California Nonprofit Wage Theft Lawsuit: Preliminary $170K Settlement

In June 2021, Downtown Streets Team, a California nonprofit came to a $170,000 preliminary settlement agreement to resolve a wage theft lawsuit.

The Case: Jaclyn Epter v. Downtown Streets, Inc.

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Francisco

The Case No.: CGC-19-579955

The Plaintiff: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The plaintiff in the case, Jaclyn Epter, is a former employment specialist at Downtown Streets. Epter filed a class-action lawsuit in December 2019 on behalf of herself and other case managers and employment specialists for nonpayment of wages. The lawsuit alleged wage theft or wage abuse based on overtime violations, failure to provide mandated break and lunch time compensation, late payment of wages after termination or resignation, etc. for the time period between Oct. 11, 2015 and March 31, 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the nonprofit illegally misclassified its employment specialists and case managers, who support the nonprofits various programs, as salary workers exempt from the protections of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The defendant in the case, Downtown Streets, is a nonprofit corporation that employs the homeless and low wage earners and runs the Downtown Streets Team. The “team” provides street cleaning service throughout Palo Alto and surrounding Bay Area cities. The purpose of the nonprofit’s street cleaning team is to help uplift the homeless in the area (as well as low wage workers) and assist them in finding employment and housing.

The Allegations: Epter v. Downtown Streets

Some of the allegations plaintiffs cited in the lawsuit included:

• Failure to pay wages for all hours worked

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu thereof

• Failure to provide rest breaks or premium wages in lieu thereof

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to timely pay final wages at termination

• Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law

More About the Case: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The plaintiff in the case claims that she was instructed to record her hours as no more than 8 in a workday or 40 in a work week regardless of how many she worked. She also alleges that employees were discouraged from taking meal or rest breaks, and that the company did not provide them with accurate, itemized wage statements. According to court documents, the wage theft lawsuit’s preliminary settlement was approved on June 25th, and a final settlement will potentially be determined by the court on Sept. 23rd. The $170,000 settlement is intended to resolve the wage theft lawsuit, and pay 72 employees affected by the pay disparities to provide for uncompensated overtime, (as well as providing compensation for missed meal and rest breaks mandated by employment law). The allegations claimed millions of dollars in losses, so the defendant sees the $170,000 settlement as a good outcome. Downtown Streets denied the allegations, but will examine its records for any employees not property compensated.

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.

Three Former Kraft Heinz Employees Claim Racial Discrimination & File $30M Suit

Former Kraft Heinz employees accuse the company of racism and allege racial hostility in the workplace.

The Case: Alex Horn, Lance Aytman, and Keith Hooker v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company LLC

The Court: United States District Court Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 1:21-at-00830

The Plaintiff: Hooker v. Kraft Heinz

Plaintiffs in the case are three formerKraft Heinz Foods Company employees: Alex Horn, Lance Aytman, and Keith Hooker. The three former employees filed a $30 million lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and hostility at the company’s Tulare, California dairy facility. The plaintiffs claim that between 2012 and 2018 they faced numerous forms of discrimination including death threats, regular use of racial slurs, vandalism of their personal property, etc. The plaintiffs allege that when they advised management of the situation, and asked management at the Kraft Heinz facility repeatedly to investigate the incidents, nothing was done. Allegedly, the discriminatory treatment continued, the trio were passed over for promotions they deserved, and eventually they ended up with less desirable job assignments, excessive scrutiny on the job, and unearned disciplinary action that forced them from their jobs and caused severe mental, emotional, and physical distress. By forcing them out of their jobs at the dairy facility, the plaintiffs also allege that Kraft Heinz broke their contracts illegally.

The Defendant: Hooker v. Kraft Heinz

The defendant, Kraft Heinz Foods Company LLC or Kraft Heinz, is a food and beverage limited liability corporation registered in Delaware and co-headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Kraft Heinz operates a number of manufacturing and packaging facilities across California, one of which is located in Tulare. The Tulare plant specializes in the production of dairy products, including a variety of cheeses. During the plaintiffs’ time of employment, the Tulare Plant employed a few hundred workers (temporary and permanent workers combined).

More About the Case: Hooker v. Kraft Heinz

The defendant, Kraft Heinz, said that since the reporting of these incidents in 2018, there have been no other reported allegations of racism, discrimination or harassment at the Tulare facility. The company claims that they are dedicated to creating diverse, inclusive workplaces, and have a zero tolerance policy for discrimination or harassment. In connection to the specific 2018 allegations at the Tulare plant, the company’s spokesperson indicated that the allegations were several years old, and that the company undertook an extensive investigation as soon as they were made aware, including cooperating with local law enforcement - all in order to ensure that any behavior that violated company policies was discovered, and if it was, that it was stopped.

