After Being Ousted from “Jackass Forever” Movie, Bam Margera Sues

Bam Margera claims he was coerced into signing an agreement requiring him to submit to drug tests, use a breathalyzer 3x/day, and take his medications under the watch of a witness via Facetime.

The Case: Margera et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 21STCV29254

The Plaintiff: Margera

Margera, the plaintiff in the case, claims he signed the Wellness Agreement requiring him to submit to drug tests, take medication over Facetime under the watch of a witness, and use a breathalyzer 3x/day under duress while he was in rehab. Margera filed a lawsuit at the beginning of August claiming that forcing him to sign the Wellness Agreement mandating all cast members remain sober during the filming of the upcoming 4th movie in the popular (and long-running) prank series was psychological torture. Margera was fired from the film for breaking his wellness agreement when he did not remain sober throughout filming. Margera claims not only that the Wellness Agreement was a sham, but that he was ultimately fired for his protected class status due to his medical condition (ADHD), and his complaints about the discriminatory nature of the Defendant’s behavior and requirements for him during filming.

The Defendant: Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

Defendant, Paramount Pictures Corp. et al., claims that all cast members working on the Jackass Forever film were required to sign a Wellness Agreement. Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s claims saying that the suit is riddled with lies. Defendant claims that Margera’s allegations that he was accosted by costars/coworkers in rehab and browbeat into signing a sobriety contract are false. Other claims included in the suit that Defendant argues are false include:

• Margera claims he was fraudulently induced or coerced into signing a talent agreement with Paramount; Paramount claims this is a lie.

• Margera claims paramount hired a doctor to force Margera to take a regimen of medication prescribed to Margera against his will; Paramount claims this is absurd and did not happen.

• Margera claims that he complied with the Wellness Program; Paramount claims he breached it.

• Margera claims he was fired for taking Adderall as a prescribed treatment for ADHD; Paramount claims the Adderall in Margera’s system was not prescribed and that Margera admitted he purchased it off the street.

Summary of the Case: Margera et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

In response to the August filing, Paramount responded with a special motion to strike claims for unfair competition and copyright infringement under California’s anti-SLAPP statute; which is intended to stop frivolous lawsuits arising from free speech claims on public issues. The filing immediately pauses discovery in any dispute. L.A. Superior Court Judge Draper’s tentative ruling on December 17, 2021, found the matter arises from “the creation, development, release, and distribution of Jackass Forever.” The judge acknowledged that the movie is intended for global distribution and has attracted additional attention due to the legal dispute, but he also found the minimal merit necessary in Margera’s claims what allows them to survive the anti-SLAPP motion and continue to discovery. While Defendants may ultimately prevail in the case, the SLAPP statute’s accelerated hearing ​​determined that the plaintiff should have the chance to conduct discovery to identify specific examples of orally developed ideas that may have been used in the creation of the film. Margera alleges wrongful termination, discrimination, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help establishing a wrongful termination 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.

Dave Ramsey Allegedly Mocked & Fired Employee for Taking Precautions Against Covid-19 Exposure

According to a recent federal workplace discrimination lawsuit, Dave Ramsey required employees to disregard Covid-19 work from home orders and encouraged workers not to wear masks at mandatory 900+ person meetings.

The Case: Brad Amos v. the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions; Dave Ramsey

The Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-00923

The Plaintiff: Brad Amos

According to Brad Amos, the plaintiff in the case, he started work for Defendant in 2019. He took a senior video editor job with Ramsey’s media and live events company. In March 2020, he sold his family home and moved his family to the area. According to Amos, the problem occurred when he asked to work from home out of concern for the potential workplace transmission of coronavirus.

The Defendant: Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions; Dave Ramsey

Dave Ramsey, the defendant in the case, is a personal finance guru, evangelical Christian bestselling author, and media mogul. Allegedly, when employees wanted to work from home instead of coming to the office he described them as being guilty of "weakness of spirit." Amos was particularly concerned about potential workplace transmission of the coronavirus because he has a young son with Coats' disease, a rare affliction that can restrict blood and oxygen to the retina, and a wife with a predisposition for pneumonia.

