Arizona Drywall and Painting Companies Ordered to Pay $7.45 Million for Overtime Violations

Two Phoenix-area construction companies have been ordered to pay more than $7.4 million to cover back wages and damages. The order followed the U.S. Department of Labor investigation that uncovered a deliberate scheme to deny overtime pay to over 1,400 workers. The consent judgment in Julie Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Inc., Empire Wall Systems Inc., et al marks one of the largest wage theft recoveries in Arizona’s construction industry in recent years.

Case: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

Court: Arizona District Court

Case No.: 2:24-cv-03560

The Plaintiff: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

The plaintiff in the case is Julie Su, Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor (on behalf of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division).

The Defendants: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

1. Apodaca Wall Systems Inc. – Phoenix-based drywall and interior painting company.

2. Empire Wall Systems Inc. – Phoenix-based drywall and interior painting company.

3. Arnold Apodaca – Owner.

4. Michael Apodaca – Owner’s son and co-owner.

5. Brittany Apodaca – Owner’s daughter and co-owner.

History of the Case: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

According to the Department of Labor, Apodaca Wall Systems and Empire Wall Systems willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by using multiple schemes to avoid paying employees legally required overtime wages:

• Paying hourly workers with multiple checks at straight-time rates for all hours worked.

• Using labor brokers that helped them hire hourly workers, they paid them in cash at straight time (even if they worked more than 40 hours a week).

• Paying piece rates (based on square footage completed) to off-the-books workers without regard for total hours worked. While crew leads received piece-rate pay, they redistributed it (denying overtime compensation)

According to the investigation, these unlawful practices impacted over 1,400 employees, many of whom were vulnerable workers relying on overtime wages to support themselves and their families. The U.S. District Court entered a consent judgment on January 15, 2025, that ordered:

1. An injunction that forbids future labor law violations

2. Back payment of overtime wage totaling $3,725,000

3. Payment of liquidated damages totaling $3,725,000

4. Civil penalties for willful FLSA violations totaling $125,000

The Main Question in the Case:

The main question the court has to consider in Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems is whether or not the defendants used illegal pay schemes to deny their employees earned overtime wages and intentionally violated federal overtime laws.

Why This Case Matters: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

This case highlights the Department of Labor’s aggressive enforcement in Arizona’s construction sector. In the past five years, federal investigators have recovered over $22 million in unpaid wages and damages for employees across the state.

FAQ: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

Q: What is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?

A: The FLSA is a federal law requiring covered employers to pay eligible employees at least the federal minimum wage and overtime pay (time-and-a-half) for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Q: How did the companies try to avoid paying overtime?

A: By splitting pay across multiple checks, paying in cash at straight-time rates, and misclassifying work as piece-rate to avoid tracking overtime hours.

Wage theft and overtime violations can have devastating effects on workers and their families. If you believe your employer's business practices violate labor law, Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our California employment law attorneys represent workers statewide, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Riverside, and we fight to hold employers accountable for violating employee rights.

State Farm Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit from Former Attorney After Judge Sends Case Back to California State Court

A former State Farm litigation attorney has secured an early procedural win in her racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, as a federal judge sent the case back to California state court—widely seen as a more favorable venue for employees in workplace discrimination claims.

Case: Kymberly Aleem Duncan v. State Farm

Court: California Northern District Court

Case No.:3:24-cv-08528

The Plaintiff: Duncan v. State Farm

Kymberly Aleem Duncan, a former litigation attorney in State Farm’s Pleasanton, California office, alleges she was the only African-American woman among 21 attorneys in her department and endured a pattern of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment that ultimately forced her resignation in May 2023.

The Defendants: Duncan v. State Farm

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company – Duncan’s former employer.

Jeanette Nicole Little – Current managing attorney at State Farm’s Pleasanton office, and one of Duncan’s supervisors.

History of the Case: Duncan v. State Farm

According to Duncan, her troubles started under former managing attorney Philip Anderson. Anderson allegedly blocked Duncan's promotion in favor of a white male employee and later made comments suggesting he had become "more open" to hiring people of color.

