Ex UPS Employee Files Suit Over Alleged Covid-19 Risk

UPS fights back against an ex employee alleging Covid-19 risk.

The Case: Desdnie Hess v. United Parcel Service Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-00093

The Plaintiff: Desdnie Hess v. United Parcel Service Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Hess, is a resident of Santa Barbara who started working as a UPS supervisor in October 2019 until May 2020 when she quit. Hess was employed at a Santa Maria UPS distribution center where she alleges “physical distancing” doesn’t exist. She filed a lawsuit in California state court in October 2020 that was later moved to federal court.

The Defendant: Desdnie Hess v. United Parcel Service Inc.

According to Hess, UPS poses a public nuisance, engages in unfair competition and does not reimburse employees for the necessary masks and other PPE equipment needed to ensure safety. Hess is seeking declaratory relief and monetary damages. UPS’s pandemic response has also been called into question by others. In fact, the company is already dealing with the Cal/OSHA regarding another California facility.

History of the Case: Desdnie Hess v. United Parcel Service Inc.

UPS requested that the California federal judge toss the proposed class action alleging that the company systematically endangered their employees’ health and safety. The plaintiff alleges that UPS left their staff vulnerable to exposure to Covid-19. UPS urged the judge to toss the proposed class action arguing that the ex-employees’ claims are better suited to be handled by a regulator rather than a judge. UPS insisted during the remote hearing that the plaintiff’s claims should be tossed and considered a workers’ comp issue and sent before a state regulator. However, Judge Alsup was concerned that referring the case to Cal/OSHA could mean Hess wouldn’t be able to recover damages for the alleged emotional distress due to lax safety protections against Covid-19 exposure in the UPS workplace. UPS continued their argument insisting that the workers’ compensation regime covers the alleged psychiatric injury in the case.

If you have questions about Covid-19 related 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.

Former Virgin Air Flight Attendants File Wage and Hour and Overtime Claims

In the case of Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc., the judge will need to consider the origin of the defendant’s policy regarding meal period and rest break provisions outside of California.

The Case: Julia Bernstein, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Virgin America, Inc., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California.

Case No.: 15–v–02277–JST

The Plaintiff: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case are current and former Virgin America flight attendants. The plaintiffs in the class action allege that Virgin failed to pay them for hours worked before their flights, after their flights, and between their flights, as well as time spent in mandatory training, time they were “on reserve,” time they were required to spend taking mandatory drug tests, and time spent filling out required incident reports. The plaintiffs also allege that the company did not allow them to take meal periods or rest breaks as required by law, did not pay appropriate overtime pay and minimum wage, and did not provide class members with accurate wage statements.

The Defendant: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Virgin American is an airline company. Headquartered in Burlingame, California, Virgin trains their flight attendants in California. In fact, the company has received millions of dollars from the to do just that. All flight attendant training for Virgin takes place in California. Many of the flights arrive or depart from a California airport, as well. The airline estimates that in the last ten years, the average number of daily flights departing California airport has never fallen below 88.6%

Background of the Case: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

In most recent news, the judge found that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption against extraterritorial application of meal and rest break requirements for breaks and rest periods that occur outside of California. This finding is based on the judge’s decision that the plaintiffs did not show that the Virgin airline company policy originated at the company’s California headquarters.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or overtime pay 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.

Does Olive Garden’s Tipping Policy Case Racial Discrimination & Harassment?

A recent lawsuit alleges that Olive Garden’s parent company, Darden Restaurants, has a tipping policy in place that causes racial discrimination, and sexual harassment.

The Case: One Fair Wage, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc., Defendant

The Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California Oakland Div.

The Case No.: 4:21-cv-2695

The Plaintiff: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

One Fair Wage, Inc. is an advocacy group suing Olive Garden parent Darden Restaurants. The plaintiffs allege that Darden’s company wide tipping policy encourages sexual harassment and racial discrimination towards the waitstaff in their restaurants.

The Defendant: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Darden Restaurants, Inc., was of the restaurants that actively opposed getting rid of the tipped wage. Darden Restaurants is the parent company for the popular, and well-known Olive Garden restaurant chain. Tipped minimum wage refers to the fact that in 43 states, employers are legally allowed to pay workers as little as $2.13 per hour as long as the hourly wage plus their tips add up to the local minimum wage. If it doesn’t, the employer is required to make up the difference.

Background for the Case: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

The One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc. lawsuit alleges Olive Garden parent company’s tipping policy is the cause of racial discrimination, and sexual harassment on the job.The complaint was filed in California federal court and is the latest push in the battle against tipped minimum wage. The rate of tipped minimum wage was last raised in the early 1990s, but there was a push by Democrats to get rid of the tipped minimum wage earlier in 2021 as a part of their overall effort to raise the federal minimum wage.

If you have questions about California labor law or if you need to file a wage and hour 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.

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.