Summary of the Case: Brad Amos v. the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions; Dave Ramsey

The anti-debt advocate and radio host, Ramsey, initially allowed Amos to work from home per his request, but he received a demotion to assistant video editor. Amos also alleges that information about his family that was supposed to be confidential was shared throughout upper management. In May 2020, Amos said he returned to the office as required, but he was fired two months later. Amos described the workplace environment as discriminatory, saying that employees who work masks to meetings were derided or mocked by coworkers and superiors. Amos charges Ramsey Solutions with religiously discriminating and retaliating against him by wrongfully terminating his employment in July 2020 because he refused to adhere to the company’s zealous Covid-19 strategy based on praying and continuing to “move forward.” The plaintiff seeks back pay and damages.

The Defendant’s Response: Brad Amos v. the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions; Dave Ramsey

Defendant responded publicly to the suit, saying that the allegations are full of false statements and claiming the suit is without merit. The company claims Amos was not fired for his beliefs or actions related to Covid-19, but that he was fired during a meeting with leaders at the company to discuss his poor work performance at which he insulted his most senior leader. Amos is not the first employee to file suit against Ramsey’s company, but he is the latest. Ramsey Solutions already faced allegations in September from Julie Anne Stamps, a lesbian who came out during her time of employment who claims she felt forced to resign because the company did not agree with her lifestyle. Caitlin O’Connor, another former employee, filed a federal lawsuit in July 2021 claiming she was fired because she was pregnant, but not married to the father of her baby. Ramsey Solutions’ attorneys claim that O’Connor was not fired because she was not married to the father of her baby, but that she was fired for premarital sex (in addition to 12 other employees).

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

A former security analyst for Sony Interactive Entertainment (the maker of the popular Playstation gaming console) is suing for gender discrimination and wrongful termination.

The Case: Emma Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California

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

The Plaintiff: Emma Majo

Emma Majo, the plaintiff in the case, seeks class-action status so other women impacted by the alleged gender discrimination at Sony’s workplace can be included. According to the lawsuit, women at Sony were not paid equally to male employees who had similar job titles and job duties. Women were also allegedly denied promotions and equal compensation. Majo alleges that Sony not only tolerates but cultivates a work environment that discriminates against their female workers.

The Defendant: Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

According to the lawsuit, Sony was made aware of the discrimination when Majo submitted a signed statement in 2021. Majo’s lawsuit alleges that “soon after” they received the signed statement, the company fired her. While Sony claims her dismissal was due to the elimination of a department, Majo said she wasn’t even a part of the supposed department that was eliminated.

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

According to Majo, the bias against women regarding promotions, etc can be detailed back through her career with Sony that began in 2015. For instance, Majo remained in the same position without a promotion for six years even though she frequently asked for one. Allegedly some of her male supervisors wouldn’t speak to women if the door was closed, and if a male colleague was present, the security director would only speak to the man.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing 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.

California Employer Faces Lawsuit After Refusing to Hire Applicant Who Wouldn’t Cut His Dreadlocks

In recent news, an African American man was allegedly refused a job by a California employer after refusing to cut his dreadlocks.

The Case: Thornton vs. Encore Global

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

The Case No.: 37-2021-00049996-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Thornton

Jeffrey Thornton, the plaintiff in the case, filed a discrimination lawsuit in California state court claiming that Encore Global refused him a job as a technical supervisor. An unnamed manager at the company allegedly told Thornton that he had to trim his hair off his eyes, ears, and shoulders before being hired. According to the lawsuit, to get the job Thornton would be required to change his hairstyle, which would mean altering his entire appearance, cultural identity, and racial heritage.

The Defendant: Encore Global

The Defendant in the case, Encore Global, is an event planning company based in Illinois, but with an office in San Diego, California. The San Diego location is where Thornton applied for a job as a technical supervisor. Thornton was already employed by the company for four years at a Florido location before he was furloughed in March 2020 as a result of the pandemic. In response to the lawsuit, Encore stated that the plaintiff misunderstood what the hiring manager said and that Thornton is welcome to rejoin their staff.

Details of the Case: Thornton vs. Encore Global

According to the lawsuit, Encore Global has a personal appearance policy that discriminates against Black people. Thornton is suing the company for an undetermined amount of compensatory damages. Encore Global argues that they regret any miscommunication with Thornton about standard grooming policies at Encore Global and that he appears to fully comply with their standards. They also state that they have made him an offer of employment, and have officials at the company reviewing their grooming policies to ensure future miscommunications of this type are avoided in the future.

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

Helzberg's Diamond Shops Faces Wage and Hour Class Action

In recent news, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops face a wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging they failed to pay wages to their employees.

