Google Engineer Ends Discrimination Lawsuit

The well-publicized discrimination lawsuit filed by a conservative Google engineer was dropped. The suit was high profile, and it shook Silicon Valley with discrimination allegations against Google. 

Did Google Discriminate Against Politically Conservative Workers? 

In the high-profile discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff, a former Google engineer named James Damore, claimed that the company discriminated against conservative workers and that his allegations of discrimination ended in dismissal. After Damore filed the discrimination lawsuit, three other men joined the suit against Alphabet, Google’s parent company. In Spring 2020, the plaintiffs asked California’s Santa Clara Superior Court to dismiss the lawsuit, and Google joined their request. 

The Plaintiff’s Original Discrimination Allegations: 

The Plaintiff, Damore, initially claimed that Google supported a politically correct monoculture – maintaining it by shaming any dissenting employees into silence. Damore put his thoughts down in writing and issued it as a memo in 2017. That same year, after Damore wrote the memo, Google fired the conservative engineer. 

The Lawsuit Is Over, But It Already Caused Change: 

While the lawsuit is not proceeding, the case already resulted in change. As a result of this discrimination lawsuit, Google changed some of its workplace policies to address concerns raised in the suit. For instance, previously, Google banned workers from discussing working conditions at work. As a result of a settlement Google reached with the National Labor Relations board when addressing some workplace policies one of the plaintiffs complained about, the ban on discussing workplace conditions was lifted. This positive change is felt not only by the plaintiffs in the case, but by all Google employees. 

The Case if Affecting More Than Just Google: 

Due to the lawsuit, other Fortune 100 companies are changing workplace policies to avoid similar allegations based on the mistreatment of workers. Changes include additional human resources training, better human resources policies, and more. Positive changes have been implemented in various Silicon Valley corporations due to the Damore discrimination suit. 

If you need to file a 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.

Three Women Score Huge Win In Court Battle Over Equal Pay

Three women recently scored a massive win against Oracle Corp. in California court. The three female employees gained the right to represent thousands of other workers in a gender discrimination lawsuit alleging pay was based on gender. The judge certified class action allowing the suit to advance on behalf of over 4,000 women claiming the company pays men more to do the same job as female workers. Class certification in this case is a legal milestone that women in similar cases against other tech giants have failed to reach.

Are Jobs Substantially Equal or Similar?

The California judge that certified class, California Superior Court Judge V. Raymond Swope in Redwood City, issued a ruling rejecting the company’s claim that each plaintiff’s claims were individual cases. The company claimed people in their employ with the same job code did not necessarily perform substantially similar job duties. The judge pointed out that determining whether or not the jobs were substantially equal or similar was a question of fact for the jury. Judge Swope’s ruling gives the women critical leverage as they pursue the case under California’s Equal Pay Act.

Hoping for Equal Pay in the Tech Industry:

The plaintiffs in the case hope that their fight against Oracle will help get women at the company fair pay and that by waging this fight, they can help women throughout the entire tech industry get closer to equal pay. Similar cases with female plaintiffs seeking equal pay from tech companies tend to have difficulty gaining traction. Similar cases have had similar results in other industries, as well.

Similar Claims Failed to Gain Traction in the Fight for Equal Pay:

For instance, in 2011, 1.5 million female Walmart workers were blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court when they tried to pursue discrimination claims as a group. Female engineers at Twitter Inc. and Microsoft Corp. got similar results. The courts seem to hesitate to certify classes making broad gender discrimination claims. However, California’s legislature made it easier to bring a class-wide suit based on gender pay disparities.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file a gender pay 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.

Increased Termination and Discrimination Lawsuits on the Horizon Due to Coronavirus

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, many companies furloughed or laid off some or all of their workforce. The trend already spurred employment lawsuits throughout the nation, and many expect more to follow – particularly when employees start returning to the workplace.  

Recent Covid-19 Labor and Employment Litigation Trends:

The Covid-19 pandemic, and the recommendations issued by the government regulatory agencies concerning flattening the curve, etc. created unprecedented situations for California’s workforce. These unusual situations are leading to recognizable trends in the courts.

