Former Zuckerberg Security Operations Assistant Makes Discrimination, Harassent and Retaliation Claims

A former Security Operations Assistant in the employ of Limitless Specialty Services LLC, the company that provides the staff for the personal and household needs of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, filed a lawsuit claiming she was persistently harassed on the job. Her claims also included discrimination, retaliation and other employment law violations.

The Case: Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC,et al

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

The Case No.: CGC-21-595332

The Plaintiff: Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC,et al

Mia King, the plaintiff, is described as a black woman and member of the LGBTQ community who was employed as a Security Operations Assistant for Limitless Specialty Services LLC. Limitless Specialty Services LLC works with the Zuckerberg family, and a string of other corporate entities allegedly tied to Chan-Zuckerberg and Limitless Specialty to provide security services for the Zuckerberg family. King was employed from May 2018 through February 2019. After she was fired from her position, King filed a lawsuit alleging racial, gender, sexual orientation and disability harassment.

The Defendant: Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC,et al

The Defendants listed in the case, Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan, and several others associated with the employment of staff managing the couple’s personal and household affairs. According to court documents filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, the employees were allegedly subjected to a variety of employment law violations including: racial, gender, sexual orientation and disability discrimination and harassment, wage theft, other illegal employment practices, retaliation and wrongful termination.

The Case: Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC,et al

The lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2021 asking for compensatory and punitive damages of unspecified amounts and injunctive relief. If the allegations are found true, they call into question the conditions minorities and disabled employees are subjected to while working to protect and serve the Zuckerberg family. The Chan Zuckerberg family office spokesperson did offer a statement regarding the allegations claiming that the complaints were investigated, but could not be substantiated. According to the lawsuit, King’s supervisor regularly made comments insinuating she did not deserve her position, but her hiring was a result of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s diversity goals that required he hire a black woman. He also allegedly criticized her natural hair style describing it as “unprofessional” as well as frequently referring to her and other black individuals as “ghetto.” The supervisor also allegedly made other discriminatory remarks in the workplace that were derogatory and inappropriate, and repeatedly invoked negative, racially derogatory stereotypes about King, other employees and even Priscilla Chan. King claims she complained numerous times to supervisors, but nothing was done. In January 2019, King met with her supervisor for a performance evaluation. He praised her work, but denied her requests for overtime (for work already completed). He criticized several employees for reporting inappropriate comments he made. King claims she faced severe retaliation for complaints raised with upper management. On Feb. 14, 2019, the supervisor issued a formal disciplinary writeup against King claiming there was an insubordination. She claims she was also disciplined because when she reported her supervisor’s homophobic, sexist, and racist comments toward other employees in the workplace, she was exhibiting a “lack of discretion.” King complained about the retaliation to upper management on Feb. 19, 2019, and received notice the same day that her claims were unsubstantiated. She was fired the next day on Feb. 20, 2021.

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.

A Rosemead, California McDonald’s Employee Claims She was Fired in Retaliation

Ashley Lopez, a former McDonald’s Shift Manager in Rosemead, California, claims she was pressured to violate state child labor laws and fulfill illegal demands from her employer. When she refused, Lopez claimed she was fired in retaliation.

The Case: Ashley Lopez vs M. Pernecky Management Corp.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 21STCV31912

The Plaintiff: Ashley Lopez vs M. Pernecky Management Corp.

Ashley Lopez worked at a McDonald’s franchise run by M. Pernecky Management Corp. in Rosemead, California. Lopez claims that during her time as an employee she was pressured to violate State child labor laws, and to fulfill other unlawful demands by her employer. She claims that she pushed back against the demands, even reporting the violations to a corporate manager of the franchisee. She was allegedly fired as a result.

The Defendant: Ashley Lopez vs M. Pernecky Management Corp.

M. Pernecky Management Corp. runs a McDonald’s franchise in Rosemead, California at which the plaintiff, Ashley Lopez, was employed as a Shift Manager.

The Case: Ashley Lopez vs M. Pernecky Management Corp.

