Can a Co-Worker’s Social Media Post Create a “Hostile” Work Environment?

A recent lawsuit's hostile work environment claims hinged on the social media posts of a co-worker. The court was left to decide if a co-worker's social media activity can legally constitute a hostile workplace environment. The court's arguments led to much-needed clarity on the complex connection between workplace harassment and social media.

Case Details: Okonowsky v. Garland, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No.: 109 F.4th 1166 (9th Cir. 2024)

Federal Prison Psychologist Alleges Hostile Work Environment:

During her time employed as a federal prison psychologist, one of Lindsay Okonowsky's colleagues, corrections Lieutenant Steven Hellman, shared a series of sexually explicit and derogatory Instagram posts on his social media account, specifically denigrating his female coworker. Hellman made hundreds of derogatory social media posts denigrating women in general but specifically targeted his coworker, Okonowsky, including jokes about raping her. The negative Instagram posts were visible to other prison coworkers and some of the prison’s management personnel. The situation scared Okonowsky and made her uncomfortable going to work daily.

Seeking Resolution: Reporting Harassment to Management 

Okonowsky first sought a resolution of the situation by bringing the matter to the attention of her superiors at the federal prison, as well as the human resources manager. According to the lawsuit, instead of starting an investigation, she was advised to "toughen up" or "get a sense of humor." In fact, the hostile work environment claim wasn't taken seriously until months after the fact when a new warden took over at the federal prison.

Defining a Hostile Work Environment: Does Social Media Activity Apply?

The plaintiff argues that the string of derogatory social media posts constituted a hostile work environment and that her employers failed to properly investigate when she filed her complaint. Labor law requires employers to investigate complaints. However, in addition to fulfilling legal obligations, employers should investigate to ascertain the facts and prevent future instances of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. Failing to investigate leaves employees at risk of a potentially damaging work environment.

Okonowsky v. Garland: From District Court to Appellate Court

Initially, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant because Hellman, Okonowsky's colleague at the prison, was using his personal social media account, which they defined as outside of the workplace. The district court found that Hellman's online activity didn't fit the requirements needed to qualify as harassment under Title VII because the posts occurred outside of the workplace, were not directly sent to Okonowsky, and were not shown to her in the workplace. Using this definition, the court found that workplace harassment rules did not apply. However, on appeal, the district court's decision was reversed. The Ninth Circuit court clarified that it's not about when or where the conduct occurs but about the audience. And in the case of Okonowsky v. Garland, the audience included Okonowsky, the plaintiff, and her coworkers (including management personnel). In addition, the behavior overflowed into the workplace, which left Okonowsky feeling unsafe at work and uncomfortable going to work because of the series of Instagram posts. In a unanimous decision, the 9th Circuit panel held that Hellman's Instagram posts denigrating his female coworker could qualify as unlawful harassment. The court's rejection of the notion that only conduct occurring in the physical workplace can be actionable was firm - noting the ready use of social media to harass and bully both inside and outside the "workplace."

If you have questions about filing a California hostile work environment lawsuit, please contact 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.

Top Performer Claims Age Discrimination &Wrongful Termination

After finding himself out of a job after a company restructure, a top performer claims he was wrongfully terminated due to age discrimination.

The Case: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

The Case No.: B318216

The Plaintiff: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The plaintiff in the case, Gregory J. Kasparian, is a former employee of Edge Systems LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company (Hydrafacial). Kasparian, a resident of Georgia with a 2nd home in Pennsylvania, started working with the company in 2012 at the age of 51. After an interview in California, he was hired and held the position of Corporate Account Director (CAD), running the East Coast domestic sales team. Kasparian was a top performer who produced consistently good sales numbers. During his last 18 months with the company, Kasparian sold just under $1 million of “rolling sales” and was encouraged as a top achiever during the last two years of his time with the company, even earning a spot in the coveted “Presidents’ Club,” a revenue based performance award. Hydrafacial terminated Kasparian’s employment in July 2018 due to a corporate realignment. At that time, Kasparian was 57 years old. About five other employees in corporate account sales were let go - all over 40. Kasparian sued his former employer in Los Angeles County Superior Court for age discrimination and related causes of action, and causes of action based on Labor Code violations and breach of contract stemming from Hydrafacial's alleged failure to pay him earned commissions.

