Common Employment Law Allegations in the Wake of COVID-19 Changes in the Workplace

The response to the spread of Covid-19 through the United States resulted in a major upheaval in the average workplace. American employers suddenly found themselves creating new policies and implementing new procedures to address the various issues that were suddenly “typical.”

Workplace Issues that Suddenly Became the Norm Due to Covid-19 and Workplace Changes:

• Remote Work/Telecommuting

• Layoffs

• Furloughs

• Pay Cuts

• Altered Workplace Conditions

Covid-19 Leaves California Employers at a Higher Risk of Exposure to Employment-Related Claims:

Due to the speed with which employers had to respond to the changing conditions, mandates, and safety issues related to Covid-19, California employers find themselves subject to a higher risk of exposure to employment-related claims such as: wrongful termination, workplace retaliation, discrimination, etc.

Common Employment Law Claims Related to Covid-19 Changes to the Workplace: Workplace Health & Safety

Covid-19 related employment law claims related to workplace health and safety typically claim that due to an unsafe workplace or work environment:  

• An employee was exposed to the virus which caused sickness or death

• An employer did not take appropriate measures to reduce exposure to the virus

• An employer failed to take necessary precautions to minimize the spread of the virus in the workplace

Some Appropriate Measures Employers are Expected to Make in California Workplaces:

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, California employers were expected to make a number of different changes in the workplace to protect their employees, customers, etc. Some appropriate measures that employers should take include providing hand washing stations, masks or other protective gear in the workplace, making hand sanitizer available in the workplace, etc. In addition to providing the necessary “supplies,” employers are also expected to provide the ability for employees to be safe on the job by complying with social distancing recommendations.

Common Employment Law Claims Related to Covid-19 Changes to the Workplace: Leave Claims

Covid-19 inspired the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. Under FFCRA employers with 500 or fewer employees are required to provide employees expanded paid family and medical leave, as well as emergency paid sick leave. The Act incorporates the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provisions. Employers who fail to comply with the provisions providing leave to employees are liable to remedy provisions.

Common Employment Law Claims Related to Covid-19 Changes to the Workplace: Wage and Hour Claims

Many employees are suddenly required to work from home and some employers are restructuring their workforce, making pay/salary adjustments, etc. This reshuffling is necessary to keep some companies running, but employers are inadvertently (or blatantly) making changes in violation of laws related to salary and hour reductions, employee classification, etc.

Common Employment Law Claims Related to Covid-19 Changes to the Workplace: Discrimination & Disability Claims

In the wake of Covid-19 related layoffs and furloughs, many employees are filing employment law related claims challenging the “reason” their employer provided for their termination or other adverse employment action. Since numerous federal and state laws protect employees from discrimination in the workplace based on protected class characteristics, employers who do not remain objective when deciding which workers to lay off or furlough may be in violation of labor law. Other Covid-19 related claims come from employees who are denied accommodations for a disability related to Covid-19 - the most common being denial of an employee’s request to work from home.

Common Employment Law Claims Related to Covid-19 Changes to the Workplace: Retaliation Claims

State and federal laws contain provisions that protect employees from retaliation in the workplace. Some employees are filing claims alleging workplace retaliation after objecting to unsafe working conditions in the wake of Covid-19. For example, being demoted or laid off after complaining about exposure to individuals exhibiting symptoms in the workplace.  

Common Employment Law Claims Related to Covid-19 Changes to the Workplace: Wrongful Termination Claims

As the response to the pandemic leaves many businesses searching for ways to minimize expenses, employee furloughs and layoffs increase. With this increase, it’s not surprising that the number of wrongful termination claims is also on the rise. Employees citing wrongful termination in the wake of Covid-19 do so for a number of reasons including: termination after filing a complaint for lack of appropriate PPE, termination after complaining about exposure to co-workers showing Covid-19 symptoms, etc.

These are just a handful of the common Covid 19 related employment law claims. If you need to file a California Covid-19 related employment law claim, 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 Agrees to Pay a $78 Million Settlement in Overtime Suit

The judge in an overtime lawsuit case recently approved a $78 million settlement. The settlement between an air medical company and the medical helicopter company’s California flight crew employees resolves employment law claims of overtime pay violations and missed breaks.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement:

After three months of negotiations and legal maneuvering, Colorado based Air Methods Corporation agreed to settle an overtime class action lawsuit brought by their California flight crew. The Alameda County Superior Court Judge provided preliminary approval in July 2020.

The Settlement Between Air Methods and the Medical Helicopter California Flight Crew:

According to the settlement recently approved by the court, Air Methods out of Colorado plans to provide daily overtime to employees on their California medical flight crews effective June 28th. Daily overtime pay to medical flight crews based out of California and providing services for Air Methods should result in an approximate 20% increase in the salaries of the affected employees.  

The Defendant: Air Methods Providing Medical Transport Via Helicopter in Various States

Air Methods is a medical transport company. In fact, Air Methods is one of the country’s largest air medical transport companies and has operations in various states throughout the nation. Each Air Methods medical helicopter/aircraft is staffed with teams of nurses and paramedics. These services are often provided in remote areas (and to remote areas) throughout the US.  

Employment Law Violation Allegations Made in the Overtime Class Action:

According to the overtime class action documentation, Air Methods violated overtime pay law. The medical transport company is accused of refusing to pay daily overtime for California flight crews that worked more than eight hours in one workday. Air Methods California flight crew employees regularly worked 24 hour shifts according to plaintiffs in the case. Plaintiffs also claimed that Air Methods refused off-duty meal breaks or rest breaks for their medical flight crew members. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, plaintiffs in the case should receive an average of more than $100,000 each.

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.

Mitsubishi Electric US Facing Claims of Racial Harassment & Discrimination

Four Black construction workers in Mitsubishi Electric US’s escalator and elevator division filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging harassment and discrimination. 

