K. Hovnanian Class Action Alleges Multiple California Labor Law Violations

A recent class action lawsuit claims that K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC allegedly failed to provide proper payment for work completed, and failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses required during the process of completing their job duties. The employment law class action also alleges that the national home builder failed to provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods to California employees. 

K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC Class Action Lawsuit, Case No. RIC2003319: 

The class action is currently pending in the Riverside Superior Court of the State of California. According to the plaintiff in the case, California class members were periodically denied their legally mandated rest periods by K. Hovnanian and K. Hovnanian managers. Periodically, employees were allegedly required to work more than 4 hours without the 10 minute rest period mandated by labor law, and were sometimes not able to take off-duty meal breaks or were allowed meal breaks, but not relieved of their work duties as required. 

K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC Faces Numerous California Labor Law Violation Allegations: 

The Defendant allegedly intentionally failed to reimburse the plaintiff in the case and other California class members for business expenses incurred during the course of completing their job duties. 

Under California Labor Code Section 2802 Employers Must Reimburse for Certain Expenses: 

According to California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred “in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.” The labor code continues on to define “necessary expenditures or losses” for the purposes of Labor Code 2802 as including “all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.” 

K. Hovnanian Faces Penalties and Citation for Alleged Violations: 

The law also states that California employers in violation of Labor Code 2802 may face recovery of penalties. It also states that the commissioner may issue a citation against either the employer or the person acting on behalf of the employer that violated reimbursement requirements. Citations may be issued in the amount determined to be due to the employee and any amounts recovered are payable to the affected employee. 

If you need help collecting unreimbursed job expenses, or if you need to file a California class action 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.

Miso Japanese Restaurant Faces Numerous Labor Law Violation Allegations Amid Bankruptcy Case

The operator of Miso Japanese Restaurant faces numerous California Labor Law violations. Amidst the allegations, the company filed bankruptcy. The company behind the popular Japanese restaurant is G Wealth 88 Inc. The company filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California. 

Plaintiff Seeks Compensatory and Punitive Damages: 

Miso Japanese’s reorganization bankruptcy lists a number of liabilities. At least one of the creditors is the SBA (Small Business Administration) with debt associated with pandemic relief for small businesses. Amid the bankruptcy, G Wealth 88 faces an entirely separate employment law related lawsuit filed in July 2020 in Sacramento County Superior Court. Roger Lee, the plaintiff in the case, seeks compensatory and punitive damages citing numerous allegations of California labor code. 

Plaintiff, Former Owner of Miso, Sold the Business in Late 2015 / Early 2016:

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff is the former owner of Miso Japanese. Roger Lee allegedly sold the company to Wing Size Fok and G Wealth 88 in 2015/2016. According to the lawsuit, Lee continued to manage the business on behalf of the  new owner during the sale to allow time for them to transition to living in the USA. 

Allegations Included in the Miso Japanese Employment Law Suit: 

The lawsuit lists numerous alleged labor law violations including misclassifying Lee as an exempt employee, failing to provide mandatory sick leave (required by California labor law), failing to pay overtime in accordance with California labor law, and making unauthorized changes, and deductions to Lee’s salary. The lawsuit also claims that the Plaintiff was required to work without mandatory meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. The Defendant disputes the allegations and G Wealth 88’s bankruptcy attorney has petitioned for an automatic stay on the employment lawsuit based on the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Instagram Influencer, Bilzerian, Faces Wrongful Termination Lawsuit After Firing Former President

Curtis Heffernan, former President of Ignite, claims Dan Bilzerian’s reputation as a gun-loving playboy enjoying a lavish lifestyle filled with luxury and travel and supermodels, is actually “rented” with the company picking up the tab.

Instagram Influencer Fires President for Questioning his Addiction to Using Company Money:

In the lawsuit, Heffernan claims that Bilzerian’s exorbitant expenditures were regularly billed to the company, Ignite. Bilzerian founded Ignite and serves as CEO and majority shareholder. Curtis Heffernan looked into the Instagram Influencer’s finances and identified tricks Bilzerian used to hide his personal spending using business funds. 

Bilzerian Allegedly Billed Lavish Personal Expenses to the Company 

According to Heffernan’s wrongful termination lawsuit, many personal expenses were billed through the company, like Bilzerian’s $2.4 million annual rent for his home in the LA hills. Heffernan suggests that the addiction Bilzerian indulges for using company money for his lavish, personal lifestyle is to blame for the company’s $50 million loss in 2019. 

Other Employees Support the Claims Made by Former Ignite President:

While Bilzerian responded to the allegations by denying them outright in a statement to TMZ, other former Ignite employees have confirmed allegations. One former employee confirmed that Ignite pays for “everything…models, events, yachts…[as long as it was] wrapped in the Ignite logo…it was an Ignite expense, and he would send them the bill.” 

