California Safeway Cashier Suit Ends with $12 Million Deal

Did you know that Safeway has recently agreed to pay $12 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by one of their cashiers? The lawsuit alleged Safeway failed to provide seats to cashiers at their California grocery stores, which is in violation of California state law(Sharp v. Safeway Inc., No. 2011-1-CV-202901 (Superior Ct. of Calif., County of Santa Clara, Oct. 21, 2019)).

According to California labor laws, employers must generally provide employees with “suitable seating” if the nature of their job duties permit sitting. Safety argued that they truly believed, in good faith, that the nature of a cashier’s job did not reasonably permit sitting. While the court decertified the class in the case, the settlement still has a wide impact. It is estimated that Safeway may need to provide seats for up to 30,000 cashiers at different California stores over the next two years in order to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. This requirement is in addition to the agreed upon monetary sum.

This case is an example of when a non-compliant policy that affects a large pool of employees can turn a seemingly small issue into a massive issue. And this type of massive issue can turn into a big, expensive problem for the employers involved. This is a frequent scenario with wage and hour mistakes by employers.

Other Examples of “Small” Compliancy Mistakes that Can Turn Into Expensive Problems for Employers:

1. Auto-deduct Policies – they become an issue when employees work through planned breaks.

2. Pre- and Post-Shift Work – Failing to pay employees for off the clock work necessary to their job duties can result in expensive wage and hour claims.

3. Miscalculated Overtime – miscalculated overtime adds up quickly.

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.

Are Uber Drivers Owed Millions of Dollars Due to Wage Theft?

Did you know that rideshare drivers in New York City have filed a lawsuit against Uber? The lawsuit claims that Uber wrongfully deducted taxes from divers’ paychecks and did not provide them with the full income they earned from their rides through the popular ridesharing app. The suit was filed in a U.S. district court in Manhattan.  

According to the lawsuit, 96,000 drivers are owed money because of two employment law violations: 1) Uber allegedly deducted money from drivers’ paychecks for both the state’s sales taxes and 2) a surcharge intended to apply to rides across state lines. Uber drivers also claim that the contract they have in place with the popular ridesharing company requires that Uber pay the driver the passenger’s full fare minus Uber’s service fee. According to the drivers, Uber also used a manipulative system of charging passengers that had the passenger paying a higher fare than what was reported to the driver, and Uber pocketed the difference between the indicated fare and the actual (higher) fare. This practice denied the drivers their contractual share of the full fare being charged to customers.

According to the allegations, it is estimated that the drivers are owed around $5 million.  

There are three Uber drivers named in the suit:

• Levon Aleksanian

• Sonam Lama

• Harjit Khatra

The plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit asked a federal judge to approve the class action for close to 100,000 drivers affected by the alleged violations. This lawsuit is part of a wave of employment lawsuits aimed at rideshare companies and other gig economy companies that are attempting to bolster wages of workers. Uber and Lyft were initially applauded for disrupting a stale industry, but in recent news they’re receiving more attention for the potential their business models present for worker exploitation.

Other companies facing similar allegations include: Instacart, DoorDash, etc. All of which have business models that rely on their workers using their app. These app-based gig economy businesses are drawing significant criticism in recent years for pocketing funds that should go to their drivers (i.e. deducting customer tips from payments submitted, etc.)  

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a state bill into law after months of organizing by rideshare drivers and supporters. The new legislation attempts to force companies like Uber and Lyft to classify their workers as employees and provide them with access to a wider range of rights and protections. According to trusted media sources, various gig economy companies including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, and Maplebear spent a combined $110 million fighting the law.

If you need to file a wage theft lawsuit or if you need to discuss other employment law violations, 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.

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.