When Companies/Vendors Are Linked to Deaths, Amazon Cuts Ties and Contracts

Did you know that over 2,000 workers in eight different states are going to lose their jobs because Amazon is dropping three different major delivery firms after news and media mentions? Amazon abruptly canceled their contracts even though doing so will leave thousands out of work. This move seems to indicate a change in how the massive online retailer plans to fulfill millions of orders with millions of packages being delivered across the nation daily. 

The 3 Major Delivery Firms Losing their Amazon Contract: 

Inpax Shipping Solutions is based out of Atlanta, Georgia. They’ve estimated that the loss of the Amazon contract will result in approximately 925 layoffs in six different states. Layoffs began at the beginning of October 2019. They will stop all services for Amazon by the beginning of December.  

Sheard-Loman Transport is located out of Chicago, Illinois. They described the loss of the Amazon contract as entirely unexpected. In a recent court filing, they noted that the Amazon contract would not be renewed, and it was cause for serious concern. The loss of the Amazon contract will lead to the termination of about 200 employees in three different states across the nation. This shipping company stopped delivering Amazon orders in September 2019. 

Letter Ride LLC, out of San Diego, California, will also be losing its Amazon contract. They will start laying off approximately 897 drivers, dispatchers, and other workers in December 2019. 

All three contract terminations follow investigations by online news sources into Amazon’s delivery network’s explosive growth. The investigations focused on extreme financial pressure combined with intense deadline pressure from Amazon on their ever-growing fleet of delivery companies and independent contractor drivers. The reports indicated that the situation often leads to mistreatment of the workforce and a threat to the public’s safety. In the course of the investigation and the following report, numerous deaths were linked to each of the above-noted delivery service companies. 

Loved ones of the victims actively seek changes to the way Amazon manages their delivery forces. They wish for a higher prioritization of worker and pedestrian safety when contracting out to various last-mile delivery services. Instead of seeing progressive change in policy or management practices, these advocates of driver and pedestrian safety claim they only see Amazon attempting to hide behind third-party contractors to escape their responsibility for the situation. 

Amazon claims they work with many different carrier partners to successfully deliver packages to their customers and that they perform regular evaluations of the partnerships. They confirm they have ended their relationship with the above companies, but also state that drivers are being supported by the opportunity to provide delivery services through other local delivery service partners.  

Amazon delivery service partners see frequent employment lawsuits, some of which name Amazon as a joint employer. Employment law violations alleged often include wage and hour violations, overtime claims, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, and other FLSA violations. 

If you need to discuss potential legal responses to a breach of contract or other employment law violations, please don’t hesitate. 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.

Los Angeles and Long Beach Female Dockworkers File Discrimination Lawsuit

In a recent federal discrimination lawsuit, female dockworkers claim pregnancy discrimination against the shippers, Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 13. The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles. The lawsuit claims that the union and the shippers discriminated against pregnant dockworkers at both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. 

The pregnancy discrimination lawsuit is based on claims made by four dockworkers alleging that: 

·      they did not receive promotions or union membership

·      they saw a decrease in pay, and 

·      they were not offered lighter duties during their pregnancies.

Other violations and claims backed claims of pregnancy discrimination. At least one female dockworker who suffered a miscarriage was forced to return to work before she was ready. According to the lawsuit, male workers did not see similar consequences of missing similarly lengthy stretches of work. The attorney representing the women in the case suggested that this particular claim could apply to hundreds of dockworkers. Women make up about 40% of LA and Long Beach’s casual workforce, but the policies do not reflect the situation. This case aims to bring the situation to light.

When asked about the situation, other dockworkers had a lot to say. One California female dockworker named Tonya stated that she worked at the Port of Oakland for five years and experienced similarly discriminatory behavior. She said it happened all the time. She recalls one man who started as a checker. He took three out of five months off work at one point due to family issues without any problems. He was promoted not long afterward. A woman who worked in the same location during the same timeframe and in a similar position had a baby and took maternity leave. When she returned from maternity leave, other workers were promoted above her, who had significantly less experience and were newer hires. When the woman asked about the situation, she was told she lacked commitment to the job.

Dockworkers are usually offered generous hours off during active military deployment or when they have experienced an injury on the job. Following these periods off, employees are generally still provided back pay and offered promotions as if they never left work. But when the stretch of “off the job” time is related to pregnancy, there is a pattern of negative consequences. It acts as a blemish on their work record. One female dockworker described it as feeling as though she were being punished because she wanted to have a baby.

If you are experiencing pregnancy discrimination or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact 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.

$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.