When Little took over as managing attorney in 2021, Duncan alleges the discriminatory treatment intensified. Her lawsuit claims she was:

• Given less qualified support staff, which negatively affected her work performance.

• Assigned an unfairly heavy workload to set her up for poor reviews.

• Denied management training and promotional opportunities despite her qualifications.

• Labeled “abrupt and confrontational,” which she argues played into the “angry Black woman” stereotype.

• Deliberately excluded from workplace events, including a team lunch and a colleague’s funeral.

• Duncan alleges these actions created an intolerable work environment, amounting to a constructive discharge. She filed her lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court in 2024, alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and failure to prevent discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The Allegations: Sufficient to State a Harassment Claim?

State Farm moved the case to federal court, claiming that Little—a California resident—was fraudulently joined to block diversity jurisdiction. The company argued that Little’s conduct amounted to routine personnel management decisions, not harassment.

However, Judge Joseph C. Spero disagreed, finding Duncan’s allegations sufficient to state a harassment claim under California law. The judge ruled that the case should be heard in the California state court, as complete diversity did not exist.

Main Question in the Case: Duncan v. State Farm

Did State Farm and managing attorney Jeanette Nicole Little engage in racially discriminatory and retaliatory conduct that generated a hostile work environment?

FAQ: Duncan v. State Farm

Q: Why is the Duncan v. State Farm ruling significant?

A: By keeping the case in California state court, Duncan will pursue her claims in a venue generally viewed as more favorable to employees in discrimination cases.

Q: What does “fraudulent joinder” mean in connection to this lawsuit?

A: It’s when a defendant argues that another defendant was added to the lawsuit solely to defeat federal jurisdiction. The court rejected State Farm’s claim of fraudulent joinder in this case.

Q: What laws is the plaintiff suing under?

A: California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

If you have faced workplace discrimination, retaliation, or harassment in California, you may have legal options under FEHA. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our California employment law attorneys represent workers statewide, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Riverside, and we fight to hold employers accountable for violating employee rights.

Los Angeles Nurse Sues Cedars-Sinai for Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination

A former Cedars-Sinai Medical Center nurse has filed a lawsuit claiming her dream nursing job turned into a nightmare when she faced repeated harassment from Filipino coworkers, discriminatory treatment, and ultimately termination after complaining about the abuse.

Case: Camyle Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case No.: 21STCV27139

The Plaintiff: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Camyle Meier, a half-white and half-Japanese nurse, accepted her “dream job” at Cedars-Sinai shortly before finishing her bachelor’s degree in nursing. Inspired by childhood experiences (including her sister’s treatment at Cedars), Meier was eager to build a long career in medicine. According to her complaint, that goal was cut short due to a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.

The Defendant: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is a large healthcare facility located in Los Angeles. It's also one of the largest employers in California’s medical sector.

History of the Case: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Meier alleges that on her very first day of work, Filipino coworkers poured coffee into her backpack and tampered with her belongings, sending what she interpreted as a clear message of racial animus. Assigned to a section composed almost entirely of Filipino women who had worked together for over a decade, she claims she was consistently ostracized, bullied, and assigned the heaviest and most difficult patients without proper training.

The Allegations: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

According to the lawsuit, her colleagues filed falsified complaints against her, subjected her to unreasonable scrutiny, and undermined her work. Meier alleges that after she resisted actions she believed were unlawful and reported the harassment, retaliation escalated. She was placed on leave just two days before her six-month probationary period ended and was terminated for an alleged time recording violation—a policy she says was different from the one originally provided to her.

Meier's lawsuit includes claims for:

• Gender Discrimination

• Retaliation

• Breach of Contract

• Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

• Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination

• Failure to Take Corrective Action

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The Main Question in the Case: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Did Cedars-Sinai Medical Center violate California labor laws (including the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by allowing a hostile work environment to develop, failing to take corrective action, and terminating Meier in retaliation for her complaints?

FAQ: Meier v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Q: What type of discrimination is alleged in this case?

A: Meier claims she experienced race- and gender-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation after reporting workplace misconduct.

