California Files Serious Employment Law Allegations Against Disney

A former African-American Disney employee filed a lawsuit in June 2020 against Disney. The 57-year old California man claims discrimination and harassment, workplace retaliation, and wrongful termination. 

Disney Faces Serious California Employment Law Allegations: 

Douglas Keith Harris, a former California Disney employee, filed a lawsuit against the happiest place on earth. Harris claims he experienced discrimination, harassment, and retaliation due to his veteran status, his age (57 years old), disability, and race (African-American). Harris also claims wrongful termination. Disney allegedly terminated Harris' 32-year career abruptly after one unfounded accusation from a co-worker.  

Plaintiff in California Employment Law Case Seeks Unspecified Amount: 

Harris filed an employment law suit seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages against his former employer out of Los Angeles, California, Disney. According to the lawsuit, Harris's long term career at the company was ended abruptly when Disney fired him after one of his coworkers made a false accusation. 

Can One False Accusation Lead to a Longterm Employee's Termination? 

One of Harris' coworkers at Disney accused him of brandishing a gun at work. Harris, who insists the accusations are false, also claims there was no evidence he actually had a gun at work. Harris' complaint was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. 

A History of Harassment on the Job: Hostile Work Environment 

In Harris' complaint, he describes what many might call a hostile work environment leading up to the eventual allegedly false accusation and termination. Harris claims his younger superiors on the job frequently: 

• Ridiculed him for being deaf in one ear

• Encouraged him to retire in a derisive manner that dismissed him due to his age

• Abused their power over him at work

• Abruptly changed his schedule to the graveyard shift post-surgery

Employee's Complaints About Harassment and Discrimination Silenced:  

Harris' complaints about the harassment and discrimination were abruptly silenced when his coworker accused him of bringing a gun to work to show a coworker. When he coworker made the allegedly false accusation, Disney did not approach Harris, but notified the local authorities immediately who conducted a thorough search of Harris' car and on-site belongings. No weapons were found. Following Harris' insistence that he did not bring a gun to work, Disney suspended him. Harris claims Disney treated him, a longterm, dedicated employee, like a criminal and that due to their treatment he suffered extreme emotional distress. After one week of suspension, Disney fired him. 

If you have questions about workplace discrimination 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. 

ACLU of Southern California Faces Wrongful Termination and Discrimination Lawsuit

A black former attorney of the ACLU of Southern California, Sarah O. Clifton, recently filed suit against the ACLU of Southern California. Clifton alleges wrongful termination and discrimination.

Alleged Discrimination at ACLU of Southern California:

Clifton is suing ACLU of Southern California for allegedly racist actions and wrongful termination. The organization fired Clifton in February 2020 after she spoke out against discriminatory treatment. Clifton claims the organization labeled her an "angry woman" and she feels the lawsuit is of particular concern in the current climate in light of the recent murder of George Floyd and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. The ACLU is aware of the lawsuit, but isn't offering comment, since they don't comment on personnel issues.

The Allegations and the Damages:

Clifton filed suit seeking unspecified damages. The allegations include wrongful termination, workplace retaliation, harassment and discrimination, hostile work environment, and failure to prevent harassment. With her lawsuit, she wants to bring the persistent illegal practices taking place throughout the employment sector into the light. She feels there is a particular issue at nonprofit organizations.

An Alleged Hostile Workplace Environment:

Clifton claims that the emergency lawsuit filed by the ACLUE in "support" of the Black Lives Matter movement in Los Angeles on June 3rd was actually a convenient way to insert the ACLU into the public spotlight surrounding the issue. She insists their "help" was nothing but a quest for self-interested gain. Clifton alleges that while the ACLU Executive Director criticizes city officials for taking meaningful action to stop racist activities and policies, he does not hold his organization to those same standards because he allegedly allows obviously racist policies and procedures to proceed unhindered.

