$1.25 Million to Settle Dish Network Discrimination Lawsuit

In recent news, Dish Network agreed to pay a $1.25 million settlement. The settlement would serve as compensation to job seekers who filed suit alleging that the company's online application process denied them the chance to work at the Douglas County location. Dish Network also agreed to alter their online hiring process to accommodate disabled applicants. Dish will add a prominent statement to applications advising that reasonable accommodations will be provided with instructions on how to obtain them. 

As agreed in the settlement, Dish Network will also hire a third-party consultant to evaluate the Dish Network online assessment and suggest revisions. Questions included in the application process's online assessment will be carefully considered and limited to those related to the skills needed for the jobs posted.  

Dish Network also agreed to appoint a compliance officer to provide training and monitor the online application process for compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act. The Act states that employers are required to ensure that all individuals with disabilities are offered the opportunity to request an accommodation, even if the application process is conducted online.  

The Dish Network spokeswoman, Caroline Krause, stated the company was pleased to resolve the matter. The settlement is not a finding that employment law was violated. Krause also noted that the agreement "codifies practices Dish put in place years ago to ensure all individuals, regardless of disability status, have the opportunity to apply for employment…"

Dish Network is one of the United State's largest video television providers employing approximately 17,000 workers. This is not the first time Dish Network has faced severe legal allegations. In 2005, Dish's parent company, Echostar Communications Corp., was hit with an $8 million damage judgment due to another disability case. In 2015, the court found for Dish after they fired an employee who failed a drug test after taking marijuana off-duty to treat a medical condition. In 2017, Dish Network faced a $280 million civil penalty for repeated Do Not Call Registry violations.

If you need to discuss an employer's refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for your disability, 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.

Is the Supreme Court Divided on LGBT Job Discrimination Case?

The Supreme Court appears divided as they struggle over whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT workers from employment discrimination. The cases under consideration are the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the place of the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court’s four liberal justices are expected to side with the employees terminated due to their sexual orientation or transgender status. The question was whether or not one of the court’s conservatives would join the four liberals in siding with the employees in either of the two highly anticipated cases. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that strong arguments favored LGBT workers. He also stated that there was a question of whether or not justices of the court should take the “massive social upheaval” that could follow such a ruling into account when coming to a decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two other conservatives, did not openly indicate their views on the matter, but Roberts did question how employers who hold religious objections to hiring LGBT individuals could be affected by the outcome of the cases.

In one of the cases, a skydiving instructor and a government employee (at the county level) were both fired because they were gay. 

In the second case, a transgender funeral home director named Aimee Stephens was fired. Stephens attended court the day of the arguments.

If the court were to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers LGBT individuals, it could lead to some required changes to:

·      Locker rooms

·      Bathrooms

·      Women’s Shelters

·      School Sports Teams 

The argument led to a discussion that lawmakers should be in charge of changing the law, not unelected judges. Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, apparently agreed with this sentiment stating that 1964’s Congress could not have imagined the law to apply to sexual orientation or gender identity cases when it was created. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presented the counter-argument that the Congress of 1964 also did could not foresee sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination.

A decision is expected in the early summer of 2020. 

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination 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 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.