Q: What specific conduct is alleged against her coworkers?

A: Allegations include tampering with personal belongings, pouring coffee into her backpack, assigning her the most physically demanding patients without training, filing false complaints, and subjecting her to ostracization and intimidation.

Q: What damages is the plaintiff seeking?

A: The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for lost income, emotional distress, and harm to her professional career.

If you have been harassed, discriminated against, or wrongfully terminated in retaliation for speaking out, you may have legal options under California employment law. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced Los Angeles employment law attorneys fight to protect the rights of workers across California, with offices serving clients in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

L.A. County Nurse Reaches Tentative Settlement in Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A Los Angeles County registered nurse has reached a tentative settlement in her discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in which she claimed she was repeatedly denied promotions and wage increases after speaking out about preferential treatment favoring Filipino and Asian-American nurses.

Case: Jessica Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case No.: 23STCV00176

The Plaintiff: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Jessica Castillo, a registered nurse hired by Los Angeles County in September 2015, evaluated county hospitals and health facilities as part of her job. She alleges that beginning in late 2018, she and other non-Filipino nurses were subject to discriminatory work assignments and denied opportunities for promotion and higher pay after complaining about the treatment.

The Defendant: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

The defendant, Los Angeles County, is one of the largest public employers in California. The defendant denied Castillo’s claims. They claim that Castillo was promoted twice during her tenure, and received steady overtime. They also claimed that when Castillo was not selected for promotions, it was due to one of two valid reasons: 1) her own errors or 2) because other candidates were more qualified for the position.

History of the Case: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Castillo’s complaint alleged that a program manager consistently gave more favorable assignments, telecommuting privileges, and overtime opportunities to Filipino and other Asian-American nurses, in violation of county rules and seniority rights. During the pandemic, favored employees were allegedly permitted to work remotely, while others (including Castillo) were required to work in the field. According to the plaintiff, the required field work allegedly exposed them to COVID-19. After complaining regarding the situation, Castillo claims she faced repeated denials of promotions until she was eventually transferred to another department in September 2021.

The Main Question to Consider in Castillo v. Los Angeles County:

The central question in this case is whether Los Angeles County unlawfully discriminated against and retaliated against Castillo in response to her complaints. Discrimination and retaliation in response to workplace complaints violates multiple labor laws as well as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

FAQ: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Q: What type of discrimination did Castillo allege?

A: She claimed race and national origin discrimination, alleging that Latino, Black, and white nurses were treated less favorably than Filipino and Asian-American nurses.

Q: What retaliation did she claim?

A: Castillo alleged she was repeatedly denied promotions and pay increases after filing complaints about the alleged discriminatory treatment.

Q: Was the case resolved?

A: The parties have reached a conditional settlement, which is pending final approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

If you believe you have been denied promotions, pay increases, or other job opportunities due to discrimination or in retaliation for speaking out, you may have legal options. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to help protect your rights, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Court Grants Conditional Certification in AI Bias Lawsuit Against Workday

A landmark AI discrimination lawsuit against Workday, Inc. is moving forward, with the court granting conditional certification for Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims on behalf of what could be one of the largest collectives ever certified. The case raises major questions about the role of artificial intelligence in employment decisions.

Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Court: N.D. Cal.

Case No.: 23-cv-00770-RFL

The Plaintiff: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mobley, alleges that Workday’s AI-powered applicant recommendation system unlawfully discriminated against job seekers. According to the complaint, the AI-powered system discriminated based on race, age, and disability, which violates federal anti-discrimination laws. Mobley asserts that the AI tool design reflected employer biases and relied on biased training data that led to systemic exclusions of certain applicants.

The Defendant: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Workday, Inc., a major HR management services provider, offers widely used AI tools for scoring, sorting, ranking, and screening job applicants. Although Workday was not an employer or prospective employer of Mobley or the putative class, the plaintiff contends that the company may be liable as an “agent” for allegedly discriminatory hiring practices facilitated by its technology.

