Does California Law Apply to Employment Activity on Indian Reservations?

Former Senior Vice President and General Manager of Harrah’s Resort Southern California, Darrell Pilant, sued Caesars Enterprise Services and Caesars Entertainment Inc. on wrongful termination claims. The claims were based on Pilant’s allegation that he was fired for opposing the resort’s plan to reopen because he feared for the health and safety of the resort’s employees. The case presents more than the obvious question of whether or not the company was within their rights to fire their GM, but it also brings up the question of whether or not California labor law applies on the Indian reservation.

Details of the Case: Pilant v. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC et al

Court: California Southern

Case No.: 3:20-cv-02043

In Response to Pilant’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit:

In November, the resort argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and for excluding an essential party in the suit due to its sovereign immunity, the Rincon Band. But their arguments did not convince the judge. This was in early December. By late December, the Rincon Band was attempting to intervene in the suit as a means of bolstering Caesars' arguments to dismiss, but in February 2021, the judge denied their arguments; refusing to let the tribe join the lawsuit. In March, the tribe appealed to the Ninth Circuit requesting the court pause the suit until a decision is made. Pilant claims it’s all part of a plan to prevent his wrongful termination lawsuit from proceeding as planned. It’s also notable that for decades, the Rincon tribe has strongly resisted the application of state jurisdiction on the reservation - especially in connection to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The Question of Applying California State Law on the Indian Reservation:

The most concerning aspect of the case from the perspective of the Rincon Band’s legal counsel is whether or not state law can regulate business on Native American land. The court will have to decide if California law applies to employment activity on the Indian reservation or not, and that affects the tribe’s interests, and ultimately, according to the tribe’s legal counsel, lends credence to the request to pause the wrongful termination lawsuit.

Pilant’s Response to the Request to Pause Wrongful Termination Lawsuit:

In his response to the request to pause the wrongful termination lawsuit, Pilant claimed that the Rincon Band’s filing was simply to delay his lawsuit. Pilant filed the complaint in San Diego county court in August 2020, but the case was transferred to the California federal court in October 2020 for jurisdictional reasons.

The History of the Case: Pilant v. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC et al

According to Pilant’s complaint, in late May 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom urged the San Diego-area tribal leaders not to reopen casinos. Just days after the letter from the governor, Pilant took a similar stand urging his supervisors and Caesars legal counsel not to reopen the resort. However, according to the plaintiff, the resort went ahead and reopened in May, within one week of the governor’s letter urging the opposite action. This dismissal of obvious safety recommendations urged Pilant to resign before the resort reopened, and sue the company for wrongful termination after they violated public policy.

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Wrongful Termination Suit Filed in Connection to 2021 Capitol Insurrection Fails

Leah Snyder, former employee of California’s Alight Solutions LLC, claims she was wrongfully terminated from her job after she posted selfies of herself at the U.S. Capitol insurrection.

Details of the Case: Leah Snyder v. Alight Solutions LLC, et al

Court: California Central Court

Case No.: 8:21-cv-00187

The Timeline of Events Related to the Case: Leah Snyder v. Alight Solutions LLC, et al

Leah Snyder, plaintiff in the case, worked for Alight Solutions LLC as a computer programmer for twenty years. In January 2021, Snyder participated in the Capitol insurrection. Snyder claims her participation was limited to peaceful marching outside the building, and taking selfies with police officers on site. Snyder was abruptly fired from her long-time position for taking part in the event. Snyder quickly responded by filing a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Wrongful Termination Lawsuit & Additional Allegations

Snyder claimed wrongful termination based on the alleged violation of the good cause provision in her employment agreement with Alight as well as a California civil rights law that bans people from using threats or violence to interfere with someone else’s constitutional rights. Snyder’s lawsuit also argued that the company violated California's Tom Bane Civil Rights Act that protects against employers threatening employees to prevent their action in actions or events, etc. that are protected by their constitutional rights.

Many Terminations Followed the U.S. Capital Insurrection in January 2021:

The plaintiff in the case, Leah Snyder, is not the only participant in the January 2021 U.S. Capitol Insurrection to lose their job over the event. Others are in similar situations, terminated after evidence of their participation was seen on social media. However, Snyder appears to be one of the first to file a federal wrongful termination lawsuit in connection to the U.S. capital riot-related termination. Snyder filed suit against Alight seeking a minimum of $10 million in damages.

The Employer Moves to Dismiss:

In their motion to dismiss, Alight argued that they were within their rights to terminate Snyder's employment. The company insists they did not fire Snyder based on her political beliefs or her civic participation, but that they fired her because she participated in an illegal act, and there is no law that restricts an employer's power to fire an employee that breaks the law or participates in illegal behavior. In connection with the alleged California Tom Bane Civil Rights Act violation, the company noted that they did not threaten her before she attended the event. They only fired her after the riot occurred and she returned to California. Therefore, according to the argument presented by Alight Solutions, Leah Snyder's First Amendment rights were not violated because they didn’t stop her from attending or participating in the insurrection on Jan. 6th, 2021.