According to the lawsuit, Lopez’s problems with the Rosemead McDonald’s Store Manager, Cesar Reyes, did not begin until after he promoted her to Shift Manager. At the time of her promotion, Lopez was 16 years old. Lopez claims that after her promotion, Reyes regularly stopped complying with California state labor laws limiting the number of hours a minor can work. Lopez claims that Reyes frequently demanded she miss school or stay late on school nights to complete shifts that were illegally long considering the fact that she was a minor. According to the lawsuit, Reyes would insinuate that failure to comply with the illegal demands put Lopez’s job in jeopardy. Lopez also claims she was required to be on-call days she was not scheduled to work, some of which were school days. She also says she was required to work odd hours forcing her to miss even more school. In addition to missing school, Lopez claims she was pushed to skip doctor’s appointments. For instance, when she called out due to an emergency medical procedure, her manager, Reyes, allegedly responded by saying he might have been wrong in making her manager. According to Lopez, she brought the issue up with Operations Supervisor Ruben Duran, Reyes’ supervisor, but no action was taken. After she made the complaints, Lopez claims Reyes fired her. Lopez further claims that when she attempted to appeal the termination to Duran, he was hostile and ultimately sided with Reyes on the matter.

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.

Accurate Delivery Systems Facing PAGA-Only Action Alleging California Labor Code Violations

A PAGA-Only Action alleges that Accurate Delivery Systems failed to compensate employees for missed meal and rest breaks as required by employment law.

The Case: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIVSB2125174

The Plaintiff: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

According to the PAGA-Only action filed, Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. allegedly failed to fully release Marquez, plaintiff, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for the thirty minute meal breaks required by employment law. Plaintiff also claims that the employer sometimes required employees to work in excess of four hours without being provided ten minute rest periods as required by law. According to the Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are defined as time during which employees are relieved from their work duties and free from their employer’s control.

The Defendant: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

The defendant in the case is Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. The case is currently pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

The Case: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. is a PAGE-Only action. An employee can sue under PAGA as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor enforcement agencies. This mechanism was designed to allow the State of California itself to enforce state labor laws through employees. PAGA-Only actions are designed to recover civil penalties, and act as a law enforcement action. Designed to protect the people of California, PAGA-Only actions are not to benefit private parties. The purpose of PAGA actions is not to recover damages or obtain restitution. Rather the PAGA-Only action seeks to create a way to "deputize" citizens as private attorneys general as an additional means of enforcing the Labor Code.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a PAGA-Only 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Recent Decision Broadens the Relief Offered by ERISA for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties

On September 13th, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an important ruling under ERISA for Daniel Warmenhoven v. NetApp, Inc. The appeals court ruling affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

The Case: Daniel Warmenhoven v. NetApp, Inc.

The Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 19-16960

The Plaintiff: Daniel Warmenhoven v. NetApp, Inc.

Daniel Warmenhoven, the plaintiff in the case, was one of seven retired executives who sued NetApp (and the Plan, together referred to as NetApp) alleging that termination of the Plan violated ERISA since the plan members were promised lifetime benefits in PowerPoint presentations given to employees by plan administrators.

The Defendant: Daniel Warmenhoven v. NetApp, Inc.

In 2005, NetApp, Inc., the Defendant in the case, created the NetApp Executive Medical Retirement Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461. The plan was intended to provide health insurance benefits to its retired senior executives. However, in 2016, NetApp implemented a phased termination of the Plan, which would eliminate benefits Warmenhoven and other retired executive’s planned to have in place for life.

Summary of the Case on Appeal: Daniel Warmenhoven v. NetApp, Inc.

The district court granted summary judgment to NetApp on both claims. Of the seven named plaintiffs, only one appealed: Warmenhoven. On appeal, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment. The appeals court’s decision restated 9th Circuit authority that there is no scienter requirement for breach of fiduciary claims. The appeals court’s findings also continued to expand equitable remedies available for breach of fiduciary claims under ERISA.

Details of the Appeals Court Decision: Daniel Warmenhoven v. NetApp, Inc.