Black Workers Allege Mitsubishi Electric US Supervisors Harassed and Discriminated

The four Mitsubishi Electric US workers filed suit in California Superior Court alleging that the company allowed their supervisors to harass them, use racial slurs and images, and discriminate against them by passing them over for training opportunities, pay raises, chances for overtime, and career advancement. 

Complaints of Race-Based Harassment and Discrimination Allegedly Ignored: 

The four plaintiffs in the case claim that in addition to the race-based harassment and discrimnation they were subjected to constantly on San Francisco Bay Area job sites, their complaints about the inappropriate behavior were ignored. Plaintiffs claim they complained directly to Mitsubishi’s Human Resources department with the original complaint dating back to 2016. Plaintiffs claim their complaints were ignored for years. When some of the offending employees were eventually disciplined, the plaintiffs claim Mitsubishi did nothing to prevent similar behavior in the future, and this inaction fed the hostile workplace environment. 

Plaintiffs Seek Monetary Damages and Court Order to Change Mitsubishi Policies: 

The plaintiffs in the case seek monetary damages, but they also seek changes to Mitsubishi policy. They’d like a court order for Mitsubishi to provide better training for their employees regarding common problems and issues like race discrimination, harasssment and retaliation. The plaintiffs would also like the court to order Mitsubishi to conduct more thorough investigations into similar incidents in the future and to take more effective action to address racist acts in the workplace and graffiti on job sites. 

The Lawsuit Includes Evidence of Extended Harassment: 

The lawsuit’s written allegations are supported by papers and images and evidence supporting the claims such as: photos of racist images, objects and graffiti allegedly taken at various Mitsubishi job sites. Some of the allegations made in the lawsuit include: 

• Supervisors calling plaintiffs “undesirables,” “lazy,” and the N-word. 

• Supervisors joking about lynching. 

• Visual images including “KKK,” swastikas, black monkeys, the N-word, Satanic stars, etc. at job sites. 

• A noose was left on a barricade next to one of the plaintiff’s assigned job areas (photo included in the lawsuit documentation). 

• Supervisors assigning the plaintiffs to menial job tasks, and assigning them as “helpers” to less experienced White workers despite experience or skill level. 

• One of the plaintiffs had a stroke (allegedly due to stress caused by the hostile work environment). He was allegedly fired while recuperating at home).

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

Dignity Health Medical Assistant’s Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissed

Virginia M. Arnold, former Dignity Health Medical Assistant, was terminated from her job. Upon her termination, she was provided with numerous reasons for her dismissal including HIPAA violations (failing to safeguard a patient’s personal health info), displaying inappropriate materials in the workplace (posting a picture of a shirtless male model at the office), careless job performance, failure to respond honestly to an investigation, and failing to take responsibility for her actions. Arnold filed a lawsuit shortly after her termination claiming discrimination.

Plaintiff Claims Age Discrimination on the Job: 

Arnold’s lawsuit includes allegations of discrimination based on her age and her association with African-Americans. The trial court granted summary judgement to Dignity Health, and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that alleged comments regarding Arnold’s age from co-workers did not apply as the co-workers were not materially involved in her termination. Additionally, they found that another employee expressing surprise at Arnold’s age when discussing her birthday did not qualify as discriminatory. 

No Evidence Found of Connection Between Cited Supervisor and Arnold’s Termination

In her lawsuit, Arnold cited a specific supervisor. Arnold claims she submitted a complaint about the supervisor’s alleged mistreatment of a Black coworker. The plaintiff claimed this situation led to association determination. However, the Court found no evidence that the supervisor involved in the incident had any involvement in Arnold’s termination. Arnold also claimed that Dignity failed to follow their own disciplinary policies, but the Court found that this did not create a triable issue of fact connecting to the plaintiff’s claims. 

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.

All the Covid-19 Wrongful Termination Claims Peak

Did you know that the number of wrongful termination claims is climbing? Right when they are needed most, essential employees are being fired for reasons that violate labor codes, and health and safety requirements. 

Common Reasons for Rise in Covid-19 Wrongful Termination Claims: 

1. Nurses and hospital staff are being terminated from hospitals overrun with Covid-19 patients for allegedly talking about PPE (personal protective equipment) shortages.

2. Grocery store workers are fired after reprimands for wearing gloves while working. 

3. Workers at nursing homes and other long-term care facilities (where coronavirus outbreaks have accounted for close to 50% of Covid-19 deaths in some states) report being fired after they point out facility practices that violate health and safety mandates from both federal and state agencies. 

When Your Employer Fires You for Demanding Safety in the Workplace: 

It’s not fair (or legal) for an employer to fire a worker for demanding the right to protect themselves while they work. If a California employee is fired in connection to workplace safety complaints or concerns in connection to the Covid-19 pandemic, they could have grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit or a California whistleblower lawsuit. According to OHSA, employees are guaranteed the right to a safe workplace by federal law - a workplace free of “known health and safety hazards.”

What Constitutes a “Safety Hazard” During an Infectious Disease Outbreak: 

The definition of what constitutes a “safety hazard” has seen significant changes amidst the recent infectious disease outbreak. During a time when the CDC and other state and federal health agencies are recommending that everyone wear a mask in public settings to keep their nose and mouth covered, and that healthcare workers wear facemasks, respirators, and gloves to decrease their risk of infection, an employer who requires employees work without proper recommended PPE could be creating an “unsafe work environment.” OSHA also guarantees employees and workers have the right to speak up about workplace health and safety concerns without fear of workplace retaliation. OSHA regulations prohibit employers from retaliating against employees that complain about unsafe work conditions. Forms of retaliation include termination, demotion, transfers, etc.

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. 

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.