When Did the Investigation of Misuse of Company Funds Start?

In May 2020, Ignite accountants preparing the company’s annual report raised some red flags about inappropriate spending. Some examples of “personal spending” identified using company funds included:

• $200,000 per month rent for LA hills home (periodically used for marketing events)

• 2-night trip to London (in the six figures)

• $75,000 paintball field

• $65,000 “Four Elements Guns & Star Wars Set”

• $50,000 bed frame

The accountants identified a total of $843,014.06 in company expenses that were actually “personal” expenses billed through the company.

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Seeks Damages:  

Heffernan filed suit alleging wrongful termination, defamation, and violation of whistleblower protection laws. The California wrongful termination lawsuit seeks damages.

If you need to discuss employment law violations in the workplace or 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 Pinterest COO Files Gender Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Francoise Brougher was Pinterest’s former COO, one of the highest-ranking executives in the company. Brougher recently filed suit claiming the company violated California labor law. 

Did Pinterest Violate California Labor Law?

When Pinterest’s former COO spoke up about gender discrimination at the company, she claims she faced workplace retaliation followed by wrongful termination.

Brougher’s History at the Company:

Brougher started work as Pinterest’s Chief Operating Officer in March 2018. After serving in a number of business leadership roles at respected companies like Google, Square, and Charles Schwab, she joined the company. When Brougher took the job as Pinterest COO, she was the highest-ranking female employee at the company. After some time at the company, she couldn’t ignore that she repeatedly encountered what she describes as “archetypal” gender discrimination by male co-workers.

Archetypal Gender Discrimination at Pinterest:

In one example of archetypal gender discrimination described in Brougher’s lawsuit, her boss advised her to “be mindful” of how she behaved in a group setting - specifically discouraging Brougher from “communicating directly.” Pinterest is a social media platform whose user base is predominantly female – 70% of Pinterest users are women, but three men run the company. Even as the highest-ranking woman in the company, Brougher was allegedly expected to comply and conform to typical gender stereotypes. After refusing to comply with discriminatory stereotypical expectations, Brougher was marginalized and excluded from important meetings and essential company decisions. When she eventually complained of degrading, sexist treatment, she was terminated. Brougher was advised that she was fired during an April 2020 video call. 

Responding to Complaints of Harassment in the Workplace:

Employment law protects California workers from discriminatory treatment and harassment in the workplace. However, when Brougher complained about the sexist, demeaning treatment, the company allegedly did not take the complaint seriously. She claims that instead of investigating the complaint properly and addressing gender discrimination and hostile workplace concerns, Pinterest fired Brougher to protect the male co-workers who were engaging in hostile behavior. Additionally, Brougher claims Pinterest attempted to cover up the complaints by claiming her firing was a voluntary departure. Brougher also claims she was paid less than her male counterparts, who also enjoyed more favorable vesting schedules.

If you need to discuss workplace retaliation or if you need to file a California 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. 

The Apple Employee Bag-Check Class Action Returns

The Apple employee bag-check class action decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had Apple paying retail workers for any time spent waiting their turn for mandatory bag checks. The Ninth Circuit decision was unanimous and aligned with the previous California Supreme Court ruling that employees' time spent being screened after their work shift is compensable.  

The Ninth Circuit Decision that Apple Should Pay Employees Waiting for Bag Checks

The Ninth Circuit found that the U.S. District Court that initially presided over the Apple employee bag-check lawsuit erred when they handed Apple a victory. The appeals court found that the California Supreme Court's holding means employees are now entitled to summary judgment on the issue.

The Original Apple Mandatory Employee Bag-Check Lawsuit: 

The lawsuit asking whether or not the time Apple employees spend in line waiting for a mandatory post-shift bag check is compensable or not was filed in 2013. The wage and hour lawsuit claimed that Apple's policy requiring its employees to clock out before they complete the mandatory bag check resulted in 1-1.5 hours of unpaid time at work each week on average. Class-action status was granted in 2015. 

Apple Bag-Check Lawsuit: California Supreme Court Decision

The California Supreme Court's decision in February determined that the time Apple employees spent waiting for the mandatory bag checks before they could leave after work was compensable under the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage. California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage requires employers to compensate employees for all time when they are under their employer's control. The Supreme Court's findings were based on a few factors: 

1. Exit bag searches were mandatory for all employees leaving work, and therefore involved a significant degree of employer control. 

2. The mandatory nature of the bag searches was enforced by potential disciplinary action. 

3. The bag searches exist primarily for the employer's benefit. 

Apple Bag-Check Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Decision 

The Ninth Circuit court agreed with the California Supreme Court – rejecting Apple's arguments that:

1. Employees can choose not to bring bags to work to avoid the mandatory bag checks. 

2. Whether the policy was enforced through discipline was disputable.  

The court found that regardless of whether or not the exit searches were enforced through discipline, Apple employees' time waiting for and completing exit bag searches under the Apple policy is compensable since the time is considered "hours worked" under state law. The Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court's grant of Apple's motion for summary judgment and ordered the district court to grant the employees' summary judgment motion. 

