Tesla Inc. Facing Allegations of Fostering Racial Discrimination and Harassment

In recent news, Tesla Inc. couldn't escape a California racial discrimination and harassment lawsuit alleging they fostered a hostile work environment in a Tesla factory in San Francisco Bay, California.

The Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, Alameda County

The Case No.: 22CV006830

The Allegations: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc., Tesla allegedly fostered a workplace environment that supported discrimination and harassment. According to the case, black workers at Tesla claimed they heard racial slurs at work as often as 50 to 100 times a day. In addition, they also regularly saw racist graffiti in the factory's bathrooms, on workstations, at lunch tables, etc. On top of that, black Tesla workers were allegedly paid less than their non-Black co-workers for substantially similar work.

The Defendant: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The defendant in the case, Tesla Inc., attempted to avoid the lawsuit requesting the court throw out the complaint. However, the court tentatively denied Tesla's request to dismiss the complaint in late August 2022. According to Tesla spokespeople, the company strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment and feels the lawsuit is misguided.

Details of the Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

Citing claims of hundreds of Black workers with evidence supporting their claims of general racially based mistreatment, harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation at Tesla's Fremont plant, the lawsuit is set to move forward. The original lawsuit was filed in February 2022, and Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo will consider the case. The defendant, Tesla Inc., is also defending against similar claims in a proposed class action on behalf of California factory workers in state court. Last year, a judge rejected Tesla's similar request to dismiss the claims made in the class action. Tesla denies any wrongdoing in relation to employment law violations and hostile workplace allegations and states they've implemented several policies in the last few years to prevent racial discrimination and harassment and establish consequences when they occur in their workplaces. In a case citing similar accusations, a former Tesla contractor was awarded a $137 million jury verdict due to racial abuse at the factory. A judge later said the award should be reduced to $15 million and that former contractor disagreed with the adjustment, so the case is headed for a retrial.

If you have questions about how to file 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Capital Ready Mix, Inc. Faces Allegations of Failing to Pay Accurate Sick Pay

A concrete company, Capital Ready Mix, Inc., faces allegations of employment law violations in a class action lawsuit.

The Case: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2022-00325517

The Plaintiff: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

Margarita Delgado, the plaintiff in the case, was employed by Capital Ready Mix, Inc. in California since August 2020. Classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly, Delgado was legally entitled to the required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. Delgado filed a class action lawsuit alleging the company violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Capital Ready Mix, Inc., is a California corporation that conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in California, providing ready-mix concrete.

Details of the Case: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

According to the class action lawsuit, Capital Ready Mix, Inc. allegedly failed to fully relieve Delgado for her legally required thirty (30) minute meal breaks. According to the plaintiff's claims, employees were also allegedly sometimes required to work more than four (4) hours without being provided the legally required ten (10) minute rest periods. According to the California Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are when employees are relieved from "all work-related duties and free from employer control." According to allegations included in the class action, Capital Ready Mix, Inc. also allegedly failed to pay their employees accurate sick pay wages, violating California Labor Code Section 246. Employees routinely earned non-discretionary incentive wages, increasing their regular pay rate. However, when those employees were paid their sick pay wages, the company allegedly used the base pay rate instead of the higher regular pay rate (including the non-discretionary incentive pay).

If you have questions about how to file 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

SmartTalent Staffing Agency Allegedly Refused to Place Women per Client Requests

SmartTalent, a Gig Harbor, Washington-based staffing agency, faces allegations that they complied with client demands to refuse to place females.

The Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01102-RSM 

The Allegations: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

According to the lawsuit, EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC, SmartTalent staffing agency made a practice of honoring requests some of their business clients made to fill positions with strictly male applicants. Allegedly, the staffing agency violated employment law by refusing to place females in open positions per client demands. The lawsuit alleges that SmartTalent managers trained recruiters to fill gender-based recruitment requests to keep their company's clientele satisfied. As a result of this standard practice at the agency, SmartTalent specifically advised female workers that specific jobs were not available or that certain jobs would not be a good fit based on their sex. Specifically, SmartTalent told women that warehouse jobs were mainly for men, labor-intensive jobs were too hard, and that women didn't belong in these types of positions.

The Defendant: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The defendant in the case, SmartTalent, LLC, is a staffing agency based out of Gig Harbor, Washington. Their contingent and temp workers are part of a large group of workers vulnerable to losing employment opportunities, which frequently occurs due to client preferences regarding long-standing stereotypes of men's or women's work.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

SmartTalent, LLC's alleged conduct on behalf of its clients violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids using gender-based criteria in employment practices. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the women workers affected by SmartTalent's alleged discriminatory practices, and the lawsuit seeks lost wages and monetary damages (including compensation for emotional distress). The suit also seeks punitive damages and injunctive relief (like a permanent injunction and ongoing monitoring procedures to ensure that SmartTalent policies and practices comply in the future). Lawsuits like EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC assist in removing unnecessary barriers to employment and remedying class-wide sex discrimination by staffing agencies and employers, which is critical for the health of the workforce.