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$1.5 Million Paid for California Overtime and Per Diem Suit

According to a California federal court filing, a medical staffing company recently agreed to a $1.5 million settlement in a California overtime class action.

Details of the Case: Hubbard v. RCM Technologies (USA), Inc.

Court: United States District Court Northern District of California.

Case No.: 4:19-cv-06363

Allegations in the Case: Hubbard v. RCM Technologies (USA), Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case allege they were shortchanged by the medical staffing company that employed them. The workers allege the company violated labor law; failing to provide proper overtime pay while employees were on travel assignments. According to the workers involved in the case, the alleged overtime law violations were a result of the company failing to factor in the employees’ per diems for base-pay rates. In short, medical workers claim the company, RCM Technologies (USA) Inc., miscalculated overtime wages. The group of medical workers recently called for preliminary approval of a settlement with the employer, RCM Technologies (USA) Inc.

Protracted Negotiations Resulted in Compromise and Settlement Terms:

While the negotiations were described as “protracted,” the health care workers eventually concluded that based on the size of the risk associated with attempting to recover the maximum amount they sought with the suit, a compromise was justified. For the purposes of the settlement, the plaintiffs were willing to agree with the terms and come to an agreement. Rhonda Hubbard filed the original lawsuit in October 2019 citing that RCM violated California labor law and California business laws associated with failing to pay accurate overtime pay.

The Class Members: Over 300 California Workers Employed by RCM

The certified class members numbered over 300. The class included any workers employed by RCM in California on a nonexempt, hourly basis during the four years before the lawsuit was filed (through class certification), and received overtime pay and a weekly per diem or stipend from RCM. According to the preliminary terms of the $1.5 million settlement, each class member can expect to receive approximately $3,110. Hubbard receives a $10,000 service award, and the attorneys are provided up to $500,000 in attorneys fees, and $20,000 in litigation costs.

Considering Per Diems & Overtime Pay:

Should per diems always be factored into a California employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculations? The preliminary settlement occurred before the court provided an answer on the question at the heart of this case. However, In February, the Ninth Circuit ruled that per diem pay should have been considered part of the worker’s bae pay rate. Regardless, Hubbard wasn’t sure she could depend on the Ninth Circuit ruling to guarantee her class action’s success in litigation continued, since the Ninth Circuit also found that the inclusion of per diem for the purposes of calculating overtime should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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 various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Covid-19 Employment Requirements to Limit Exposure in the Workplace

In late 2020, Emergency Temporary Standards were issued for California workplaces by Cal/OSHA. The new standards put dramatic requirements in place for training, testing, and record keeping. 

2020 Standards to Minimize Covid-19 Exposure in the Workplace:

While the dramatic new Cal/OSHA issued Emergency Temporary Standards imposed requirements in various areas, the most controversial new requirement employers faced was to “continue and maintain an employee’s earnings, seniority, and all other employee rights and benefits.” This stipulation applied to employees excluded from their own workplace under ETS regulations. The requirement did not apply in situations where the employee was unable to work due to other reasons (including hospitalization) or if the Covid-19 exposure was not connected to the workplace (and the employer could prove it wasn’t). Since requirements also existed that required any close contacts (even if they were asymptomatic) to exclude themselves from the workplace for at least 10 days (even if they received a negative Covid-19 test), the new requirement placed a significant burden on California employers. 

Just as Federal Covid-19 Paid Leave Requirements Expired at the End of 2020

These new Cal/OSHA requirements were issued just as federal Covid-19 paid leave requirements expired at the end of 2020 inspiring numerous business groups to challenge portions of the ETS. One of several similar lawsuits was filed in San Francisco. After briefing from the parties in the case, the judge’s order denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin portions of the ETS. 

Judge Denies Early Challenge to Cal/OSHA Standard Extending Covid-19 Pay Requirements

When denying the early challenge to the new standards issued by Cal/OSHA that extended Covid-19 pay requirements, the judge cited numerous arguments in support of his decision: 

• the Plaintiff filed to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claims

• the balance of interim harms 

• the public interest in stopping the spread of Covid-19

• protecting employee health

• protecting community health

The judge on the case cited the above indicating that combined, they weigh heavily in favor of the ETS regulation’s continuance of Covid-19 pay protections, and other requirements to respond to the dangers presented by the pandemic. The judge specifically noted that with the exception of religious services (that have unique constitutional considerations), not one court in the entire nation has blocked emergency public health orders designed to stop the spread of the virus (and the illness, and death associated with it). The judge showed no indication that he wanted to be the first to do so. While this denial does not end the case, the judge’s ruling means that ETS regulations are in force as litigation progresses. 

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Lawsuit Filed Against Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. Alleging Failure to Pay Accurate Wages

Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. faces allegations in a recently filed lawsuit that they failed to provide their employees with accurate wages.

Details of the Case: Matthew Place vs. Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc.

Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

Case No.: 34-2021-00294802

The Allegations in the Case: Matthew Place vs. Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Matthew Place, alleges Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. violated the California Labor Code by failing to compensate their employees for missed meal and rest breaks, as well as allegedly failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses. Failing to fulfill these employment law requirements means failing to provide accurate wages to employees.

