Will the Promo Industry See Changes Due to California’s New Gig Worker Law?

California’s new “gig worker” law, Assembly Bill 5, requires California companies to classify independent contractors as employees if the work they perform is a regular part of the company’s business (effective January 1, 2020). The law was designed to offer independent contractors with a more stable work environment with access to workers’ compensation, minimum wage and overtime protections, unemployment and health insurance, paid sick days, etc.

Backlash from the “Gig Worker” Law, Assembly Bill 5:

The law was originally designed in response to perceived problems with how drivers were classified by Uber and Lyft, but is not limited to these companies or even the gig economy industry as a whole. While the law was authored as a solution to an evident problem, there is backlash from both workers and employers in different industries. Postmates and Uber fought back against AB5 by filing a lawsuit alleging that the new legislation violated the constitutional rights of individuals and exhibits unfair discrimination against tech platforms and workers using them to make a living.

Some Jobs and Business Types Are Exempt from California’s “Gig Worker” Law:

There are various professions and types of business that are exempt from Assembly Bill 5. Exempted professionals and businesses number more than 50, but include doctors, lawyers, insurance agents, dentists, hair stylists, accountants, real estate agents and other creative professionals.

In addition to the lawsuit filed by Postmates and Uber, lawsuits were filed on behalf of freelance writers and freelance photographers in federal court in Los Angeles. The suits representing writers and photographers allege that AB5 restricts free speech and the media. Independent truck drivers based out of California were the first to succeed in challenging AB5 - they received a temporary injunction.

Will the Promo Industry Be Affected by Assembly Bill AB5? 

It is not yet clear whether or not Assembly Bill 5 will affect the promotional products industry; it is not specified in the legislation. According to the legislation, some marketing professionals and direct sales salespeople are exempt depending on how they are compensated for their work. Many California businesses are insisting that the law will damage their business. The law is currently limiting sales reps in their ability to secure national accounts with headquarters in California; accounts are on hold as they check with their legal departments and watch for news updates to determine how the new freelancer law will affect their standard practice.                                                

If you need to talk to someone about misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification 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.

Uber and Postmates Attempt to Block California’s New Freelancer Law

Postmates, popular app-driven delivery start-up, and Uber, the famous app-driven ride-hailing company, seek an injunction against California’s new freelancer law, effective January 1, 2020. The two companies filed a lawsuit in California federal court hoping to prevent the landmark freelancer law set to go into effect for 2020.

Why Did Uber and Postmates Attempt to Block California’s New Freelancer Law?

The attempt to block Assembly Bill 5 accentuates the fact that the stakes are high for gig companies in California. The new law threatens gig economy business because it requires companies to classify workers as employees rather than independent contractors when certain conditions exist.

When Does Assembly Bill 5 Require Employers to Classify Workers as Employees?

The new “freelancer law” poses a significant threat to California businesses that operate using freelancers rather than employees. Companies are required to classify workers as employees under the following conditions:

• If a company controls how the worker performs their work or

• if the work performed by a worker is a regular part of the company’s business.

How Does the New Law Affect California Businesses?

Experts expect the new law to cause drastic changes at Uber, Postmates, and other similarly structured businesses as they will need to classify their California drivers as employees. This change would add an estimated 20-30% additional labor costs (or more) for Uber and its primary competitor, Lyft. This type of restructuring could end up costing them hundreds of millions of dollars through increased expenses to comply with California’s new freelancer law.

When California workers are classified as employees by their employer, they are entitled to protections under FLSA and California labor law. The protections provided by labor law protect against wage and hour violations, overtime violations, etc. Classification as an employee also means workers are eligible for unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation with the employer required to pay half of the employee’s Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how California’s new freelancer law may change your workplace, 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.

Burgers & Beers Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $150,000

A Southern California food chain known as Burgers & Beer agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit. The company is based out of El Centro, California, and allegedly denied server positions to men.  

Disqualifying Male Applicants and Employees from Server Positions:

According to the lawsuit filed against Burgers & Beer, the So Cal food chain denied all male applicants and current employees access to server positions. The men were refused the job based solely on their sex. The lawsuit also claims that the denial of server positions to any men interested in the job was an ongoing standard practice at the food chain since 2015. The standard practice resulted in the current, almost all-female serving crew.

