Former Partner Alleges Wrongful Termination After Reporting Unlawful Activity

A former Dentons partner claims he was wrongfully terminated from his job after he reported that the firm allegedly forged a document in an attempt to transfer millions in dollars of client funds.

The Case: Zhang v. Dentons U.S. LLP

The Court: California Central District Court

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-04682

The Plaintiff: Zhang vs. Dentons

Jinshu John Zhang, a corporate attorney, was a Dentons partner in the international legal giant’s Los Angeles office. Zhang alleges that he was wrongfully terminated from his position. According to the suit, Zhang reported that the firm forged a document attempting to transfer millions of dollars from a Chinese client. Zhang also alleges bias based on Chinese race or his national origin. The dispute appears to have started over determining Zhang’s share of a “large award of attorneys’ fees” related to a multi-million dollar settlement for a foreign arbitration Zhang handled for a client based in the People’s Republic of China.

The Defendant: Zhang vs. Dentons

The defendant in the case, Dentons, argues that Zhang was fired for cause. The firm alleges that they terminated Zhang for cause on May 5 and immediately entered into arbitration with the plaintiff to attempt to collect the contingency fee award, but Zhang initiated a state court lawsuit against the firm during the dispute resolution process, which violated his partnership agreement with the firm. According to court documents, Zhang continued to participate in arbitration proceedings, but abruptly withdrew from arbitration when an adverse ruling was issued on May 26, 2021. Dentons claims Zhang breached his employment contract by attempting to directly negotiate his share of the award with the client. However, Zhang claims Dentons committed fraud by directing its attorneys to forge the client’s signature to initiate a funds transfer.

Details About the Case: Zhang vs. Dentons

Dentons brought arbitration proceedings against Zhang followed by Zhang suing in California state court alleging Chinese-based employment bias. Dentons removed the state case to federal court alleging jurisdiction based on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, on June 11th Judge Klausner concluded that the case belongs in state court because the firm failed to show jurisdiction was proper under the New York Convention and the FAA does not separately confer jurisdiction to federal court. While the convention does govern international arbitration agreements, the agreement at issue in the case is actually the employment agreement (and its arbitration clause) between Dentons and Zhang, not the arbitration agreement the client sued under regarding the foreign matter (which was previously settled). Since the employment agreement is between two US citizens, the matter does not fall under federal jurisdiction.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wrongful termination 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.

Pending Class Action Calls Looks at Rescinded Job Offers & Medical Marijiuana

A healthcare information worker recently filed a class action suit alleging that Stat Informatic Solutions, LLC violated employment law when they rescinded a job offer because they discovered she was a medical marijuana patient.

The Case: Epps v. Stat Informatic Solutions, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division

The Case No.: 4:21-cv-00750

The Plaintiff: Epps v. Stat Informatic Solutions, LLC

The lead plaintiff in the case, Latricia Epps, is a healthcare management information worker. Epps alleges that Stat Informatic Solutions illegally rescinded a job offer they made to her after they found out she was a medical marijiuana patient. According to Epps, Stat Informatic Solutions gave her a job offer in April. When she received the job offer, Epps informed the company that she was a medical marijuana patient. In response, the defendant advised Epps that she could not work for the company without first completing a drug screening that did not come up positive for marijuana. According to the lawsuit, Stat Informatic Solutions actually decided to pull Epps’ job offer before she even completed a drug screening. Epps claims the defendant denied her an employment opportunity because she used medical marijuana outside of work, and she seeks to represent herself and a Class of others in similar situations who were denied employment by Stat Informatic Solutions due to medical marijuana use. Epps is demanding a jury trial and seeks Class certification, as well as punitive and constitutional damages.

The Defendant: Epps v. Stat Informatic Solutions, LLC

Stat Informatic Solutions, the defendant in the case, is a healthcare information management company.

Details of the Case: Epps v. Stat Informatic Solutions, LLC

Did Stat Informatic Solutions break the law when they refused to employ an Arkansas woman based on her status as a medical marijiuana patient? This is the question asked by the class action lawsuit currently pending in Arkansas federal court. Employers cannot deny employment (for non-sensitive jobs) based on medical marijiuana use; doing so is a violation of the Arkansas Constitution (Amendment 98), passed after the legalization of medical marijuana in 2016. The amendment prohibits discrimination against an employee based on their status as a qualifying medical marijiuana patient. Amazon faces a similar class action lawsuit in which a former employee alleges that the behemoth online retailer terminated his employment after a drug test was positive for marijiuana, despite it being legal in the state of employment.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or employment protection for medical marijiuana patients, 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.

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.