According to the Lawsuit: Matthew Place vs. Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc.

According to the allegations, the Defendant, Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. violated labor law multiple times, including:

• Failing to Pay Minimum Wage

• Failing to Pay Overtime Pay

• Failing to Provide Legally Mandated Meal Breaks

• Failing to Provide Legally Mandated Rest Periods

• Failing to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements

• Failing to Reimburse Employees for Necessary Business Expenses

• Failing to Provide Wages when Due

Alleged Behavior Would Violate Various Sections of California Labor Code:

If the allegations made in the lawsuit are correct, the Defendant is in violation of numerous Labor Codes.

• §201

• §202

• §203

• §226

• §226.7

• §510

• §512

• §1194

• §1197

• §1197.1

• §2802

• applicable Wage Order

Violations of labor code can result in civil penalties.

Alleged Violation of California Labor Code Section 226:

According to California Labor Code § 226, “...every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing...the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate." According to the lawsuit, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements allowing workers to pinpoint their gross wages and net wages earned. This alleged behavior constitutes a violation of California Labor Code § 226.

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Judge Denies Disney’s Request to Have Harassment Lawsuit Tossed

In March 2021, a Los Angeles judge declined Disney’s request to toss the lawsuit against the studio alleging sexual harassment on the “Criminal Minds” set where the popular CBS series is filmed.

Details of the Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

Case No.: 20STCV19182

Disney Faces Harassment Lawsuit:

The suit, filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged both sexual harassment and assault. The judge that dismissed Disney’s request to toss the lawsuit did so because he didn’t find questions regarding putative class size appropriate at the demurrer stage.

Judge Declines to Dismiss the Complaint Targeting Disney & ABC Signature Studios, Inc.:

At an afternoon hearing, Judge Daniel J. Buckley of the Los Angeles Superior Court declined to dismiss the harassment complaint lodged against ABC Signature Studios Inc., and Disney. A few of ABC’s Criminal Minds TV show execs, and the Director of Photography for the popular crime show, Gregory St. Johns, were specifically accused of harassment throughout the course of the show’s time on air. The lawsuit alleges widespread sexual harassment.

The Defendant’s Argument to Dismiss the Complaint:

The Defendant argued that the state department did not plead a determinable class with definable common issues of law or fact, and that the loose class definition presented by the agency was too all-inclusive reaching to anyone who worked on the show. According to the defendant, this would balloon to include more than 10,000 people. Based on these arguments, the defendant claimed that many of those who would be “included” according to the presented class definition never encountered St. Johns, so they couldn’t be a potential victim in the case.

The Judge’s Decision: No Dismissal, but No Definitive Call on the Class Definition:

While Judge Buckley declined to dismiss at this point, there was no definitive decision from the court regarding the argument presented by the defendant other than the question didn’t apply at that particular stage in the proceedings.

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Could New Law Ban NDAs Preventing Workers from Speaking Up About Discrimination & Abuse?

A proposed California law seeks to ban NDAs that prohibit California workers from speaking up about workplace discrimination and other forms of workplace abuse. 

Empowering California Workers to Speak Up About Alleged Workplace Discrimination: 

A bill introduced by a California state legislator could empower California employees who witness alleged discrimination in the workplace to speak up. The bill would ban specific provisions that are currently included in many confidentiality agreements or NDAs.  

California State Senator Backed Legislation Designed to Empower Workers:

The California State Senator behind the push for the proposed legislation was State Sen. Connie Leyva. The proposed legislation would ban non-disclosure agreements in cases of alleged workplace discrimination and harassment. Backers of the proposed legislation believe it could prevent California workers from having to sign settlements in a significant portion of workplace discrimination and abuse cases. The bill is being called the Silenced No More Act and is co-sponsored by Equal Rights Advocates and the California Employment Lawyers Association. 

Silencing a California Worker Because They’re a Victim is Unacceptable: 

SB 331 is intended to give California workers victimized in the workplace a voice. Silencing a worker because they are victimized in the workplace for any reason is not acceptable, and advocates of the Silenced No More Act are willing to push for change. Supporters believe the proposed legislation could create opportunities to help perpetrators responsible and prevent future instances of abuse in California workplaces. 

Proposed SB 331 Legislation Builds on #MeToo Era: 

The proposed SB 331 builds on existing California law known as the STAND Act, passed in 2018 at the peak of the #MeToo movement. The STAND Act bans agreements that block workers from speaking up about sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace. Advocates of the new legislation argue that many NDAs protect perpetrators from taking responsibility for their actions and encourage future incidents by keeping alleged harassment and discrimination under wraps. NDAs tend to prevent workers from speaking up about abuse in their workplace. Also, the Silenced No More Act would allow California workers to speak out about other discriminatory claims, such as gender discrimination, racial discrimination, etc. The proposed legislation would also provide some protection for California workers being asked to sign NDAs as a condition to receive a severance package. 

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