Former Vungle CEO Files Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, Zain Jaffer, former Vungle founder, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. He alleges that the mobile ad company wrongfully terminated him from his position in the role of CEO. In the lawsuit, Jaffer claims that Vungle violated the California labor code, citing the prohibition of discrimination and retaliation by employers based on an arrest or detention without conviction.

Defining Wrongful Termination: In terms of the law, wrongful termination is defined as any situation in which an employee’s contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment or a statute provision or rule in employment law. 

In October 2017, Jaffer was arrested after an incident involving his son. He was charged with performing lewd acts on a child and assault with a deadly weapon. The charges were later dropped. The San Mateo District Attorney’s Office stated that it did not believe Mr. Jaffer engaged in any sexual misconduct on the night of the incident. They also concluded that the “injuries” were a result of Mr. Jaffer being unconscious due to prescription medication.

After the incident was resolved, Jaffer started to look for options to sell his Vungle shares or pursue a different leadership position at the company. In the lawsuit, Jaffer claims he was looking forward to proceeding with a friendly relationship with the company, but instead, Vungle attempted to destroy his career by blocking his efforts to sell his shares or transfer his shares to family members. He also claims that the company tried to prevent him from purchasing company shares. 

Jaffer does not specify the amount he is seeking in the suit, but his attorney has gone on record stating that he suffered at least $100 million worth of harm and that the amount awarded for damages would be entirely up to the jury. She did note that an employee in a similar case won close to $20 million.

If you need to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, don’t hesitate to 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.

$4.9 Million Settles Montebello Unified Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Former superintendent, Susanna Contreras Smith, is to receive a $4.9 million settlement after the appeal of her wrongful termination lawsuit. She and her attorney were also awarded $6 million in damages and attorneys fees. 

Cleve Pell, former chief financial and operations officer, also sued the district. He received $2.6 million in damages and attorney fees but has not settled yet.

Robert Alaniz, the district spokesman, stated that Montebello Unified is glad to have the matter settled. With the issue resolved, the district can move forward, focusing on its mission to offer excellence in public schooling, create positive learning environments, programs, and services so students can excel. 70% of the cost will be covered by the district’s insurance company, with the remainder coming out of the general fund. 

When Does Termination Become Wrongful Termination? In legal terms, the phrase wrongful termination refers to a situation in which an employee’s contract of employment is terminated by their employer when that termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment in place, a statute provision, or any federal or state employment law.  

The Montebello Unified School District recently had financial difficulties that resulted in the hiring of a fiscal advisor, Mark Skvarna. Skvarna offered oversight for all the district’s financial decisions. In response to the settlement, Skvarna stated that there would only be a minimal impact on the Montebello Unified School District’s budget. He advised the district to close out any lawsuits they could. One-time settlements protect them from the difficulties of open liability.

If you have been wrongfully terminated from your job, 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. 

Another Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against PIMCO

A Pacific Investment Management Co. lawyer, Andrea Martin Inokon, is suing the firm. She alleges that the firm discriminated against her regarding pay, mentorship, and promotions. Pacific Investment Management Co., the $1.84 trillion asset manager, denied the allegations. 

Inokon served as PIMCO senior counsel. She filed suit in September 2019 in the Superior Court of California in Orange County. Inokon listed three Defendants in the lawsuit: PIMCO, deputy general counsel Rick LeBrun, and David Flattum, global general counsel. Inokon claims she was passed over for promotions she earned because she was pregnant. In the lawsuit, she claims that women at the firm who are mothers are identified as choosing family over work and labeled as not wanting to advance in their career or receive equal pay.

PIMCO’s spokesperson denied the gender discrimination allegations made in the suit. The spokesperson categorically denied the accusations about PIMCO’s general employment policies and the details of Inokon’s employment circumstances. The company insists that they will show that the plaintiff was treated fairly, received fair pay due to her job duties and her performance.

Inokon is suing for Fair Employment and Housing Act violations, wrongful retaliation, California Equal Pay Act violations, and intentional misrepresentation. She seeks punitive damages.

According to allegations in Inokon’s complaint, PIMCO operates similar to a fraternity. Allegedly, the firm’s senior officers encouraged workers to drink and socialize at strip clubs, poker nights, and golf outings. Inokon, an African American woman, also alleged that white men were over-represented at every level of the firm’s management and leadership. She also alleged that the leadership at the firm interfered with, limited, and prevented female employees from receiving adequate credit for the job duties.

Inokon’s attorney stated that her client was inspired to come forward by the #metoo movement. Inokon sees the case as larger than herself, with finance being one of the few remaining male enclaves where these types of environments continue to thrive. Inokon seeks the release of PIMCO’s compensation records to prove whether or not PIMCO paid her and other staff members fairly.

Inokon claims she was passed over for promotions. She also claims that LeBrun approved her request to work remotely to care for her mother (with the stipulation that she check in with the New York office twice a week). He advised Inokon that he would let Flattum know of the arrangement. Once Inokon started to prepare to move to her new location, LeBrun did an about-face and told her she could not work remotely. Inokon alleges LeBrun told her she would be terminated from her position if she did not work four days of the week in the New York office. Around this same time, Inokon discovered she was pregnant. She advised LeBrun of the pregnancy and that she would likely not be able to travel to New York as required.

These are not the first tine PIMCO has faced allegations of this type.

If you need to discuss how 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.

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.