metoo movement and undermining the claims of actual assault and harassment victims with false accusations. They even claim the plaintiffs in the case are cynically pursuing the $2 billion in damages.

If you have questions about how to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace or if you need to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

What is the Private Attorney General’s Act and Why Should California Workers Care?

Many experts agree that it is open season on American workers. The increasing volatility of political discussions on both sides of the argument lends credence to this belief. As an American worker, it's more important than ever to get out and vote for pro-labor candidates. It's vital to vote for candidates actively seeking to protect the laborer because the winning candidate can nominate individuals to fill Supreme Court vacancies. The judges on the Supreme Court interpret labor law. Currently, labor law interpretations at the Supreme Court level are unarguably one-sided in favor of companies leaving the American worker without the ability to bring a class action.

 California's Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) was passed in 2004, allowing individuals to bring what would otherwise be state claims for penalties when their employer violates employment law. This powerful law enables employees to take action and enforce California's strict wage laws and safety laws by effectively circumventing the mandatory arbitration agreements many California employees are forced to sign.

Employees who sign a mandatory arbitration agreement cannot file a class-action lawsuit. For these workers, PAGA is their only means of obtaining justice (through PAGA penalties) when their employer does not pay accurate wages as determined by the California Labor Code and the California Wage Orders. The state of California oversees PAGA lawsuits, and the state can intervene in any PAGA case if they find it necessary. Additionally, every PAGA settlement is approved by the Judge, and also the state of California (via the Labor and Workforce Development Agency). The introduction of PAGA has had a significant effect throughout the state of California.

 PAGA Benefits the Government:

 1. Increased Revenue for the State: PAGA generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue for the state, with private attorneys doing the legwork.

2. Enforcement of the Law: The ability to enforce the law provides the necessary balance we need to give California companies a reason to comply with the law. The law is not the problem in today's workplace; the problem is enforcement. If there is no method of enforcing the law, the number of employment law violations in California will skyrocket. 

 PAGA Benefits California Businesses:

 1. With the PAGA providing an efficient method of enforcement, California businesses are far less likely to "cheat to compete." Cheat to compete refers to business practices used as a means of increasing profitability (regardless of the law and often at the expense of employees). With the PAGA providing California companies with a healthy dose of fear, employers who ARE dedicated to following the law are not left at a disadvantage.

 PAGA Benefits California Workers:

 1. Protects their Rights as an Employee: In addition to allowing employees to seek payment for their losses due to employment law violations, the ability to seek justice through the PAGA results in significant positive change in California's workplaces. Most, if not all, companies who are brought to task for employment law violations under PAGA change their practices because they don't want to face the same situation (or penalty) again. The change in unlawful business practices benefits all employees who work for the company now and in the future.

2. Circumvents Supreme Court: It provides individual employees the opportunity to go as a group and bring individual actions in arbitration to counteract the ability to bring class actions.

 PAGA Benefits the Economy:

 1. Even Playing Field: California has been booming since the law was passed in 2004. One of the reasons behind the state's healthy economy is PAGA. The law makes sure employees are not underpaid, misclassified, or paid under the table.

 If the PAGA goes away – so does the California worker's protections against employment law violations. PAGA claims are not for technical violations, as the PAGA law provides employers with time to cure their violations after notification with no penalties incurred for technical violations. PAGA claims to address a variety of employment law violations, including unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, missed meal breaks, missed rest breaks, misclassification, unreimbursed business expenses, and miscalculated pay rates. An employee who brings a PAGA claim still has the opportunity to sue their employer for an individual wage claim since PAGA claims are brought on behalf of the State of California for additional penalties for labor code violations.

 You could consider the current attack against the PAGA as a testament to its success. It's an effective go around of the federal Supreme Court, a solid piece of protection for California workers. Political groups intent on backing the companies over the workers are seeking a way to remove it from the equation through referendum. Advocates of the movement to get rid of California's PAGA continue efforts to convince the electorate that the PAGA is solely a means of generating income for attorneys, when, in fact, they generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the state. 

 The PAGA is the type of law that keeps the playing field even for workers, but it helps everybody. Yet management is presenting the PAGA in a negative light as we lead up to the coming election in hopes that California workers will not stand up and vote for the candidate that will protect their rights as employees. Protections for employees under PAGA are overwhelming. That's why California has prospered in recent years.

 There's no doubt that employees want the PAGA or a similar law in their state. It offers the ability to bring class actions. It's all workers have to protect them. You can't even bring a claim under FLSA because of the arbitration provisions. That's how tough it's become. Without PAGA or a similar law protecting the employee, a worker's chances of protecting themselves are slim to none. As we get closer to California's March 3rd, 2020  primaries, remember to seek out the candidate that is going to help you with what you need. We need to make sure we have someone who's going to win and who's going to protect the interests of the California worker and the California companies who comply with labor law.

