$150,000 National Car Dealers Settlement to Resolve EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit

National Car Dealers to pay $150,000 settlement after worker allegedly fired after disclosing a potential cancer diagnosis filed an EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit.

The Case: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 2:20-cv-02245-MCE-KJN

The Allegations: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

According to the allegations in the case, the employers terminated one of their title clerks in a Sacramento dealership over a possible cancer diagnosis. The employee was suddenly ill and missed several days of work. Following the missed days, she informed management that she was hospitalized and diagnostic testing was being completed to search for signs of cancer. According to the suit, the company fired the title clerk one day before her planned return - despite a medical release that allowed her to continue working. In the termination letter the company stated that they advised her to “focus on her health,” and noted it was not a performance-related termination.

The Defendant: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

The alleged conduct on the part of the employer in the case violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on a disability or a perceived disability. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 10, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-02245-MCE-KJN). Before filling, the EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Case Details: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

Defendant will pay $150,000 as well as hire a consultant to assist in facilitating positive change to current policies and training practices. Doing so enables them to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit as per settlement negotiations. In the consent decree settling the disability discrimination lawsuit, the $150,000 is designated as lost wages and emotional distress damages for workers. The companies are required to put new policies and procedures (or updated, revised policies and procedures) in place to offer reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Doing so requires them to retain an ADA consultant. Additionally, leave-based terminations will now require secondary reviews, and the company will begin to offer annual training to management and human resources personnel. Finally, the company will also start submitting reports to the EEOC during the three-year term of the settlement decree.

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

Clarifying Premium Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Periods

The California Supreme Court held that an employee’s regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. The decision was announced on July 15, 2021, while the court considered the implications of Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC.

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The Court: California Supreme Court

The Case No.: S259172

The Plaintiff: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The plaintiff in the case is a hotel bartender named Ferra. Ferra alleged that Loews improperly calculated her meal and rest period premium payments by excluding her non-discretionary quarterly incentive bonuses when they completed the premium pay calculations.

The Defendant: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

Loews argued (successfully) before a trial court as well as a court of appeal that Ferra’s ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is her base hourly rate of pay and that the regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is distinguishable from her overtime regular rate of pay. The California Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the decision from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that: “the ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay under California Labor Code section 226.7(c) is synonymous with the regular rate of pay for overtime as defined under California Labor Code section 501(a). Thus, employers paying meal and rest period premiums must include non-discretionary payments, meaning those that are paid pursuant to [a] prior contract, agreement, or promise . . . .”

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

When the California Supreme Court held that an employee’s ‘regular rate of compensation’ for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s ‘regular rate of pay’ for overtime pay, they clarified a common point of argument in California wage and hour lawsuits. When California employers pay their employees meal and rest period premiums, they must use the employee’s overtime regular rate of pay (including non-discretionary payments for any work performed). The California Supreme Court also ruled that the holding applies retroactively. As such, California employers should review and update their payroll policies and any related procedures associated with meal and rest period premiums to verify that premium payments are paid at the regular rate of pay, and include applicable non-discretionary payments.

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.

Vail Resort’s $13M Settlement Offer to Resolve California Wage & Hour Lawsuits Could Hurt Colorado Suit

Vail Resorts offered $13 million to settle five California wage and labor lawsuits, which could have negative repercussions for a similar lawsuit filed in Colorado.

The Case: Randy Dean Quint, John Linn, and Mark Molina, Individually and On Behalf

Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Vail Resorts, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-03569-DDD-GPG

The Plaintiff: Quint, Linn, and Molina v. Vail Resorts, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that Vail Resorts willfully and systematically failed to pay hourly employees for all their hours worked at the hourly wage rate designated in employment agreements. The lawsuit alleges that ski/snowboard instructors, ticket scanners, lift operators, and other employees are all (to varying degrees) not fully compensated for all hours worked during their shifts. Plaintiffs point out in the lawsuit that Vail Resorts requires employees to complete “off the clock” work, unpaid training, unpaid travel, and unpaid “dressing time.” Plaintiffs also allege that Vail Resorts did not reimburse employees for the purchase or maintenance costs of their ski and snowboard equipment or for cell phones required for the job. According to the lawsuit, Vail Resorts exploited the plaintiffs and thousands of other seasonal employees for years in violation of federal and state labor laws (Colorado, California, Utah, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, Vermont, and Michigan). The plaintiffs seek class-action status for eligible current and former employees that worked for Vail Resorts during the past three years.

