Southern Californian Cosmetologist Claims She Was Fired for Getting Pregnant & Preparing for Maternity Leave

June 10, 2015 - A cosmetologist, Shana Wilson, is suing the Sherman Oaks salon that denied her breaks and then fired her for getting pregnant and preparing for maternity leave. Her allegations of the abusive conditions at the salon are similar to other allegations being made in similar businesses in other California cities.

Ms. Wilson filed suit against Nail Garden and her supervisors at the salon, Marc and Sally Awad. Allegations include in Wilson’s suit include pregnancy discrimination and harassment, wrongful termination, failure to prevent harassment, workplace retaliation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, etc. Suit was filed seeking compensation (of an unspecified amount) and punitive damages as well as a desired injunction that would prevent the Nail Garden salon from continuing the same treatment in the future.

Wilson claims she was hired as a licensed cosmetologist in February 2014 after demonstrating her abilities for the Awads. Her job duties included: styling hair, manicures, pedicures and waxing. During her employment, Wilson indicates that she regularly received praise regarding her work from both clients and her employers. Her hairstyling was seen as particularly excellent and was featured numerous times on their Nail Garden social media sites.

Even so, Wilson claims that as soon as she became pregnant (three months after being hired) she was harassed. When she started to have stomach pains in response to bending over to perform pedicures for clients, she requested a reprieve from that particular job duty. Sally Awad started to criticize Wilson’s work and reduced her hours from a full 40-hour work week to 32 hours.

According to the suit, one week after Wilson asked about taking maternity leave, Marc Awad advised her that she was fired due to “complaints about her nail work” from clients. Wilson claims that she was fired because she was pregnant and was planning to take maternity leave. Wilson also alleges that during her time at Nail Garden, her supervisors had her take clients during her breaks and that she did not receive the required itemized statement of hours worked and wages earned. She claims that Nail Garden purposefully failed to compensate her for the full amount of hours she put in on the job.

The problem is so widespread amongst salons that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced that he will establish a task force to look into the matter as many are claiming that employees at such establishments are being short-changed and asked to work in unsafe working conditions.

If you need additional information regarding appropriate workplace conditions, wrongful termination or pregnancy discrimination, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik./contact

Supreme Court to Review Nixed $90M Rest Break Verdict Handed Down by Appellate Court

June 4, 2015 - A $90 million judgment against ABM Industries, Inc. was first overturned by an appellate court and is now to be reviewed by The Supreme Court of California. The judgment was handed down in response to a suit alleging that ABM Industries, Inc. kept a class of security guards “on call” during breaks. Appellate court held overturned the settlement on the grounds that California employment law doesn’t require that employers relieve workers of all their work duties while they are on break.

The damages award was vacated by appellate court in December 2014 and is now set to be reviewed by The Superior Court of California.

ABM Industries, Inc., a facilities management company, allegedly had a policy in place requiring that their security guards carry their radio during break times. This effectively left them on call even during their breaks/rest times employees claim is a violation of California labor law.

The three-judge appellate court panel supposedly voted unanimously to reverse the summary judgment ruling; vacating the $90 million award. The basis for their decision was that while they were required to keep their radios on during their breaks, they used the time to engage in non-work activities. They pointed out that the question at hand was whether or not being “on call” constitutes performing work and their conclusion was that it does not.

ABM feels that the claims that requiring their employees to carry radios during breaks constituted a failure to provide them with adequate rest breaks were “absurd.”

The case began in 2005 with claims made by lead plaintiff, Jennifer Augustus, that ABM’s policy requiring guards to carry radios during break times was in violation of California state’s Labor Code.  In February 2012, the security guards filed for summary judgment requesting that Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley award approximately $103 million in damages in response to the allegations.

Judge Wiley’s response came in July 2012 when awarded the security guards $89.7 million in damages on account of improper breaks throughout the 10-year period addressed by the class action and including over 14,000 class action members (past and present ABM security guards).

ABM, of course, appealed Judge Wiley’s decision,  claiming that it was unprecedented and in defiance of both law and reason. They also claimed that letting the ruling stand would end up crippling California companies without even providing any actual benefit to California employees. They claimed that, if upheld, the decision would force California employers to require that employees take their rest breaks outside of work sites and without their own personal cell phones.