If you have questions about how to file 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

BaronHR and Radiant Services Face Discriminatory Recruitment and Hiring Lawsuit

In recent news, BaronHR and Radiant Services have been accused of discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices.

The Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

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

The Case No.: 2:22-cv-06517

Staffing Agencies & Employers in a Dual-Employer Relationship: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

In EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, two entities are accused of violating employment law due to a dual-employer relationship. When staffing agencies and employers work together in a dual-employer relationship, they are both responsible for complying with employment law. A discrimination-free workplace is required by employment law, and preferential hiring has no place in the workforce. When a staffing agency agrees to discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices requested by an employer, the liability for the employment law violation extends from the employer to the staffing agency.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, the defendants in EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, face allegations of employment law violations as dual employers. BaronHR is a national staffing agency that works with Radiant Services Corporation, a commercial laundry facility that provides services in Southern California’s hospitality industry. The two face accusations of discriminatory denial of work based on race, national origin, and sex. According to the case documents, BaronHR and Radiant have avoided recruiting, referring, and hiring Black, Asian, and White applicants for low-skill jobs since 2015. The company allegedly requested women applicants for particular “light” jobs and only men for other “heavy” jobs. According to the lawsuit, BaronHR fulfilled the company’s request to recruit new hires based on sex. In addition to recruiting applicants based on sex, the company also required applicants to have no medical conditions or past injuries, which excluded qualified individuals with disabilities (perceived disabilities or past disabilities) from any open positions at the company.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Federal law prohibits screening qualified job applicants to exclude individuals or groups based on sex, race, national origin, or disability. A policy that supports the practice violates employment law and creates an unhealthy, likely hostile work environment.

If you have questions about how to file 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Second Appeal in Sutter Home Winery Wrongful Termination Suit

The California Court of Appeal recently issued its decision on the second appeal in the Sutter Home Winery wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Case: Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeal, First District

The Case No.: A161923

The Plaintiff: Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

Thirty days after receiving a section 997 offer to compromise consisting of a $500,000 payment in exchange for dismissing all claims with prejudice, the plaintiff in the case, Siri, served the Trinchero Family Estates (aka Sutter Home Winery) with a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance.” The notice accepted the 998 offer while requesting that the court clarify her right to prejudgment interest. She also filed objections to the 998 offer and filed a motion asking the court to enter a judgment in her favor consistent with her conditional acceptance of the 998 offer and including prejudgment interest. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion but granted Trinchero’s motion to enforce the 998 offer.

The Defendant: Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

Per section 998(b), the 998 offer stayed open for 30 days after Trinchero made the offer, during which the parties disagreed on whether Siri’s acceptance of the offer would trigger a right to receive prejudgment interest. On appeal, the decision was reversed, and the Court of Appeal clarified that a 998 acceptance must be “absolute and unqualified” for a binding settlement. The plaintiff’s acceptance did not fall into that category. The plaintiff’s Notice of Conditional Acceptance specified that it was conditional and introduced new terms to the bargain as proposed in the original 998 offer (the plaintiff’s right to obtain clarification from the court regarding prejudgment interest). Based on this argument, the court decided that conditional acceptance did not create a binding settlement enforceable under Section 998.

The Case: Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

In some cases, a conditional acceptance may be a counteroffer to the original offer. If accepted, the conditional acceptance would generate a binding, enforceable settlement under section 998 as the counteroffer was accepted, and the second party agreed to the additional or altered terms. However, as the conditional acceptance here did not depend on additional terms that the second party agreed to, this does not apply in Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Federal Judge Throws Out the $85M Wrongful Death Award

In recent news, a federal judge threw out the $85 million wrongful death lawsuit award over a Southern California man's death while in the custody of Sheriff's deputies in 2015.

The Case: K.J.P., a minor, and K.P.P., a minor, individually, by, and through their mother, LOAN THI MINH NGUYEN, who also sues individually and as successor in interest to her now deceased husband, Lucky Phounsy v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

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

The Case No.: 15-cv-2692-H-MDD

The Plaintiff: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

The plaintiff in the case is Lucky Phounsy's family. Lucky was a 32-year-old Santee, California resident who died after an April 13, 2015 incident involving the San Deigo Sheriff's Department and some local deputies. Lucky's family claims his death was caused by law enforcement, who tased, beat, and hogtied him during the encounter. During his son's 2nd birthday party, Phounsy called 911 amidst a mental crisis and reported unknown assailants were attempting to hurt him. Lucky's family recalls the Sheriff's deputies who responded to the call as confrontational, aggressive, and profane. While law enforcement officers on the scene tried to handcuff Lucky, he allegedly became frightened and confused about the situation. Law enforcement tased, beat, and then hogtied Lucky, eventually strapping him to a gurney tightly and transferring him into an ambulance (without being untied). The former Sheriff's deputy who rode with Phounsy to the hospital allegedly put a spit-sock over Phounsy's face and pushed his head and torso down until Phounsy went into cardiac arrest. Due to the spit-sock, paramedics could not offer Lucky oxygen or appropriately monitor his condition. Before arriving at the hospital, Phounsy fell into a coma. After a few days at the local hospital, Lucky Phounsy died. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Sheriff's department, and the first trial in 2021 resulted in a hung jury. After further litigation, a March 2022 jury trial resulted in an $85 million award for the family of Lucky Phounsy - the largest settlement ever seen in this type of case.