 If you have questions about how PAGA handles labor law violations or if you need to discuss an employment law violation, please get in touch with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. As experienced employment law attorneys, we care about the California worker, and we are actively seeking to keep laws in place that enable you to seek justice when an employer violates labor law. Our experienced labor law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Electric Vehicle Startup, Canoo, Connected to Harassment Lawsuit

After a swift rise, and only two weeks after unveiling its first electric vehicle, Canoo Inc. faces a harassment lawsuit. Christina Krause, former head of administration and communications of Canoo, and former wife of Canoo CEO Stefan Krause filed the harassment lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court. 

Christina Krause alleges numerous violations, including gender and marital discrimination, violations of California’s Equal Pay Act, harassment, breach of contract, and wrongful termination. According to the lawsuit, the California start up’s beginnings and rapid growth stemmed directly from a “gentleman’s agreement” in Hong Kong in October 2017, less than two years before the recent reveal. Canoo, previously Evelozcity, did stem from a meeting in 2017. The Hong Kong meeting involved Stefan Krause and two other men who became the leading investors: David Li and David Stern. Around the same time as this alleged meeting took place, Krause resigned from his position as CFO of Faraday Future. Investors were previously unidentified.

Christina Krause claims she was named responsible for administrative, operational and communication functions at the company. She eventually obtained the title of In Charge of Administration and Communications. She is very clear in the lawsuit that she was involved from the very beginning, even in the securing and registering of the domain name www.evelozcity.com from her personal GoDaddy account. Yet she was not named a founder. She claims she was the only one amongst the company’s first ten employees who was not designated a founder. According to Christina, Stefan Krause advised her she was not made a founder because she did not hold a critical role in the building of a vehicle. She was offered a $140,000 annual salary with a stock option to purchase 12,000 shares of Canoo stock.

In comparison, Stefan Krause and Ulrich Kranz, currently titled as In Charge at Canoo, both received salaries of $720,000 alongside 2.5 million shares of stock. Other team members at the company from the start earn a minimum of $260,000 annually. Christina claims that her situation at the company deteriorated quickly as Stefan Krause requested that she sign a postnuptial agreement. When Christina didn’t comply, he stepped down as CEO of the company claiming he had “personal reasons.”

Christina Krause claims that as her marriage fell apart, she faced increased oversight, diminished authority in her position, harassment and intimidation, an internal investigation, and termination.

If you need to talk to someone about wrongful termination or if you need to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Franchising Industry Rejoices Over Federal Appeals Court Decision Regarding McDonald’s as a Joint Employer

In a recent development, the federal appeals court held that McDonald’s could not be held liable as a joint employer of franchise location employees. The case (Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp.) involves close to 1,400 workers employed by one of McDonald’s franchise locations. The lawsuit alleges several wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code as well as negligence and relief under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Previously, the class settled with the franchise, but they sought to take the case further by holding McDonald’s responsible as the joint employer. The District Court disagreed, finding that McDonald’s was not a joint employer of the employees hired by a franchise. The court rejected the employees’ theory of joint liability for violations. The employees in the case appealed, but the Ninth Circuit court affirmed.  

What is the Law on Joint Employment Liability in California?

The Ninth Circuit court based its findings regarding joint-employer status on the meaning of “employer” as defined by California law.

An employer, as defined by California Wage Order No. 5-20001, Section 2(H), is someone who “directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.”

The definition of “employer” received further clarity through the findings of the California Supreme Court in the 2010 Martinez v. Combs decision. In this case, “employ” was further defined as:

·      the act of exercising control over the wages, hours or working conditions

·      to “suffer or permit” someone to work

·      to engage, creating a common-law relationship

The Ninth Circuit court explained that, in the context of franchising, the California Supreme Court held that a franchisor becomes potentially liable for the actions of the franchisee’s employees only if the franchisor retains or assumes an overall right of control over various factors: hiring, direction, supervision, termination, discipline, and other everyday elements of the workplace activities of franchise employees (2014 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC). 

Using these definitions, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision that McDonald’s is not liable as a joint employer:

·      McDonald’s does not retain “control” over franchise employee wages, hours, or working conditions.

·      McDonald’s does not “suffer or permit” franchise employees to work.

·      McDonald’s is not a common-law employer since the common-law test focuses on whether an employer has the right to control how the goals of the company are met by employee job duties.

The Salazar case is an important one for franchisors, franchisees, and the entire franchising industry. The Ninth Circuit court recognized that franchisor could apply control over their brand and their trademark without being held responsible as a joint employer. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ex-Dancer Sues Strip Club for Misclassification

The misclassification controversy is not exclusive to the gig economy. As the gig economy’s problems seem to escalate, problems are growing in other industries as well. In Daytona Beach, a former dancer at Grandview Live is suing the strip club claiming they owe her back wages because they misclassified her as an independent contractor when she was allegedly an employee.

