Pacific Western Bank Faces Allegations of Failing to Pay Employees Proper Wages

According to a recent lawsuit, Pacific Western Bank allegedly failed to pay employees proper wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements as required by employment law.

The Case: Keelain Gonzalez v. Pacific Western Bank

The Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County

The Case No.: CIVSB2127696

The Plaintiff: Keelain Gonzalez

The plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit alleges that Pacific Western Bank violated labor law numerous times by:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime pay

• failing to provide legally mandated rest and meal periods

• failing to provide accurate wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

• failing to provide wages when they are due

All the above are violations of the California Labor Code including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802 as well as the applicable Wage Order. In addition, the plaintiff claims their alleged behavior gives rise to civil penalties.

The Defendant: Pacific Western Bank

Pacific Western Bank, the Defendant in the case, provides comprehensive community banking, national lending, and venture banking services.

The Case: Keelain Gonzalez v. Pacific Western Bank

The class action lawsuit (Case No. CIVSB2127696) alleges that Pacific Western Bank violated California Labor Code. According to § 226, every employer must provide their employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing. Accurate itemized wage statements should include the correct gross and net wages earned, which the Defendant in this case allegedly failed to identify. The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant failed to identify the accurate total hours worked in each pay period. The lawsuit is currently pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

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

PAGA-Only Action Lawsuit Against Renoir HM Alleges California Labor Code Violation

According to a PAGA-Only action lawsuit filed recently in San Francisco County Superior Court, Renoir HM allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with mandatory meal and rest periods or provide compensation for all hours worked by employees.

The Case: Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-21-595913

The Plaintiff: Alma Heyman

The plaintiff in the case is Alma Heymen. Allegedly the Plaintiff and other employees in similar situations completed required temperature checks and mandatory Covid-19 symptom questionnaires as part of a screening process prior to clocking in for their day of work.

The Defendant: Renoir HM, LLC

The lawsuit alleges that Renoir HM, LLC failed to pay employees for all the time under Defendant's control. However, the plaintiff argues that as they were not paid for their off-the-clock work (time spent completing mandatory screening for Covid-19), the company did provide their employees for all hours worked resulting in violations of minimum wage law.

The Case: Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC

San Francisco-based employment law attorneys, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed the PAGA-Only lawsuit against Renoir HM, LLC. The lawsuit alleges the company violated Labor Code § 2699, et seq. The suit seeks penalties for alleged violation of various California Labor Codes: §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 351, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC (Case No. CGC-21-595913) is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

What is PAGA?

Using the PAGA mechanism, the State of California can enforce labor laws through an employee suing under PAGA as the proxy agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agency. PAGA-Only Actions are essentially law enforcement actions and are not intended for recovering damages or obtaining restitution. Instead, the PAGA creates a deputized citizen able to enforce labor law as private attorneys general.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or off-the-clock work, 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.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Former Household Manager Claims Harassment & Discrimination

The former household manager for the Zuckerberg/Chan household claims he was groped and propositioned during his time on staff.

The Case: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

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

The Case No.:CGC-21-595337

The Plaintiff: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

John Doe, as the plaintiff is referred to in the court documents, is the former household manager for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan. Doe filed suit against the billionaire couple and a string of family-related corporate entities claiming employment law violations. Doe, an openly gay man, worked as the Household Operations Manager for the family from January 2017 to March 2019.

The Defendant: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

The defendants in the case are Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, along with numerous family-related corporate entities.

