Did PricewaterhouseCoopers Retaliate Against a Whistleblower?

Did PricewaterhouseCoopers retaliate against a whistleblower or not? A California judge will decide.

The Case: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

The Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division

The Case No.: 18-cv-02615-RS

The Plaintiff: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

Mauro Botta, the plaintiff in the case, was a former PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) auditor in Silicon Valley who filed a lawsuit against the firm. Botta alleged he was fired in retaliation for standing up to and exposing auditor misconduct at the company and for reporting that conduct to the SEC. Botta worked in the defendant’s San Jose office and claims he was fired in August 2017. He also claims he was kicked off auditing projects for two technology companies (Cavium and Harmonic) after raising flags about potential fraud. Cavium makes semiconductors used in electronics, and Harmonic Inc. offers video-streaming and broadband-related services and products. After being fired, the former auditor filed a whistleblower retaliation suit against PricewaterhouseCoopers. However, a federal judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse, indicated the plaintiff failed to cite a specific law or regulation that the defendant allegedly violated.

The Defendant: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

The judge is considering whether or not one of the world’s largest accounting firms broke the law when they fired one of their senior managers for blowing the whistle on PricewaterhouseCoopers allegedly “cozy” relationships with various Silicon Valley businesses for which they were handling independent audits. The defendant argued that Botta lacks the necessary proof to support his allegations. During the bench trial, PwC showed evidence Botta had a history of struggling to accept constructive feedback, and had a communication style and immature behavior that “rubbed clients the wrong way.” However, these are not the reasons cited by the defendant when firing Botta. When terminating Botta, the company cited an investigation conducted by an outside attorney in 2014 for the Cavium account. The investigation claimed Botta lied about putting a “nonexistent control” in place or any type of method to prevent accounting improprieties. Botta claims PwC is rewording his “suggestion” for implementing a control to use as a pretext for the firing.

The Question in the Case: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

The bench trial ended early (after nine days) so the judge could determine whether the actions of the defendant constituted retaliation. Botta’s legal representation insisted during trial that Botta was fired for blowing the whistle on the company’s lack of independence in auditing clients’ accounting practices. The tech companies were providing PwC large amounts of money to fulfill the independent auditing services. The plaintiff argued that it’s common sense that if an auditing employee raises an issue, and is then removed from the job per the client’s request, the company performing the independent audit is not fulfilling its obligations according to SEC standards.

Botta claims PwC violated whistleblower protections under California State Labor Code, and the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and that the company also violated his employment contract when they failed to provide him with three months notice before terminating his position. Botta seeks three months wages in damages, reinstatement in his position with PwC, additional damages for emotional distress and punitive damages for what Botta refers to as PwC’s reckless indifference regarding the basic rights of their employees.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or whistleblower retaliation, 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.

California Appellate Court Allows Former Drinker Biddle Lawyer’s Suit to Continue

A former Drinker Biddle attorney’s lawsuit alleging fraud, negligence, and breach of contract, is allowed to continue.

The Case: Avetisyan v. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

The Court: Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist.

The Case No.: B294671

The Plaintiff: Avetisyan v. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Former Drinker Biddle attorney, Ani Avetisyan, sued her former law firm in 2014. She filed suit shortly after being fired from the firm’s litigation department. According to Avetisyan, she started work at the Drinker Biddle firm in 2012 and regularly received performance reviews stating she needed to improve in three areas: legal research, analysis, and writing. The plaintiff alleges that the chair of the litigation department during her time at the company later said that the firm wanted her to succeed and stay at the firm, and would continue her employment as long as she could perform at the level of an average associate. She was also told the firm would give her plenty of notice if they were going to terminate her employment. Avetisyan alleges the firm fired her in December 2013.

The Defendant: Avetisyan v. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

The defendant in the case is Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. The firm currently employs more than 1,300 attorneys, professionals and consultants, and operates in over 20 different locations throughout the United States, Shanghai, and London. The firm handles transactional, litigation, and regulatory cases for emerging startups, multinational corporations, etc.

Progression of the Case: Avetisyan v. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

LA County Superior Court dismissed Avetisyan’s claims (breach of oral, written, and implied contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation). According to the trial court, the plaintiff failed to establish any misrepresentation made by Drinker Biddle, or any reliance on the alleged misrepresentations. However, according to the California Court of Appeal, Second District, the vague retention promise is not fatal to the plaintiff’s oral contract claim, and Avetisyan, former Drinker Biddle attorney and plaintiff in the case, can proceed with a lawsuit alleging the firm breached an oral contract they terminated her from her position in the firm’s litigation department.

If you have questions about how to respond to a breach of contract or if you’ve experienced other 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.

Plaintiffs in Minted Hacking Class Action Request Preliminary $5M Settlement Approval

Atkinson and Renvall, plaintiffs in the Minted hacking class action file a motion for preliminary settlement approval.