The question quickly became one of differentiation between meal breaks and rest breaks and which labor codes applied in which instance. In December, the panel noted that the state’s Industrial Welfare Commission wage order that covers rest breaks did not actually include reference to requiring that employees be “relieved of all” work duties. This in comparison to the section covering meal breaks where it was covered. They concluded that the IWC knew what they were doing when they differentiated between the two. As of January, plaintiffs in the case were still debating their options and planning their next move in regards to the case.

If you need additional information on how to respond to workplace requirements regarding meal times, rest breaks and relief from work duty; contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Workplace Claims: Should Workers Be Paid for Mandatory “Call Ins?”

June 1, 2015 - Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC workers are raising the question of whether or not retail employees who are required to call in to see if a shift is available or not should be paid simply for the mandatory call. It’s a new type of workplace claim that will be put to the test in federal appellate court.

Plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit seek payment for mandatory calls in their workplace. The petition for interlocutory appeal to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals followed a rare grant from U.S. District Judge George H. Wu to file due to what he referred to as the “novelty” of the legal question being presented.

Since the only precedent for the case is Judge Wu’s original dismissal followed by his grant to file for interlocutory appeal, the 9^th Circuit holds a lot of power in their hands. They will be the deciding factor. The employment law industry will either see this new and “novel” issue nipped in the bud or they could see an entirely new and fertile area for workplace grievances leading to worker lawsuits. This case could result in a new area of claims for employees as many large chains have call in policies for their workers.

The lawsuit was filed by Mayra Casas and Julio Fernandez. The suit is based on California’s reporting time laws requiring a minimum amount of pay when an employee is required to report to work, but they aren’t needed or no work is available at the appointed time. California is one of eight states with similar reporting time laws (including New York). The California reporting time laws guarantees employees will receive up to 4 hours of pay when they report for an 8-hour shift that is cancelled, resulting in the employee being sent home without working. Up until this point, the focus has been on employees who physically report in to their workstations. Whether or not similar guarantees should be in place for call in claims is the current question.

In the current lawsuit between Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC and Casas/Fernandez, it has been pointed out that employees abiding by the retail chain store’s call in policy must arrange their entire schedule around the need to call in 2 hours prior to a potential shift. Sometimes employees are required to do so up to five times in one week. Legal representation for the plaintiffs are pointing out the difficulties this poses in regards to scheduling daycare, etc. as proof of the need for a change.  

For additional information on California workplace claims and California reporting time law, contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wrongful Termination Suit: Former VP Files Suit Against Blue Shield of California

May 20, 2015 - Blue Shield of California was named as the Defendant in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former chief technology officer (CTO). Aaron Kaufman, former CTO, claims he was fired one day prior to receiving a $450,000 bonus because he raised concerns about a costly contract. The former CTO claims that he repeatedly recommended that the insurer sign a fixed-price $1.6 million contract for a “Veritas data project”. He claims his repeated recommendations were denied by Blue Shield CIO, Michael Mathias, who instead opted in December 2014 for an open-ended $4.6 million contract through a different vendor.

Kaufman claims that at one point he was in Mathias’ office making the recommendation and that Mathias responded insisting that Kaufman leave his office and never bring up the $3 million cost savings issue again. According to Kaufman, Mathias did not provide an explanation for why he seemed beholden to the other, overpriced vendor.

Kaufman’s employment as CTO was terminated on March 11^th. The company cited alleged violations of Blue Shield’s travel and expense policies. The termination was completed the day before Kaufman was due to receive his $450,000 bonus (earned as of December 31, 2014).

A spokesman for Blue Shield disagreed with the complaints made by Kaufman, but didn’t want to provide additional comments regarding the suit.

Recently, criticism that Blue Shield of California behaves like a for-profit insurer has been rampant. The group even lost their tax-exempt status. In 2014, the company posted $13.6 billion revenue. They hold over $4 billion in their reserves. A former executive, Michael Johnson, has called on Blue Shield to return about $10 billion in public assets to the state accord to recent stories in the media. The organization also faces heavy pressure to lower its premiums for Californians.

If you need additional information on wrongful termination call or email the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Woman Claims Discrimination and Harassment: Suit Filed Against Facebook

May 11, 2015 - Chia Hong, a former Facebook employee, filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Facebook, alleging discrimination, harassment and that she was belittled during her time as a Facebook employee. Hong worked at Facebook first as a product manager and then as a technology specialist. Her employment lasted about three years. She was terminated in October of 2013. Hong claims that upon her termination, Facebook filled her position with a less qualified and less experienced male worker.