The Plaintiff: Sarah O. Clifton

Sarah O. Clifton was hired as a staff attorney by the ACLU of Southern California in September 2018. She was hired to work under supervising attorney Jessica Farris, organizations director or criminal justice and drug policy. Clifton claims that Farris exhibited a near immediate, and obvious irrational fear of Clifton. Clifton claims she attempted to downplay the situation by being overly polite and "less black." However, sometimes Clifton did speak out in the workplace. When she did speak about racial inequality in the workplace, her managers (who Clifton described as overwhelmingly white or "white-presenting") misconstrued her comments, perceiving them as angry and aggressive.

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.

Air Medical Company Overtime Lawsuit Leads to $78 Million Settlement

In recent news, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Y. Smith agreed to a preliminary settlement. The settlement request was filed by 450 of Air Methods Corporation of Colorado's current and former medical flight crew members employed in California.

Air Medical Company Ordered to Pay $78 Million to Flight Crew Employees:

Air Methods, a medical helicopter operator, was ordered to pay $78 million to its California based flight crew employees for unpaid overtime and missed meal breaks and rest periods. The settlement resolves class action overtime lawsuit. In addition to the lump sum, Air Methods also agreed to pay its medical flight crew daily overtime beginning June 28. The agreement to pay daily overtime is an estimated 20% increase to flight crew member salaries.

The Defendant: Air Methods

Air Methods is recognized as one of the nation's biggest air medical transport organizations. The company also operates helicopter bases. The helicopters are used to dispatch medical crews of nurses and paramedics – frequently to far flung locations. The lawsuit alleged that Air Methods refused to pay flight crew members daily overtime.

What is Daily Overtime Pay?

Daily overtime refers to overtime wages earned when a nonexempt employee works more than 8 hours in one day. Air Method's flight crew members were allegedly working 24-hour shifts on a regular basis. The medical transportation company allegedly didn't even allow flight crew members to take mandatory off-duty meal breaks or rest periods.

Overtime Lawsuit Settlement Approval:

While the judge already granted preliminary approval, final approval should be granted in October. If all goes as planned, each Plaintiff will receive more than $100,000 each on average due to the settlement. The Director of Communications for Air Methods Corporation said that the decision to change the pay practices puts teammates first and that it will make the company stronger in the state of California by helping them continue to recruit and retain the top medical clinicians available. 

If you have questions about how to identify California labor law violations or if you need to file an overtime 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.

Papa John's Pizza's California Wage Theft Lawsuit Settled for $3.4 Million

When California workers filed suit against Papa John's International, some wondered if the case would present an opportunity to clarify joint employer responsibility guidelines. Instead, Papa John's requested that the Central District of California approve a $3.4 million settlement to resolve the case.

Papa John's Wage Theft Lawsuit Allegations:

The wage theft lawsuit included allegations that the popular pizza chain failed to pay their workers for mandatory training, which would violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, wage requirements of New York, and California labor law.

Request for Settlement Approval Leaves Important Issues Unresolved:

With the case resolved with the pending settlement, there are issues left unresolved. Should Papa John's International be held liable when franchises engage in wage violations? 8.43 million Americans worked at franchise businesses in 2019, and many were minimum wage workers who can't afford to put in unpaid hours on the job. No one questions whether or not mandatory unpaid job training is legal – it's not. The question is who is responsible, but the settlement means this case won't lead to any answers.  

Details of the Case: Avalos v. Papa John's International, Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case is Sofia Avalos along with several other Papa John's employees and a proposed class of Papa John's hourly employees. According to the lawsuit, workers were required to complete mandatory online job training. Employees were required to complete the training before they clocked in for a shift or after they clocked out, so they were not paid for the mandatory training.

Who Was Responsible for the Wage Violation?

