Rite Aid Faces Allegations of Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination

A former RiteAid employee filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, sexual harassment, workplace retaliation, and discrimination based on an allegedly inappropriate text exchange with her RiteAid district manager.

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The Court: Superior Court of Fresno County

The Case No.: 19CECG00569

The Plaintiff: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Hanin Atalla, claims that during her employment at RiteAid, she engaged in a text exchange with her RiteAid district manager in which the district manager sent her lewd photographs. The text exchange occurred off-site and after hours, and the plaintiff and the district manager knew each other before the plaintiff’s employment at RiteAid. The plaintiff sued for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The Defendant: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The defendant in the case, Rite Aid Corp., is a drugstore chain (Thrifty Payless, Inc., dba RiteAid).

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

In Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., the trial court granted summary judgment regarding all claims in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s conclusion stating that the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of material fact regarding the requirement to show that the manager was acting in the capacity of a supervisor during the January 4, 2019 text exchange. They agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff had an extensive texting relationship with the district manager, and pairing that with the facts that the text exchange in question was offered outside of the workplace and after work hours led them to conclude it was a personal exchange based on their personal friendship rather than a work exchange. The Appellate court also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion regarding the wrongful termination claims - that the evidence indicates that the plaintiff was not terminated but that she resigned.

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

Former Xceed Vice President Claimed Wrongful Termination and Age Discrimination

A former Xceed Financial Credit Union Controller and Vice President of Accounting filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming she was fired due to age discrimination.

The Case: Elizabeth Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The Court: Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct.

The Case No.: 19STCV28608

The Plaintiff: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Castelo, was employed by Xceed as a Controller and Vice President of Accounting. Xceed notified Castelo her employment was being terminated in November 2018, with the termination effective December 31, 2018.

The Defendant: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The defendant in the case, Xceed Financial Credit Union, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on November 19, 2018. The agreement was titled “Separation and General Release Agreement,” among other things, it specified Castelo’s severance payment in consideration for a full release of all claims, including a release of age discrimination claims.”

The Case: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

According to the documents in the case Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union, Castelo remained employed by the defendant through December 31, 2018. Xceed paid Castelo the remainder of the payment agreed to in January 2019. Castelo accepted the $132,334.00 payment. The plaintiff made no effort to revoke the Separation Agreement until August 13, 2019, when she filed a complaint against Xceed alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination violations. The parties agreed the action would be submitted to binding arbitration in October 2019 (per an arbitration agreement in place in 2013). The arbitrator granted summary judgment in favor of Xceed on the ground’s that the release in the separation agreement barred the plaintiff’s claim. Castelo claimed the release violated Civil Code Section 1668 and moved to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court denied the motion to vacate and entered judgment confirming the arbitration award in favor of Xceed. On appeal, the court confirms the trial court’s decision. Section 1668 applies to a release of liability for future unknown claims. However, when Castelo signed the separation agreement, she already believed her termination was due to age discrimination. Since Castelo was aware of the alleged violation when she signed the agreement, Section 1668 does not apply.

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

Determining the Burden of Proof in California Workplace Discrimination Lawsuits

On appeal, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding the burden of proof in a California workplace discrimination lawsuit.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

Lopez, the plaintiff in the case, worked for La Casa between 2002 and 2017. In 2014, Lopez was placed in a shelter manager position at a residential shelter for domestic violence victims. Two years after becoming a shelter manager, Lopez experienced complications after giving birth and notified the defendant regarding the situation. In response, the plaintiff claims that La Casa sent her harassing communications and did not make a reasonable effort to determine if Lopez’s disability could be accommodated. According to the lawsuit, La Casa declined to provide accommodations suggested by Lopez’s doctor. Lopez claims in the lawsuit that her efforts to return to work were denied, and she was forced out of her position with the nonprofit. Lopez also alleges that due to the Defendant misrepresenting the reason for her termination, she was denied a job at a different workplace.

The Defendant: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The defendant in the case, Casa de Las Madres, is a domestic violence shelter.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

On appeal, the court affirmed a judgment in favor of the Defendant. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code 12945(a)(3)(A), proof that 1) the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is required, 2) that accommodations were requested on the advice of a health care professional, 3) the employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation, and 4) the plaintiff could perform essential job functions if reasonable accommodations were provided. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court was correct in applying these requirements with the burden properly placed on Lopez, the plaintiff, to prove the condition relating to pregnancy existed and that she could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodations provided.

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

Did Acadia Healthcare Fail to Pay Employees Accurate Wages & Overtime?

Acadia Healthcare Inc. faces allegations that they failed to provide their employees with accurate wages for all the hours they worked, pay accurate overtime wages, and keep an accurate record of their employee's time worked.

The Case: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court of California

The Case No.: 22CV407143

The Plaintiff: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Rhonald Aranzaso, was a California employee of the defendant from June 2021 through September 2022. Aranzaso was an hourly, non-exempt employee at all times with the company, so federal and state labor law protected his right to minimum wage, accurate overtime pay, meal periods, and rest breaks. The plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action alleging and seeking compensation for their losses incurred during the class action period caused by the employer's policies and practices that allegedly violated labor law and failed to fully compensate the employees.

The Defendant: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The defendant in the case, Acadia Healthcare Inc., allegedly used standard practices and policies that violated employees' protections under state and federal labor law.