Brittany Hall, former dancer at Grandview Live in Daytona Beach, claims that due to the club’s misclassification, she allegedly earned less than minimum wage and was not paid overtime. Hall, like the other exotic dancers at the club, was paid strictly in tips from customers. She worked at the strip club for over two years without overtime and receiving less than minimum wage, which attorneys for the plaintiff claim is fairly standard in the industry.

Hall claims Grandview Live owes her money because they violated wage and hour law by paying her less than minimum wage and failed to pay her overtime hours she was due. Hall also alleges that the club took tips from her in addition to their other employment law violations.

California legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 5 which will require companies to treat their workers as employees if they meet certain standards. The bill is set to go into effect January 1, 2020 and will have a massive impact on gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft and DoorDash. But it will also benefit workers like Brittany Hall, working in industries that have been around since before smartphones and apps were introduced.

Sometimes employers misclassify workers unintentionally. In some cases, it is an honest mistake. Other employers actively and purposefully misclassify their employees in order to maximize profits and minimize costs. Employers have major incentives to shift workers off their payrolls due to taxes, unemployment insurance, workers compensation premiums, etc.

If you are misclassified or if you are not being paid overtime wages for all your hours worked, please do not delay. Get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP so we can help.

9. Blind Worker in Redding to Receive $570,000 Settlement in Dignity Health Discrimination Suit

In an announcement earlier this month, the U.S. EEOC announced that Dignity Health agreed to pay a $570,000 settlement to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by Alina Sorling, a previous employee of their Mercy Medical Center in Redding.

Sorling worked as a food service technician for 10 years on the Mercy Redding campus. At that point, she suffered a severe illness that resulted in vision loss. When she lost her sight, Sorling completed the necessary training to enable her to complete everyday tasks she would need to complete on the job including cleaning, stocking, cashiering and grilling. By her account, she mastered the skills necessary to continue to live independently.

Once she completed the training necessary, she requested to return to work. She made this request in February 2015. She provided her employer with a list of accommodations that would allow her to accomplish her duties. The facility rejected her suggestions. Sorling was fired from her position with Mercy Medical in June 2015. According to the lawsuit, the company cited a vision requirement for the reason behind the termination even though the company did not test Sorling’s vision once in the ten years she had previously spent on the job.

After the unexpected loss of her sight, Sorling worked hard to complete all the necessary training and rehabilitate herself so she could learn all the necessary skills to continue to work independently without restrictions. She sought to return to the same employer she had been loyal to for over a decade. Rather than let Sorling demonstrate her abilities, the healthcare facility excluded her based on assumptions regarding her disability and how it would limit her abilities.

As a part of the settlement agreement, the healthcare company agreed to actively move forward with steps to prevent any similar forms of discrimination in the future, but Dignity did not admit any wrongdoing as a part of the agreement. They officially claim that they value their loyal employees and support any with disabilities.

Please get in touch if you would like to know more about disability discrimination in the workplace or if you need assistance filing a disability discrimination lawsuit in California. The experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can assist you in one of their law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago.

California Company that Refused to Hire ‘Non-Hispanics’ Must Now Pay $2M

Marquez Brothers, a California manufacturer of Mexican-style cheese and other food items, must pay $2 million to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed more than two years ago. The settlement was announced in September 2019.

The discrimination lawsuit was filed by two African American individuals who attempted to submit job applications. When they requested applications from the Marquez Brothers’ Hanford facility, they were refused the paperwork required to applied. One of the potential applicants had numerous years of dairy goods production experience but was not hired even though the job applicants eventually hired were far less qualified. In fact, he was not even allowed to apply at all. 

The second potential job applicant attempted to apply for a job at Marquez Brothers various times but was discouraged from applying and advised that the company was not hiring. During the course of the case, allegations were made that the Marquez Brothers routinely discriminated against non-Hispanic job applicants. The refusal to accept job applications from non-Hispanic job applicants was normal procedure. This standard practice occurred at various Marquez Brothers’ locations throughout California including Hanford, Fresno, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The discrimination was also evident at out of state plants in Texas, Nevada, and Colorado.

The two men who originally brought the discriminatory employment practices to light were African American, but further investigation into the issue showed similar acts of discrimination against other ethnicities including white, Asian, etc.

According to the settlement agreement, the company must provide monetary compensation, take steps to prevent future discrimination including hiring an external monitor, creating and implementing appropriate goals, improving training and resources for their hiring staff, and creating a system to manage and track discrimination complaints.

If you have experienced discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file an employment law lawsuit, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.