Online training modules were accessed on the corporate website, and workers allege it was a common practice to require the mandatory training be completed off the clock across various Papa John's facilities throughout the nation. Due to the way the training was tracked, Papa John's knew (or had very good reason to know) that the training modules were completed off the clock. In addition to not being paid for all their hours worked, the standard practice also resulted in undercounted total hours, inaccurate calculations of minimum wage and overtime, and inaccurate wage statements.  

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

Coronavirus Safety Lawsuits Lobbed at Both Safeway and McDonalds

Both Safeway and McDonalds are facing Coronavirus Safety lawsuits. After a former Safeway employee contracted Covid-19 and died, the massive grocery store chain ended up facing a California wrongful death lawsuit. McDonalds is also facing a California lawsuit based on numerous alleged safety violations related to employee safety amid the Covid-19 pandemic.   

Safeway Faces California Wrongful Death Lawsuit:

Pedro Zuniga and over 50 other Safeway workers were put to work in alleged hazardous conditions at Safeway's warehouse and contracted coronavirus. The employees were not provided with personal protective equipment, and social distancing practices were not put in place to protect the workers. The company discouraged employees from calling in sick, and placed them in close quarters during their shifts. After contracting coronavirus, Zuniga died. Zuniga's widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

Details of the Case: Zuniga v. Safeway 

Zuniga and approximately 1,700 other employees worked at the Tracy, California Safeway Distribution Center. In mid-March the massive warehouse was hit hard by a Covid-19 outbreak, but workers claim the company did nothing about it. Workers claim Safeway posted a sign at the warehouse listing employee guidelines regarding coronavirus. The signage allegedly did not recommend personal protective gear for workers (such as masks or gloves), even though both federal and state authorities advised PPE in such situations. Workers were required to work even when they were ill with coronavirus. Workers who spoke out against the company's handling of the situation were threatened with disciplinary action (the loss of "points" that could lead to termination).  

Worker Safety Violations Allegedly Resulted in Death:

Zuniga tested positive for coronavirus by April 1st, 2020 and was admitted to the hospital. Less than two weeks later, he died. The Zuniga family's legal counsel accuses Safeway of prioritizing production and company profits above worker safety. The California wrongful death lawsuit argues that the grocery store hid the outbreak in their warehouse, and failed to put appropriate safeguards in place to protect employees from coronavirus dangers until after Zuniga was in the hospital critically ill with the virus. Other deaths allegedly occurred amongst the family and friends of exposed Safeway workers who brought the coronavirus home with them.

Workers Claim Coronavirus Precautions Put in Place Too Late:

Workers claim that Safeway only put safety measures in place to protect workers from coronavirus exposure after Zuniga died. At that point, Safeway decided all employees would be required to undergo a health screening including a temperature reading prior to entering the facility. Another separate lawsuit was filed against Safeway for similar allegations in Alameda County Superior Court.

McDonalds Faces Class Action Lawsuit Citing Unsafe Conditions During Covid 19 Pandemic:

McDonalds employees filed a similar class action lawsuit but aren't seeking financial compensation. Workers are accusing McDonalds of not providing appropriate (and necessary) protective equipment to protect workers from coronavirus exposure. Instead of seeking financial compensation, McDonalds workers are insisting that McDonalds provide their workers with enough hand sanitizer, gloves, and masks, as well as training to help decrease the spread of coronavirus.                                                          

If you need to talk to someone about safety in the workplace amid the Covid-19 pandemic, or if you need to file a Covid-19 workplace safety 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.

Aldi, Inc. California Overtime Lawsuit Ends in Settlement?

Plaintiffs in a California class action lawsuit claim that a major grocery chain violated employment law. Aldi, Inc., the grocery store chain, offers to resolve the claims through settlement.  