If you need to discuss employment law violations or have questions about how to file a California class action, don't hesitate to contact 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.

Current and Former Carta Financial Tech Company Workers Allege Workplace Retaliation

Financial tech start-up company, Carta, intended to transform the way workers get paid. The company believed working for a paycheck was an evolution of indentured servitude and serfdom that needed to change. Carta believed the next evolution was employees owning a stake in their companies – they wanted to create more “owners.” 

Do What I Say Not What I Do: Did Carta Actually Treat Employees Like “Owners”?

While Carta openly declared their “ownership for all” theory, its standard operating procedures didn’t seem to reflect the published mission. The company allegedly acted inequitably to a large number of their 838 employees. Current and former employees of the hot Silicon Valley company say that if they spoke up about workplace problems, they were belittled, excluded, and disciplined. The experience was nothing short of workplace retaliation.

Workplace Retaliation: Employees Who Complain See Negative Response

When an employee voices a concern about the workplace or their job environment, some employers respond negatively. Carta employees claim the company responded by making the employee who spoke up feel like they were at fault for their own mistreatment. Speaking up at Carta allegedly resulted in being sidelined, demoted or passed over for deserved promotions, or even seeing a cut in hours or pay cut. One woman was fired after she had an emotional outburst in a meeting. Another woman was pushed out of the company after she voiced regulatory concerns. 

Former Carta Fintech Workers Push Back: 

Some of the former Carta employees are pushing back. Three different former employees sued Carta in the last year alleging wrongful termination, one of which was the former top operations executive. Last month, a former Carta marketing executive, Emily Kramer, sued Carta alleging gender pay discrimination and retaliation. According to Ms. Kramer’s lawsuit (and other other lawsuits), Mr. Ward set the tone at the company by denigrating employees and being dismissive of valid concerns. Ward’s blunt management style generated loyalty with some, but alienated others.  

Carta’s Workplace Experience Directly at Odds with Their Public Crusade Seeking Fairness for Workers

The group of current and former Carta employees involved in the lawsuit insist that the workplace they experienced at Carta was directly opposed to the fintech start-up’s crusade seeking fairness for workers and more equality in the workplace for women. Mr. Ward founded the Palo Alto, California start-up, Carta, in 2012 (initially calling the company eShares). Carta software is used by many investors, start-ups, and employees to manage, issue and value their equity with Carta receiving a fee for the use of the valuation systems. 

If you need to discuss 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. 

The Simpsons’ Composer’s Discrimination Lawsuit Moves Forward

The Simpsons is preparing to reach new audiences on Disney+, but that’s not the only news the long-running Fox show is generating. Legal tensions between the show’s producers and the show’s longtime composer, Alf Clausen, are also drawing attention. 

Simpsons Composer Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against Popular Fox Show:

LA County Judge Michael L. Stern issued an order allowing The Simpsons composer to move forward with his discrimination lawsuit against the show’s producers. 

Hollywood Music Giant Files Discrimination Suit Against The Simpsons Producers:

Alf Clausen, the 79-year-old Hollywood music giant, handled the music for the popular Fox show from 1990 until he was fired in 2017. Clausen won two Emmys and is the most nominated composer in Emmy history with a record 23 Emmy nominations during his career. Before his work on The Simpsons, Clausen composed for a number of different tv shows: The Donny & Marie Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Hour, Little House on the Prairie, Fame, and Moonlighting. He also worked on a number of successful feature films like Weird Science, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Naked Gun, and Mr. Mom. 

Identifying the Cause of Termination: Why Was Clausen Fired? 

The litigation regarding Clausen’s termination is based on why he was fired. Clausen claims wrongful termination based on age discrimination and disability discrimination (he’s diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease) in his lawsuit. Clausen also claims he is the victim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In contrast, The Simpsons producers claim that their decision to fire Clausen was not related to his age or disability. They claim they fired Clausen because of deficiencies as a composer. The defendants insist that Clausen was delegating composition to his team inappropriately. They also claim he wasn’t able to capture their vision for certain types of music. 

Moving to Strike the Complaint at an Early Phase of Litigation:  

The defendants, Fox, Disney+, etc. argued that the lawsuit was Clausen’s frivolous attempt to infringe on their right to free speech. As such, they argued that they had a statutory right under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute to move to strike at an early phase of litigation. Judge Stern considered the defendant’s argument and found that the plaintiff, Clausen, met his burden of proof for disability discrimination and wrongful termination claims, but not for age discrimination or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. In doing so, Judge Stern allowed Clausen’s case to move forward to the discovery process. 

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