Google Faces Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Allegations

The Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC case highlights several common labor law violations often seen in California workplaces, from disability discrimination to workplace retaliation.

The Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

The Case No.: 22CV399886

The Plaintiff: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The plaintiff, Stayce Cavanaugh, is an experienced software engineer and former Google employee. Cavanaugh was employed by Google from 2012 until she was terminated in 2020. Cavanaugh started work in 2012 as a UI developer for Wildfire (Wildfire Interactive Inc.), a software development company developing a social marketing app that measures the "presence" of businesses on social platforms. When Google acquired Wildfire, they assigned Cavanaugh to a UX Designer role. A few years later, in 2015, Cavanaugh transferred to YouTube (a Google subsidiary) as a UX Engineer. Then, in 2017, she transferred again to Area 120, an incubator inside of Google, as a UX Engineer and web developer. During her time with the company in various roles, Cavanaugh received consistently positive performance reviews, bonuses, equity grants, and raises, indicating she excelled in her work. During her employment with various Google companies, Cavanaugh built the YouTube keyboard used on TVs and game consoles and co-created ChatBase (a cloud-based tool that can integrate with Google accounts).

History of the Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The plaintiff claims she suffered discrimination and mistreatment due to her disabilities, which include a generalized autoimmune disease and endometriosis. According to the complaint, Cavanaugh first disclosed her disabilities to Google around 2013. Her supervisor allegedly responded by notifying her teammates of her diagnosis (telling them Cavanaugh needed to take time off for "painful periods)" and offering her unwanted natural healing remedies. Following a hospitalization related to her disability, Google allowed Cavanaugh to work from home on a reduced schedule for a month. At that point, HR suggested a leave of absence, which she took. Cavanaugh was on leave from March 24, 2018, through May 22, 2019. When Cavanaugh returned to work, Google advised her that her previous Area 120 position was backfilled during her absence. Google gave her a limited time to search for a new role, and she picked up a 6-month temporary "bungee" role with Crowdsource. But only after the Global Program Manager indicated it could become a permanent position at the end of the term. The temp position was part-time, but she worked 25 to 30 hours weekly. However, in April 2020, Cavanaugh was given 60 days to find a new role, or her employment would be terminated. She applied for 18 different available roles and was a finalist for several. However, on April 25, Cavanaugh became ill, and the severe COVID-19 symptoms severely affected her interview process. She even fainted during one of her follow-up interviews. As a result, Cavanaugh requested a medical leave based on her physician's recommendations, but Google denied her request based on the number of hours worked in the year before requesting the leave. She then requested an extension of her job search deadline because she showed years of full-time employment before the part-time accommodations. This request was also denied, and Cavanaugh's employment was terminated.

The Defendant: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

According to the complaint, the defendant, Google LLC, faces multiple labor violation allegations, including:

• Disability discrimination in violation of FEHA

• Failure to accommodate for disability in violation of FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of FEHA

• Interference in violation of CFRA

• Retaliation in violation of CFRA

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

The Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

In the Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC case, the plaintiff alleges that Google denied her accommodation requests, made derogatory comments about her disabilities, and ultimately terminated her employment. She seeks relief through economic and non-economic damages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Female Disney Executive Filed Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A former female Disney executive filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, a California Corporation, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV08350

The Plaintiff: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Asta Jonasson, is taking the network, parent company Disney, and John Ridley to court, claiming they engaged in gender, racial, and economic discrimination and wrongful termination.

During her ten years with ABC under Ridley and IFPRPC(Ridley’s International Famous Players Radio Picture Corporation), Jonasson claims her salary went unchanged and was lower than the standard for her position at the company. According to the complaint, she was also overlooked for promotions. Jonasson brought her concerns to Ridley regarding the alleged pay disparity, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination multiple times. She also states that she complained to ABC about unlawful discriminatory actions but saw no corrective action. In 2021, a white woman was hired to perform tasks Jonasson was already performing, but at a significantly higher pay rate. Jonasson eventually put her grievances in writing and was allegedly “pink-slipped” in 2022. Claiming her firing was a direct result of her written complaints of labor law violations, Jonasson filed a California wrongful termination lawsuit listing the studio, Ridley, and the parent company, The Walt Disney Company as defendants.