The court quickly dismissed the legal claim under Sec­tion1132 (a) (l) (B) based on con­trolling circuit authority requiring any change to the vesting schedule from the default position at any time (such as plan termination or amendment), must be in writing in a plan document (citing Cinelli v. Secu­rity Pac. Corp. , 61 F. 3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1995)). The plaintiff also claimed that if the Power Points presented by the fiduciaries stating lifetime benefits did not actually vest lifetime benefits, he was entitled to equitable relief based on misrepresentation of plan benefits by NetApp fiduciaries. When considering this claim, the appeals court noted that a claim under Section 1131(a)(3) has two parts: 1) the existence of a remedial wrong for which the plaintiff seeks relief to redress in connection to an ERISA violation or violation of the plan terms, and 2) that the relief the plaintiff seeks is both appropriate and equitable. The court had no problem acknowledging the evidence of a remedial wrong. They quickly found the evidence Warmenhoven presented as adequate to overcome summary judgment. The court explained that Barker v. American Mobil Power Corp., 64 F. 3d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir. 199 5), held that fiduciaries breach their duties if they mislead plan participants, if they misrepresent the terms of a plan, or if they misrepresent the administration of a plan. It was also noted that intent to deceive is not a requirement under current circuit law. In conclusion, the appeals court found that the district court erred in finding that NetApp did not breach a fiduciary duty.

The Importance of the Ruling: Tort Law Versus Trust Law

Under King v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ill. , 871 F.3d 730, 744 (9th Cir. 2017) and Mathews v. Chevron Corp. , 362 F. 3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir . 2004), the fiduciary duty of loyalty is rooted in trust law, not tort law. As such, there is no reason to transplant the law of torts’ element of scienter. The court’s decision in Mathews followed a line of cases from other circuits that did not require a showing of intent to mislead plan participants. The Mathews court followed 6th Circuit precedent in James v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. , 30 5 F. 3d 439 (6th Cir. 2002).

What Happens Next: Daniel Warmenhoven v. NetApp, Inc.

ERISA’s remedies are equitable in nature and drawn from the law of trusts, where strong fiduciary duties are imposed on those who are in a position of trust and responsibility. However, the court did not address whether Warmenhoven would be entitled to appropriate equitable relief to redress the al­leged wrong (one of the requirements for an equitable claim under Section 1132 (a)(3)). They left that up to the district court on remand. Warmenhoven v. NetApp is the latest case to expand equitable relief for plan participants and plan participant beneficiaries under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duties. The court’s finding reinforces existing law that imposes potential liability for misrepresentations to employees on plan sponsors and plan administrators.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss ERISA 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 California McDonald’s Employee Files a Wage and Hour Class Action

A former McDonald’s employee, Elisa Alvarez, filed a California Class Action alleging wage and hour violations. 

The Case: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The Court: San Luis Obispo County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 21CV-0533

The Plaintiff: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The plaintiff, Elisa Alvarez is a former employee of the defendant. According to the lawsuit, Alvarez was employed as a non-exempt employee from March 2017 to March 2019 and received her last paycheck from the Defendant in March 2021. Alvarez was paid on an hourly basis, and was allegedly entitled to meal and rest periods, minimum wage, reporting time pay, and overtime wages as required by employment law. The plaintiff brings the Class Action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all individuals

who are or were previously employed by the Defendant as non-exempt employees during the time period beginning four years preceding the date of the filing of the Complaint and ending on the date determined by the court to define the Class Period. The aggregate claim of California class members is under $5 million. The plaintiff reserved the right to amend class definitions before the Court determines if class certification is appropriate. 

The Defendant: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The defendant in the case, SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca

Details About the Case: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against SLO Arches, Inc. ("SLO Arches"), Ivernia, Incorporated ("Ivernia"), and Golden Seneca, Inc. ("Golden Seneca") (collectively, "McDonald's"), McDonald's franchisees. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant failed to provide employees with legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to provide required meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse for required business expenses, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to provide wages when due. According to California employment law, employers must pay employees no less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll period. Hours worked is legally defined as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” Allegedly, McDonald's required employees to complete work before and after their scheduled shifts, and during the employees’ off-duty breaks. According to the lawsuit, McDonald's failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock before and after their shifts as well as during breaks. Based on these allegations, McDonald’s failed to provide their employees with applicable minimum wage for the complete number of hours they worked.