The Case: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

According to the lawsuit filed, Acadia Healthcare Inc. allegedly violated labor law by including non-discretionary wage earnings that increased their regular pay rate in calculating sick pay wages, resulting in an alleged loss of income for employees who qualify as class members. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that their rigorous work schedules prevented them from taking their thirty-minute off-duty meal breaks or being fully relieved of duty during their legally required meal periods. The plaintiffs also claim their employer failed to provide required second-off-duty meal breaks when necessary. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendant intentionally disregarded their obligation to comply with California Labor Codes and minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.

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

Did Unifi Aviation, LLC Fail to Provide Employees with Mandatory Meal & Rest Breaks?

In a recently filed class action lawsuit, Unifi Aviation, LLC faces allegations of labor law violations, with plaintiffs specifically alleging that the company failed to provide the meal and rest breaks required to offer employees according to labor law.

The Case: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00019287-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Leiv Berg, is an Unifi Aviation, LLC employee. Berg started work with the company in January 2022. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Berg is entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages for all hours worked. During this time with the company, Berg noticed practices that he alleges violate labor law and responded by filing a class action complaint representing himself and all other similarly situated employees (non-exempt workers previously employed by the defendant or staffed by a third party during the period beginning four years before the date the complaint was filed, and ending on the date determined by the court). They seek compensation for losses incurred during the California Class Period caused by Unifi Aviation’s policies and practices allegedly failing to compensate employees legally.

The Defendant: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

Unifi Aviation, LLC, the defendant in the case, is an aviation services provider in California. According to the plaintiff, the company allegedly engaged in several policies and practices that violated labor law, including:

• Interrupting employees during off-duty meal breaks to perform work tasks (without appropriate compensation) resulting in what is often referred to as “off-the-clock” work or unpaid time working.

• Using a payroll system that rounds down employees’ time (as a standard practice) resulting in employees receiving less pay than if the company paid them for all time worked without rounding the numbers.

• Requiring mandatory temperature checks and Covid symptom questionnaires (without pay)

• Calculating overpay rates without including bonuses earned from the company’s non-discretionary incentive program

• The Case: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The court defines an off-duty rest period as the time when an employee is relieved of all work-related tasks. Employees must be free to engage in personal activities during rest periods and should not be subject to their employer’s control or restrictions. Employees should not be required to remain on-site, on call, or perform work-related tasks or duties during off-duty rest periods or meal breaks. In the case, Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC, the defendant faces wage and hour allegations, overtime allegations, failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay sick wages (in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s)).

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Breakfast Republic Facing Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Breakfast Club faces a PAGA-only lawsuit alleging multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic Carmel Valley, LLC

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

The Case No.: 21SMCV01447

The Plaintiff: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The plaintiff in the case, Chanda Young, filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the popular breakfast eatery, Breakfast Republic, violated multiple California labor laws.

The Defendant: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The defendant in the case is the Breakfast Republic, a popular dining location. According to the class action, eight Breakfast Republic corporate entities violated California Labor Law, including their Ocean Beach location in Newport. Employees of the trendy eatery sued the restaurant claiming multiple California labor law violations, including:

• failure to pay minimum wage

• failure to pay overtime

• failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods

• failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failure to provide wages when due

• failure to provide tips

• failure to provide required itemized wage statements

The Case: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The case, Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

Warning Signs that Could Indicate California Labor Law Violations:

California employees should be aware of common warning signs that their employers are violating labor law, such as:

• Misclassification: Employers may misclassify employees as exempt from overtime pay when they should be classified as non-exempt.

• Off-the-Clock-Work: Employers may sometimes require workers to complete job duties or work-related tasks before or after their scheduled shifts, during their off-duty meal breaks, etc. Without compensation, doing so violates labor laws.

• Improper Overtime Rate Calculation: Employers may miscalculate the overtime rate by not including additional compensation such as commissions, bonuses, or certain types of incentive pay.

If you believe your rights regarding overtime pay have been violated, it's advisable to consult with an employment lawyer who can assess your specific circumstances and provide guidance accordingly.

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

$1.6M Settlement in Verizon Overtime Lawsuit Receives Preliminary Approval

In recent news, the two parties in a Verizon overtime lawsuit received preliminary approval for a $1.6 million settlement to resolve California labor wage and hour class action lawsuit claims.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-01257

The Plaintiff: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Antonio Hiram Santillan, filed a putative class action in May 2021 in San Diego County Superior Court alleging that Verizon Connect (a subsidiary of Verizon) failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rate calculations for employees and failed to provide (or compensate workers for) mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. Santillan was a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020.

He worked as a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020. Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al. is not the first overtime lawsuit Version has faced (and it’s not the only one currently). The class action lawsuit has a class of more than 500 employees, all claiming they were denied proper overtime pay, as well as meal and rest breaks and reimbursements for expenses.

The Defendant: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Verizon Connect Inc., faces allegations of failing to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate, failing to provide employees with meal periods, failing to pay all the wages due their employees, failing to reimburse workers for business expenses, failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements (on time), and unfair business practices.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

In Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al., the defendant faces allegations of multiple California and federal labor law violations. In July 2023, the parties received preliminary approval of a $1.6 million settlement to resolve the California wage and hour class action claims.

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