Court Allows Los Angeles Airport Mechanic to Move Forward With Meal Break Suit

In recent news, a California Appeals court allows a Los Angeles airport mechanic to proceed with his lawsuit claiming his employer did not provide meal breaks required by state law.

The Case: Medina v. United Airlines

The Court: Calif. Ct. App.

The Case No.: B293677 (Aug. 24, 2021

The Plaintiff: Medina v. United Airlines

The plaintiff, a mechanic for United Airlines at the Los Angeles International Airport, filed a claim that United Airlines, Inc. did not provide meal breaks as required by California State Law. United Airlines mechanics working at LAX are subdivided into different categories. The plaintiff, as a Line technician, performed maintenance on aircrafts currently in service (arriving/departing from a United station). As a Line technician, the plaintiff responded to mechanical concerns raised by the flight crew and made sure equipment was in working order prior to takeoff. The plaintiff filed a representative action under PAGA raising only one claim—that United is violating California's meal break law by failing to provide employees with a 2nd meal break (when mechanics work shifts longer than 10 hours). The plaintiff seeks civil penalties for alleged violations of California’s meal break requirements.

The Defendant: Medina v. United Airlines

The defendant in the case, United Airlines, argued that the terms and conditions of employment are governed by a CBA that was negotiated and approved under the RLA. The CBA defines a normal workday as eight hours with a 30 minute unpaid meal break and two 10-minute rest breaks. Under the agreement, when a mechanic such as the plaintiff works 2+ hours of overtime, they are entitled to an extra 30 minute paid meal period. Under California Labor Code, employers are prohibited from requiring employees to work during mandated meal and rest periods. Under California law, employers should provide a second meal period of at least 30 minutes for any employee that works over 10 hours in one workday. When the trial court dismissed the action before trial, on the basis that the lawsuit was preempted by the RLA since considering the claim would mean interpreting provisions of the plaintiff’s CBA. The employee filed an appeal.

About the Case: Medina v. United Airlines

Trial court found that the action was preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA) deciding that they would have to interpret the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the two parties, but the appeals court did not agree. After hearing the arguments presented in the case, the California appeals court ruled that since meal break requirements under state law are not preempted by federal labor law, the United Airline mechanic filing the suit can proceed with the lawsuit.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or if you’ve experienced other California 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.

Flight Attendants File California Meal Break Lawsuit

In recent news, flight attendants for Skywest Airlines file a California meal break lawsuit.

The Case: Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc

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

The Case No.: 15-v-02277-JST

The Plaintiff: Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc

The plaintiffs in the proposed class action are two former flight attendants of Defendant Virgin America, Inc. and Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc. ("Virgin") in California. The plaintiffs allege that Virgin did not pay them for hours they worked before, after, and between scheduled flights, time they spent completing incident reports, time spent in required training, and time spent completing mandatory drug testing. The plaintiffs also allege that the airline did not allow them to take meal periods earlier than one hour before landing, did not allow rest breaks, did not pay overtime and minimum wages, and did not provide accurate wage statements as required by law. The plaintiffs filed for summary judgment.

The Defendant: Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc

The defendant in the case, Virgin American Inc. is headquartered in Burlingame, California. According to company policy:

• Crew leaders provide rest and meal periods for flight attendants.

• Flight attendants have the opportunity to take breaks, they are still on duty throughout the entirety of a flight.

• However, many flight attendants claim they are not able to take breaks on their flights, and approximately one-third of Virgin America’s daily flights since 2011 were more than five hours long.

The Case: Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc

Virgin America argued that federal regulations governing the airline (Airline Deregulation Act, federal aviation safety regulations, and the dormant commerce clause) preempt the plaintiffs’ claims based on wage and hour law, but the California judge hearing the case, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, rejected the argument citing Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc., ruling that flight crews could be subject to California meal period and rest break laws. The judge cited California law stating an employer's ability to seek an exemption from rest breaks when compliance would materially affect the welfare or comfort of the employees and create an undue hardship for the employer. The judge even noted that flight attendants seemed to be a prime example of a qualifying situation for this exemption. The judge further noted that California law allows on duty meal breaks when "the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty" as long as the parties involved agree to an on-duty meal break. (The agreement to an on duty meal break must be written). By noting these exceptions to California law, the judge offered the airline a significant amount of wiggle room.

However, the airline argued that neither of the specified provisions actually helps reduce the burden compliance with California state law would impose. The airline does not argue that they complied with California meal and rest break law. Plaintiffs submitted evidence that they were not provided required breaks and were not compensated with extra pay. In response, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment regarding the airline’s liability on meal and rest break claims.

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.

California Minor League Baseball Players Sue for Unpaid Wages

In recent news, Minor League Baseball players sue for unpaid California wages. Some question whether the farm system is a form of indentured servitude.

