Will the Motherhood Penalty Fuel Workplace Lawsuits Following the Covid-19 Pandemic?

Stephanie Jones is a single mother who struggled to balance her day job for Eastern Airlines with additional responsibilities that resulted from school closures that left her 11-year-old home-schooling since March 2020 as part of the area's local response to the virus.

Repeated Requests for Time Off Denied:

Jones was the airline's director of revenue management, and she made repeated requests for two hours off per day. Her requests were denied because the time off wasn't in the "interest of the company or yourself." Soon after her requests for 2 hours off per day were dismissed, she was fired. The company claims her termination was in response to "conflict" with co-workers at the airline.

First Lawsuit Filed Under Families First Coronavirus Response Act:

Jones filed one of the first lawsuits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The Act requires parents to receive paid sick leave when the coronavirus closures result in school closures or daycare center closures. Many see Jones' lawsuit as an indication of what is to come. More parents and caregivers left in impossible situations due to school and daycare closures are bound to file lawsuits – with the majority being women or mothers.

Increased Family Responsibilities Discrimination Suits Citing the Motherhood Penalty

There is a significant risk right now for an increase in family responsibilities discrimination claims. Employers will make assumptions about who is valuable and who is performing up to snuff. Mothers and other essential caregivers will take note of discriminatory actions – purposeful or unintended – and the lawsuits will start.

What is the Motherhood Penalty?

The "motherhood penalty" is a phrase sometimes used to describe repetitive gender disparities encountered by working mothers. These gender disparities are documented by an increase in discrimination lawsuits connected to providing care for children and other dependents in the last few decades as more women continue to enter the workforce. The current pandemic exacerbates the issue, and many expect to see more claims of gender discrimination during hiring, firing, pay determinations, and promotions. Experts also expect to see an increase in pregnancy discrimination cases and family leave law violations claims as mothers are required to choose between their safety and getting a paycheck. These issues are felt more intensely by low-wage workers, single mothers, and women of color who often have less access to paid leave and other benefits that serve as job safety nets.

If you need to discuss employment law violations in the workplace or gender discrimination, 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.

Does California Labor Law Apply to App Drivers or Not?

Last year, California approved the strictest labor law in the country regarding when workers can be classified as independent contractors. Lawmakers intended to push businesses to add more freelancers and independent contractors to their payroll so they would have access to employee protections, benefits, minimum wage, etc. While the new law was praised by labor groups, it set off a string of lawsuits filed by drivers, independent contractors and freelance writers who claimed the new law left them out of work. 

Gig Economy Titans Mount Massive Resistance to New Law: 

In response to the new law, titans in the gig industry like Uber and Lyft have mounted massive resistance. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash are backing a ballot initiative set to go before voters in November. It’s a multimillion-dollar shot attempting to exclude the companies from the new law, so they won’t be required to give more benefits and wage protections to drivers/contractors. The three gig economy giants all committed to spend at least $30 million to promote the measure – hoping they can get California voters to exempt app-based drivers from the restrictions of the new law. It’s one of California’s most expensive ballot fights. The measure became eligible for the ballot after 623,000 signatures were collected. It’s possible that a success in California could serve as a national precedent. 

Gig Economy Giants Proposing a New Law: 

The massive gig economy giants want the keep the power to hire workers as independent contractors, and they’re proposing a new law that would give drivers who work more than 25 hours a week health coverage and benefits if they are injured while they’re on the job. Based on the new law included in the ballot measure, drivers would be able to work across any app and earn a base of 120% of the minimum wage (and more based on how many miles they drive).  

California Sued Uber and Lyft for Allegedly Misclassifying Drivers

At the beginning of May 2020, the state of California sued Uber and Lyft for allegedly misclassifying drivers as contractors. The Protect App-Based Drivers & Services coalition leading the ballot initiative claims to represent 60,000 drivers and claims that the lawsuit would lead to unnecessary job losses during the Covid-19 pandemic-induced recession. 

If you need to discuss misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification 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.

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.