Former ”Jeopardy” TV Game Show Employee Claims Sony Alleges Wrongful Termination & Age Discrimination

Glenn Kagan, 66, claims that Sony fired him from his job as a contestant-wrangler for the long-running TV game show “Jeopardy!” Kagan says he was replaced by a younger employee when the show started filing again during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Plaintiff Sues Sony for Age Discrimination and Wrongful Termination: 

The veteran contestant-wrangler filed suit in California state court alleging that he worked at “Jeopardy!” for more than half his life, but when the show came back to file amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, Sony suddenly terminated his employment and gave his job to a younger replacement. Kagan brought the age discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act citing Sony and Quadra Productions as Defendants. The Defendants in the case face wrongful termination and overtime pay violation allegations. 

Plaintiff Fired and Replaced by Younger Employee Amid Covid-19 Pandemic: 

In the lawsuit, Kagan claims that the company replaced him with a much younger contestant coordinator after falsely accusing him of improper mask-wearing at work. The plaintiff was allegedly fired in August 2020 despite 34 years of employment. In the lawsuit documentation, Kagan claims he had no write-ups or reprimands on the job, no prior warnings, but was fired for not wearing a mask even though he was not provided with any protocols or instructions for wearing a mask. Kagan also claims the company did not provide any personal protective equipment. Kagan claims the real reason Sony fired him was to replace him with a younger employee. 

Plaintiff’s Job History on the “Jeopardy!” TV Game Show: 

The plaintiff was employed as the “Jeopardy!” TV game show’s senior contestant coordinator. As Senior Contestant Coordinator, Kagan was responsible for taking the trivia game show’s contestants to the green room, helping as a “stand in” for Alex Trebek during rehearsals, communicating with contestants, and assisting contestants with their necessary paperwork. A contestant coordinator in his 20’s was promoted in 2016, and according to Kagan, the younger employee gradually took over Kagan’s duties (i.e. stand-in work, etc.), yet according to Kagan, the show had not raised any issues related to Kagan’s work performance. 

Returning to Work After Telecommuting During the Covid-19 Pandemic: 

In July 2020, when Kagan returned to set for the show’s 37th season after several months of working remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic, he was assured along with other returning employees that “Covid Captains” would be providing personal protective equipment and instruction upon their return to work. Kagan alleges there was no guidance, no rules and no masks provided. Kagan claims he brought his own mask from home. Kagan states that his mask inadvertently slipped at one point during the day while he was speaking with a contestant, and that he pulled his mask down to speak to a security guard who was not able to understand him on another occasion. These are the only two occurrences Kagan can think of that producers and human resources could be referring to when they conducted a video meeting with him the next day and reprimanded him for “failing to wear a mask.” Kagan claims he responded that the company did not provide PPE or guidance/policy regarding mask wearing. In response to the discussion, he was suspended. While Kagan was suspended, the younger coordinator took over his job. Kagan was fired a few weeks later. 

Plaintiff Cites Multiple Employment Law Allegations: 

In addition to claiming wrongful termination based on age discrimination, Kagan claims he frequently worked over 40 hours in one week, but did not receive overtime pay, and also claims he did not receive accurate wage statements.

If you need to discuss how to file a California overtime lawsuit or if you have questions about identifying California 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.

Court Approves Farmers Insurance Overtime Pay Settlement

In recent news, the court approved Farmers Insurance investigators’ $5.5 million overtime settlement. While the settlement resolves the case, this is not the first time Farmers violated the FLSA and California labor law. 

The California Wage and Hour Lawsuit Alleged Overtime Violations: 

The California wage and hour lawsuit alleged Farmers failed to pay overtime, and provide meal breaks and rest periods. The approved settlement applies to Special Investigators who worked for a California Farmers location from 2013 to 2018. While this settlement brings the recent California overtime lawsuit to a close, it’s not the first time Farmers has faced overtime pay violations. And it’s not the first time they’ve settled an overtime claim either. 

Judge Approves Farmers Overtime Pay Lawsuit Settlement: 

California federal Judge Hixson approved the settlement in late August 2020. The judge stated that settling the case was the quicker and easier path to resolution in comparison to continued litigation (litigation already extended over 3 years). With the approved settlement, Farmers special investigators and former special investigators can see a guaranteed route to payment. Each of about 80 plaintiffs in the case will receive about $47,000, which the judge noted was a “sizable” recovery. 

Other Famers Overtime Lawsuits and Overtime Lawsuit Settlements: 

Farmers Call Center Employees in 2011: Farmers isn’t new to overtime pay violation allegations or overtime lawsuits or even overtime lawsuit settlements. In 2011, Farmers agreed to a $1.52 million overtime pay settlement for 3,459 call center employees (that worked from Jan. 1, 2009 through May 10, 2010 in Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas) after investigations discovered “significant systemic violations” of the FLSA overtime and accurate record provision. The settlement terms required Farmers to maintain future FLSA compliance with proper records and accurate compensation for all hours Farmers employees work. 

Farmers Claims Adjusters in 2014: In 2014, a group of Farmers claims adjusters filed a California wage and hour lawsuit alleging failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide rest periods and meal breaks. Close to two years down the road, Farmers settled the lawsuit with a $4.9 million settlement to 2,114 plaintiffs (Farmers claims adjusters employed between September 2011 through August 2016). 

The Most Recent Farmers Overtime Pay Settlement: The recent overtime settlement stemmed from a wage and hour lawsuit filed in 2017 by Farmers Insurance special investigators (David Deluca et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al., case number 3:17-cv-00034). The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 

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.

McDonald’s Pays $26M Settlement After Wage-Theft Lawsuit

Due to a recent wage theft lawsuit, McDonald’s is paying a $26 million settlement to thousands of their California employees. 

McDonald’s Settles Wage-Theft Lawsuit: 

In accordance with the terms of the wage-theft lawsuit settlement, McDonald’s will pay out $26 million to thousands of their workers. Employees will get checks for as much as $3,900 in lost wages due to violations of labor code. 

McDonald’s Pays California Fast-Food Workers $26 Million: 

McDonald’s agreed to the settlement in November 2019. The $26 million wage-theft lawsuit settlement was approved by a California Supreme Court judge in October 2020 after a year-long battle arguing the wage theft allegations. The original California wage-theft lawsuit claimed the massive fast-food powerhouse failed to pay employees all wages due, failed to give employees legally required meal breaks and rest periods, and failed to provide accurate overtime pay. Eligible California class members will receive checks averaging $333.52. Some class members will receive settlement checks in amounts up to $3,927.91. 

California Class Members for the Class Action Number Roughly 34,000:

There are approximately 34,000 California-based McDonald’s employees at corporate-owned locations in the state that will receive settlement checks as a result of the suit. The original wage-theft lawsuit was filed in 2013. Workers alleged that McDonald’s committed wage theft in numerous ways, but mainly by failing to pay all earned wages when due, failing to give workers required meal breaks and rest periods, failing to pay minimum wage, and failing to pay overtime. 

Additional Terms of the McDonald’s Wage-Theft Lawsuit Settlement: 

In addition to the monetary settlement, McDonald’s agreed to additional requirements included in the terms of the settlement agreement. According to the wage-theft lawsuit settlement, McDonald’s will rework some of their company policies managing and pertaining to overtime, rest breaks, and uniform practices. McDonald’s also agreed to provide training that informs California workers of correct practices.

If you need help with unpaid overtime pay or other California Labor Code violations, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. 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.

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.