Former Senior Vice Presidnet Receives Largest Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Verdict in LA County

When a former senior vice president filed suit against Farmers Insurance Group for wrongful termination, the result is believed to be the third-largest such verdict in the state and the largest in Los Angeles County.

The Case: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

The Court: CA Superior Court - Los Angeles County

The Case No.: CVPS2200395

The Plaintiff: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

Rudnicki was employed at Farmers for 37 years at the time of his termination. He started as a trial attorney in 1979. According to his August 2017 complaint, he rose from supervising attorney to senior vice president in 2013. At that point, Rudnicki was being prepared to offer his deposition testimony in Coates v. Farmers Insurance Group Inc., an equal pay case in California federal court. His testimony included knowledge about past sex bias in the companies’ legal group and withheld pay data. Instead, farmers fired him in retaliation for the testimony he was prepared to offer in the class pay bias lawsuit by the companies’ female in-house lawyers. Rudnicki filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in response to the situation.

The Defendant: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

In the end, the Coates case was settled. And according to Rudnicki’s complaint, the number of women in management positions in the legal department rose significantly during his tenure as vice president.

Details of the Case: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

The court’s findings in Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al. varied. Based on the merits of the wrongful termination lawsuit (and additional claims included in the complaint), a California Superior Court judge awarded Rudnicki over $155 million. Specifically, the jury found that Rudnicki’s role as a potential witness in the Coates case served as substantial motivation for his firing and awarded him $3.4M in past economic damages, $1M in future economic damages, and $1M in noneconomic damages. In addition, the jury found the retaliation in violation of multiple state laws. The jury did reject Rudnicki’s claim that age discrimination and disability discrimination played a part in his termination.

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 can assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Employee Sues PlayVS Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination

In recent news, PlayVS faces allegations that they engaged in pregnancy discrimination against a former employee.

The Case: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV08523

The Plaintiff: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Waynick, is a former quality assurance analyst for PlayVS. According to the complaint, Waynick started working for PlayVS in January 2021 and advised PlayVS that she was pregnant on June 10, 2021. Allegedly, once they were aware of her pregnancy, the company placed her in a performance improvement plan. When Waynick complained about the discriminatory situation to Human Resources, she claimed the company ignored her complaint. Waynick claims that she was bullied and treated with hostility in the workplace leading to extreme stress. Due to pregnancy complications, her doctor advised her to take a leave. Waynick claims she was locked out of her computer when she returned from her leave. Later that same day, she was terminated on August 16, 2021.

The Defendant: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Play Versus or PlayVS, is a high school esports platform. The company is being sued for wrongful termination by Waynick, a former employee who describes a pattern of harassment and a hostile workplace.

More About the Case: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

Waynick claims PlayVS violated five different counts of California labor, including discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, pregnancy leave violation, and wrongful termination.

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.

Did Panda Express Fail to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses?

According to a recent lawsuit, Panda Express allegedly violated labor law by failing to reimburse employees for required expenses, specifically the cost of using their personal cell phones to complete their required job duties.

The Case: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-598730

The Plaintiff: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

Jeffrey Lee, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Panda Express violated California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Panda Express allegedly:

• Failed to pay minimum wages

• Failed to pay overtime wages

• Failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failed to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failed to provide wages when due

Based on the allegations included in the complaint, the company allegedly violated employment law several times as defined in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). Doing so gives rise to civil penalties.

The Defendant: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

The defendant in the case, Panda Express, also allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses. California Labor Code § 2802 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." While employed by Panda Express, Jeffery Lee and other California Class Members were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones and home offices to complete required job duties. However, the company allegedly did not reimburse them for using their personal items.

The Case: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

The lawsuit, Jeffrey Lee vs. Panda Express, is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California employment law complaint, 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.

Playstation’s Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Dismissed by California Court

California court recently dismissed discrimination and retaliation claims against Playstation. However, they did note that further testimonies from additional women could be heard in a second filing.

The Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: United States District Court of Northern California

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

The Plaintiff: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Emma Majo, is a former Sony IT Staffer. Majo worked in Sony’s PlayStation Network department as an IT security risk analyst for six years before she was fired. The case left the court determining whether Sony engaged in systemic gender discrimination and failed to implement an effective system to prevent pay discrimination. According to the complaint, Majo’s department showed a 60-40 gender split upon her hiring, but the department is now male-dominated. Details of Majo’s case hint at broader institutional gender discrimination issues.

The Defendant: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The defendant in the case, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, denies allegations of pay disparity, wrongful termination, and other gender-based discrimination. As a result, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

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

The United States District Court of North California granted PlayStation’s “motion to dismiss.” However, the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The motion to dismiss was granted for most claims because the allegations were most conclusory. Some individual claims survived, but the court does not have jurisdiction over the state claims after dismissing the federal claim, so all claims are dismissed. The court pointed out that Majo did not fully explain the allegations in the complaint. Still, the court acknowledged that three of the state claims had merit and noted that adding the additional eight women’s testimonies could lead to additional allegations. In concluding the ruling, the court indicated that the plaintiff might file a second amended complaint within 28 days. It’s likely the amended complaint, including the additional eight testimonies, will follow and allow the court the opportunity to fully examine them from the outset.

