Wonderful Citrus to Pay $5 Million for Defaming Former Worker

James Jordan, a former employee of Wonderful Citrus Packaging LLP, claims he was fired by the company after 26 years on the job. Jordan also alleges that the company spread rumors that he embezzled money from the company during his time with them. The Tulare County man was awarded close to $5 million after taking his accusations against the country’s largest citrus supplier to court.  

The federal district court awarded Jordan almost $5 million in damages on October 10th in response to the defamation and wrongful termination lawsuit he filed against his former employer. Jordan’s former employer, Wonderful Citrus Packaging LLP, is best known for their boxes of Halo brand mandarin oranges that are known for being small and easy to peel.

Jordan, the plaintiff, filed the lawsuit in March 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The suit listed his former employer, Wonderful Citrus, as the Defendant on the grounds of age discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of contract, defamation of character, emotional distress, and a violation of California’s good faith and fair dealing laws.

According to court documents, Jordan was fired on November 3rd, 2017 despite being a loyal employee for over 25 years. When he was fired, he was 54 years old and was not offered any valid explanation for the termination. He claims he was replaced by someone who was significantly younger with less experience and qualifications. Before Jordan was fired, the company sent two emails out to 3-400 employees each notifying them of Jordan’s termination and clearly indicating that there had been criminal activity involved (i.e. theft and embezzlement). Allegedly, the company continued spreading rumors to about Jordan being involved in criminal activity to justify the firing including rumors of changing timecards and stealing from the company.

The plaintiff’s legal counsel argues that the company engaged in a “sham investigation” involving threats and coercion. By using these underhanded tactics, the company fabricated a reason for Jordan’s termination. Jordan’s legal counsel indicated that the company employed threats of termination when interviewing Jordan’s co-workers and subordinates. One employee being interviewed about the situation even passed out from anxiety.

Wonderful argues that Jordan was previously a loyal employee, but eventually became “self-dealing.” The company insists that it obtained info suggesting Jordan was stealing from the company in 2017. They claim that when they found out about the theft, they responded by terminating his employment. The company insists that Jordan’s suit is frivolous and a further attempt to support his own bad behavior.

 Evidence was presented for four weeks during a jury trial conducted by Judge Anthony W. Ishii. For four weeks evidence was presented revealing Wonderful Citrus did not have reasonable grounds for their accusations and that they did not have proof of their accusations. They made no offer to attempt to settle before the verdict of the jury was announced.

The jury found that the company was not in breach of contract. They also found that the company’s statements about Jordan were false and damaging to his reputation in his industry. They specifically found that the company did not determine the truth of the embezzlement accusation and that they acted with ill will towards the plaintiff when they made the accusations about stealing and embezzlement from the company.

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.

Canyons Aquatic Club Facing Wrongful Termination, Whistleblower Retaliation and Sexual Assault Claims

A former swim coach, David Kuck, is suing Canyons Aquatic Club alleging wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation, and sexual assault. Canyons Aquatic Club hired Kuck as their head swim coach in July 2017. He started work with the organization the next month. Kuck came to Canyons Aquatic Club from SwimMAC, a nationally recognized club located in North Carolina. Kuck claims he was fired from his position with the Canyons Aquatic Club for blowing the whistle on crimes that implicate the late Jeremy Anderson, child sex crimes suspect.

Kuck’s attorneys filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court. They have stated publicly that the case is textbook whistleblower retaliation. President of the Canyons Aquatic Club, Carole Horst, responded to claims that personnel matters at the organization are “private matters” and they do not provide comment on private matters. According to the lawsuit, the club and its parent organization, USA Swimming, failed to respond to multiple complaints Kuck lodged regarding “predator” coach Jeremy Anderson, known commonly as Jay Anderson. According to the lawsuit, Kuck noticed and reported Anderson’s abusive behavior almost immediately after joining the swim club staff.

Anderson was an accomplished SCV swim coach. He was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals in Costa Rica last June on suspicion of performing lewd acts with a child. He died shortly after being taken into custody.

Kuck claims he was fired after he notified the Canyons Aquatic Club and USA Swimming and the regional arm over USA Swimming, Southern California Swimming, of a number of incidents in which Anderson committed acts of sexual abuse and other forms of abuse towards minor male swimmers.

According to Kuck’s lawsuit, he reported multiple instances of abuse (including sexual abuse) and despite these notifications, the club board refused to act unless they were told to do so directly by their supervising entity, USA Swimming. Kuck alleges that during this time period a former board member advised him that USA Swimming and the Canyons Aquatic Club board members were aware of Anderson’s conduct, but would not take action to stop it.   

Kuck took the matter outside the group, contacting officials from the Center for Safe Sport and Southern California Swimming in mid-November 2017. He sought immediate assistance and action regarding Anderson’s sexual abuse towards minor swimmers at the club. At the end of 2017, the board gave Kuck approval to terminate Anderson, but only after they were notified that the Sheriff’s Department was planning to carry out immediate action against Anderson at College of the Canyons where the swim club is located. While approval for termination of Anderson was granted, the board also forbid Kuck from vocalizing his concerns or notifying any staff or club member of the allegations or concerns. The board claimed the gag order was because they feared attracting lawsuits or inspiring more victims to come forward. 

As the investigation continued, more evidence of the sexual abuse was discovered. The criminal investigation into Anderson was made public in June 2019.

Retaliation against Kuck for whistle blowing allegedly began in December 2017. The club refused to pay his bonuses even though they were doing so for other employees. Right before he was terminated, Kuck claims he discovered the club had been operating illegally as a suspended California corporation. He notified the board. Kuck claims his refusal to stay silent as the club continued to operate illegally in violation of California law was another factor leading to his termination.

When Kuck approached the board regarding the culture that enabled past instances of abuse committed by Anderson, and other instances of bullying that continued to run rampant throughout the club membership, he was terminated. His wife, another coach on staff, was also terminated. The club also terminated the memberships of the Kuck’s three children. Kuck was not presented with his final paycheck upon termination, provide him with bonuses or vacation pay he was owed, or issue his final wage statement.

If you need to discuss how 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.

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.