If you have questions about California employment 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.

Activision Fails to Convince California Court to Halt Discrimination & Harassment Case

Activision’s request to halt the sexual harassment and discrimination case to allow more time for investigation into the ethics allegations against the agency was denied.  

The Case: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard 

The Court: California Superior Court

The Case No.: 21STCV26571

The Plaintiff: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

California’s civil rights agency sued Activision Blizzard in Los Angeles Superior Court in July 2021. The lawsuit alleged that the company fostered a“frat boy” culture that left their female employees subjected to frequent sexual harassment, unequal pay, and workplace retaliation. The agency claims they conducted a two-year investigation into the Activision company leadership prior to filing that showed consistent failures to take action preventing discrimination related to equal pay, promotion, termination, etc. As the case progressed, Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing accused Activision of suppressing and destroying evidence. The Defendant denied the accusation.  

The Defendant: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

The Defendant is Activision Blizzard Inc., the maker of Call of Duty and other video games. On October 19, 2021, Activision asked the court to pause the proceedings; requesting time to investigate ethics allegations against the agency, and possibly bring a motion to disqualify specific attorneys. 

Details of the Case: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

On October 19, 2021, Activision asked the court to pause the proceedings; requesting time to investigate ethics allegations against the agency, and possibly bring a motion to disqualify specific attorneys involved. The request stemmed from a parallel federal lawsuit against Activision involving the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The federal agency agreed to a proposed settlement with Activision in September 2021. The proposed settlement would resolve discrimination and retaliation claims with a proposed $18 million settlement. The DFEH objected to the proposed settlement, arguing that the proposed agreement also released Activision from state claims that the EEOC lacks standing to prosecute. The EEOC asked the federal court to block DFEH’s attempt to intervene claiming that its investigation into the Defendant was led by two attorneys who eventually joined DFEH (in leadership roles). DFEH, after being informed of the conflict, retained new counsel. However, the EEOC argued that the intervention motion was filed only hours after the new counsel was retained, indicating strongly that the action was the product of the previous counsel. Los Angeles Superior Court denied Activision’s motion to stay without prejudice. However, the court did not block Activision from pursuing discovery on the alleged ethics violations issue. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or or how employment law protects you against discrimination and 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.

Did Front Porch Communities & Services Violate California Labor Code?

In a recent PAGA-Only Action filed against Front Porch Communities and Services, the plaintiff alleged that the California corporation violated multiple California labor codes by failing to compensate employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to reimburse employees for business expenses.

The Case: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 21CV386663

The Plaintiff: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The plaintiff, Catherine Zuli, was employed by the Defendant, Front Porch Communities & Services, from September 2019 through December 2020. During her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid on an hourly basis. As an hourly, non-exempt employee in the state of California, Zulu was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, as well as minimum wage and overtime pay. The plaintiff seeks fixed civil penalties for alleged violations of California Labor Codes.

The Defendant: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The defendant in the case, Front Porch Communities & Services, is a California corporation offering nursing, continuing care retirement communities, and residential care facilities.

About the Case: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The PAGA-Only Action is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV386663. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay employees for all hours worked including time spent waiting in line for and undergoing mandatory temperature checks, a Covid-19 screening. As the time spent was not counted as hours worked, it was also not calculated into the employees’ pay for regular hours or overtime hours, and plaintiff alleged this constitutes additional violations of minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Through PAGA, the State of California can enforce labor laws through the employees suing under the PAGA who do so acting as a proxy or agent of state labor law enforcement agencies. A PAGA action is intended as a law enforcement action and is not designed to benefit private parties by recovering damages or obtaining restitution.

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.