The denial of a position based solely on the sex of the applicant violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex for hiring or promotions. The EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement with the Defendant through its conciliation process. When this wasn’t possible, they filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

What Terms Are Included in the Settlement?

The two-year consent decree settling the lawsuit includes:

• A monetary settlement

• Injunctive relief to prevent future workplace sex discrimination

• Revision of the company’s job descriptions for all positions

• Creation of a plan to purposefully increase the number of male applicants for server positions

• A hiring and retention rate goal for men in server positions

• A review and revision of company discrimination policies

• Providing discrimination training to all employees

• Required record-keeping to demonstrate compliance with all elements of the settlement agreement

The two-year consent decree settling the suit remains under the court’s jurisdiction for the full term of the order.

If you are experiencing discrimination in the workplace 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. 

Former Juul Employee Sues San Fran Vaping Co. Alleging Harassment and Wrongful Termination

On December 20, 2019, former Juul employee Kai Yin “Carrie” Chuang filed a complaint with San Francisco Superior Court, alleging she was the victim of sexual harassment. Chuang also claims the San Francisco vaping company wrongfully terminated her employment after reporting harassment incidents to her superiors. 

Chuang worked at Juul, as well as its predecessor company Pax Labs. She was employed as a supply chain manager starting in 2017 through 2018. Chuang claims that three different male Juul employees made unwanted sexual advances to her on multiple occasions. The incidents involved suggestive comments and inappropriate physical contact. According to the lawsuit, Chuang reported the incidents to her supervisors at Juul. Still, the managers discouraged her from pressing the issue and did not conduct a thorough investigation of her claims.

Alleged Incidents of Workplace Harassment:

While on a business trip in 2017, a male employee requested the Chuang come to his room and “sleep with him.” When Chuang refused, the male co-worker touched her inappropriately and kissed her against her will.

Juul executives allegedly spread false rumors that Chuang accepted bribes from a vendor, indulged in a romantic relationship with vendor representative, and downloaded company files and shared them with an ex-employee in violation of company policy. Chuang claims the executives spread these rumors in retaliation for reporting the abusive incidents.

Was Chuang Wrongfully Terminated?

In December 2018, Chuang was terminated from her position with Juul. In February, Chuang filed a complaint. She received a right-to-sue notice the same day. Chuang’s lawsuit seeks back pay, lost fringe benefits, and additional monetary relief. A specific amount is not specified in the lawsuit.

How Did Juul Respond to the Harassment, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Allegations?

Juul claims that Chuang did not raise allegations until months after her separation from the company. They also claim that an internal investigation was completed in response to her complaints. Juul insists Chuang’s claims have no merit and that they are dedicated to creating and sustaining a safe, comfortable workplace for all employees that is free from all forms of harassment.

If you need to discuss harassment or workplace retaliation, 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.

Riot Games Agrees to Pay $10M to Female Employees Due to Discrimination Claims

Video game company, Riot Games, recently agreed to pay $10 million to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit. Women employed at Riot Games over the last five years were included in the class. 

The gender discrimination class action began with plaintiffs Gabriella Downie, and Jessica Negron filed suit against the company. The plaintiffs claim that Riot Games employed business practices that violated labor law.

Riot Games is Accused of Several Employment Law Violations: 

According to the lawsuit filed by Downie and Negron, the video game company violated numerous employment laws and standards. 

• Paying female employees less than male employees in similar positions at the company. 

• Assigning women lower-paying positions at the company, even when they are equally as qualified as men assigned to higher-paying jobs. 

• Promoting men in similar job positions and with comparable qualifications more often than their female co-workers. 

• Assigning or demoting female employees to lower-paid positions in comparison to similarly situated men at the company (even when the women’s qualifications were equal to or greater than the men receiving promotions).

• Creating, sustaining, and even promoting a hostile work environment where female employees were exposed to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on their gender. 

The plaintiffs brought causes of action for violations of the Equal pay Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, referencing several specific employment law violations, including unequal pay, retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. 

Reaching a Settlement with Riot Games: 

The suit resulted in intense negotiations. The negotiations included several days of mediation, after which the parties were able to reach a settlement agreement resolving all claims. The settlement agreement was reached on November 14, 2019. The settlement attempted to strike a balance between the risk of continued litigation and fair compensation. According to the terms of the agreement, no class member will receive less than $500, with the majority of class members receiving a minimum of $5,000.