The Case: Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The Court: Superior Court of California County of Alameda

The Case No.: 21CV003531

The Plaintiff: Eduardo Ybarra

Eduardo Ybarra, the plaintiff in the case, alleges that his employer, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC failed to provide meal and rest breaks required by law. The rigorous work schedules of Helzberg’s Diamond Shop employees apparently left them unable to take their off-duty meal breaks, and when they did take a break, they were not fully relieved from work duties. According to the plaintiff, employees were sometimes interrupted during their off-duty meal periods in order to complete work duties.

The Defendant: Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The defendant in the case, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC, opened their first Helzberg Diamonds over a century ago in Kansas, and now has more than 200 jewelry stores across the nation.

Summary of the Case: Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC lawsuit alleges that employees were required to perform their job duties for shifts lasting over 5 hours without receiving an off-duty meal break or rest period. Additionally, the class action claims that the employer failed to offer employees their second off-duty meal period each working day they completed shifts lasting longer than ten hours. Due to the policy in place at Helzberg’s Diamonds Shops, employees claim they needed to remain on call and on duty even during what was considered their “off-duty” meal periods and breaks. Since “off-duty” meal periods and breaks are defined as not being under the company’s control, employees claim they were regularly forfeiting their meal breaks, but the company did not provide them with the necessary added compensation.

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.

Former Farmers Insurance Attorney Awarded $155 Million by Jury in California Retaliation Suit

A jury awarded a former Farmers Insurance Attorney that sued for wrongful termination and retaliation $155 million.

The Case: Andrew Rudnicki v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Farmers Insurance Group

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District

The Case No.: BC630158

The Plaintiff: Andrew Rudnicki

The plaintiff in the case, Andrew Rudnicki, ran Farmers Insurance’s in-house branch legal offices. He claims he was wrongfully terminated and that other civil rights of his were also violated. Rudnicki describes the decision to terminate his employment as discriminatory or retaliatory. According to the lawsuit, Rudnicki was with Farmers for 37 years before he was fired. He started as a trial attorney in 1979 and rose from supervising attorney to senior vice president.

The Defendant: Farmers Insurance & Farmers Insurance Group

When Rudnicki was being prepared to offer deposition testimony in another case, Coates v. Farmers Insruance Group Inc., the trouble started. Rudnicki was aware of certain pay data that the company withheld that probably instigated the Coates case, an equal pay case in California federal court. Rudnicki had information regarding sex bias occurring in the companies’ legal departments, as well. The Coates was eventually settled, and Rudnicki pointed out that he played a part in significantly increasing the number of women in management jobs during his tenure as vice president.

Details About the Case: Andrew Rudnicki v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Farmers Insurance Group

According to the jury, Rudnicki’s role as a witness (or a potential witness) in the sex bias case was a substantial motivating factor behind his termination from Farmer’s. The jury’s verdict came down in favor of Rudnick including $150 million in punitive damages. It’s been said the $150 million award is the third-largest of its kind in the state and the largest ever seen in Los Angeles County.

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.

Magic Mile LLC Faces Class Action for Allegedly Violating California Labor Code

According to a recent class-action lawsuit, Magic Mile LLC allegedly failed to provide employees with legally required meal and rest periods.

The Case: Alessandro Dirienzo vs. Magic Mile LLC

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2021-00050292-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Alessandro Dirienzo

The plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit alleges that Magic Mike LLC engaged in various California Labor Code violations:

all in violation of 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 thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of such alleged conduct.

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to provide overtime payment

• failing to provide rest and meal periods employees are legally required to offer

• failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

• failing to provide wages when they are due

For more information regarding how these practices and procedures allegedly violate the California Labor Code, see: Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802 as well as the applicable Wage Order. According to the lawsuit, the alleged violations give rise to civil penalties. The plaintiff in the case was employed from May 2021through June 2021. During his time with the company, he was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid hourly, and entitled to both legally required meal and rest periods as well as payment of minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendant: Magic Mile LLC

Magic Mile LLC, the Defendant in the case, is a California company providing freight shipment services.

The Case: Alessandro Dirienzo vs. Magic Mile LLC

According to the lawsuit, Magic Mile LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve Plaintiff and other California Class Members of their work duties during their meal breaks. According to the suit, employees were also sometimes required to work more than four (4) hours without their legally required ten (10) minute rest period. In order to fulfill labor code requirements, employers must not only offer meal and rest periods in accordance with the law, but they must also relieve workers of their work duties during this time. For a rest period to qualify as “off duty” the employee must be free from their employer’s control.

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.