Former J.P. Morgan Advisor’s Wrongful Termination Case Moves Forward

After being revived on appeal, a former J.P. Morgan Advisor’s wrongful termination lawsuit has another chance. The lawsuit has already failed to prevail twice (in arbitration and court), but the California wrongful termination lawsuit has one another shot thanks to the appeals court.

The lower court’s ruling was reversed by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling was vacated and the arbitration award that denied the plaintiff’s claims was vacated. According to an October 24th memorandum, arbitrators violated the Bradley Sayre’s (the plaintiff) right to due process when they refused to postpone hearings in July 2017 after Sayre’s attorney became ill and the California-based broker requested a delay to provide care for a newborn.

This decision provides Sayre with the chance to revive the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration claim alleging J.P. Morgan Chase Bank violated labor law regulations through wrongful termination. Sayre filed the claim in May 2015 after J.P. Morgan dismissed him from his job in March 2014. He seeks over $830,000 in damages for the loss of his book of business.

The Plaintiff’s History at the Company:

Sayre, the plaintiff in the wrongful termination case against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, joined the bank as a branch-based Private Client unit in 2011 in San Diego. Before the San Diego position, Sayre ran a La Jolla office for Edward Jones for four years. He is currently listed as broker on record with USAA Financial Advisors out of San Diego, California according to public information databases.

According to Sayre, he was told to destroy marketing materials while working for the bank. The destruction of these particular materials would help the bank avoid liability issues in connection to a federal investigation of J.P. Morgan’s sale of collateralized derivative products. Sayre felt uncomfortable with the situation and filed internal complaints about the situation. He claims his managers purposefully arranged for his firing due to the internal complaints he made about the destruction of the potentially damaging marketing material.

The decision on appeal does not address the allegations made in Sayre’s original claim, but it is notable that the appellate court vacated an arbitration award. It is not a common result.

If you have questions about how to identify wrongful termination or if you need to file a wrongful termination 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.

Will College Athletes Finally Succeed in Legally Obtaining the Right to Earn a Wage?

The NCAA is facing a new lawsuit; another attempt to get wages for hard working college athletes. The suit was filed by former Villanova football player, Trey Johnson, and alleges that college athletes should be categorized as employees and receive pay similar to students in approved work-study programs on college campuses.

Johnson filed the wage and hour class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court. In addition to the NCAA, Johnson listed 22 Division I universities as defendants. Currently playing in the Canadian Football League, Johnson asks for unpaid wages for the time he spent playing football for Villanova.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff believes that all athletes should receive pay regardless of which sport they play. Plaintiff’s counsel claims that the NCAA could accomplish this task by next fall if they buckled down and got to it simply by including the athletes in the same pool as the work-study students.

Trey Johnson’s lawsuit is the latest in a string of suits and challenges to the NCAA’s long-held practice preventing student athletes from making any money. The NCAA’s board of governors did recently announce that there are plans to modify the rule restricting athletes from accepting endorsement deals. This proposed change followed the passing of a California law making it illegal for California colleges to prohibit endorsement deals (effective 2023). The moves being made by NCAA administrators are an attempt to relieve pressure from both the federal and state level while still defending the NCAA against civil lawsuits that claim current practices violate antitrust laws.

Johnson claims every athlete for the college is an employee of the school and that as employees they deserve an hourly wage for their “work.” He also argues that the hourly wage offered should be equal or comparable to peers/other students involved in work-study programs who are performing other work on campus like stocking books in library shelves, or selling concessions at events, etc. This would typically mean a rate of $10-15/hour.

If you need to talk to someone about wage and hour law or if you need to file a wage and hour 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.

Disney Attempts to Prevent Class Action Pay Inequality Lawsuit

Several employees sued Disney alleging pay inequality based in gender discrimination. Disney attempted to prevent the potential class action from moving forward, but the plaintiffs pushed back insisting that their claims need to be investigated rather than dismissed outright.

Disney attempted to dismiss the gender pay inequality allegations claiming the pay differences were based on other factors like education, seniority, etc. According to California’s Equal Pay Act, the centuries old practice of paying female workers less than their male counterparts is harmful to the State’s economic health.

Disney’s spokesperson claims Disney is firmly committed to equitable pay and is prepared to engage with any workers that feel they are experiencing gender discrimination affecting their pay. The company insists that the plaintiffs have misrepresented the facts and mischaracterized the company’s practices. Disney’s legal counsel challenged the plaintiffs’ counsel in their attempt to invoke a class action procedure arguing that the matter is unsuited to the resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims since they are each inherently individualized.

The pay discrimination lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in April 2019 by two Walt Disney employees: LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. According to the suit, Rasmussen was a Disney worker for 11 years. Her most recent job title with Disney was Product Development Manager. The 2nd plaintiff, Moore, worked for Disney for 23 years and was a Senior Copyright Admin Administrator for the studio’s music division. 

Additional plaintiffs joined the case in September 2019. The 10 plaintiffs involved in the case are employed in various areas of the Disney enterprise including: Hollywood Records, Disney Imagineering, Walt Disney Studios, and Disney ABC Television. The number of plaintiffs indicates the matter may be eligible for class action status and plaintiffs’ counsel has encouraged other Disney workers who believe they have experienced gender discrimination to come forward and join the class action.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or if you are experiencing gender discrimination at work, 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.

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.