The Defendant: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The case has a trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley (Oscar winner Ridley is the co-host of Deadline’s Doc Talk podcast), and ABC, face multiple alleged labor law violations, including:

• Discrimination in violation of the FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of the FEHA

• Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation

• Violation of the Equal Pay Act

• Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Negligent supervision and retention

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

In Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, the plaintiff seeks a jury trial and various unspecified damages from the trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley, and ABC.

Not the Only Labor Law Allegations Disney Faces:

Disney is facing more allegations regarding gender discrimination in a class action suit from potentially thousands of past and present employees, claiming the company shows a pattern of gender discrimination and pay disparity favoring male employees. The class action was filed in 2019 by Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. It includes claims that female employees receive lower pay rates than male counterparts with similar job duties in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. After repeated failures to get the class action discrimination lawsuit tossed out, the action seeks at least $150,000,000 in lost wages for female Disney employees, with the potential for damages to grow to more than $300,000,000.

If you have questions about how to file a retaliation, discrimination, or wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California employment law 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 Neuralink Faces Allegations of Discrimination and Retaliation

In recent news, a former Neuralink employee claims she faced discrimination, workplace retaliation, and disregard for her pregnancy accommodations during her time at the company.

The Case: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The Court: Superior Court of Alameda County

The Case No.: 24CV079691

The Plaintiffs: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Lindsay Short (formerly known as Lindsay Tatum), is a former Neuralink employee. Neuralink hired Short on March 9, 2021, as an Animal Care Team member at Neuarlink’s Dixon location. During her hiring process, it was understood by all parties involved that Short would require flexibility to accommodate her children’s work schedule and doctor’s appointments. After the Dixon location was closed in January 2022, Short was promoted to Animal Care Lead and transferred to Fremont with a pay raise. After negotiating her need for flexible time off to care for her children, Short accepted the new position as Animal Training Lead for the Non-Human Primate population and moved from Dixon to Fremont. Upon starting the job at the Fremont location, Short quickly discovered that management heavily discouraged taking rest breaks, and employees were frequently not relieved of job duties during their meal periods. Management at the Fremont location also quickly began pressuring Short to prioritize her work over her family, disregarding the oral agreement they entered into offering flexibility to accommodate her need to care for her children.

Alleged Labor Law Violations Escalate: Failure to Provide Appropriate PPE

Additionally, Short claims in the complaint that Neuralink conducted experiments within its research lab using rhesus macaque non-human primates (NHPs) that carried the deadly Herpes B virus without providing her with the appropriate PPE and failed to acknowledge her concerns regarding training, safety protocols, and violations of government regulations, which eventually led to her potential exposure. In response to her complaints, Short claims she was subjected to a retaliatory demotion under the erroneous guise of poor work performance that took effect in May 2023. In June 2023, Short advised HR in a teleconference meeting that she was pregnant. The next day, her supervisors presented her with a separation agreement and notice of termination for alleged “performance issues.” Short filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming she suffered economic loss and emotional distress due to the company’s unlawful conduct.

The Defendant: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The defendant in the case is Neuralink, Corp., and two of Short’s managers during her time working at the company. Short claims Neuralink and two of her managers, specifically Thurman and Sorrells, subjected her to discrimination, failure to provide appropriate accommodations for pregnancy, exposure to unsafe conditions, a pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory actions, and whistleblower retaliation. Additionally, Short claims Neuralink violated labor law’s meal break and rest period requirements.

The Case: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp., lawsuit alleges several labor law violations. The alleged labor law violations started after Short took a promotion with an accompanying pay raise and oral agreement for a flexible work schedule that accommodated her need to provide care for her children. The promotion necessitated a move of approximately 80 miles from Dixon to Fremont. Short seeks economic damages, non-economic damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and any other remedies available under applicable laws.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Meta Worker Claims He Was Wrongfully Terminated Due to His Muslim Faith and Palestinian-American Heritage

A former Meta-engineer claims he was wrongfully terminated due to his heritage and Muslim faith.

