Ladies Win Class Action Status in the Google Gender Pay Disparity Suit

In recent news, a class of 10,800 women win class action status in the gender pay disparity suit against Google.

The Case: Ellis v. Google Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, San Francisco County

The Case No.: CGC-17-561299

The Plaintiff: Ellis v. Google Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, almost 11,000 women, filed the lawsuit claiming that Google pays men more than women for doing the same job. Four lead plaintiffs will represent the women in the class group over claims of gender-based pay discrimination. The plaintiffs allege violations of California’s Equal Pay Act, which is one of the strongest measures of its kind in the country.

The Defendant: Ellis v. Google Inc.

Alphabet Inc.’s Google failed to persuade the judge in the case to block class-action status for the gender-pay disparity lawsuit. Google claims that they conducted an analysis for the last several years designed to ensure pay, bonuses and equity awards are fair. The company claims that when they discover differences in pay, including gender-based disparities, they make adjustments; increasing pay to remove the disparities before new compensation goes into effect.

The History of the Case: Ellis v. Google Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case seek more than $600 million in damages. Women at various tech companies have turned to the courts to seek equal pay and treatment at work, but have had difficulty gaining traction. Other gender disparity lawsuits on behalf of women workers in other industries (retail, finance, etc.) have seen similar results. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked 1.5 million women that worked at Walmart Inc. from pursuing discrimination clams as a class, which set the bar fairly high.

Similar Cases In a Number of Industries:

Oracle Corp. faced similar allegations last year and saw a similar ruling.

Twitter Inc. faced a lawsuit from their female engineers, but the plaintiffs were not granted class action status. The ruling was upheld on appeal.

Microsoft Corp. also faced claims of gender-bias, but the plaintiffs failed to win class-action status. The ruling was upheld on appeal.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from gender discrimation, 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.

Tennessee Titans Face Accusations of Firing Worker on Covid-19 Leave

In recent news, the Tennessee Titans are facing a lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, the NFL team violated the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (and other federal labor laws) when they terminated a field maintenance employee who took time off work when they contracted Covid-19.

The Case: Miller v. Tennessee Football Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-00378

The Plaintiff: Miller v. Tennessee Football Inc.

Paul Miller, plaintiff in the case, filed a lawsuit in Tennessee federal court against Tennessee Football, Inc. According to the suit, the NFL team terminated Miller’s employment when he tested positive for the coronavirus in November 2020 and took a couple weeks of sick leave to quarantine as recommended by the CDC. According to the lawsuit, the NFL team hired Miller as a sports field assistant in October 2019, and Miller consistently "met or exceeded" the employer’s performance expectations during his time on the job with the Titans during which his job duties included prepping the practice and game fields, helping special teams and running backs during team practices, and assisting with equipment issues.

The Defendant: Miller v. Tennessee Football Inc.

Tennessee Football Inc. is the business entity that owns and operates the Titans, an NFL team. According to the plaintiff, he received a phone call from Daniel Werly, Titans’ General Counsel, and Allie Lessmiller, Human Resources Director, terminating him from his job on November 20th, 2020. Miller claims that the team violated the FFCRA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act and Fair Labor Standards Act.

History of the Case: Miller v. Tennessee Football Inc.

According to the plaintiff, the team fired him in violation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The FFCRA was signed into law during the early days of the pandemic in March 2020. One of the protections the FFCRA offers employees is two weeks of paid emergency sick leave. The law prevents employers from firing, disciplining, or discriminating against employees that take paid sick leave under FFCRA. Miller seeks to be reinstated to his old position, seniority level and salary with the Titans. The suit also requests that the Titans take action to stop discrimination against employees due to disability. Miller seeks back pay and fringe benefits, liquidated damages (under the FLSA and FMLA), as well as attorney fees.

This is one of many lawsuits and other legal actions filed recently in response to the U.S. government adopting the first federal paid sick time mandate, the FCCRA.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or violations of FCCRA, 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.

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.