SpaceX Faces Claims of Hiring Discrimination Based on Citizenship Status

SpaceX, the well known space exploration company owned by Elon Musk, faces claims of hiring discrimination. Allegedly, the rocket company discriminated against applicants due to citizenship status by refusing to hire non-U.S. citizens.

Details of the Case: U.S. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:21-mc-00043

The Defendant in the Case:

The Defendant in the case, SpaceX, is owned by Elon Musk. In May of 2020, Fabian Hunter, a dual citizen of both Australia and Canada, filed a discrimination complaint against SpaceX regarding their hiring practices. An investigation ensued to discover whether or not SpaceX engaged in discriminatory hiring practices based on applicants’ citizenship status. In particular, it’s alleged that SpaceX refused to hire non-U.S. citizens.

Allegations Made Against SpaceX:

The DOJ filed suit against SpaceX in January alleging that the company failed to comply with an October subpoena requiring the release of information regarding their standard hiring process. The court was asked to enforce compliance of the subpoena. For the purposes of the investigation, SpaceX was asked to provide company-wide I-9 data and documentation for newly hired employees. They did so, but only for approximately 3,500 employees, and without the appropriate supporting documentation (social security cards, driver’s licenses, green cards, etc.)

The U.S. Magistrate’s Recommendation:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner recommended the request to enforce the subpoena against Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, be granted after determining the scope was not overly broad and did not create an undue burden for the company. As such, the California magistrate recommended SpaceX be made to comply with the investigations into discriminatory hiring procedures, including alleged unfair documentary practices in their employment eligibility verification.

If you have questions about California labor law and how it protects you during the hiring process, 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.

Are Recycling Sorters Owed a Prevailing Wage?

When the California Supreme Court affirmed an appellate decision in late March 2021, California Justices confirmed that recycling sorters are owed a prevailing wage. 

Details of the Case: David Kaanaana et al. v. Barrett Business Services Inc. et al.

Court: California Supreme Court

Case No.: S253458

The Defendant in the Case: 

The Defendant in the case is a company supplying sorters at a sanitation district-owned Los Angeles recycling facility. The Defendant argued that the governing Depression-era statute was only applicable to construction work and that the law did not expand the type of work the prevailing wages requirement covered (as found in Section 1720(a)(2). 

The Plaintiff in the Class Action: 

The plaintiffs in the case were California workers that filed suit against Barrett and their former manager on behalf of belt sorters in general that were employed at two different locations of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2 between April of 2011 and September of 2013. The class of workers insisted they were owed a prevailing wage per the state Legislature’s 1937 enactment of the Labor Code.  The Code incorporated provisions of a 1931 Public Wage Rate Act in the newly codified Public Works Chapter. And workers, in direct opposition to Barrett’s argument, insisted that the law covers more than construction work. 

An Overview of the Case:

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Carol Corrigan, the high court pronounced that Barrett Business Services Inc.’s interpretation of the state statute wasn’t adequate, and that the law (in effect since the late 1930’s) intended to include additional types of work outside of construction and installation work (as in the 1931 uncodified version). At trial, the court granted Barrett’s motion to strike the prevailing wage allegations. However, the state court of appeal reversed the ruling. Justice Corrigan disagreed with Barrett’s arguments that the law applied only to construction work, instead stating that the covered district provision provides a definition depending on the governmental district for which work is performed rather than the type of tasks performed on the job.

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.

Northrop Faces ERISA Class Action In Response to Pension Cuts

Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp. faced allegations of ERISA violations in a recent California class action.  

Details of the Case: Baleja v. Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan et al.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00235

Getting to Know the Case: The Allegations

In Baleja v. Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan et al., Northrop Grumman Corp faces ERISA class action. The ERISA class action includes allegations that the group improperly slashed from 1,000 to 2,000 retiree pensions. A California federal judge that heard the original claims, trimmed the suit but allowed it to continue to trial with the core claims intact. 

Getting to Know the Case: The Case Progresses

U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal dismissed the retirees’ claim that a pension plan document they unearthed flouted the ERISA disclosure requirement. However, the same judge preserved accusations that the defendant improperly cut retirees’ pensions, and that in doing so, violated federal law. Judge Bernal felt it was too soon to grant the motion for summary judgement for either party. Before doing so, he could need answers to key questions about the pension cuts. 

The Retiree Pension Cuts: Brought On by an Amendment

The cuts referenced in the case refer to retiree pension cuts brought about by a pension plan amendment. The amendment, called the ESL offset provision, was added decades ago in the 1980s. The court will seek answers to these key questions during the trial phase. 

