California EMTs File Wrongful Termination Lawsuit After Protesting Lack of Proper PPE Led to Termination

Two former California Lifeline Ambulance EMTS claim they were fired when they objected to transporting a Covid-19 patient without proper PPE. 

Former Lifetime Ambulance EMTs Claim Retaliation and Wrongful Termination: 

Former Lifeline Ambulance EMTs Kaitlin Wilson and Rayan Melendez filed lawsuits claiming wrongful termination and retaliation. The two EMTS, assigned as partners at work, protested not having properly-fitted N95 masks for use while transporting patients with Covid-19. The plaintiffs claim that they were fired in response to their complaints. 

EMTs’ Retaliation and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Stemmed from Workplace Safety: 

The N95 respirator is a protective device designed for a very close facial fit and very efficiently filtrates airborne particles. The edges of this type of respirator are designed to form a seal around the nose and mouth. According to OSHA training materials, an N95 respirator, a tight-fitting respirator, cannot protect you if it does not fit your face. The mask must form a tight seal with the face and neck to function properly. If the N95 respirator does not fit the face properly, contaminated air can leak into the respirator facepiece allowing hazardous substances into the airway. To allow for proper function, employers must be sure that N95 respirators fit their employees when the PPE is necessary. Employers ascertain a correct fit by performing a fit test while the employee is wearing the same make, model, and size of respirator that will be in use on the job. Checking that the N95 respirator is properly fitted ensures it will provide the protection it is designed for as long as it is used correctly. 

Retaliation and Wrongful Termination Suit Claims EMTs Told Officials PPE Not Properly Fitted

According to the retaliation and wrongful termination lawsuit, the plaintiffs in the case advised Lifeline Ambulance officials that N95 masks were not properly fitted in May 2020, and that without a proper fit, they were not considered protective by the CDC. The plaintiff in the case claims that the CFO’s response was to ask what was “really wrong” with her and claiming that she was “obviously emotional about something.” According to the lawsuit, both EMTs, Wilson and Melendez, were fired later that same month. Lifeline Ambulance listed “harassment” as the reason for their dismissals. 

If you need to discuss employment law violations or have questions about how to file a California retaliation or wrongful termination lawsuit, 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.

UC San Diego Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Reaches a Settlement

A former UC San Diego Vice Chancellor filed a discrimination lawsuit in 2019. UC San Diego recently resolved the lawsuit by agreeing to a settlement. 

Former High-Ranking UC San Diego Employee Reaches a Settlement: 

Jean Ford was the Assoc. Vice Chancellor for UC San Diego Health Sciences Advancement. Ford filed a discrimination lawsuit in 2019 suing the UC Regents and Chancellor Pradeep Khosla. Ford alleges age discrimination, gender discrimination, and wrongful termination. 

The Plaintiff’s History on the Job: 

Before working for UC San Diego, Ford was with Columbia University Medical Center for a decade. She moved to San Diego to take her place at UC San Diego in 2015. In the lawsuit, Ford alleges that she experienced both discrimination and harassment from Chancellor Kholsa because she was female and over 40. When Ford complained about illegal conduct, she claimed she was retaliated against. In her complaint, Ford claimed that Kholsa promoted a younger, less experienced man as Ford’s new supervisor. In the course of her career, Ford has been a successful fundraiser for 25 years. UCSD recruited her and after recruiting her, they had their most successful year of fundraising - hitting almost $150 million under Ms. Ford’s guidance of fundraising efforts. 

The UC San Diego Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Settlement: 

The UC Regents approved the settlement agreement recently, but the terms of the settlement agreement were not made public. The plaintiff’s counsel indicated that all parties involved have amicably resolved the claims contained in the suit, and that none of the parties involved admits any wrongdoing. Unprecedented operational challenges due to the global Covid-19 pandemic and mandated court closures causing litigation delays were cited as reasons for the expedited resolution. 

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.

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.