The Defendant: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

Defendants claim that the two responding deputies called for backup units "while they were being assaulted and injured by Phounsy." The two deputies were allegedly injured in the altercation (one with severe injuries). After the incident, the Sheriff's Department cleared the deputies involved of wrongdoing and claimed that Phounsy died of a drug overdose combined with extreme exertion. These claims were not supported by evidence.

Details of the Case: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

Previously, in March 2022, a California jury found that the San Diego County sheriff's deputies used excessive force in a 2015 incident. However, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff found that the March award by a federal jury in the civil rights lawsuit brought by Lucky Phounsy's family against San Diego County wasn't supported by trial evidence. At the time it was awarded, the $85 million award was the nation's largest civil rights award for a custody death in history. According to the judge, the amount was "far out of proportion to the evidence," which could indicate that the jury impermissibly included in the award a measure of the plaintiffs' emotional distress or intended some portion as a punishment for the defendants. The judge did not order a new trial and upheld findings of excessive force and negligence. However, a new trial will be necessary to determine a new award amount.

If you have questions about how to file a wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Conso’s Lawsuit Claims Excessive Force During 2020 Protest Citing History of Incidences

Molly Conso filed a federal lawsuit against the county of Humboldt and the city of Eureka, claiming officers used excessive force when they shot her with non-lethal projectiles during a peaceful protest in May 2020.

The Case: Conso v. City of Eureka

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 21-cv-04480-RMI

The Plaintiff: Conso v. City of Eureka

During a protest of the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the plaintiff, Molly Conso, claims the officers' use of non-lethal projectiles constituted excessive force. Conso filed the lawsuit in June 2021, seeking unspecified damages for physical pain and emotional distress. The plaintiff claims she peacefully marched alongside other protestors marching arm-in-arm on May 31, 2020 when police officers suddenly (and without warning) shot pepper balls into the crowd. Conso claims the projectiles caused her to suffer injuries to the head, including a concussion, post-concussive syndrome, bruising, chemical burns, hearing impairment, and emotional distress. According to protestors on the scene, there was no warning or verbal demands to disperse.

The Defendant: Conso v. City of Eureka

EPD Capt. Brian Stephens, an officer on the scene, released a response after the incident in which he stated that throughout the day, amidst the protest, acts of vandalism were perpetrated, and upon identifying the instigator of the vandalism, the Sherriff's office moved to make an arrest. However, according to the officer, the crowd turned unruly when police took the suspect into custody. When the situation escalated to members of the crowd attempting to remove the suspect from police custody forcibly, police determined escalating circumstances and safety risks to officers on the scene constituted the use of pepper balls (projectiles filled with powdered pepper spray). The police opened fire on the crowd with paintball guns filled with non-lethal projectiles. The officer then described how officers stayed on the scene, attempting to de-escalate the situation and provide needed medical treatment.

Details of the Case: Conso v. City of Eureka

In regards to the claims of excessive force used by the County and City when an individual allegedly does not pose an imminent threat of harm during a pursuit, the plaintiff cited three cases that indicated a pattern:

1. During a 1997 protest, police officers reportedly "swabbed pepper spray in the eyes of eight activists practicing nonviolent resistance." The action was later allegedly found to constitute excessive force.

2. Another allegation of excessive force resulted in a wrongful death action where a man died in the custody of Eureka police officers. This claim was settled before trial.

3. The reported denial of qualified immunity for the sheriff and chief deputy sheriff was connected to a matter involving "repeated use of [pepper] spray" and "refusal to wash out the protestors' eyes" (constituted excessive force), which the sheriff and his chief deputy had explicitly authorized.

The court found that Plaintiff correctly pleaded her case against the Doe Defendants she claims unjustifiably struck her with projectiles during the allegedly peaceful public protest. But her attempts to include the City, the County, Chief Watson, and Sheriff Honsal in the case and project her case into other various molds were not well argued or well founded. Instead of pleading concrete factual assertions about training programs, supervisory practices, or municipal policies, practices, or customs, the plaintiff veers toward conclusory argumentative statements without including the necessary factual development. Both motions to dismiss were granted based on the lack of factual development in these areas. The City, the County, Sheriff Honsal, Chief Watson, and the Doe Defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit to the following extent: the case remains active only as to the Doe Defendants for Claims 1 and 2 (unreasonable search and seizure - excessive force and violation of the First Amendment). Claim 3 (municipal liability for unconstitutional customs or policies) is dismissed. Claim 4 remains active. Claim 5 (negligence) remains active only as to the Doe Defendants. Claim 6 (assault and battery) is dismissed. Claim 7 (violation of the Bane Act) remains active. And Claim 8 (intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress) is dismissed.

If you have questions about how to file a California excessive force or wrongful death 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.