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

Kronos Hack Leaves PepsiCo Vulnerable to Wage and Hour Claims

The recent Kronos hack seems to have left PepsiCo in a tough spot, facing wage and hour claims after employees filed a California wage and hour lawsuit.

The Case: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

The Court: Central District of California

The Case No.: 5:22-cv-00549

The Plaintiff: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, two PepsiCo workers, filed suit alleging the company failed to properly keep track of overtime hours their employees worked and provide overtime pay at accurate overtime rates after Kronos, an HR technology provider, was hacked in 2021. The plaintiffs seek class certification, awards of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalty damages, restitution, pre-, and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs, etc.

The Defendant: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

Kronos is one of the world’s largest human resources companies that work with their clients (other companies) to manage timekeeping and payroll information. In December 2021, Kronos was hacked. As a result, PepsiCo employees allegedly were not paid a full overtime premium for overtime hours worked. Instead, according to the complaint, PepsiCo issued paychecks based on scheduled hours or duplicated paychecks from pay periods before the Kronos cyber attack. In addition, plaintiffs claim PepsiCo paid based on estimates of time or pay, arbitrary calculations, or considerations other than the hours employees worked and their agreed upon pay rate. As a result, many employees allegedly received pay for fewer hours than they worked and at a lower wage.

The Case: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs claim PepsiCo’s behavior was negligent and that the company should have immediately put various methods in place to keep track of employee hours and accurately calculate employee wages. Instead, plaintiffs argue the company chose not to. Based on this decision, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California wage laws such as the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act, and Unfair Competition Law.

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

Kronos Cyber Attack Sparked a String of Employment Law Complaints

The string of very similar employment law complaints filed following the December 2021 Kronos cyber-attack clearly shows how third-party security breaches can cause significant problems. These problems aren't only felt by the company that was hacked, but often by all the businesses depending on their products or services in their own business practices.

2022 Wage and Hour Class Actions Stemming from Kronos Cyber Attack:

The following is a sampling of the wage and hour class actions filed against companies who used the Kronos payroll and timekeeping software during the December 2021 ransomware attack. Plaintiffs in the cases allege that the Kronos hack resulted in overtime pay violations for hourly workers. The string of litigation shows clearly that third-party cyber-breaches can lead to significant consequences in the form of labor and employment law claims.

Henderson v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2:22-cv-00414)

Parrish v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. (4:22-cv-00284)

Ellis et al v. PepsiCo, Inc. (3:2022cv01895)

Mitchell v. Baptist Health System, Inc. (3:2022cv00383)

Holbert et al. v. The Giant Company LLC (1:2022cv00501)

Details of the Wage and Hour Class Action Cases:

In early April, Johnson Controls, Inc. was sued on behalf of a putative class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the Eastern District Court for the District of Wisconsin. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.(a subsidiary of PepsiCo) was also sued in early April on behalf of a putative class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees, but this case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. PepsiCo itself has been sued three times so far in connection to the Kronos breach. First, at the end of March in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees. Second in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees (also at the end of March). And third, Ellis et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In early April, Baptist Health System was sued on behalf of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. And The Giant Company was sued (also in the first week of April) on behalf of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs Cite Similar Allegations in the String of Wage and Hour Lawsuits:

The various lawsuits stemming from the Kronos data breach in December 2021 include similar wording and allegations stating that after being made aware of the situation, defendants could have implemented systems to record hours and pay wages until the issues resulting from the hack were addressed, but they didn't take action. Some of the complaints also indicated that the defendants let the financial consequences of the Kronos hack fall on their frontline workers and that average American workers rely on their full wages paid in a timely manner to make ends meet in their day-to-day lives. Class actions seek to recover unpaid wages and damages as well as penalties and interest.

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

Prime Healthcare Anaheim Faces PAGA Only Complaint Alleging Labor Law Violations

A former Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC employee filed a PAGA Only complaint alleging that the company violated numerous labor laws during their years of employment. 

The Case: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

The Court:   Orange County Superior Court,

The Case No.: 22PSCV00242

The Plaintiff: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

According to the plaintiff in the case, Franco, the defendant allegedly failed to provide employees with fully relieved thirty-minute meal breaks required by law. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the employer sometimes required employees to work more than 4 hours without receiving the required ten-minute rest period mandated by labor law. According to the California Supreme Court, an “off-duty” rest period is defined as time when an employee is relieved from their work-related duties and free from their employer’s control. 

The Defendant: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

The defendant in the case is Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC. The company operates an acute care hospital in Orange County, California. The company employed Salvatore from 1980 to June 5, 2021, classified as a non-exempt employee (paid hourly). As an hourly employee, Salvatore was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for the time she worked with the company. According to the plaintiff, Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC required employees to perform off-the-clock work, interrupted their meal breaks and rest periods with tasks and assignments, undergo mandatory drug testing and other exams off-the-clock that were a condition of employment, etc. 

More Details of the Case: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

According to case documents, Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC allegedly engaged in numerous labor code violations. The lawsuit against Prime Healthcare Anaheim, LLC is pending in the Orange County Superior Court. As a PAGA only complaint, Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC utilizes the mechanism put in place by the State of California, allowing an employee to act as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agency to sue seeking civil penalties. The action is essentially a law enforcement action intended to protect California workers. PAGA actions aim not to recover damages or restitution but to allow aggrieved employees to act as deputized citizens to enforce Labor Code. 

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how to file a California PAGA-only 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, and Riverside.