The Case: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

John Doe’s lawsuit makes similar allegations as those made in Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, et al. Doe claims he was subjected to a repeated pattern of discrimination and harassment at the hands of his senior managers and senior personnel at MPPR. Discrimination and harassment were allegedly based on Doe’s sex, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and medical condition. In his job as household operations manager, Doe was responsible for managing various properties for the family. Doe personalized each hotel, property and residence according to Zuckerberg's specified aesthetic and comfort preferences. In summary, his job duties included travel, cataloging furniture, performing various household tasks, and completing menial labor tasks on different Zuckerberg family properties. According to the lawsuit, Doe was often subjected to sexual harassment from those in supervisory positions. For example, according to the allegations, at an MPPR hosted event at a sushi venue, the man made an explicit gesture to Doe with his food, slapped Doe’s groin when he walked by, and ignored Doe’s requests to stop - instead responding by groping Doe. Other alleged harassing activities and communications are outlined in the court documents as well. While the harassment occurred regularly in front of other employees, managers, and agents of MPPR, the company did nothing to stop the negative behaviors, investigate the harassment or protect Doe from future incidents. Doe also claims that he was required to work as many as 17 hours a day with no overtime compensation, despite classification as an hourly employee, there were few or no breaks for rest periods or meals, and his epilepsy was not taken into consideration by supervisors when the long hours without breaks began to have a negative effect on the condition and Doe advised them of the situation. He also advised his supervisors that it was dangerous to require him to carry heavy loads or climb ladders considering his medical condition, but allegedly no compensation was made for his disabilities. When Doe took his complaints to HR he claims they were categorized as gossip and he was brought to task for insubordination.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a discrimination or harassment 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 Federal Jury Awards Former Walmart Pharmacist $27M in Wrongful Termination Suit

A federal jury in California awarded a former Walmart pharmacist $27 million in total damages, agreeing with the plaintiff in the case that the retail giant wrongfully terminated the employee after she voiced concerns about Medicare law violations.

The Case: Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

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

The Case No.: e 8:15-cv-00202-JGB-JCG

The Plaintiff: Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

Afrouz Nikmanesh, the plaintiff in the case, is a former pharmacist employed by Walmart Stores, Inc. According to court documents, Nikmanesh was fired after complaining that the company broke Medicare laws.

The Defendant: Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

According to former Walmart pharmacist, Afrouz Nikmanesh, Walmart, the Defendant in the case, failed to report required data to the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES program). The database contains information on controlled substance prescriptions dispensed throughout the state of California, and pharmacists are required to file weekly reports with the California Department of Justice.

The Case: Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

Nikmanesh alleges she reported the violations to her supervisors between July 2013 and September 2014 and requested they be investigated and corrected to comply with the law. According to the plaintiff, Walmart’s response was to fire her in September of 2014. Nikmanesh claims the firing was solely in retaliation for her reporting and complaining about the company’s failure to comply with state law. According to the plaintiff, Walmart’s failure to report required data to the CURES program was not their only violation. She claims they also violated state law by charging Medicare beneficiaries more than the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate for prescriptions, and failing to offer eligible Medicare patients their discount. A jury of 8 unanimously found that Nikmanesh’s reporting of Walmart overcharging Medicare customers (over 65 and those under 65 who have disabilities) for prescriptions, and not complying with reporting requirements for controlled substance disbursements to the Department of Justice under the CURES system created a substantial motivating factor for Walmart’s decision to terminate her employment in retaliation for her actions. A federal judge awarded the former Walmart pharmacist with $27 million in total damages in agreement that Walmart wrongfully fired her for complaining about Medicare law violations ($40,000 for economic losses, $100,000 for non-economic losses, $60,000 for future non-economic losses, and $27.3 million in punitive damages).

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.

Aspen Surgery Center Faces California Class Action Lawsuit

The Aspen Surgery Center in Walnut Creek, California faces a class action lawsuit alleging the facility violated California Labor Codes.

The Case: Kristina Murdock, Noel Hudson, and Alexandra Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court

The Case No.: C21-02047

The Plaintiff: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The plaintiffs, Kristina Murdock, Noel Hudson, and Alexandra Soto, filed a class action lawsuit against Aspen Surgery Center LLC on October 1, 2021 in Contra Costa California Court. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees alleging that the Walnut Creek, California facility violated California labor codes. Murdock was employed by the Defendant from December 2015 to April 2020. Hudson was employed by the Defendant from April 2016 to August 2020. Soto has been employed by the Defendant since September 2017 and is currently still employed. The company classified all three workers as non-exempt employees, paid them on an hourly basis, which means they were entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages required by state and federal law.

The Defendant: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc. are listed as joint employers holding joint responsibility for any California labor code violations. According to court documents, the Defendant provides surgical care in the state of California.

The Case: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The lawsuit against Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc. (joint employers in the case) is currently pending in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant failed to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, provide legally required meal and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse for required business expenses (employees were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones and personal vehicles to fulfill job duties without reimbursement), and failed to provide wages when they were due. These allegations all constitute labor code violations. (Violation fall under the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and alleged violations could give rise to civil penalties).

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.

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.