History of the Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

In July 2024, the Northern District of California denied Workday’s second motion to dismiss, allowing Mobley’s claims to proceed. On May 16, 2025, the court granted conditional certification for the ADEA claims, finding that Mobley sufficiently alleged a unified policy in the form of Workday’s AI applicant screening system. Workday argued that different employer-clients’ use of the tools and varied applicant qualifications made collective treatment inappropriate, but the court ruled those differences immaterial for certification purposes.

The Main Question in the Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The key question is whether Workday’s AI applicant screening system, as designed and deployed, had a discriminatory impact on job applicants—particularly older applicants—and whether the company can be held liable under federal anti-discrimination laws despite not being a direct employer.

FAQ: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Q: What law is central to this case?

A: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a law that prohibits employment discrimination against individuals age 40 and older.

Q: How large could the collective be?

A: Workday has stated that 1.1 billion applications were rejected using its software during the relevant period, meaning “hundreds of millions” of job seekers could be part of the collective.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It is one of the first major court tests of AI-driven hiring tools, raising critical questions about bias, accountability, and liability in the use of automated systems for employment decisions.

If you believe you have been denied employment due to discrimination; whether by a potential employer or because of biased hiring technology—you should speak with an experienced employment discrimination attorney as soon as possible. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our knowledgeable attorneys can help protect your rights, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Lord v. Renner: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed After Teen's Beating at Arizona Party

The parents of 16-year-old Preston Lord have filed a wrongful death lawsuit following his fatal beating at a large, unsupervised Halloween party in Queen Creek, Arizona. This case stands out from the criminal cases the young defendants are already facing because the civil suit intends to hold both the young defendants and numerous "parents" legally responsible for the circumstances leading to Preston's death.

Case: Lord v. Renner

Court: Maricopa County Superior Court

Case No.: CV2024-018033

The Plaintiff: Lord v. Renner

The plaintiffs in the case are Preston Lord's parents, Nicholoas Lord and Autumn Curiel. After their son died from injuries sustained at a Helloween party on the night of October 28, 2023, the two filed suit claiming wrongful death. The night of the incident, a fight allegedly broke out, and a severe beating left Preston unconscious. He was rushed to a nearby hospital and then airlifted to Phoenix Children's Hospital. However, he died due to injuries sustained just two days after the incident.

The Defendants in the Case: The Youths and Their Parents

Seven young party attendees are listed as defendants on the wrongful death complaint: Talan Renner, Treston Billey, William Owen Hines, Jacob Meisner, Dominic Turner, Taylor Sherman, and Talyn Vigil. However, the list of defendants does not stop there. In addition to the youths accused of the fatal attack on Preston Lord, some of the parents of the young people are also included on the defendant list. The Renner family and the owners of the property where the party was hosted (Roberto and Emily Corres) are also listed as defendants.

History of the Case: Lord v. Renner

According to the complaint, the Correas hosted a Halloween party promoted on Snapchat as a "Halloween Rager" that was open invite, with alcohol available on a first-come, first-served basis. Up to 200 teens and young adults reportedly attended. The lawsuit alleges the Correas remained inside during the party, were under the influence of alcohol, and failed to supervise the minors or prevent alcohol from being provided to them.

When the homeowners told attendees to leave, a fight broke out between two groups. Preston was allegedly beaten to the point of unconsciousness by the seven named individuals. The lawsuit also cites prior alleged violent behavior by defendant Talan Renner, including a fifth-grade threat to "shoot up" his school, a middle school fight/bullying incident, and an assault at a Utah boarding school. The plaintiffs argue that Renner's parents failed to take reasonable steps to control or supervise their son despite his volatile history.

The Main Question in the Case: Lord v. Renner

Can both the individuals who physically attacked Preston and the parents who allegedly failed to supervise or intervene be held liable under wrongful death and negligence laws? The fatal incident that led to Lord v. Renner occurred in Arizona. However, the issues raised of parental liability, negligent supervision, and social host responsibility are issues that could easily be echoed in wrongful death and negligence claims in other areas throughout the nation.