The Defendant: Quint, Linn, and Molina v. Vail Resorts, Inc.

The Defendant in the case, Vail Resorts, is a recreational and hospitality company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado.

The Case: Quint, Linn, and Molina v. Vail Resorts, Inc.

Vail Resorts filed a motion to pause the Colorado case while the California settlement negotiations proceeded. In November 2021, a federal judge granted the motion. California plaintiffs’ attorneys filed preliminary approval paperwork outlining the settlement deal in early 2022. The California lawsuits are similar in many ways to the proposed class-action lawsuit in Colorado filed in December 2020. However, Colorado counsel says they would have asked for a settlement far in excess of the $13.1 million spread across a class of 100,000 people, as well as requiring policy changes to be negotiated into the deal. Vail Resorts argues that the settlement for the California lawsuits should also resolve and release outstanding claims in other courts, including the Colorado case. “resolve and release all outstanding claims against Vail Resorts,” including the Colorado case. Colorado plaintiffs argue that the Colorado case must move forward to seek an end to the egregious treatment of employees at Vail Resorts.

If you have questions about overtime 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.

Pacific Western Bank Faces Allegations they Violated California Labor Code

A recent lawsuit filing includes allegations that Pacific Western Bank violated California Labor Code by failing to provide accurate and itemized wage statements for employees.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIVSB2127696

The Allegations Against the Defendant: Pacific Western Bank

The plaintiff in the case includes a number of allegations in the lawsuit including that Pacific Western Bank allegedly failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate wages statements (with required itemization), failed to provide payment of earned wages when due, and failed to reimburse employees for required work expenses.

Violations of Labor Law: Pacific Western Bank

According to allegations made in the lawsuit, Pacific Western Bank violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees proper wages. Additional allegations indicate the employer failed to provide accurate pay statements to their workers as required by employment law.

Employment Law Requires Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements:

According to the lawsuit filed, Pacific Western Bank violated numerous employment laws 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). According to California Labor Code § 226, every employer in the state of California must provide their employees with an accurate and itemized written wage statement showing gross wages earned (among other items). Plaintiffs in the case allege that Pacific Western Bank failed to provide the required wage statements identifying an accurate gross wage earned and net wage earned. Allegedly, the wage statements provided by Pacific Western Bank failed to identify the accurate total hours worked per pay period, and the calculations of total hours worked during the pay period did not match those listed on the statement.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file an ERISA lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Wingstop Franchisee Faces Claims They Failed to Accurately Pay Employee Wages

According to a recent lawsuit, Sagar Holding Corporation (a Wingstop franchisee) violated labor law by failing to accurately pay employee wages.

The Case: Julianne R. Garcia v. Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

The Court: Superior Court of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 21STCV38872

The Plaintiff: Julianne R. Garcia

The plaintiff in the case, Julianne R. Garcia, claims that Wingstop employees were subjected to a rigorous work schedule that left them unable to take off-duty meal breaks. Wingstop employees were allegedly not fully relieved from work duties during their meal breaks and rest periods and were sometimes interrupted while on their breaks to perform tasks for their employer.

The Defendant: Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

According to the plaintiff, Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop franchisee) worked their employees on shifts longer than 5 hours without providing the required off-duty meal break and failed to provide their employees with a second off-duty meal period during workdays lasting more than 10 hours. Employees allegedly remained on call and basically on duty while they were taking their “off-duty” breaks, which is in direct contradiction to the legal definition of “off duty” in reference to meal breaks and rest periods.

Summary of the Case: Julianne R. Garcia v. Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

As the Wingstop franchisee’s standard policy allegedly required workers to forfeit their meal breaks and rest periods, they were due additional compensation under the law. However, the plaintiff in the case claims no additional compensation was provided. As such, the standard practice and policy of the defendant in the case led to additional claims of failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, etc.

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.

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.