Questions About the ESL Offset Provision: 

The court will need to determine the appropriate interpretation of the ESL offset provision, as well as the 1986 TRW plan as the case moves forward. The ERISA class action was launched years ago in February of 2017. The claims were originally filed by John Baleja, a retiree who was an employee of subsidiary of the aerospace and automotive company TRW Inc.(this company was an acquisition of Northrop in 2002). 

The Pension Plan Termination: 

The subsidiary’s pension plan was terminated in the mid 80’s. Baleja and other ESL Inc. employees and retirees became part of the TRW pension plan. When terminated, the old plan made payments to those transitioning into the new plan (TRW’s pension plan). According to court documents related to the case, Baleja received payments totaling $4,078. An offset was applied when Northrup acquired TRW. The amount was based on the termination payment. According to Baleja, Northrup significantly overcalculated the offset amount. Baleja alleged that the company cut his approximate $1,000 pension by close to 50% based on the fact that he received a payout of a few thousand dollars in the 1980s. 

The Class Members: 

Class members include plan members who had their accrued pension benefits cut due to the ESL offset since the end of 1984. Class certification was granted in March 2020, and estimates of class numbers are between 1180 and 2000. 

If you have questions about ERISA violations or the law protects you, 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.

Can Geico Employees Keep their Wage Suit Alive?

In recent news, Geico attempted to have an overtime pay lawsuit tossed, but in this instance, auto claim adjusters alleging the company forced workers to work off the clock, and failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods as required by law.

Details of the Case: Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:20-cv-11722

Workers Filed a Collective and Class Action:

In December 2020, workers filed a collective and class action alleging Geico employees were required to work off the clock, and work through breaks without appropriate compensation. The push to work through breaks and off the clock was allegedly a company effort to meet inspection quotas and employees claim they feared refusing could result in poor performance evaluations. Plaintiffs Alexander Rieske and Saul Gonzalez filed the suit alleging violations of California and New York state laws, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the motion, thirteen other adjusters have already joined the plaintiffs.

Defendant Files a Motion to Dismiss Claiming Lack of Jurisdiction:

In March 2021, Geico filed a motion to dismiss the suit claiming that there was no practical reason to litigate out-of-state claims in California and indicating the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claims in the case. In their opposition filing, plaintiffs asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court decision the insurer relied on to push for dismissal of the nationwide collective action (and the New York state class action) doesn’t apply because unlike the Supreme Court case, Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. involves federal claims brought in federal court.

Does the 2017 Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court Decision Apply?

When filing for dismissal, Geico cited the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court. However, plaintiffs in the suit claim this decision does not apply to the current case since Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court pertained to state jurisdiction finding that California state courts could not adjudicate mass tort claims when plaintiffs were not from California. The Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. action is different because it concerns federal claims in federal court. Plaintiffs further argued that if the court accepted the position presented by Geico that federal courts cannot hear out-of-state claims brought under FLSA, it would effectively eliminate the collective nature of the FLSA.

California Federal Court Finds Bristol-Myers Decision Does Not Apply:

In October 2020, the California federal court’s decision stated that the Bristol-Meyers decision does not apply to FLSA claims brought in federal court (including the current action).

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file FLSA claims, 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.

Aldi Agrees to Pay $2M in California Overtime Pay Lawsuit

Aldi, a discount grocery store chain, recently agreed to a $2 million settlement to end a California overtime lawsuit.

The Details of the Case: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:19-cv-03109

Overview of the Suit: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

Thousands of California employees claim that Aldi, the discount grocery store chain, cheated them out of overtime wages. In summer 2020, the discount grocery store chain negotiated a settlement to shut down the overtime pay dispute. This is not the only time the Illinois-based company negotiated to resolve an overtime pay violation claim.

Other Overtime Pay Suits this Defendant Faced:

Aldi, the discount grocery store chain that faced allegations of overtime pay violations from California workers in 2020, previously settled claims with a group of New York store managers alleging they were ot paid for all hours they worked for $10 million. It was just a year after this $10 million wage and hour settlement that a pair of California employees for the same company unveiled their suit including similar allegations.

The Settlement: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

The two California workers involved in the California wage and hour lawsuit, filed the settlement in federal court on March 29, 2021. They seek settlement approval from U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt. Initially, the two (Grant and Lacey-Salas) filed two separate suits in 2020, but the court granted approval to consolidate the two cases in March 2021. Both plaintiffs alleged that the discount grocery store where they were employed did not provide California employees with full compensation for the hours they worked.

Seeking Settlement Approval in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit Against Aldi:

The plaintiffs are seeking settlement approval and hope to have payouts approved ranging from a few hundred dollars to over a thousand for themselves and for the 2,050+ workers in 70 different Aldi’s locations throughout California employed during the past 5 years.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. 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.

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.