The Case: Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

The Case No.: 3:14-cv-00608-JCS

The Plaintiff: Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

The plaintiffs in the case are minor leaguers alleging that they are paid significantly less than minimum wage according to employment law. Unlike major league baseball players, minor league players have no union. However, minor leaguers comprise the overwhelming majority of baseball players employed by the MLB. Attempts to organize minor league players are generally not successful because minor leaguers fear retaliation - they hope to end up with a major league career, and don’t want to hurt their chances.

The Defendant: Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

Since the 1920s, all MLB teams actively depend on extensive “farm systems” to develop their baseball players. MLB teams actually employ only a small number of players (baseball players that actually play in MLB stadiums). However, each major franchise simultaneously stockpiles anywhere from 150 to 250 minor league baseball players. Altogether, the MLB franchises collectively employ approximately 6,000 minor leaguers in their farm systems. The original 2014 Complaint filed in the Senne case focuses on the allegedly problematic farm system. The complaint notes that Major League Baseball’s (MLB) exemption from federal antitrust laws allows it to collude on the working conditions for the development of baseball players; enabling them to hoard players while depressing salaries. Most minor league players earn from $3,000 to $7,500 per year while routinely working more than 50 hours per week (frequently up to 70 hours per week during championship season). Minor league players regularly receive pay that falls below minimum wage and they are not provided with overtime wages. Minor league players are provided no payment during spring training, instructional leagues, or winter training while they typically work more than 50 hours per week during these time periods.

The Case: Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

The lawsuit seeks to recoup the damages minor leaguers sustain as a result of illegal wage and labor practices in the farm system.As five of the defendants are located in California, an entire minor league operates out of the state, and hundreds of minor leaguers work in California throughout the winter months, the suit includes class action damages under the state laws of California. In July, the U.S. Magistrate narrowed the subclass of plaintiffs eligible to seek injunctive relief in Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. The decision of the U.S. Magistrate is just another adjustment defining who may participate and how they can participate in the lawsuit.

If you need to discuss violations of California state employment 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.

City National Bank Faces California Whistleblower Lawsuit

In recent news, a former senior vice president for City National Bank alleges he was fired due to whistleblower retaliation.

The Case: Fausto Bustos v. Royal Bank of Canada et al

The Court: U.S. District Courts, California Central District

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-04879

The Plaintiff: Fausto Bustos v. Royal Bank of Canada et al

The plaintiff in the case is Fausto Bustos, former senior vice president for City National Bank. Bustos filed a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against his former employer in California Federal Court alleging he was fired due to whistleblower retaliation which is a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This particular Act allows California employees to sue their employers in federal court if their employer wrongfully terminates them or otherwise retaliates against them because they report unlawful practices or illegal acts. Bustos worked at City National Bank’s downtown Los Angeles location. After raising concerns about the bank’s lax internal controls, misconduct in accounting practices, and potential tax fraud that stemmed from a reorganization of the financial institution’s digital technology department, Bustos claims he was wrongfully terminated.

The Defendant: Fausto Bustos v. Royal Bank of Canada et al

The defendant in the case is City National Bank, Royal Bank of Canada’s U.S. subsidiary.

The Case:Fausto Bustos v. Royal Bank of Canada et al

According to the complaint, Bustos was hired as the bank’s VP of Digital Development Services Lead with their Business and Technology Services (BATS) division in 2015. In this position, Bustos was responsible for managing the Bank’s digital applications portfolio. He was also responsible for managing a number of project teams and contractors responsible for development. Only four months after his hiring, he received stellar employment reviews from his supervisors, and he was promoted to Senior Vice President by 2017. In the position of Senior Vice President, his job duties expanded, and did his oversight responsibilities. In 2018, following a reorganization of the department, Bustos claimed he saw significant accounting errors due to a lapse in financial controls that signified a significant risk to the bank as a whole, an internal investigation led to discovering approximately $5.4 million in misallocated invoices. Soon afterward, in a meeting with HR and the Vice President of Corporate Security, Bustos was accused of misappropriating funds from projects. However, later investigations showed these allegations against Bustos to be baseless, and perhaps retaliatory. Superiors at City National who resented Bustos and his team for calling attention to their misconduct and process deficiencies came up with a layoff plan that effectively got rid of Bustos and several of his team members within weeks. While they were “let go” due to a supposed reorganization, their jobs were soon listed on hiring websites, and internal memos discussed recruitment needs.

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.

Health Care Services & Staffing Agency Accused of Fostering Racially Charged Hostile Work Environment

In recent news, did Cardinal Health and Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency foster a racially charged, hostile workplace?