The Defendant: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The defendant in the case is Edge Sys. (aka Hydrafacial). The company designs, manufactures, promotes, and sells aesthetic products and technology. The company’s corporate office is located in Long Beach, California. While the company maintains various regional sales areas throughout the nation, the only physical locations they maintain are in the state of California. Vice President of Sales Dan Watson was the plaintiff’s supervisor at Hydrafacial from March 2017 until Kasparian’s employment was terminated.

The Case: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

Before Hydrafacial’s realignment, there were three CADs: Kasparian (age 57), Tracie Wertz (age 53), and Dan Townsley (age 39). Kasparian claims his numbers were higher than both Wertz and Townsley, and he had seniority over both, yet he was the only one of the three that wasn’t offered a new position in the company. Kasparian alleged Hydrafacial failed to pay his full commissions, and terminated him to avoid having to full the obligation. The two parties entered a stipulated judgment in favor of Hydrafacial and against Kasparian that the court signed and filed on November 29, 2021. On appeal, the court found that Kasparian failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that his age was a substantial motivator for his termination. The appellate court concluded the trial court properly granted summary adjudication and affirmed the judgment in favor of respondent Edge Systems LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company.

If you have questions about filing a wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact 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.

Did SpaceX Foster Gender Discrimination and Serial Sexual Abuse?

In recent news, a former SpaceX employee claims that SpaceX fostered gender discrimination and rampant sexual abuse of female employees.

The Case: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

The Court: California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 24ST CV05506

The Plaintiff: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case, Michelle Dopak, is a former SpaceX employee. Hired in 2017, Dopak worked as a Production Coordinator. During her time with the company, Dopak resided in Los Angeles County. Dopak claims during her time working for the defendant, she experienced rampant sexual discrimination, including being passed over for well-deserved promotions, being denied amenities at work that were offered to others, etc. Complaints regarding the situation and rampant rumors being spread about female workers allegedly resulted in no effective action. According to the plaintiff, the initially difficult situation escalated to a male supervisor requiring sexual favors in exchange for job security and promotion opportunities. In addition, the plaintiff claims women who did receive job opportunities or promotions were offered pay significantly lower than their male counterparts. Eventually, Dopak was allegedly coerced by a married supervisor into a sexual relationship that resulted in a pregnancy. When Dopak told her supervisor of the pregnancy, he allegedly offered her $100,000 to get an abortion. When she didn’t take the offer, he then made every attempt to evade child-support payments. Dopak claims the company higher-ups assisted him in his efforts in an attempt to silence her.

The Defendant: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

SpaceX, the defendant in this lawsuit, was established in 2002 by Elon Musk with the ambitious objective of making space travel more affordable and establishing a sustainable colony on Mars. The company, known for manufacturing and operating the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, as well as the Dragon and Starship spacecraft, is now facing allegations in the Dopak v. SpaceX case. The lawsuit accuses SpaceX of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, workplace retaliation, and disability-based discrimination. The plaintiff, Dopak, alleges that after returning from a medical leave taken in September 2022 due to workplace harassment and emotional distress, she was subjected to excessively long and unreasonable work hours by her new supervisor.

The Case: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

In the case documents, Dopak claims that SpaceX higher-ups retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Dopak filed the lawsuit in California Superior Court on Tuesday (March 5, 2024). Dopak and two other female SpaceX colleagues took their concerns regarding the sexual harassment and gender discrimination to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell in August 2018, but saw no responding action or investigation to resolve the situation. The Dopak v. SpaceX lawsuit is one of several making similar claims against the company. Another recent employment lawsuit claims the company discriminated against refugees or asylum recipients seeking employment. In October 2023, a former SpaceX engineer filed a proposed class action lawsuit claiming gender discrimination and discrimination against minorities.

If you are considering pursuing a workplace discrimination lawsuit in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their team of seasoned employment law attorneys is available to assist you from their offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Boeing Faces Allegations of Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace

After a former Boeing employee filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit, the court must determine if Boeing violated labor law.

