A Former Sony IT Security Analyst Seeks Class Action Status in Gender Discrimination Suit

A former Sony IT Security Analyst, Emma Majo, seeks class-action status in a gender discrimination lawsuit.

The Case: Emma Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-09054

The Plaintiff: Emma Majo

Emma Majo, the plaintiff in the case, sued Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, the maker of Playstation, for gender discrimination and wrongful termination. Majo states she was employed by Sony starting in 2015 and that during her time at the company she saw bias against women regarding promotions and that she stayed in the same position with no promotion for six years (although she frequently put in requests). She also claims that some male supervisors would not speak to women with the door closed, and that if there was a male coworker present, they would only speak to him rather than the female employee.

The Defendant: Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, the Defendant in the case, is the maker of the popular Playstation gaming console. Their former IT security analyst, Emma Majo, claims the Defendant did not pay women equally to their male coworkers with similar job duties, and titles. She also claims that women were denied promotions and that the company tolerated and even cultivated a workplace environment that discriminated against female workers.

Summary of the Case: Emma Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

According to Majo’s, she submitted a signed statement advising Sony of the discrimination in 2021. She claims that “soon after” she submitted the signed statement, Sony fired her. Sony claims Majo’s dismissal was due to the elimination of a department, but the plaintiff claims it was unrelated; stating that she was not even a part of the department they are referencing.

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 Tinder Brand Manager Alleging Sexual Harassment Must Adhere to Arbitration Agreement

A former Tinder Brand Manager took her sexual harassment case to the Ninth Circuit arguing the arbitration agreement did not apply as the incidents predated the agreement. The court found the arbitration agreement enforceable based on broad language.

The Case: Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al.

The Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-55819

The Plaintiff: Elizabeth Sanfilippo

Elizabeth Sanfilippo, the plaintiff in the case, was hired by Tinder in September 2016 as a brand manager. According to the complaint, the plaintiff complained to human resources at her employment in mid-2017 and January 2018 stating that she was being subjected to sexual harassment at the hands of her Tinder coworkers and supervisors.

The Defendant: Match Group LLC et al.

During the same time period when Sanfilippo submitted sexual harassment complaints to the Tinder human resources department, the company was acquired by Match Group, Inc. (in July 2017). After Match Group acquired Tinder, they sent out a mandatory arbitration agreement to the employees. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Sanfilippo, signed the agreement and continued working for Match Group until March 2018 when Match Group terminated her employment.

Summary of the Case: Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al.

Sanfilippo sued in California state court claiming sexual harassment and retaliation. The case was removed to federal court where Match Group successfully moved to compel arbitration. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable, and did not cover her claims (which predated the arbitration agreement with Match Group). However, the Ninth Circuit held the arbitration agreement enforceable and applicable to the allegations (even though the plaintiff didn’t sign the arbitration agreement until after the claims occurred).

More Details on the Case: Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al.

The court noted the arbitration agreement’s broad language applying the arbitration requirement to “all claims and controversies arising from or in connection with [the employee’s] application with, employment with, or termination from the Company.” Since the arbitration agreement referenced “all claims and controversies,” the court found that the plaintiff’s claims that predated the arbitration agreement were included. The Ninth Circuit was also not swayed when the plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement included a provision allowing the employer to modify the terms unilaterally. The court did recognize that this provision could be unconscionable. However, since Match Group did not attempt to modify the agreement and were instead attempting to enforce the agreement as is, the court found that while the provision itself could be found unconscionable, its existence did not render the entire arbitration agreement unenforceable. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff, ex-Tinder employee, Sanfilippo, must arbitrate her claims against her former employer.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help with an arbitration agreement, 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.

Xilinx Faces a $365 Million Retaliation Lawsuit

In recent news, Xilinx faces a $365 million retaliation lawsuit based on claims made by one of their former Senior Vice Presidents. 

The Case: Indradevi Sabrina Joseph v. Xilinx, Inc. 

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

The Case No.: 21CV385612

The Plaintiff: Indradevi Sabrina Joseph

Sabrina Joseph, the plaintiff in the case, was the former Senior Vice President of Strategic Marketing and Communications for the semiconductor giant. The plaintiff claims retaliation and misappropriation of trade secrets. 

