February 05, 2021

Alleged Discrimination and Retaliation at Pinterest Lead to Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit

February 05, 2021/ Blog Author

After agreeing to a settlement in a recent discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, Pinterest is facing more legal trouble. Another lawsuit is making its way through the courts claiming breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and violation of 14(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the allegations in the lawsuit arise from an alleged systemic culture, policy, and practice of illegal discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

All the Details on the Case: Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island v. Silbermann, Sharp, Jordan, Levine, Rajaram, Reynolds, Wilson, Kilgore, Morgenfeld, and Pinterest, Inc. (Nominal Defendant)

Case Number: 3:20-cv-08438

Filed: Nov. 30, 2020

Court: Northern District of California San Francisco Division

The Plaintiffs in the Case: The Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, derivatively on behalf of Pinterest, Inc.

Defendant: Benjamin Silbermann, Evan Sharp, Jeffrey Jordan, Jeremy Levine, Gokul Rajaram, Fredric Reynolds, Michelle Wilson, Leslie Kilgore, and Todd Morgenfeld, Defendants, and Pinterest, Inc., Nominal Defendant.

Pinterest’s Alleged Discrimination and Retaliation in the Workplace:

The shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in November 2020 in the Northern District of California against Pinterest, Inc. The social media platform is a visual discovery search engine used to collect ideas that went public in April 2019. The cited complaint alleges that the platform executives breached their fiduciary duties to the company by ignoring a systemic (and long-standing) culture of retaliation and discrimination. Allegedly, the company provided unequal salaries to females and racial minorities, and also failed to provide equal promotional opportunities for women based on experience and skill.

Complaint Alleges Four Causes of Action Against Defendants:

Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Waste of Corporate Assets
Abuse of Control
Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14A-9

Plaintiffs claim that Pinterest’s top executives boardmembers engaged in, facilitated or knowingly ignored discrimination and retaliation against Pinterest employees who spoke up or attempted to challenge the White, male leadership clique.

Revised Version of the Complaint Filed December 31, 2020:

After the district judge assigned ordered the parties involved to revise the “copious redactions” in the original complaint, a revised version was filed on December 31, 2020. In the revised complaint, certain allegations are now public including the claim that the Pinterest Compensation Committee was aware of the inconsistent pay practices in place at Pinterest, but did not take action to oversee any discriminatory pay complaints.

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.

February 03, 2021

California Supreme Court Rules Independent Worker Test Ruling Retroactive

February 03, 2021/ Blog Author

On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled the ABC test retroactive. The test is used to determine worker classification (independent contractor or employee) under the AB 5 law. The ABC test was originally clarified in the 2018 Dynamex ruling.

Clarification of the ABC Test in the 2018 Dynamex Ruling:

In 2018, the ABC test (under AB 5) was clarified. To be classified as an independent contractor, workers must fulfill three standards:

free from the hiring entity’s control and direction of their work performance
complete work that is not typical in the business
have an independently established job done under the work done for the business

Workers who do not meet all three of the above standards (A, B, and C) should be classified as employees, making them eligible for benefits and certain protections under employment law not available to independent contractors.

The ABC Test Received a Blow from Proposition 22:

In 2020, the ABC test came under fire. First, AB 5 was weakened when many businesses covered under the law qualified as “exempt.” The second blow came in November 2020 when California voters passed Proposition 22 leaving all rideshare companies exempt from AB 5. Since the proposition passed (in a landslide), many groups have actively been attempting to overturn the proposition in court.

The Controversy Over the ABC Test Continued in the California Supreme Court:

Despite worker classification being an undeniably major issue, the controversy over the ABC test continued on to the California Supreme Court. Jan-Pro Franchising International workers brought their case to the California Supreme Court, where the court found in the workers’ favor despite the weakening of AB 5 following the passage of Proposition 22. Workers can continue filing suit against companies in violation of the ABC Test retroactively through 2018. Companies remain liable for any AB 5 violations from 2018 through the present. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye argued that there was no compelling justification to deny workers the benefit set forth by the Dynamex case.

February 01, 2021

Alleged California Labor Code Violations: 1st Light Energy Inc. Faces Lawsuit

February 01, 2021/ Blog Author

In recent news, 1st Light Energy Inc., is facing a lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, the company allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide workers with accurate wages, as well as other claims.

All the Details on the Case: Landin v. 1st Light Energy Inc.

Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2020-9700

Filed: Nov. 19, 2020

Court:San Joaquin County Superior Court

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Sammy Landin

Defendant: 1st Light Energy Inc.

The Lawsuit Against 1st Light Energy Inc.:

The lawsuit against 1st Light Energy Inc. is currently pending in the San Joaquin County Superior Court. The lawsuit lists several allegations.

Failure to provide minimum wage
Failure to pay overtime pay
Failure to provide required meal and rest periods
Failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements
Failure to provide wages promptly when due
Failure to reimburse employees for necessary job-related expenses

Other Claims Made in the 1st Light Energy Lawsuit:

In addition to the claims already listed, the lawsuit alleges that the company committed acts of unfair competition violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 with a company policy failing to correctly calculate and record accurate overtime pay rates for overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff in the case and others in similar situations with the company. According to the lawsuit, the company’s failure to meet this burden was ongoing and intentional. Failing to properly calculate and pay the legally required compensation for work completed violates California Labor Code.

California Overtime Requirements: What is Overtime Pay?

Most non-exempt California employees have the legal right to payment for overtime hours worked. When the California employee works more than a certain number of hours in one day or in one work week, they are due an overtime wage as payment. Overtime pay is a type of increased payment employees earn when they work “overtime hours.” Overtime hours accrue once an employee works more than a certain number of hours in one workday or one workweek. The overtime pay rate is determined using a specific calculation based on the employee’s regular rate of pay.

January 28, 2021

Vail Resorts Faces Lawsuit Alleging Labor Law Violations

January 28, 2021/ Blog Author

On Dec. 3, 2020, three employees filed a lawsuit against Vail Resorts alleging the company violated federal and California state labor law, and multiple other states’ labor laws. Plaintiffs in the case seek class action status.

All the Details on the Case: Quint et al v. Vail Resorts Inc.

Case No.: 1:2020cv03569

Filed: December 3, 2020

Court:United States District Court for the District of Colorado

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Randy Dean Quint, Mark Molina and John Linn

Defendant: Vail Resorts Inc.

Plaintiffs Seek Class Action Status for Quint et al v. Vail Resorts Inc.

The lawsuit was filed in early December 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of R. Quint, J. Linn, and M. Molina seeks class action status. If granted, class action status would include eligible current and former employees of Vail Resorts for the last three years. Plaintiffs in the suit allege that the Defendant exploited seasonal employees and violated both federal and state labor laws. The lawsuit seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for alleged violations and fairly compensate plaintiffs and others in similar circumstances for damages some estimate at over $100 million.

The Plaintiffs Seek Others to Join the Class Action:

Plaintiffs in the case seek others in similar situations to join the proposed class action against Vail Resorts. According to the lawsuit, Vail Resorts broadcasts above-market hourly wages for their workers, but they allegedly did not pay hourly employees for all hours worked at the rate agreed upon in employment contracts. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant’s employment law violations applied to ski instructors, snowboard instructors, ticket scanners, lift operators, etc. All are allegedly not fully paid for their entire shift, according to the lawsuit. “Off the clock” work that was allegedly left unpaid included some training, travel time, dressing time, use, purchase or maintenance of ski/snowboard equipment, and use, purchase or maintenance of cell phones.

Workers Allegedly Not Paid for All Hours Worked:

According to the lawsuit, Quint was employed as a seasonal Vail Resorts employee and full-time snow sport instructor at Beaver Creek Resort for seven years. The Plaintiff claims during that time he worked 470 hours for which he did not receive payment, as well as 422 hours of allegedly unpaid overtime.

According to the lawsuit, Linn was a part-time employee and full-time snow sports instructor at Beaver Creek. The Plaintiff claims he worked 213 hours that were not paid, as well as 130 hours of unpaid overtime during his years with the company.

January 26, 2021

$7.5M Settles Ikea Class Action Wage and Hour Suit

January 26, 2021/ Blog Author

In recent news, Ikea agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of California labor laws.

All the Details on the Case: Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

Case Number: 19-cv-01182

The Plaintiff in the Case: Cahilig

Defendant: Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The History of the Case: Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The class action lawsuit alleged that Ikea violated California labor laws by failing to provide employees with paid rest breaks. Plaintiffs in the case also claimed that Ikea’s written rest period policy violated California labor law because the policy required that Ikea employees stay on site during their paid rest periods. Ikea employees were also allegedly required to take their breaks in the Staff Cafe or other specified non-work areas on site.