Details of the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:20-cv-03869-VC

Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc. : The Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs in the case are Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall. The two plaintiffs filed individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs began investigating a cybersecurity incident in May 2020. The incident involved Minted, and a hacking group called the Shiny Hunters.

The Allegations: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

In June 2021, the plaintiffs filed claims alleging millions of customer records from Minted’s user account database were breached by Shiny Hunters in a May 6, 2020 incident. According to the suit, the cyberattack resulted in the theft of approximately 4.1 million customers’ personal info. When no response was received in response to the CCPA letter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to seek statutory penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Resolving the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

After a contentious dispute over arbitration discovery, some exchange of information, and deposition prep, the two parties agreed to engage in meditation. A tentative agreement was reached during meditation in early January 2021, but three months went by before sufficient information was gathered regarding the breach, the Defendant’s financial statements, etc. and the parties agreed to settlement terms to resolve litigation. On April 15, 2021, the plaintiffs and Minted finally reached a Settlement Agreement. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, Minted will establish a $5,000,000 settlement fund and implement several changes in their standard business practices that enhance security and protect user information.

Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.: The Proposed Settlement

The comprehensive settlement guarantees relief for all the Settlement Class Members (both monetary and through mandatory data security changes). The proposed settlement establishes a non-reversionary $5 million fund that will provide relief for participating class members. Class members should receive an estimated $43 payment, 2 years of credit monitoring, and personal identity restoration services. Some class members may also be eligible for fraud resolution assistance.

If you need to discuss California state law or if you need to file a class action lawsuit, 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.

Popular Online Art Sourcing Company, Minted Faces Major Class Action

Atkinson and Renvall, plaintiffs in the case, brought a class action against Minted, a popular online marketplace for crowd-sourced home decor, invitations, and stationery. The plaintiffs in the case filed individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals.

Details of the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:20-cv-03869-VC

Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted: The Plaintiffs in the Case

Plaintiffs Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall filed individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated people.

Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted: The Defendant in the Case

Minted, a massive online marketplace, takes submissions from independent artists, allows the entire Minted online community to vote on submissions, and winning submissions are offered for sale on the site. Products vary from home decor to stationery. While the company is built on a crowd-sourcing business model, it is not a small business. According to an Inc. Magazine feature published in 2019, Minted employs between 400-800 people and generates hundreds of millions of dollars in sales annually. In order to purchase from Minted, customers are required to create user profiles using their personally identifiable information (including first and last name, email, home address, phone, credit card information, and password). Customers are assured that their personal information will be securely maintained in Minted’s Privacy Policy.

Overview of the Case: Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted

A computer hacking group that uses the name Shiny Hunters (a reference to the popular PokemonGo game) allegedly burst onto the dark web scene on May 6, 2020 attempting to sell over 73.2 million records. The records contained personally identifiable info from eleven different company’s user databases (one of these eleven companies was Minted). In a notice to affected customers, Minted stated that they became aware of the data breach through a public report listing them as one of several companies impacted by a cybersecurity incident. Almost two weeks later, or three weeks after the data breach, Minted reached out to affected customers again to notify them that their PII has been disclosed to unauthorized or malicious parties. Minted acknowledged that certain information was accessed by third parties including name, email address, hashed passwords, and in some cases phone numbers, billing addresses, and shipping addresses. However, Minted claims they do not have any reason to believe payment information, address book inf, photos, or personalized information was disclosed. No information regarding why they believe this info was not included in the breach was provided.

If you need to discuss violations of California state law or if you need to file a California class action 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.

OSHA Worker Safety Rule Changes Could Lift Mask Requirements for Vaccinated Workers

California’s OSHA department is introducing changes to recommended Covid-19 worker safety rule changes that could lift mask requirements for a large portion of vaccinated California workers.

Mid-June Meeting Will See Further Discussion of Mask Requirements:

Eric Berg, California OSHA Deputy Chief of Research and Standards, stated that he would present suggested revisions to rules at the next meeting on June 17th, 2021. Suggestions would align with Department of Public Health guidance. If changes are approved, mask requirements could be lifted for the majority of vaccinated California workers by the end of the month.

OSHA Withdraws Recommendations for Changes After CDPH Announcement:

After the California Department of Public Health guidance was released recommending a reduction in masking requirements throughout California, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration voted to withdraw their previously released recommendation for changes to pandemic-related worker rules (announced on June 3rd) in an emergency meeting. New OSHA proposed changes would be designed to align with CDPH’s most recent guidance.

