Olin Corp. ERISA Lawsuit Claims Resemble Prior Suits

The ERISA lawsuit filed against Olin Corp. includes claims similar to those included in prior lawsuits.

The Case: Malika Riley and Takeeya S. Reliford v. Olin Corp., the Board of Directors of Olin Corp., the Olin Corp. Investment Committee, etc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

The Case No.: 4:21-cv-01328-SRC

The Plaintiff: Malika Riley and Takeeya S. Reliford

The plaintiffs in the case, Malika Riley and Takeeya S. Reliford, allege that the fiduciary defendants failed to appropriately monitor and control the plan’s recordkeeping fees and failed to adequately review the investment portfolio with the necessary care to make sure investment options were prudent (regarding both cost and performance of each investment). The plaintiffs allege that the plan fiduciaries maintained specific (allegedly underperforming) funds in the plan despite the availability of options with lower costs and better returns.

The Defendant: Olin Corporation

Olin Corporation, Defendant in the case, is a manufacturer producing ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide based in Clayton, Missouri. The corporation traces its roots to two different companies, both founded in 1892: Franklin W. Olin's Equitable Powder Company and the Mathieson Alkali Works. According to the allegations in the complaint, the corporation’s mismanagement of the plan was to the detriment of plan participants and their beneficiaries and thus constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty of prudence. Plaintiffs in the case allege that Olin Corporation plan fiduciaries’ actions were unreasonable and cost the plan and Olin Corporation plan participants millions of dollars. Defendant faces claims for breach of fiduciary duties of prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries. Numerous other mid to large-sized businesses across the nation face (or have recently faced) similar claims that met with varying degrees of success over the past several years.

Summary of the Case: Malika Riley and Takeeya S. Reliford v. Olin Corporation

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and included substantially similar allegations to various other lawsuits filed against American employers alleging fiduciary breaches connected to the management and operation of the company’s defined contribution (DC) retirement plans. Plaintiffs allege that Olin Corporation’s use of revenue sharing to pay for recordkeeping saddled the plan and its participants with excessive fees for both recordkeeping and administration. Some authorities have recognized “reasonable” annual rates for similarly sized retirement plans to average around $35 per participant (with costs for these services generally dropping daily). According to the complaint, there were times during the class period when the plan fiduciaries agreed to recordkeeping fees over $100 per participant. As the plan stayed with the same service provider over the entire course of the class period, the plaintiffs also allege that there is little to indicate that the plan fiduciaries attempted to do their duty with any request for proposals (RFP), which should be conducted regularly. The complaint questions whether the fiduciaries’ actions constituted adequately monitoring the plan’s investments. While changes have been made in recent years pulling funds out of mutual funds and turning to collective investment trusts (CITs), plaintiffs argue the changes were made too late to avoid significant participant losses.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file an ERISA suit, 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.

Veterinary Hospital Faces Allegations in Recent ERISA Lawsuit

Plaintiffs filed an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) lawsuit naming a veterinary hospital network (VCA, Inc.) and a number of retirement plan administrators and compensation committees in the company’s leadership as defendants.

The Case: Brain Smith, Jacqueline Mooney, Angela Bakanas, and Matthew Colon v. VCA Inc., and the plan committee for the VCA, INC. Salary Savings Plan, etc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-09140-CAS-AGR

The Plaintiff: Smith, Mooney, & Colon

The plaintiffs in the case claim that the fiduciaries of VCA’s retirement savings plan failed to adequately monitor the retirement plan service fees and as a result, authorized the plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees relative to the services received.

The Defendant: VCA Inc. and plan committee for their Salary Savings Plan

The retirement plan at issue is VCA, Inc.’s Salary Savings Plan. According to the suit, the specified retirement plan has close to 12,000 participants. Participants hold over $563 million in net assets as of the end of 2019. The plaintiffs claim that the plan fiduciaries failed to leverage the plan’s significant bargaining power to benefit the plan participants and their designated beneficiaries.

Summary of the Case: Brain Smith, Jacqueline Mooney, Angela Bakanas, and Matthew Colon v. VCA Inc., and the planning committee for the VCA, INC. Salary Savings Plan, etc.

According to the lawsuit, the plan paid as much as $105 per participant each year for retirement plan recordkeeping and administration services. The plaintiffs argue that a reasonable retirement plan service fee for a plan of this magnitude averages closer to $38 per plan participant annually. Similar claims have been filed against other midsize to large employers across the United States throughout the last several years. Similar claims have met with varying degrees of success - each depending on the details and facts of the particular case. In a general sense, the success of an ERISA suit is tied to the plaintiffs’ ability to demonstrate that the payment of excessive fees or inclusion of underperforming investments was likely due to fiduciary breaches. Simply stating that the service fees paid by a plan are higher than average or showing that investments underperformed other investment options that were overlooked is not enough to establish an ERISA claim in court.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help establishing an ERISA claim, 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 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.