Former Target Employee Claims Wrongful Termination

A former Target employee claims the massive box store wrongfully terminated her.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

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

The Case No.: 34-2022-00316991

The Plaintiff: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

Torres, the plaintiff and former Target employee in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging Target violated labor law. Torres claims that she was fired due to a disability and that Target failed to provide hourly, non-exempt workers with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

The defendant in the case, Target Corporation, faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failure to pay wages when due

The allegations constitute violations of various applicable Labor Codes, including California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged violations would give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

According to the complaint and the plaintiff's allegations, Target wrongfully terminated Torres, an employee allegedly subject to protected activity. Torres claims that Target subjected her to adverse employment actions, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed the company of her asthma disability. The company fired Torres after informing them of her disability, which led her to claim a causal link between the protected activity and Target's decision to terminate her employment.

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.

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.

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.

ADP Facing Fired Manager’s Disability Bias and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, a former manager filed a mental disability discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit alleging ADP violated labor law.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

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

The Case No.: 3:2022cv00898

The Plaintiff: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff in the case, Nathaniel Rutledge, was a manager for ADP from March 2019 until the company terminated his employment on August 27, 2021. After the death of his brother, Rutledge was instructed to join a video call with ADP’s Director of Associates, Sonya Everett, and Lead Investigative Security Agent, Michael Paulhus. Everett told Rutledge they were conducting a wellness check because there were indications Rutledge was “struggling.” According to the plaintiff, they did not indicate what prompted the situation. They immediately began asking a series of questions that felt like an interrogation, repeatedly demanding the plaintiff turn on the camera even though he wasn’t feeling well and was uncomfortable doing so. After Rutledge said he didn’t want to continue the call without being told what the meeting was about, the company placed him on leave and advised him he was required to obtain clearance from their Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider before returning to work. Rutledge assured the EAP counselor he had no mental issues that affected his work, but the counselor recommended Rutledge see a therapist anyway. He did not, and two days later, the counselor sent a letter to the defendant notifying them of Rutledge’s non-compliance. When Rutledge was again invited to a video call the same day, he declined, stating that the last one made him very uncomfortable. Rutledge was fired the next day. The company claimed his refusal to take the video call was insubordinate. The company claimed they terminated his employment because he refused to participate in ongoing psychological treatment.

The Defendant: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff Rutledge filed disability harassment, wrongful termination, and emotional distress claims. The defendant in the case, ADP, is a payroll services company.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

FEHA explicitly prohibits an employer from harassing an employee because of a mental disability. To successfully argue a disability harassment claim, the plaintiff must show the following:

(1) they are a member of a protected class

(2) they were subject to unwelcome harassment

(3) the unwelcome harassment was based on their protected status

(4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with their work performance (by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment); and

(5) the defendants in the case are liable for the harassment

However, for the case to move forward, the plaintiff must only show that the defendant regarded them as disabled, thus creating a protected class and making them a part of the protected class. The defendant’s immediate motions to dismiss were denied.

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 Dollar General Store Employee Claims Age & Disability Discrimination

The case Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC involved a dispute between a former employee, Galarsa, and her former employer, Dolgen California LLC, a retail company that operates Dollar General stores in California.

The Case: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

The Case No.: F082404 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2021)

The Plaintiff: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

Galarsa, the plaintiff in the case, claimed she was wrongfully terminated from her job and discriminated against based on her age and disability. Dolgen California LLC hired Galarsa in 2008 as a store manager and later promoted her to district manager. In 2014, she was diagnosed with a medical condition that required her to take medical leave for several months. Upon her return to work, she got a demotion from district manager to store manager, resulting in reduced pay and benefits. Galarsa alleged that her demotion was a form of discrimination based on her age and disability and that her subsequent termination was in retaliation for her complaints about the demotion.

The Defendant: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

Dolgen California LLC argued that Galarsa was terminated for failing to meet the company's performance expectations and that her demotion resulted from her inability to perform her job duties.

The Case: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of Galarsa, awarding her over $1.7 million in damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages. Dolgen California LLC appealed the decision, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict and that the damages awarded were excessive. However, the appellate court upheld the jury's verdict, stating that there was sufficient evidence to support Galarsa's claims of discrimination and retaliation and that the damages awarded were reasonable, given the circumstances seen in the case documents. Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of avoiding discrimination based on age and disability and the potential consequences of retaliating against employees who raise concerns about discriminatory practices.

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

Former Best Practice Medicine, LLC Employee Alleges Wrongful Termination

A former Best Practice Medicine, LLC employee filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the company fired him after he engaged in the protected activity of reporting alleged California Labor Code violations.

The Case: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The Court: Kern County Superior Court

The Case No.: BCV-22-102688

The Plaintiff: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jon Riley, was employed by Best Practice Medicine, LLC in California from April 2022 to August 2022 as a nonexempt hourly employee. While at the company, Riley reported labor law violations, citing off-the-clock work leading to minimum wage and overtime violations, missed meal and rest periods, etc. According to the plaintiff, his reporting of the alleged violations resulted in his termination (even though reporting this type of employment law violation is a protected act). Riley responded by filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Defendant: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The defendant in the case, Best Practice Medicine, LLC, specializes in emergency medical education, mobile high-fidelity medical simulation, and clinical staffing.

Details of the Case: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

As a nonexempt, hourly employee, Jon Riley was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. Best Practice Medicine, LLC allegedly failed to pay employees like Jon Riley for all the time they were under the company's control, including submitting to mandatory COVID-19 questionnaires and temperature checks before workers were allowed to clock in for their shifts. The off-the-clock work didn't qualify for overtime premium payment, which allegedly resulted in minimum wage and overtime violations. According to the lawsuit, shortly after Riley complained to his supervisor about the alleged unlawful employment practices at the company, Best Practice Medicine, LLC terminated his employment. Based on this, there is an alleged causal link between the protected activity (reporting labor law violations) and the company's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment. The case, Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC, is currently pending in the Kern County Superior Court.

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.