Facebook denies the allegations made by Hong while Hong goes into more detail regarding the inappropriate behavior. Hong states that company officials actually asked her why she didn’t stay home to take care of her kids. She also states that she was consistently and regularly ignored and that her professional opinions were belittled in workplace meetings at which she was among a notably smaller group of female employees. Hong also lodged allegations that she was required to organize parties/serve drinks for male colleagues. This was in no way a part of her job description as either a project manager or a technology specialist.

Hong is of Taiwanese descent and claims that she was told that she hadn’t been able to integrate well with the team at Facebook because she “looked and talked” different than the other team members.

Facebook denies that claims made by Hong – insisting that they did not mistreat her in any way during or after her employment with the company. They claim that they put great effort into diversity, gender and equality issues in the workplace and they believe they have done well in improving in those areas.

The case against Facebook involves a multitude of factual disagreements. Hong insists that her treatment at the company was sub-par with numerous instances of discrimination because she was female and because of her race. Facebook insists that the record will show that Chia Hong was treated fairly as an employee.

If you need help because you are experiencing gender discrimination or harassment at work, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Cooper Wrongful Termination Lawsuit: Set for September Trial

June 8, 2015 - Former Lafayette Parish School Superintendent Pat Cooper is scheduled to go to trial the week of September 21^st. Cooper was fired from his job by the Lafayette Parish School Board in November. About two weeks after the board made the decision to fire him, Cooper filed a wrongful termination lawsuit.

In his lawsuit, Pat Cooper claims wrongful termination on the basis that he was fired without cause. He claims he was ousted from his position for political reasons as well as plan old vindictiveness. The board already spent over $120,000 in legal fees prior to firing Cooper in November.

Wrongful Termination has become a very widely used term. Generally speaking, it can mean many things, but legally speaking, it refers to a very specific situation in which very specific consequences may follow for employers involved. Many individuals are terminated from work positions. A lot of these workers who have lost their jobs may feel that their job loss was “wrongful.” But the legal definition of wrongful termination is more limited that the general meaning the combined words may indicate upon first hearing the phrase. Legally speaking, wrongful termination refers to circumstances in which an employee is fired from their position for an illegal reason. This could include being fired for discriminatory reasons (race, religion, age, gender, etc.), being fired in violation of employment contracts in place, workplace retaliation, etc.

If you need additional information regarding what constitutes wrongful termination so you can determine if you were wrongfully terminated from your job, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Discrimination Allegations: Pregnant Women Sue Raley’s

May 7, 2015 - Luciana Borrego, new mother to a baby boy born on Nov. 13, 2013, claims that she lost her job in Ukiah at Raley’s due to her pregnancy.

Raley’s is a part of a West Sacramento-based retail grocery store chain. In June of 2013, Borrego recalls advising her managers of her pregnancy (five months before her baby was born). On July 11, approx. one month later, she came to work with a doctor’s note advising her supervisors that she should not be lifting anything over ten pounds. Within an hour, Borrego claims she was called to the director’s office at the store and advised that she needed to take unpaid leave.

She was advised that she needed to go home, as the company didn’t accommodate pregnant workers even with the doctor’s note. Ms. Borrego claims she was devastated by the treatment she received. She never went back.

Ms. Borrego is one of two plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court against Raley’s. The suit contains allegations that the policy mentioned by Borrego’s director that Raley’s didn’t accommodate pregnant workers is unlawful. The company policy makes reasonable accommodations for workers injured on the job, but fails to provide any type of accommodation for pregnant workers.

Raley’s spokesperson responded denying the accusations and objecting the suggestion that they don’t care about all their team members, and in particular, their pregnant team members. They continued by indicating that Raley’s has been known to go above and beyond legal minimum requirements in this area. They are known as a strong, family owned business and, as such, it’s important to them that people see them as appreciative of the role women play in their workplace. They will defend themselves against the charges being brought by the plaintiffs.

Raley’s (also operating under the names Bel Air Markets, Nob Hill Foods and Food Source) operate more than 120 supermarkets in Northern California and Nevada.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status for current/former Raley’s California employees who were denied acceptable accommodations for pregnancy related needs over the past four years.

If you are interested in discussing California laws protecting pregnant women in the workplace, please contact your southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.