WARN and Mini-WARN Litigation:

According to the federal WARN Act, in certain circumstances, employers with 100 or more employees are required to provide at least 60 days’ notice before implementing a mass layoff of closing down. Failing to provide the required notice can result in employees seeking back pay and penalties. According to the mini-WARN act enacted in California, a mass layoff is defined as laying off at least 50 employees within 30 days or the closing/relocation of a commercial/industrial facility with 75 or more employees.

Wrongful Termination:

California employers facing uncertainty about the economy are letting employees go, and some of these employees are responding by filing wrongful termination lawsuits. As the pandemic drags on, more wrongful termination lawsuits are filed. For instance, workers terminated after requesting to work from home in compliance with local recommendations and stay home orders are filing wrongful termination lawsuits. In this situation, workers may allege that the employer’s refusal to allow telecommuting violates state policy and attempts to require the employee to act criminally by reporting to work against local orders. When the employee refuses to comply with the employer’s request to go against local orders, and the employer fires them, the employee claims they were terminated for refusing to break the law at the request of their employer. Other employees claim they were fired for complaining about the lack of proper safety equipment, for advising co-workers that they were not being provided with adequate safety equipment, or for being uncomfortable (and vocal about it) when co-workers reported to work with Covid-19 symptoms.

Discrimination and Harassment Claims:

Some employees are filing discrimination claims questioning why they were selected for adverse employment actions like layoffs, cut hours, termination, etc. Some employees claim discrimination based on age, pregnancy, gender, etc. More discrimination lawsuits are expected to arise from the Covid-19 pandemic when employers start to require employees to return to work.

If you need to discuss how to file a discrimination lawsuit or 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.

Gender Discrimination Allegations at Westside LA Ad Agency

Joe Fotheringham, former creative director for an LA ad agency, sued his prior employer. Fotheringham alleges that the ad agency terminated his employment because he protested two male supervisors’ preference for hiring females rather than hiring the candidate best qualified for the open position regardless of gender.

Plaintiff Alleges Gender Discrimination in Hiring Process:

Fotheringham claims that two of his former supervisors, Marc Simmons and Jon Haber, alongside Giant Spoon ad agency, violated employment law. Fotheringham alleges wrongful termination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and workplace retaliation. According to the Plaintiff, his supervisors, Simmons and Haber, pressured him to hire women whether they were qualified for the job or not. He was advised to hire some of the best talent after they got some women in the door.

The Plaintiff’s History with the Company:

The Plaintiff, Fotheringham, started working at Giant Spoon ad agency in March 2017. He was hired as the creative director at a point in time when the ad agency did not have a creative team. He was responsible for leading the agency’s efforts in hiring staff for both the Los Angeles and New York City offices. According to the lawsuit, he was also responsible for leading client work and building work from concept to production. In the summer of 2018, Fotheringham hired a male freelance worker. He was qualified for the position, but Fotheringham’s supervisors were not happy that the new freelancer was male and told the Plaintiff to find someone else – a woman.  

The Plaintiff’s Promotion Was Blocked Due to His Gender:

At one point during his employment, Fotheringham sought promotion at the agency, but he was denied the position. He was qualified for the promotion, but when he was denied the opportunity, he was allegedly told that the company needed a woman for the job. A woman was eventually hired for the job the Plaintiff sought, and he was ultimately terminated from his position allegedly without cause.

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

Carter’s Facing California Class Action After Alleged Employment Law Violations

Carter’s Retail, Inc. faces multiple employment law allegations. The plaintiffs filed the California class-action lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court, and the suit is currently pending.

Carter’s Allegedly Violated Employment Law:

Plaintiffs allege that Carter’s Retail, Inc. violated employment law by failing to provide accurate wage statements and failing to provide required meal breaks and rest periods.

Plaintiff Claims Carter’s Did Not Pay for All Hours Worked:

In the case, the plaintiff alleges that Carter’s Retail, Inc. failed to provide accurate pay for all the hours they worked or were “under the Defendant’s control.” The inaccurate calculation of wages for overtime worked is a direct violation of both federal and state employment law. Carter’s Retail, Inc. allegedly failed to conduct accurate wage calculations to unlawfully and unilaterally avoid paying employees overtime compensation they earned. According to labor law, employers must pay employees an overtime wage that is one-and-a-half times their “regular rate of pay” when they work overtime hours. Overtime hours are defined as being more than 8 in one day or more than 40 in one workweek.