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.

Small California Christian Nursing School Faces Allegations of Retaliation and Wrongful Termination in Court

Two former professors filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against a small, Christian California Nursing School alleging retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The Case: Anita Bralock v. American University of Health Sciences Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: BC614955

The Plaintiff: Bralock v. American University

The plaintiffs in the case, Anita Bralock and Brandon Fryman, are two former professors at American University. The professors filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming they were fired from their jobs at the university for investigating students’ claims of sexual harassment against the school’s founder, ​​Pastor Gregory Johnson. The plaintiffs claim that Johnson and the American University of Health Sciences retaliated against them after they (along with a 3rd faculty member) launched investigations into multiple students’ complaints alleging sexually inappropriate behavior from the school’s founder, Johnson.

The Defendant: Bralock v. American University

American University, a small (approx. 300 students), Christian nursing school founded in California in 1993, and its founder, Johnson, deny the allegations and maintain that the plaintiffs were fired from their positions at the school because they had plans to start a competing school and when American University attempted to investigate their activities regarding the matter, the two would not cooperate.

More About the Case: Bralock v. American University

The wrongful termination suit between two former professors and a small California Christian nursing school proceeded to jury trial. A California state court jury heard opening statements in the case. Since the school receives federal funding, it is required to adhere to Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational settings. The plaintiffs’ counsel also noted that the founder, Johnson, filled an unusually significant number of administrative roles for American University, including the Title IX Coordinator, which made it awkward for students who wished to raise concerns or make allegations related to Johnson’s own behavior.

Incidents Leading to the Wrongful Termination: Bralock v. American University

When nursing students brought complaints of unwanted touching or inappropriate comments to Fryman, he turned to Bralock, as the dean of the nursing school, and a third faculty member. Together, the three faculty members met with the nursing student who made the original complaint at an off-campus location to discuss the claims. According to the plaintiffs, when Johnson learned of the situation, the investigations were taken over by his attorney and according to allegations, they were quickly buried. Not long after, Fryman’s salary was cut by 50%. Then both Fryman and Bralock were fired after an investigation that was allegedly related to their involvement in a business plan to start a competing school. The plaintiffs claim this was a cover for the unlawful retaliation in connection to the Title IX investigation. The University’s counsel claims that Fryman and Bralock were actively involved in plans to start a competing school, and that the school was within their rights to fire employees involved in plans that supported a competitor. The defendant’s counsel also accused the plaintiffs of creating a false narrative because there was nothing else they could legally do for getting caught attempting to work against their current employer.

If you need to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, or you have questions about employment law violations, 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.

1st Precedential Decision from California Appellate Court: Striking a Claim Based on Manageability

In recent news, a California appellate court ruled that trial courts have “inherent authority” to strike claims under California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) if they won’t be manageable at trial. This is the first precedential decision on this particular issue from a California court.

The Case: Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC

The Court: Court of Appeals of California

The Court No.: B302988

The Plaintiff: Wesson v. Staples

Fred Wesson filed a PAGA claim on behalf of himself and 345 other employees alleging that he and the other employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime.

The Trial Court’s Decision: Wesson v. Staples

The defendant, Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, moved to strike the PAGA claim citing that it would be “unmanageable” and therefore constitute a violation of its due-process rights. The claims were made based on the number of employees the plaintiff was attempting to represent in combination with the general nature of the claim’s allegations. While arguing that the claim was unmanageable, the defendant insisted that in order to show the employees were properly classified, individualized proof would be necessary and that based on this requirement, the case could “not be fairly and efficiently litigated.” The plaintiff responded by arguing that the trial court wasn’t authorized to strike the PAGA claim on grounds of manageability and that, even if they did have the authority, the PAGA claim was manageable. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the PAGA claim.

On Appeal: Wesson v. Staples

Considering the procedural quagmire associated with PAGA claims, many argue that courts should strike any claims that would be unmanageable at trial. In some cases, trial courts have agreed. In other cases, trial courts disagree. However, the Wesson decision is the first time a California Court of Appeal has issued any published authority on this issue. The appellate court, drawing upon courts’ inherent authority to manage litigation, held that courts do have the authority to ensure PAGA claims can be “fairly and efficiently tried” and that when necessary, courts may strike unmanageable claims. The appellate court also held that, in the matter of the Wesson claim specifically, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the claim based on the grounds that it was unmanageable.