CDPH Guidance Sets Rules for General Public & Vaccinated Californians:

The guidance issued by the CDPH set rules for the general public of California recommending vaccinated individuals remove masks except while using public transit systems, while in schools, healthcare settings, shelters, or prisons. The guidance also indicates that regardless of vaccination status, masks will not be required in most outdoor settings. Berg, of California OSHA, stated that CAL OSHA’s recommendations would coincide with the CDPH framework, which aligns with guidelines set out by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The June 3rd Changes Announced by CAL OSHA:

The CAL OSHA changes to Covid-19 related safety measures required by California employers were announced prior to the CDPH’s issued guidance regarding mask requirements for California’s general public. The changes announced on June 3rd were to change rules put in place in November of 2020. However, the June 3rd changes had not yet cleared California’s Office of Administrative Law and were not in effect until the changes were officially published. Since the June 3rd changes were unanimously withdrawn at the emergency meeting, the requirements will remain as stated in the November 2020 rules until further changes are made.

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.

Is VW a Joint Employer Alongside California Independent Franchised Dealerships?

The Ninth Circuit is looking at joint employer claims in connection to California salespeople at independent franchised dealerships and the German automaker, Volkswagen. VW claims salespeople are overreaching with their claims, but if the Ninth Circuit finds that they are a joint employer, they could be liable for the commissions lost during the 2015 emissions-cheating scandal.

Details of the Case: Robert Saavedra et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case No.: 20-17327

VW Asks Ninth Circuit to Affirm October Decision:

In October, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer’s decision closed out the consolidated wage and hour action. Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America asked the Ninth Circuit to affirm the decision they cited as “carefully reasoned.”

The Plaintiffs: Robert Saavedra et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al.

Plaintiffs in the case are former salespeople Robert Saavedra, Armando Rodriguez and Mickey Gaines. The plaintiffs allege that due to the 2015 "clean diesel" emissions-cheating scandal Volkswagen sales experienced a significant drop that dramatically hurt their overall income. The sales people, employed by independent franchised dealerships, argued that Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America Inc. worked with the franchise dealers to provide the employment opportunity and provide compensation to the plaintiffs. If the court finds for the plaintiffs on the joint employer argument, the cited Volkswagen entities would be liable for ensuring salespeople’s wages and hours were compliant with California state law.

The Defendant: Robert Saavedra et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al.

Volkswagen claimed that the plaintiffs continue to attempt to create an employment relationship where none exists. Volkswagern further argues that offering training, certifications and incentives does not constitute the amount of control necessary to indicate control over pay or working conditions that make them a joint employer according to the law. VW entities insist that plaintiffs in the case created the employment relationship in order to keep the suit alive after it was dismissed twice by Judge Breyer (first in September 2019, and again in June 2020).

Overview of the Case: Robert Saavedra et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al.

After amendments were made to the suit, the salespeople claimed Volkswagen violated California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law with fraudulent omissions and their lack of disclosure regarding emissions-cheating. The October ruling dismissed these claims, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit to reverse Judge Breyer’s dismissal. Volkswagen expects the Ninth Circuit to reject the appeal.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from wage and hour violations, 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.

$1.5M Payment to Harborside Discrimination Claims

Harborside, a California cannabis company, agreed to pay $1.5 million to resolve a years-old discrimination lawsuit.

Details of the Case: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

Court: Superior Court of California, Alameda County

Case No.: RG18908395

The Plaintiff: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

The plaintiff, Scott Moothery, is an African American, former employee who alleges he was consistently berated and harassed on the job about his age and his race. In 2015 when Moothery was hired as Harborside’s bookkeeper, he was in his 70s. According to the lawsuit originally filed in 2018, Moothery was promoted multiple times, and received praise for his work, but was fired after he complained about the treatment he received from Harborside’s controller. According to the lawsuit, Moothery was one of five employees of color out of 120 staffers at Harborside. The plaintiff sought $1.13 million in damages. The company agreed to pay a settlement higher than the amount the plaintiff sought in order to resolve all the claims.

The Defendant: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

The Defendant in the case is California cannabis company Harborside or FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al. Harborside claims they settled to avoid the additional costs related to moving forward with the suit. The lawsuit has seen active litigation since the original filing in 2018. According to the company, the $1.5 million will be paid out in one installment.

The History of the Case: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

Moothery claims the issues at work started when Peter Moran started work as the company’s controller. According to the plaintiff, Moran screamed at him in the office, berated him about supposed failures, assigned him tasks unrelated to his job, threatened to replace him, left him out of meetings, criticized his work in conversations with coworkers, etc. In 2016, Moothery complained about the treatment he was receiving to human resources, advising them that the treatment was unique in comparison to the way other employees were treated. According to the lawsuit, a few days later Moothery was fired.

Overview of the Case: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

Moothery's suit brought claims of discrimination, retaliation, defamation, harassment, wrongful termination, etc. According to court records, the settlement deal was officially struck in court June 4th, 2021, just a few weeks before the case was scheduled for trial.

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.