The Defendant: Xilinx, Inc. 

The Defendant in the case, Xilinx, is a pioneering leader in adaptive computing in the semiconductor industry located in San Jose. 

Details of the Case: Indradevi Sabrina Joseph v. Xilinx, Inc. 

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Joseph was given information about the Marketing Department employees’ compensation in November 2017. The compensation data paired with the conversations she had with the Department’s employees, indicated wide-spread sex-based pay disparities at the company, as well as a hostile work environment, and sex discrimination throughout the marketing department. Ms. Joseph responded to the problem by proposing plans to remedy the problem. However, when she mentioned her plans to rectify sex-based pay disparities in the Xilinx Marketing Department to leaders at the company and the human resource department, she was warned to drop it. She did not drop it, and instead pursued equal pay for the women in her new department. According to the claim filed, Xilinx allegedly terminated Ms. Joseph less than a month after she was hired. Joseph claims her termination was workplace retaliation.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss workplace retaliation 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.

Tyler Technologies to Settle California Class Action with Settlement?

In recent news, Tyler Technologies agrees to pay $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that they don’t properly pay their employees.

The Case: Aaron Kudatsky v. Tyler Technologies

The Court: United States District Court Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-07647

The Plaintiff: Aaron Kudatsky

Aaron Kudatsky, the plaintiff in the case, filed the federal class action in November 2019. Kudatsky worked for Tyler Technologies as an “implementation consultant” from July 2016 to March 2019. As a Tyler Technologies “Implementation Consultant,” Kudatsky would travel to courts showing clerks how to configure new case management software and assist them in learning how to use it on their computers. While training sessions were occurring, Kudatsky remained on site. In addition to on-site training sessions, he provided remote assistance to court clerks to help set up applications and troubleshoot any problems.

The Defendant: Tyler Technologies

The defendant in the case, Tyler Technologies, is a rapidly expanding software vendor. The Defendant, Tyler Technologies, faces claims that they did not pay overtime pay, and did not provide wage statements as required by law. The plaintiff claims that while working with the company, he regularly worked well over the full-time 40 hour work week and was not paid overtime pay. He also alleges that Tyler Technologies did not provide him with accurate itemized wage statements as required by law.

Summary of the Case: Aaron Kudatsky v. Tyler Technologies

U.S. District Judge William Alsup conditionally certified a class in May 2020. In 2021, after a couple of rounds of mediation, the two parties in the case announced that they agreed on a $3.15 million settlement. Last week, the judge approved the settlement. The settlement agreement does not specify any changes to Defendant’s employment practices but will deliver $2.4 million to 294 employees. Each employee in the class will receive from $200 to $10,000. The remainder of the settlement covers attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

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

Ruth’s Chris Faces a California Wage and Hour Class Action

According to the class action lawsuit, Ruth’s Chris allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide their workers with the meal and rest periods they are required to provide by law.

The Case: Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

The Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: MSC21-02077

The Plaintiff: Amanda M. Patterson

The plaintiff in the case, Amanda M. Patterson, alleges that Ruth’s Chris required employees to perform off the clock work before and after their scheduled work shift, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. According to California employment law, employers must pay employees on their established payday for the stated pay period, the applicable minimum wage for all hours the employee worked in that pay period. Time worked is defined as the time during which the employee is under the employer’s control, and includes time an employee is allowed to work (even if they are not required to work). The Plaintiff claims Ruth’s Chris did not provide compensation to employees for time spent working off the clock, and still under the employer’s control. Therefore, Ruth’s Chris allegedly did not pay its employees a fair minimum wage for all the hours they worked during each specified pay period as required by law.

The Defendant: RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

The defendant in the case, RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth’s Chris), is a California corporation conducting business in the State of California, Contra Costa County, and owning/managing Ruth’s Chris Steak House restaurants. The defendant faces a number of allegations as outlined in the California class action including allegedly failing to accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked, provide meal and rest periods required by law, pay workers minimum wage, provide overtime pay for overtime hours worked, provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and pay wages in a timely manner. The listed allegations violate California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 515, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 1198.5.

Details About the Case: Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

In Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris), The Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris) case (MSC21-02077) is currently pending in the Contra Costa County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a class action 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.

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.