The Case: EEOC v. Cardinal Health and Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency dba AppleOne Employment Services

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

The Case No.: 5:19-cv-00941

The Plaintiff: EEOC v. Cardinal Health

The retaliation discrimination lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, African American workers employed by Cardinal Health or assigned to work at the Cardinal Health location under the AppleOne staffing agency, endured unwelcome (and ongoing) racial harassment. When employees complained about the hostile work environment and racial harassment, neither Cardinal Health or AppleOne took appropriate, timely corrective action. Additional allegations were made that employees that complained about the situation experienced retaliation, discipline, and termination. In addition, some employees felt they had no choice but to quit due to the hostile environment and lack of response to complaints regarding the situation.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Cardinal Health

The defendant in the case, Cardinal Health, is a global health care services and products company providing solutions for hospitals, health systems, medical offices, pharmacies, and ambulatory surgery centers

The Case: EEOC v. Cardinal Health

The defendant in the case, Cardinal Health, agreed to pay $1.45 million to resolve the racial harassment and retaliation discrimination lawsuit. Both Cardinal Health, and the California-based staffing agency, AppleOne, agreed to implement sweeping injunctive relief as a term of the settlement. The injunctive relief is designed to prevent future instances of workplace harassment, discrimination and workplace retaliation. Some of the specific terms of the agreement have the defendants retaining an equal employment opportunity (EEO) monitor, conducting regular audits, reviewing and revising policies to prohibit and prevent discrimination, and distributing the policies to both temporary and permanent employees. The defendants will also develop and institute an internal complaint management process.Additionally, the defendants agreed to maintain a toll-free complaint hotline and offer discrimination training for employees.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from 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: Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), an agency of the State of California vs. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., etc.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 21STCV26571

The Plaintiff: DFEH v. Activision Blizzard

On July 20, 2021, DFEH, the plaintiff in the suit, filed a complaint against Activision Blizzard alleging 10 different violations of state employment law. The lawsuit was filed after the completion of a two-year DFEH investigation into the defendant’s workplace practices. The investigation led to a report (dated June 24, 2021) that concluded Activision Blizzard was discriminatory toward female employees in terms of employment conditions, compensation for their work, job assignments, promotions, terminations, workplace retaliation, etc. According to the investigation, female employees of Activision Blizzard were also subjected to sexual harassment, and management at the company did not respond appropriately to the situation, effectively allowing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation to run rampant at the company. Examples of employment law violations cited in the civil lawsuit reach as far back as 2010.

The Defendant: DFEH v. Activision Blizzard

The defendant, Activision Blizzard, is a developer and publisher of mega franchise video games. Some of their popular game releases include World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Call of Duty.

The Case: DFEH v. Activision Blizzard

Activision Blizzard faces wide-ranging and highly damaging allegations of maintaining a hostile workplace (specifically toxic for women), employing a disproportionately low number of women, paying women less than male counterparts performing similar job duties, subjecting female workers to sexual harassment, and allowing perpetrators of sexual harassment in the workplace to go without any significant punishment. While the complaint officially names the subsidiaries Activision Publishing and Blizzard Entertainment, as well as the corporate parent, Activision Blizzard, a majority of the specific allegations made in the complaint are directly related to Blizzard Entertainment. After the defendant’s initial response denying the validity of the claims made in the suit, and dismissing the allegations as a distortion of the truth or complete falsehoods resulted in major kickback from the workforce (leading up to an organized walkout at the company’s Irvine, California headquarters), Activision chief executive Bobby Kotick, issued a statement apologizing for the initial “tone deaf” response to the lawsuit. The company also announced that they hired a 3rd party law firm to conduct a review of their processes and procedures.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or need to file a hostile work environment complaint, 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.

Tesla Materials Handler Awarded $1M After Arbitration of Harassment Claim

A former Tesla materials handler filed a lawsuit claiming that he was subjected to racial harassment in the Fremont, California factory.

The Case: Berry v. Tesla

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

The Case No.: RG21104057

The Plaintiff: Berry v. Tesla

The plaintiff, Melvin Berry, is a former Tesla employee. Berry states he was hired as a materials handler for Tesla in 2015. Only 17 months later, Berry quit because he was allegedly being harassed at work. Berry filed a racial harassment and discrimination lawsuit citing multiple counts of harassment on the job via co-workers and supervisors. The original legal complaint alleged that Tesla supervisors called him the N-word while working in the electric automaker’s Fremont, California factory.

The Defendant: Berry v. Tesla

The defendant in the case is Tesla. Tesla, a popular and well known electric automaker employed Berry out of their California factory as a materials handler. According to the plaintiff, he filed two complaints in 2017 alleging harassment coming from his Tesla supervisors. In the complaint, the plaintiff claims that after he confronted his supervisors for alleged use of the racial slur, he was given a heavier workload and longer hours.

The Case: Berry v. Tesla

Earlier this year, the plaintiff hired an employment lawyer to represent him in a private arbitration hearing in which it was argued that supervisors at Tesla ignored Berry’s complaints of harassment in the California Tesla factory. The arbitrator found that there was evidence that two of the supervisors at the Tesla factory where Berry was employed used racial slurs and that the experiences caused him harm both emotionally and psychologically. It was noted in the ruling that a supervisor using the N-word in reference to a subordinate in the workplace is enough to clearly constitute severe harassment based on case law. The former Tesla employee was awarded $1 million, however, the majority of the award will go toward attorney fees and legal fees.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against harassment in the workplace, 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.