Former Credit One Bank HR Generalist’s Disability Suit Proceeds After Ninth Circuit Reversal

Due to District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey’s reversal, a former HR Generalist’s disability claim against Credit One Bank will proceed.

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-15647

The Plaintiff: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff in the case, Karen Shields, was an HR Generalist for Credit One Bank. After she took a medical leave of absence (citing an accommodation under the ADA), Shields claims her position was eliminated. According to Shields, her employer failed to accommodate her disability. Instead of allowing or providing appropriate accommodations after Shields underwent a bone biopsy surgery on her right shoulder and arm, the plaintiff claims that her employer terminated her from her human resources job.

The Defendant: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The defendant in the case, Credit One Bank, argued that Shields failed to plead a disability because she didn’t adequately support a claim showing a physical or mental impairment that would “substantially limit one or more major life activities.” The district court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the argument that Shields failed to adequately establish she had an “impairment” or “permanent or long term effects from an impairment.”

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit noted that the broadened ADA and applicable EEOC regulations protect effects of “an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months (29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix)). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit court held that Shields, the plaintiff in the case, adequately alleged a disability under the ADA standards.

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.

Physician’s Whistleblower Claims to Proceed Against UCLA

In recent news, the Court of Appeal reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Regents of the University of California (and others), in the whistleblower retaliation action brought by Arnold Scheer, M.D., M.P.H., plaintiff.

The Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The Court: Court of Appeal of State of California, Second Appellate District Division Three

The Case No.: B303379

The Plaintiff: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The plaintiff in the case, Scheer, brought whistleblower claims in three causes of action. Scheer alleged violations under Labor Code Section 1102.5, Government Code Section 8547 et seq., and Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5. According to court documents, Dr. Scheer alleged the company retaliated against him for whistleblowing about various issues and concerns connected to patient safety, mismanagement, fraud, illegal conduct, and economic waste.

The Defendant: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The defendant in the case, the Regents of the University of California, successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the wrong standard was applied to the case in trial court, and citing Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal. 5th 703 (2022).

Summary of the Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the California Supreme Court clarified the legal framework that applies to claims under Labor Code Section 1102.5. The recent opinion requires the plaintiff to meet a less burdensome standard for whistleblower claims under Section 1102.5. While Lawson did not specifically discuss Government Code Section 8547.10, the case did require the state Supreme Court to analyze nearly identical language, so the appellate court concluded Lawson’s legal framework can be applied to the Government Code claim in Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of California. The Court of Appeal found that the Defendants based their argument seeking summary adjudication of Scheer’s Labor and Government Code claims on a legal standard inconsistent with Lawson. Based on this contradiction, the court reversed and remanded the claims. Regarding Scheer’s Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, the appellate court concluded that Lawson didn’t change the legal framework. However, the appellate court concluded there was a triable issue of material fact regarding the stated reasons for termination, so this claim was also reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

If you have questions about California employment law, retaliation, or need help filing a California whistleblower 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 Diversity Recruiter Sues Google for Discrimination

April Curley, former diversity recruiter for Google, filed a class-action discrimination lawsuit. The class-action joins a long list of legal action from former employees ranging from sexual harassment to gender discrimination, many resulting in significant settlements.

The Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division

The Case No.: 4:22-cv-01735-YGR

The Plaintiff: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, April Curley, is a former Diversity Recruiter for Google, LLC. Curley was hired to work for Google in 2014. She claims that during her six years with the tech giant she helped them hire 500 students from historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). In March, Curley filed a class-action lawsuit in a California federal court alleging that Black employees at Google were told they didn’t get the corporate “culture,” they weren’t “googly” enough, and were often pigeon-holed into jobs with no chance for advancement, less visibility, deficient pay, etc. Curley also claims that black employees often received harsher job reviews, were given tougher interview questions, and were always asked to show their badge or other proof of employment. In response to the inconsistencies between her work as a Diversity Recruiter and actual business practices she alleges she saw in force at Google, Curley was very clear with her leadership about what needed to be changed. Instead of rewarding her for being proactive, Curley claims the company retaliated against her by subjecting her to policies and behaviors that she alleges were blatantly racist and biased. Curley claims they were both degrading and emotionally damaging. In 2020, Curley was terminated. Now she’s suing the company for systemic discrimination.

The Defendant: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Defendant in the case, Google, LLC, is a tech giant that has faced a long string of legal battles with discrimination claims ranging from age discrimination to pregnancy discrimination. In April Curley v. Google, LLC, the company faces accusations of racial discrimination from one of their former Diversity Recruiters, April Curley.

Details of the Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

Curley claims that during her time at the company, her white managers told her the way she speaks is a disability that should be disclosed to partners internally and externally before she conducts any meetings. She also claims that leadership at Google told her she was intimidating and unwelcoming so she was never considered for leadership positions. (The same woman who advised Curley of this also advised her that Google couldn’t afford her promotion). The Curley v. Google, LLC lawsuit seeks a court injunction to change policy and obtain back pay for Curley and other black employees allegedly denied promotion opportunities. Parties in the case are scheduled to be back in court on July 11th, 2022 for a Cas Management Conference.

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.

Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. Face Allegations of Failing to Pay All Wages

In recent news, Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. face a class action alleging a failure to pay all wages.

The Case: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

The Court: Yolo County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22PSCV00242

The Plaintiff: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

According to the plaintiff in the case, Chamberlain, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages, failed to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements for employees, failed to provide wages when due, and failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses (see California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 for more info).

The Defendant: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

The defendant in the case is Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. The company operates and conducts business in the state of California, Yolo County. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc were joint employers of Chamberlan according to contracts signed by parties involved. As such, the parties are jointly responsible for any allegations.

More Details of the Case: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

Due to rigorous work schedules, Classic VMS and Collision Pro's employees allegedly couldn’t take off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty during their “off duty” meal periods. The Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. lawsuit alleges employees were sometimes interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks and required to complete tasks for their employer. Allegations indicate that employees were required to work over 5 hours without an off-duty meal break (as is required by law). Additionally, allegations indicate that when employees worked ten hours of work their employer did not provide them with the second off-duty meal period required by law. The Defendants’ policy allegedly kept employees on-call and on-duty during their off-duty breaks. The policy resulted in employees regularly forfeiting meal breaks without receiving compensation as required by law. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ strict corporate policy and practice caused them to regularly forfeit meal breaks with no additional compensation. The class-action lawsuit, Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc., is currently pending in the Yolo County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

Metro Air Service Inc. Allegedly Failed to Pay Sick Pay Wages

A recent lawsuit alleges that Metro Air Service Inc. failed to pay sick pay wages.

The Case: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

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

The Case No.: 22STCV14964

The Plaintiff: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The plaintiff in the case alleges multiple labor code violations. The plaintiff in the suit was employed by Metro Airservice Inc. in California from April 15, 2021 to May 13, 2021. At all times during his employment, the plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due time employees worked.

The Defendant: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The defendant in the case, Metro Airservice Inc., faces allegations of labor law violations. Metro Airservice Inc. is a corporation that conducts substantial business in the state of California as an air services provider.

Case Details: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc. case alleges that Metro Service Inc. failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime pay, failed to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, failed to provide employees with wages when due, and failed to pay employees sick page wages (under applicable Labor Code sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802 and the applicable Wage Order(s)). The allegations give rise to civil penalties. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Metro Airservice Inc. underpaid sick pay wages.

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

Titan Workforce Faces Class Action Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Titan Workforce faces allegations of Labor Code violations in a recent California wage and hour lawsuit.

The Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

The Court: San Joaquin Superior Court

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2022-3036

Plaintiff in the Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

In Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce, the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to comply with employment laws requiring that they provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods.

Defendant in the Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

According to the class-action lawsuit, the defendant, Titan Workforce, violated California Labor Code referencing paying minimum wage, paying overtime wages, providing employees with meal breaks and rest periods, providing accurate itemized wage statements to employees, providing employees with wages when they are due, and reimbursing employees for business expenses. (See California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

The Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

According to the wage and hour class action lawsuit, Titan Workforce allegedly violated the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which may result in civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file suit to pursue civil penalties on behalf of themselves, as well as other employees and the State of California due to California Labor Code Violations. For legal purposes, aggrieved employee means any person employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." (See California Labor Code Section 2699(c) for more info). Under PAGA, the aggrieved employee is “deputized” as a private attorney to enforce labor code.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime class action or PAGA lawsuit, please contact 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.

Minor League Baseball Players Reach Settlement in Wage and Hour Lawsuit

In recent news, the minor league players reached a settlement agreement in the lawsuit alleging Major League Baseball teams violated minimum wage laws.

The Case: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:14-cv-00608-JCS

The Plaintiff: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

The plaintiff, first baseman/outfielder Aaron Senne, was a 10th round pick of the Marlins in 2009. In 2013, Senne retired. Senne along with two other retired players who were lower-round selections, Liberto (Kansas City infielder), and Odle (San Francisco pitcher), filed suit alleging the teams violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state minimum wage and overtime laws for a workweek estimated at around 50 to 60 hours.

Postponing the Hearing: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

A trial for the case was scheduled for June 1 in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. However, lawyers for both sides filed a letter asking the Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero to postpone. The letter informed the court that the parties reached a settlement and agreed upon a confidential memorandum of understanding. At the time the letter was submitted to the court, the settlement documents were still being prepared.

The Case: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

While terms of the settlement were not yet filed with the court, and details were not offered, anonymous sources involved in the case indicated that the parties had recently discussed a settlement around $200 million.

Issues Being Considered: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

After years of arguing about whether the case should be given class-action status, it was sent back to the District Court by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019. In March, the judge offered a pretrial ruling stating that the minor league players are year-round employees who work during training time, and he found that MLB violated Arizona’s state minimum wage law leaving them liable for triple damages. The judge also ruled that MLB failed to comply with California wage statement requirements and noted penalty awards of $1,882,650. The judge also ruled that MLB is a joint employer with minor league teams for players who “work” during spring training and minor league players should be paid for travel time to games in the California League and travel to practice in Arizona and Florida.

If you have questions about inaccurate overtime pay calculations, minimum wage violations, or other employment law violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Our experienced California 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.