What Determines the Rest Break Violation in Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that to fulfill labor law requirements, California employers must relinquish control over how their employees spend their time during rest breaks and meal periods.

Plaintiff in the Case Made Additional Allegations:

In addition to citing rest period violations, plaintiffs in the case claim that Ikea failed to provide wages owed to their employees in a timely manner along with accurate wage statements.

Judge Gives Settlement Preliminary Approval:

On June 17, 2020, a federal judge gave the proposed settlement agreement preliminary approval. Ikea agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle the class action lawsuit.

The Class Action and the Settlement:

In Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, 6.400 class members will receive 75% of the full settlement amount. The remaining funds will go toward attorneys’ fees and associated costs.

If you need to discuss California labor law violations in the workplace or if you need to file a California wage and hour 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.

January 26, 2021

Rideshare App Drivers File Suit to Overturn California Prop 22 Measure

January 26, 2021/ Blog Author

Some drivers for rideshare app drivers and delivery services filed a lawsuit to overturn a California Proposition 22, a ballot initiative making rideshare app drivers independent contractors rather than employees. The employee classification determines worker eligibility for benefits, and job protections applicable to common issues like overtime pay, minimum wage, etc.

Rideshare App Drivers Wish to Overturn California Prop 22 Ballot Measure

The drivers filed the lawsuit with the California Supreme Court claiming that the ballot measure is unconstitutional since it limits the Legislature’s power to grant workers the right to organize and exclude drivers from workers’ compensation eligibility.

The Ballot Measure: California Prop 22

Voters approved the ballot measure in November 2020 (with almost 60% of the vote). California Prop 22 received heavy financial support from major rideshare app companies like Uber and Lyft, amounting up to $200 million. Drivers opposing the proposition were joined by labor unions that spent approximately $20 million to challenge the proposition.

California’s Prop 22: Challenged in Court

The proposition is the most expensive one in California history. Once Prop. 22 was certified, opposing groups could challenge it in court. Prop. 22 supporters insist voters spoke clearly when they passed the ballot measure in a landslide. The fate of Prop. 22 will be left to the state Supreme Court.

January 22, 2021

Del Taco Sexual Harassment Suit Ending with $1.25M Settlement?

January 22, 2021/ Blog Author

In recent news, Del Taco agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged sexual harassment and retaliation against female employees.

Allegations of Sexual Harassment Cited in Lawsuit:

According to the lawsuit (EEOC v. Del Taco, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-1978 CAS (SPX)), a Del Taco general manager and shift leader at the Rancho Cucamonga, California location sexually harassed young female employees daily. The alleged harassment included unwelcome physical contact, vulgar comments, and sexual propositions. According to the plaintiffs’ claims, the rampant harassing behavior on the part of the shift leader and general manager led other male employees to engage in similar behavior. The young female employees claim they complained to human resources, but that the company failed to respond to the complaints. Some of the workers claim they had no other choice but to quit.

Sexual Harassment Allegations Led to 2018 Lawsuit:

Del Taco was initially sued in connection to these sexual harassment allegations in 2018. However, in the years since, sexual harassment is still a common issue in restaurant work spaces - particularly in the fast food industry. Del Taco is not the only major fast food chain facing similar allegations. McDonald’s is also facing a class action lawsuit citing allegations of pervasive sexual harassment of female employees (filed in April 2020). The Del Taco $1.25M settlement is one of the largest financial settlements for a sexual harassment case in 2020.

Additional Requirements Included in the Sexual Harassment Settlement:

In addition to the financial settlement, Del Taco agreed to make some changes to their policy, and training practices. The company agreed to a three-year consent decree including company-wide injunctive relief with the purpose of preventing workplace harassment and retaliation. Del Taco will retain an EEO to monitor, review, and revise applicable policies and procedures related to discrimination, harassment and retaliation. A new structure will be created for employees to use when reporting discrimination or harassment. Del Taco will also need to provide all employees with training on anti-discrinination laws emphasizing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Projections Regarding Sexual Harassment in the Workplace:

Updated training is helpful and will likely improve the situation for many, but it will not solve the problem. This won’t be the last sexual harassment case or sexual harassment case settlement.

If you need to discuss sexual harassment in the workplace or if you need to file a California sexual harassment 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 Labor Laws