Plaintiffs Allege California Grocery Store Failed to Pay Overtime: 

A recent California class action alleges Aldi, Inc. failed to pay employees for all hours worked. The original Plaintiff in the case, Jeree Grant, filed the class action claiming misclassification, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide payment for all hours worked. According to Grant, Aldi employed her to work at one of their grocery stores from October 2017 to May 2018, but she did not receive payment for all the hours she worked. The California class action lawsuit listed other allegations under California labor code, including meal break violations, rest break violations, wage statement violations, etc. Aldi has a reputation for being brutally efficient amidst the competition in the California grocery store scene. They draw shoppers with low prices and a minimal $0.25 deposit for grocery cart rentals. Yet shoppers are not aware that a significant portion of the "discount" they enjoy is possible because Aldi management doesn't just keep a "tight" rein on labor costs – their grip far more than "tight." According to the lawsuit, management violates labor law to take advantage of their own workers, adding to their bottom line by taking from those who cannot afford the loss. 

Aldi Grocery Store, Defendant in California Class Action Lawsuit:  

The central claim in the Aldi class action is misclassification under California labor law. Other allegations under the California labor code regarding mandatory meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements follow from the lawsuit's central claim. While the allegations in the class action are fairly simple, the speedy resolution could indicate a more complicated story of worker abuse. Some suspect a widespread problem of systemic misclassification to treat hourly nonexempt workers as if they were managerial staff so the company can avoid paying overtime wages. 

Defendant Offers to Settle with Grocery Workers in Misclassification Case:  

Aldi, the grocery store facing the misclassification allegations, offered to settle with the class of potentially thousands of California workers. The company didn't waste time offering a $2 million settlement. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law applies to 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.

Ice Cream Shop’s CAFA Removal Rejected by California Federal Court

In recent news, a California district court remanded a wage and hour class action (Hayes v. Salt & Straw, LLC) back to state court after rejecting evidence and arguments supporting its removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

History of the Case: Hayes v. Salt & Straw, LLC 

The plaintiff in the case filed a workplace class action alleging nine California labor code violations and one claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit includes broad allegations. Allegedly, the defendant failed to provide employees with appropriate wages, failed to provide employees with mandatory rest breaks and meal periods, failed to keep accurate records, failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in the employees’ regular rate of pay when calculating overtime pay rate, and failed to provide employees with accurate overtime pay based on their alternative workweek schedule.

The Defendant in the Case Removed to Federal Court:

The ice cream shop listed as the defendant in the case removed to federal court under CAFA. The plaintiff sought to remand by arguing that CAFA’s $5 million threshold had not been established. The district court heard the plaintiff’s argument and agreed, remanding the case back to California state court and finding that the defendant’s estimate of the amount in controversy was based on unreasonable assumptions.

More About the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA):

Congress provides jurisdiction over class actions to federal courts when they involve at least 100 class members, there is minimal diversity, and the amount in controversy is more than $5 million. Defendants seeking to remove under CAFA must include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the designated jurisdictional threshold. When the plaintiff in the case disagrees with the amount in controversy the defendant identifies, both parties submit their argument and evidence to the court. The defendant bears the burden of proof. The removing defendant is allowed to make assumptions regarding the amount in controversy. As the court explained in this case, those assumptions must be reasonable and appropriate considering any actual evidence submitted by the other party.

Evidence Submitted by Defendant in Support of Removal to Federal Court:

The defendant in the case submitted a declaration from counsel and a declaration from a human resources manager based on a review of regularly kept payroll records, but they did not submit the actual payroll records. The plaintiff argued that the payroll records were necessary, but the court disagreed, finding that the declarations were well-supported evidence for CAFA removal purposes. The court also pointed out that the plaintiff did not submit any evidence in competition with the declarations, so there was no evidence that they were unreliable or inaccurate.

The Court’s Eventual Rejection of Defendant’s Assumptions:

The court did agree with the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s estimates were based on unreasonable assumptions for four of the claims in the suit. The court criticized the defendant’s argument for assuming a 100% violation rate for the overtime wage estimate, waiting time penalty estimate, wage statement claim estimate, and off the clock estimate.

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California employment law claim, 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.