The Case: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The Court: California District Court of Santa Clara County

The Case No.: 24CV440543

The Plaintiff: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The plaintiff in the case, Ferras Hamad, is a former Meta software engineer. On June 4, 2024, Hamad filed a complaint alleging the company discriminated against him for his Palestinian-American heritage and Muslim faith. According to the complaint, one of Hamad’s job duties was to assess the quality of Instagram integrity filters related to Gaza, Israel, and Ukraine and investigate any severe issues (including users complaining their posts were censored or curbed). In December 2023, Hamad stated that after joining a “Palestine SEV” chat, he noticed irregularities in how pro-Palestinian posts were flagged for content removal. His investigation of the SEV related to a Palestinian photojournalist, Motaz Azaiza. Azaiza, a user with over 17 million followers, was one of the most famous Palestinian photojournalists during the conflict in Gaza. The situation led him to raise concerns over how Meta handled these posts. According to Hamad, he did not receive similar scrutiny or adverse employment actions when responding to SEVs connected to Ukraine or other world events.

The Defendant: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The defendant in the case, Meta Platforms, claims that Hamad was dismissed for violating Meta’s data access policies, which is known to result in immediate termination.

The Case: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

In the case Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms, Hamad, the plaintiff, and former Meta software engineer, claims he was fired after his investigation into why Meta limited the reach of a Palestinian photojournalist’s post led him to discover that the user’s content was incorrectly labeled “pornographic.” According to the complaint, Hamad documented his findings and immediately started receiving communications from supervisors at Meta who were not on his team alleging he violated company policy. Hamad claims he later confirmed with a Meta security team member that his actions did not violate company policy and he handled the SEV appropriately. On December 25, 2023, Azaiza, the photojournalist whose content was the subject of the SEV, posted a screenshot showing how Instagram incorrectly labeled the Gaza coverage as “pornographic.” Meta allegedly fired Hamad for violating the company’s data policy on February 2, 2024.

If you need to discuss filing a wrongful termination lawsuit in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys are available to assist you from their offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Newport’s Stoneacre Employees Allege Owners Took Take and Didn’t Pay Overtime

In a significant legal development, the Stoneacre family of restaurants and its owners are embroiled in serious labor law violation allegations. The lawsuit contends that they unlawfully appropriated employee tips and misclassified positions, thereby exempting certain workers from overtime pay requirements.

The Case: Martin V. Walsh v. Kale Stems, LLC d/b/a Stoneacre et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-00289

The Plaintiff: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The complaint was filed by U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh and lists four counts of Fair Labor Standards Act violations against Stoneacre Hospitality co-owners Christopher Bender and David Crowell and their associated LLCs (associated with Stoneacre Brasserie, Stoneacre Garden, and Stoneacre Tapas (now closed)). According to the complaint, Bender and Crowell participated in the employee tip pool and allowed other managers and supervisors to participate. Doing so violates the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), which prohibits employees in positions that don't typically receive tips from participating in a tip pool. According to the complaint, the alleged participation in the tip pool also led to minimum wage compensation violations.

The Defendant: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The defendants in the case are the Stoneacre family of restaurants and its owners. The Newport area entrepreneurs started business during the Covid pandemic. In addition to the tip pool and minimum wage allegations, the defendants face allegations that they failed to pay proper overtime pay rates, misclassified employees to leave them exempt from overtime pay protections provided by labor law, and failed to maintain and keep accurate records of their employees' hours. According to the complaint, the defendants scheduled their employees' shifts at three locations. The employees also received payment through three different entities, and the defendants did not combine the hours worked at the three locations, so employees regularly worked overtime hours without receiving any overtime pay.