Off the Clock Work Allegations Included in Overtime Class Action:

On top of allegations that the company purposefully avoided paying overtime to their employees, the plaintiffs allege that Carter’s Retails, Inc. required them to work “off the clock” or when they were clocked out. The “off the clock work” allegedly occurred during the plaintiff’s off-duty meal break. According to allegations made in the class-action lawsuit, the Defendant also occasionally failed to provide employees with their second meal period – meaning that the employees were required to work 10 hours without the accurate pay or meal breaks. The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order requires employers to pay employees for all time worked.

What is the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order?

The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) was created to monitor and regulate wages, hours, and California working conditions. California employers are required to post IWC wage orders in accessible areas frequented regularly by employees so that all employees have easy access to the information and can easily read it during their workday.

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace 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.

Lululemon Allegedly Failed to Pay Accurate Overtime to California Employees

Lululemon USA Inc. is facing overtime allegations. The California overtime lawsuit claims that the company violated the PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) when they failed to calculate and pay their employees overtime wages accurately. The suit is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.  

Lululemon Faces Numerous Employment Law Allegations

In the LA overtime lawsuit, Lululemon faces allegations from the plaintiff and other aggrieved employees that they did not receive payment for all hours worked, including overtime hours. The plaintiffs also claim that the company failed to keep accurate records, provide required meal and rest periods, and provide suitable seating for employees (when the nature of their work reasonably permitted sitting).

The Lululemon Lawsuit Includes Multiple Labor Law Violations

In the California lawsuit, plaintiffs made several severe allegations of employment law violations, including:

Violation of applicable sections of California Labor Code and the requirements of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order due to a company policy, practice or procedure that allegedly failed to provide aggrieved employees with seating when their job duties reasonably permitted sitting while working.

• Failure to pay overtime

• Failure to pay for all hours worked

• Failure to keep accurate wage and hour records

• Failure to provide required meal breaks

• Failure to provide required rest periods

What is the PAGA or Private Attorney General Act?

In addition to bringing individual claims, plaintiffs can sue under PAGA for alleged employment law violations. The Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) is a California statute enabling workers to file suit against their employees for labor law violations. Using PAGA, California workers can act as private attorneys general and seek civil penalties as if they were a state agency. The statute was designed to allow citizens to be deputized to enforce labor code and was created in response to California state’s limited resources. Under PAGA, employees can step into state regulators' shoes to seek civil penalties and receive a portion of the amount they recover as compensation. Civil penalties recovered under PAGA are split, with 25% going to employees and 75% going to California.                                        

If you need to talk to someone about overtime violations or if you need to file a California overtime 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.

Unemployed Workers Flock to Gig Jobs During Covid-19 Pandemic

As more furloughed California workers turn to gig jobs to generate income during the Covid-19 pandemic, experts worry that they aren’t aware of the dangers they face. 

Hundreds of Thousands of Gig Jobs Become Available During Pandemic:

With workers in many industries struggling to find even minimal part-time work due to the Covid-19 pandemic, more than 38 million people have filed for unemployment nationwide in the last few months. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of gig jobs are opening up due to changes in how consumers behave during stay home orders and shelter in place orders. Amazon, DoorDash, Instacart, and Shipt all experienced significant increases in usage that resulted in a hiring frenzy.   

Furloughed Workers Rush Toward Gig Jobs During Covid-19 Pandemic: 

Many workers who have been laid off, furloughed, or can’t work from home are rushing toward the jobs available in the gig industry. The promise of flexible hours and an immediate, flexible income draws many to jobs that have been facing significant kickback due to alleged employment law violations. Instacart was founded in 2012, but in the last two months, they have doubled their workforce. Target’s Shipt delivery services doubled its fleet size in the last two months (after six years in business). 

What If Gig Jobs Stick Around After the Pandemic? 

If consumer demand for home delivery stays strong after the pandemic, the significant influx of new gig workers could become the new norm. More American workers could face the same inequities that were exposed by the virus (lack of employee rights affording workers sick leave, health care, etc.) Gig work offers few worker protections (even during good times), but the coronavirus increases the stakes. Workers are classified as independent contractors, allowing on-demand companies to shift much of the risk of the services they provide to their workforce. Workers provide their own vehicles, their own gas, take-home pay is volatile, and there is no minimum wage or overtime pay. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law applies to California’s gig economy, 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.