Elon Musk’s X Faces Discrimination and Breach of Contract Allegations

In recent news, X (previously known as Twitter) faces discrimination and breach of contract allegations.

The Case: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The Court: U.S. District Court, State of Deleware

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-00780-UNA

The Plaintiff: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The plaintiff in the case, Chris Woodfield, filed a workplace discrimination and breach of contract lawsuit on July 18th in Delaware. In addition to breach of contract and discrimination allegations, Woodfield alleged the company engaged in fraud. According to Woodfield, X targeted women, older employees, and employees of color in the mass layoffs. Woodfield also claims that the company stalled attempts to address the dispute through arbitration, specifically claiming that the company failed to pay the required fees to initiate arbitration of the issues. Like the California ERISA violation lawsuit the company faces, the Woodfield v. Twitter/X lawsuit claims the company owes former employees more than $500 million.

The Defendant: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The defendant in the case, Twitter/X, engaged in multiple layoffs after new ownership/management took over the social media giant. Nearly 4,000 workers were laid off (layoffs occurred in November 2022, twice in December 2022, and again in February 2023). According to court documents, HR officials at the company repeatedly told Musk and employees that any laid-off employees would be eligible for severance pay as determined in their 2022 agreement when X merged with Twitter.

The Case: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The case, Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X, makes it clear how important it is for employers to be transparent about their severance benefits. Employers must communicate the reasons behind any layoffs clearly to all affected employees and explain the severance packages they receive in detail. Employers and employees benefit from a consistent severance pay policy that clearly outlines the criteria for determining any potential severance pay package based on pre-determined factors like time at the company, job title/level, performance history, etc. The clearly outlined policy must then be followed with a consistent application of the policy to all employees to avoid discrimination.

If you have questions about how to file a California discrimination 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.

Parents of College Runner Who Committed Suicide File Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, the parents of a college runner with disabilities who committed suicide, 23-year-old student Julia Pernsteiner, filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming the coach bullied the students.

The Case: Ray and Lynne Pernsteiner v. Jacksonville University

The Court: Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County

The Case No.: 166080988

The Plaintiff: Ray and Lynne Pernsteiner v. Jacksonville University

The plaintiffs in the case are the parents of a 23-year-old disabled Division I runner and student at Jacksonville University (JU) in Florida. In 2021, after being cut from the school’s cross-country team, Julia Pernsteiner died by suicide. On Feb. 3, 2023, Julia’s parents filed a lawsuit alleging the school allowed the team’s coach to bully and berate the students on the team and failed to implement necessary accommodations for student success. The Pernsteiners claim that the coach and the school drove their daughter to suicide by subjecting her to a toxic coach and denying her the academic accommodations they promised to enable her success.

The Defendant: Ray and Lynne Pernsteiner v. Jacksonville University

The defendant in the case is Jacksonville University. According to the parents of Julia Pernsteiner, the university’s coach bullied the team and created an oppressive atmosphere full of intimidation and humiliation. They also claim that he belittled, disparaged, and ridiculed runners that fell short of his standards.

The Case: Ray and Lynne Pernsteiner v. Jacksonville University

In Ray and Lynne Pernsteiner v. Jacksonville University, the plaintiffs claim that despite agreeing to do so in Julia Pernsteiner’s 504 plan, JU did not provide a scribe, reader, professors’ notes, or assistive technology to support her success and never contacted her parents with updates on her progress as promised. Additionally, Julia’s parents claim that the oppressive, intimidating atmosphere the university allowed the coach to create was the catalyst that caused their daughter’s death. Other students backed up the claims and pointed out other inappropriate behavior by the university women’s cross-country team coach. One student even claimed she reported the coach’s behavior twice, but the school had no response.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. 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.

Foodservices Giant Faces Religious Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

A food services corporation recently found itself facing serious employment law violation allegations.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The Court: United States Court for the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01347-TWR-KSC

The Plaintiff: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Rogers, worked as an Internal Mobility Team recruiter for the defendant. During her time with the company, Rogers consistently received positive performance feedback from her colleagues and supervisors. However, she claims that the defendant fired her after she would not endorse, promote, or participate in a program she felt was blatantly discriminatory (based on both race and gender). Rogers filed a discrimination and wrongful termination federal lawsuit on July 24, 2023.