Why This Case Matters: Lord v. Renner

This case puts a spotlight on the potential civil liability for parents and property owners when minors at unsupervised gatherings where alcohol is present cause harm or injury. The issues presented in this case also underscore how wrongful death and negligence claims can extend beyond the direct perpetrators to those who allowed dangerous conditions to occur. Such cases can result in significant financial judgments intended to provide justice for grieving families.

FAQ: Lord v. Renner

Q: What is a wrongful death lawsuit?

A: A wrongful death lawsuit is a civil claim filed by certain surviving family members when a death is caused by another party's negligence, recklessness, or intentional act.

Q: Can parents be held liable for their child's actions?

A: Yes. In California, as in Arizona, parents may be held civilly responsible if they knew or should have known of their child's dangerous behavior and did not take reasonable actions to stop them from doing harm.

Q: How does social host liability apply?

A: California's social host laws differ from Arizona's, but in both states, providing alcohol to minors — or failing to control a gathering where minors drink — can contribute to civil liability when injuries or deaths occur.

Q: How does a civil wrongful death case differ from a criminal case?

A: A criminal case seeks to punish wrongdoing with penalties such as imprisonment. A civil wrongful death case seeks compensation for losses filed by surviving family members.

Q: What damages can be recovered in wrongful death cases?

A: Compensation can include funeral expenses, medical bills, and other damages related to loss of companionship, loss of future earnings, etc. In some cases, punitive damages may be included, especially for reckless conduct.

If you have lost a loved one due to another party's negligence or wrongful actions, contact an experienced wrongful death attorney as soon as possible. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Retired LAPD Sergeant Wins $4.5M in Whistleblower Retaliation Lawsuit

A Los Angeles County jury has awarded retired LAPD Sergeant Randy Rangel $4.5 million after finding the department unlawfully retaliated against him for reporting alleged overtime fraud within the Transit Services Division.

Case Name: Randy Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: 22STCV34806

The Background: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

Rangel, who served the LAPD for 32 years, claimed that in 2018 and 2019, he reported a fellow sergeant for billing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for overtime work that was never performed. He alleged no investigation was launched. Instead, he says his identity as the complainant was leaked—despite whistleblower confidentiality rules—triggering months of retaliation.

Alleged Retaliation: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

According to the lawsuit, Rangel was:

• Removed from his role as captain’s adjutant, a key promotional stepping stone.

• Targeted with false rumors about his personal life.

• Subjected to ongoing harassment from colleagues and superiors.

• Written up for potential discipline over a separate incident, which was eventually dismissed.

He claimed the retaliation continued even after he filed an anonymous Internal Affairs complaint in 2020, and that the hostile work environment contributed to his decision to retire in 2023.

The Verdict: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

According to court documents, the jury awarded Rangel $4.5 million in damages. (It's possible the award amount could change due to potential post-trial proceedings). In some cases, the final payout is adjusted on appeal or other post-trial proceedings. Rangel v. City of Los Angeles. It is just one of several recent suits involving the LAPD Transit Services Division. Other allegations include misconduct cover-ups, retaliation for reporting violations/wrongdoing, and discrimination. 

Why This Case Matters: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

California law protects employees who report misconduct from retaliation, but in some cases (like Rangel v. City of Los Angeles), whistleblowers can still face serious consequences in the workplace. The verdict in this case sends a message about the significant legal and financial penalties associated with violating these essential labor law protections.

FAQ: Whistleblower Retaliation Case

Q: What was the basis of Randy Rangel’s lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles?

A: Rangel, a former Los Angeles Metro employee, alleged he was retaliated against after reporting an overtime fraud scheme involving other employees.

Q: Which court heard this case?

A: The case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV34806.

Q: What was the outcome of the trial?

A: The jury awarded Rangel $4.5 million in damages for retaliation, including lost wages and emotional distress.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It underscores California’s strong whistleblower protections, especially for public employees who report suspected fraud or misconduct.

Q: Can the City of Los Angeles appeal the verdict?

A: Yes. As with most civil verdicts, the City has the right to appeal within a specified timeframe under California law.

If you have experienced workplace retaliation, please speak with an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible. Get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.