The Case: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The plaintiff seeks payment for the withheld tips and back wages due to minimum wage violations and damages for current and former employees affected by the alleged violations.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, please contact 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.

Lawrence Equipment Faces Overtime Class Action Listing Multiple Allegations

In recent news, Lawrence Equipment faces multiple labor law violation allegations after a former employee filed a labor law class action.

The Case: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09752

The Plaintiff: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The plaintiff in the case, Rudy Pedroza, was employed by Lawrence Equipment Leasing, Inc. and Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (Lawrence Equipment) as a non-exempt, hourly employee from September 2022 through July 2023. Pedroza filed a class action lawsuit. The class action alleges multiple labor law violations by the defendants, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide workers with required rest periods and meal breaks, failure to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses, and failure to provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

Overtime and Minimum Wage Protection for California Employees:

Overtime protections primarily apply to non-exempt employees. Certain employees are exempt from overtime and sometimes minimum wage laws based on specific criteria related to their job duties, salary level, and industry. Common exemptions include executive, administrative, and professional employees, outside salespeople, and certain computer professionals. Other exceptions may include commissioned sales employees, agricultural workers, and interns/trainees.

The Defendant: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

Lawrence Equipment, the defendant in the case, is a design and manufacturing company for production systems for products like tortillas, pizza, flatbreads, and other frying systems. They operate throughout California, including Los Angeles County, where the plaintiff worked. The company faces allegations that they violated the labor code by failing to pay workers minimum wage and overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest breaks required by law, failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, failing to provide the required itemized wage statements, and failing to provide employees with their wages when they were due.

According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant’s business practices and policies allegedly led to incidents violating multiple labor codes, including numerous California Labor Code Sections (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802).

The Case: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment class action lawsuit is pending in California’s Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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

Lawrence Equipment Allegedly Violated Labor Law: Meal & Rest Break Violations

In recent news, an equipment rental company faces allegations of labor law violations stemming from missed meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment Leasing, Inc., Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (Lawrence Equipment)

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09752

The Plaintiff: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The plaintiff in the case, Rudy Pedroza, filed a class action lawsuit, including allegations that rigorous work schedules prevented employees from taking their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Pedroza also claimed employees were not fully relieved of work duties for their meal periods.

The Defendant: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The defendant in the case, Lawrence Equipment, allegedly failed to offer workers the required meal breaks and rest periods, or more specifically, employees were periodically interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks with requests to complete tasks for Lawrence Equipment. According to the California lawsuit, the employer violated multiple California labor laws. Allegations listed in the lawsuit include:

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to offer employees the required meal and rest periods

• Failure to reimburse their employees for required business expenses

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to provide wages when due

When Should California Employers Provide Employees with Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

California labor law mandates specific meal breaks and rest periods for non-exempt employees to make sure workers have enough time to rest and eat while at work or on the job. When employees work more than five hours daily, employers must offer them a 30-minute meal break. If an employee's total workday is six hours or less, they can waive their meal break if both the employer and employee agree. California employees are entitled to another 30-minute meal break on workdays that extend beyond 10 hours. (If the total hours worked in one day are no more than 12, the second meal break can be waived by mutual consent, but only if the employee did not waive their first meal break of the work day). Employers must also provide employees a ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked (or major fraction, defined as anything more than two hours). Rest periods are paid time taken in the middle of work. If an employer does not provide required rest periods, the employee must be compensated with one additional hour of pay at their regular rate for each workday the rest period is not offered.

The Case: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

Lawrence Equipment employees were allegedly required to complete work at Lawrence Equipment for more than five hours during a shift without being offered an off-duty meal break. Additionally, the suit alleges Lawrence Equipment didn't offer their employees a second off-duty meal period as required on workdays when employees worked 10 hours. According to the plaintiff, Lawrence Equipment kept employees on call and on duty during what was supposed to be their "off duty" meal periods. Pedroza also claimed that the defendant did not provide additional compensation to employees for the missed meal breaks as required. The class action lawsuit, Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment, is pending in California's LA County Superior Court.

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