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.

Delta Facing Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Former Delta Airlines flight attendant, Ida Gomez Llanos, 79 years old, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging age discrimination after she was fired (Gomez Llanos v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.). 

Gomez filed the wrongful termination lawsuit on November 15, 2019, in California Superior Court. Gomez claims she started work as a flight attendant for Delta in November 1962. Additionally, Gomez claims the airline terminated her employment on June 6, 2019.

Delta Faces Employment Law Violation Allegations:

According to the lawsuit, Gomez Llanos faced both age discrimination and a hostile work environment at Delta Airlines.

Gomez Llanos was allegedly fired following numerous allegations: 1) that she stole company-owned items from one of the Delta aircraft for her personal use, 2) spiked her coffee with alcohol, and 3) failed to fill her assigned position on the job (specifically paying another flight attendant to cover her shift on an international flight). Gomez Llanos was the company’s most senior flight attendant; as such, other employees resented the privileges and salary that the seniority granted. Other employees allegedly voiced their resentment by lodging official complaints to management.

Did Delta Welcome Complaints Against Senior Employees Like Gomez Llanos?

Gomez Llanos also alleged in the lawsuit that Delta welcomed any complaints against senior employees as it supported their efforts to get rid of their most senior flight attendants. By welcoming any criticism of their oldest employees, they could justify the eventual termination of their employment.

According to the lawsuit, Gomez Llanos went above and beyond in her job as Delta flight attendant. She claims she continued to receive commendations and awards from the airline for her exemplary behavior throughout her years of service. The plaintiff’s legal counsel intends to hold the airline responsible for their intolerable actions and alleged discrimination, retaliation, and harassment violations.

Delta’s Response to the Age Discrimination Allegation:

Delta’s spokesperson insists that the airline stands by its decision to terminate Gomez Llanos’ employment. The airline claims that when company policy is identified as violating employment law or when inappropriate conduct is reported, the airline conducts a thorough investigation and determines the most appropriate response. The airline considers several factors, including overall performance and length of employment. 

If you need to file an age discrimination 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. 

The Number of California Small Businesses Facing Employment-Related Claims Continues to Increase

Large corporations frequently face allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, but these employment law claims are not unique to large corporations. The headlines are full of discrimination lawsuits against big names like Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and Ford and the associated multi-million dollar settlements. Yet under California state law protections, workers at smaller, California businesses can file suit alleging employment law violations. Many of these small business lawsuits are filed against dental practices. 

More California Workers Employed at Small Businesses Are Alleging Employment Law Violations:

 California workers enjoy protections under state law, and they are turning to these protections more and more often. In 2017, California ranked 3rd in the nation for employment lawsuit risk to small to medium-sized businesses specifically (Hiscox “Guide to Employee Lawsuits”). The Hiscox publication pulled data from both national and state agencies. So, according to the data, smaller California businesses faced a 46% chance of facing an employment law allegation compared to the significantly lower 10% national average.

Any business with at least one employee runs the risk of facing an employment law allegation or a wrongful employment claim.

Do Dental Practices Face a Higher Risk of Employment Law Violation Allegations?

The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) recorded 82 employment law-related claims in 2018. This number is up from the 66 employment law-related claims received in 2017. Experts attribute the increase to the growing number of legislative actions designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination and harassment. Additionally, changing legal views and interpretation of wrongful termination and the increasing number of employees seeking justice and retribution through legal measures add to the overall rising claims trend.

Employment Law Violations & California Small Businesses:

Large corporations generally survive costly litigation. However, the same is not true of California's small businesses. A small business facing a lawsuit can be quickly overwhelmed. A lawsuit alleging employment violations may ruin a small business entirely by draining them of both financial resources and employee morale.

One type of “small business” that faces this danger is dental practices. Most dental practices do not have general counsel on staff. Additionally, many do not have a human resources department to manage claims. The time investment to address allegations of employment law violations can take a toll on the dentist and create the potential for decreased quality of care. The average employment law violation claim (according to the 2017 Hiscox report) requires 318 days to resolve with an average settlement of $160,000.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file an employment 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.