The Defendant: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

Compass Group USA, Inc., is the defendant in the case, one of the largest corporations in the world. According to the plaintiff, Compass Group USA Inc. initiated a program they falsely labeled a “diversity” initiative. According to the plaintiff, the program was designed to prevent white men from participating in promotions and benefits. Courtney Rogers discussed her concerns with the company and requested accommodations to work in a different area. According to Rogers, she advised the company the program conflicted with her strongly held religious beliefs that hold all people equal regardless of race or gender. According to court documents, HR assured Rogers that the company would not retaliate against her for her beliefs and that she would receive a different assignment as an accommodation. However, that same HR representative terminated Rogers’ employment two weeks later. In their first meeting, Rogers was assured she was doing excellent work, but her termination letter two weeks later stated she was being terminated for unsatisfactory performance.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

In the case, Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al., Compass describes their program initiative as “Operation Equith,” calling it a diversity program offering qualified members special training and mentorship with the promise of guaranteed promotion within the program. The program was only available to women and people of color. The lawsuit demanded a jury trial seeking relief from religious discrimination, citing a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and violations of wrongful termination public policy. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and mandatory training for the company’s senior management in human resources.

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

Elon Musk’s X Faces ERISA Violation Allegations

Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) faces allegations of ERISA violations.

The Case: Courtney McMillan v. X Corp.

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

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-03461

The Plaintiff: Courtney McMillan v. X Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Courtney McMillan, alleges X violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In the California ERISA lawsuit filed July 12th, the former Twitter (now X) employee claims the company owes former employees more than $500 million.

The Defendant: Courtney McMillan v. X Corp.

The defendant in the case, X (formerly known as Twitter), allegedly agreed to distribute severance pay as determined by the employees' initial offer letters. The company also allegedly later confirmed that employees' severance pay would be equitable or better than the pre-merger terms put in place by old Twitter management. According to the severance plan, laid-off workers were entitled to:

• A minimum of two months of base salary plus pro-rated performance bonuses (as if the triggers for all such bonuses were met) plus

• The cash value of any restricted stock units that would have been vested within three months of separation plus

• A cash contribution for health care coverage continuation

However, according to the lawsuit, the company offered two months base salary (in compliance with the notice requirements of the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act plus one month of severance pay.

The Case: Courtney McMillan v. X Corp.

Like retirement and group health plans, corporate severance plans can be subject to ERISA. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, severance benefits are not a pension plan if the payments are not contingent on retirement, the payments do not exceed double the employee's annual compensation, and the payments are completed within two years of the employee's layoff or termination. Companies that violate ERISA can face steep consequences.

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

$72.5M Settlement in California Home Depot Wage & Hour Class Action

In recent news, Home Depot faces allegations of California labor law violations.

The Case: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

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

The Case No.: 16-01854

The Plaintiff: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The plaintiff in the case, Utne, filed the class action wage and hour lawsuit in March 2016, claiming Home Depot violated labor laws. While the plaintiff filed suit in 2016, the case was scheduled for trial in 2023.

The Defendant: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The defendant in the case, Home Depot USA, is the largest U.S. home improvement retailer in the U.S. The company denies the labor law violation allegations but agreed to settle to avoid costly and uncertain litigation. The company stated that the settlement allowed them to focus on serving their employees and customers. The parties agreed to a settlement with the settlement covering over 272,000 California Home Depot employees (employed since March 8, 2012).

The Case: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The case, Utne v Home Depot USA Inc, turned into a long-running class action lawsuit based on allegations that Home Depot underpaid California workers. Home Depot agreed to resolve the case with a $72.5 million settlement to avoid the litigation costs and the uncertainty of litigation. The parties filed the preliminary settlement in San Francisco federal court seeking the judge’s approval. After taking out legal fees and costs (estimated at $24.2 million plus $3.5 million in expenses), the settlement would go to hourly employees who worked the closing shift and waited off the clock after the Home Depot stores were locked for the night. 41% of the settlement is designated for employees who were unpaid for the time they spent off the clock prepping for their shift (putting on their aprons, etc.) And 9% is designated for employees who lost pay due to Home Depot’s standard policy of rounding hours to the nearest quarter hour.

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

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.