The Repercussions of the Appellate Court’s Decision: Wesson v. Staples

The appellate court’s decision is particularly interesting considering that the fact that PAGA claims do not have to meet class action requirements means that PAGA claims generally present more manageability concerns than a class action. The appellate court did also note that a court finding a claim to be unmanageable would not necessarily result in striking the claim as the court should first attempt to resolve manageability problems by altering trial schedules, limiting the scope of the claim, etc. A published California Court of Appeal decision endorsing the ability to strike unmanageable PAGA claims will likely increase the number of California employers filing motions to strike, and subsequently, increase the number of California workers seeking class action certification in response to employment law violations.

If you have questions regarding filing a class action or how employment law protects California employees from discrimation, harassment, wage and hour violations and more, 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 Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement for OneStaff Overtime Class Action

Parties in the Madison v. OneStaff Medical overtime class action negotiated a settlement agreement and received preliminary approval from the court.

The Case: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

The Court: United States District Court Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-01384-AWI-JLT

The Plaintiff: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

The plaintiff, Pamela Madison, filed a complaint on September 30, 2020 asserting three putative claims under California law: failure to pay overtime, unfair business practices, and waiting time penalties. The complaint also included a putative collection claim under FLSA. The claims were all founded on the defendant’s alleged exclusion of per diem and allowance payments from Travelers’ overtime wages. Madison sought to represent a class of Travelers employed by the defendant in California as far back as September 30, 2016 who received hourly per diems, housing allowances, and/or travel allowances. Madison also sought to represent a collective of Travelers falling under the same definition.

The Defendant: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

OneStaff assigns hourly healthcare workers short term travel assignments at various medical facilities, hospitals, and clinics. The Plaintiff was employed as a OneStaff Traveler in Bakersfield, California from Sept. 2019 through December 2019.

More About the Case: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

On February 28, 2021, the Court stayed the case to allow parties to explore possibilities of early settlement. The parties engaged in mediation on April 15, 2021, ultimately agreeing on the principal terms of settlement. On May 26, 2021, after additional negotiations were completed, the parties finalized a settlement agreement providing a maximum recovery of $525,000. The plaintiff in the case sought preliminary approval of the class action settlement reached with OneStaff Medical Limited Liability. After considering the proposed settlement and the proposed class notice, documents, issued findings, and recommendations, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The proposed settlement was approved on a preliminary basis as fair and adequate, and Pamela Madison was appointed representative for the class. The final approval and fairness hearing is set for October 18, 2021.

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.

Trulieve Workers & Applicants Granted Class Certification

Logan Lyttle filed a class action lawsuit against Trulieve after the company rescinded a job offer based on a background check and sought class certification. After considering oral arguments from both parties, the Court decided to grant-in-part and deny-in-part the plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.

The Case: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

The Case No.: 8:19-cv-2313-CEH-TGW

The Plaintiff: Lyttle v. Trulieve

Lyttle, the plaintiff in the case, alleged in the class action suit that the defendant took adverse action against both employees and applicants based on background checks, and that their methods violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Lyttle claims he applied for a job with Trulieve and was given a conditional job offer, but that the job offer was later rescinded based on the contents of Lyttle’s “consumer report” or a background check. Prior to rescinding Lyttle’s job offer, Trulieve allegedly failed to provide notice of their intent to rescind, a copy of the report they based their action on, or a summary of the applicant’s rights under FCRA.

The Defendant: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The Defendant, Trulieve, is a cannabis company. Allegedly, Trulieve admitted that the denial of employment based on Lyttle’s consumer report was a mistake.

Details in the Case: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The FCRA § 1681b(b)(3)(A) states that when using a consumer report (aka background check) for “employment purposes, before taking adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, the person intending to take adverse action shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates: (i) a copy of the report; and (ii) a copy of the document “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” prescribed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).” Lyttle attests that if he had been offered the required adverse action notice, a copy of the report, and a summary of his rights under FCRA, he could have offered clarification, and the error could have been avoided. However, since the defendant allegedly offered no notice of adverse action and did not provide a copy of the report or the applicant’s FCRA rights, Lyttle did not have the chance. Instead he brought a claim against the defendant under the FCRA. On August 13, 2021, the US District Court, Middle Dist. of Florida certified an “Adverse Action Class” in the class action suit. According to court documents, Trulieve settled the class action lawsuit for an undisclosed amount.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or filing an adverse action class action, 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.

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.