The Case: Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company

The Court: Washington Western District Court

The Case No.: 2:24-cv-00278

The Plaintiff: Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company

The plaintiff in the case, Rasmussen, is a former Boeing crane mechanic who filed a lawsuit against the company after 10 years of employment, alleging she experienced discrimination and harassment while on the job. Specifically, Rasmussen reported that her Boeing manager made an anti-gay joke - and she very quickly found herself found herself facing a one-day suspension over parking tickets. In a separate incident, Rasmussen made a report regarding a co-worker sexually assaulting another worker, stating that it was one of many incidences of harassment and discrimination endured during her time at the company as a transgender. — one of many acts of harassment and discrimination she says she faced for more than 10 years as a transgender lesbian woman working in the Boeing Everett facility. Rasmussen claims Boeing responded to her complaint by suspending the offending co-worker for one day, the same consequences Rasmussen once faced for an alleged parking violation.

The Defendant: Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company

The defendant, The Boeing Company, is an airplane-maker. The plaintiff was employed at the company for 20 years before deciding to transition to live consistent with her gender identity (in 2010). Once she transitioned, she continued to work for 10 more years. While she never felt unsafe at Boeing before the transition, she didn't feel safe in the last ten years. Rasmussen described the feeling at Boeing as not feeling “threat-free” and always suffering from a “level of anxiety.” In the discrimination lawsuit, Rasmussen describes years of mistreatment following her transition in 2010.

The Case: Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company

The plaintiff in the case, Rasmussen v. The Boeing Company, is 55 years old. Rasmussen sued Boeing in federal district court in Seattle, Washington alleging the company violated labor laws against harassment, discrimination, and retaliation at work.

If you have questions about filing an employment law 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 ISE Exec. Alleges Gender Basis and Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

In recent news, a former Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE) executive claims racial discrimination and gender discrimination were left unchecked in the workplace.

The Case: Joyce Li v. Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE) and predecessor Relativity Sports

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

The Case No.: BC660219

The Plaintiffs: Li v. ISE

The plaintiff in the case, Joyce Li, was a seasoned professional with over a decade of experience in the sports industry. As the Director of Operations for the Basketball Division at Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE), she allegedly played a pivotal role in the agency’s basketball division, reportedly negotiating more than $400 million in NBA player contracts. Despite her instrumental contributions in the workplace, Li alleges gender discrimination based on disparities in pay and treatment in comparison to her male counterparts at work. Additionally, Li alleges the workplace exhibited a blatant lack of racial diversity. The plaintiff claims that while she performed the duties of a sports agent, she was denied participation in the standard fee splits or commissions. Additionally, her salary fell significantly below that of male colleagues who received substantial pay raises and bonuses. The allegedly discriminatory treatment combined with her termination suggests a pattern of discrimination and retaliation. Li claims her complaints were dismissed. After her termination, the company replaced female employees with male counterparts in their Basketball Division.

The Defendant: Li v. ISE

The defendant in the case, ISE (formerly Relativity Sports), faces allegations of gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and wrongful termination. After exercising her right to protest discrimination in the workplace, Li claims she was subjected to workplace retaliation and wrongful termination that resulted in ongoing economic loss and mental and emotional suffering.

The Case: Li v. ISE

The defendant in the case, ISE (formerly Relativity Sports), faces allegations of gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and wrongful termination. Li seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Additionally, She seeks an injunction that would prohibit “unequal pay to women and minorities and other discriminatory and retaliatory practices in the future.” She requested a court-supervised policy protecting women and minorities from unfair pay and workplace practices that would require periodic reporting from the company to ensure compliance.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

Does Disney Pay Female Workers Less than Male Workers?

In recent news, Disney faces allegations that they pay their female workers less than male employees.

The Case: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

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

The Case No.: 19STCV10974

The Plaintiff: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, LaRonda Rasmussen, and at least 8,900 other women employed by Disney claim that the company pays female employees less than male employees. The female Disney employees requested class certification for a class of women employed by Disney in California who are nonunion and employed in positions below the level of vice president any time between April 2015 and the present. According to the lawsuit, Disney allegedly underpays women in middle management in comparison to their male coworkers. The complaint also claims Disney passes over women for promotions in favor of male coworkers.

The Defendant: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The defendant in the case, The Walt Disney Co. et al., argued that the plaintiffs failed to adequately identify and define “substantially similar” jobs performed by male and female Disney employees. However, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle rejected Disney’s argument. Instead, the judge agreed to certify the class of women under California’s Equal Pay Act. However, the judge failed to certify a larger class under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The Case: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The case, LaRonda Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County. A California federal judge determined Disney would have to face labor law claims brought against it by a class of women arguing they were paid less than their male coworkers at the company.

If you have questions about how to file an employment law complaint, 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.