Settlement Story: House GOP Settles Wrongful Firing Lawsuit

There is, seemingly, always a new wrongful termination story popping up in the news. Recent headlines point towards Olympia, Washington. In this particular wrongful termination case, the legal battle has been ongoing for three years.

The wrongful termination lawsuit was brought against the House by the former House Republican staff members. The staffers’ names were: John S. Archer, John Charba and William Engelhardt. Claims made by the men included: age discrimination, allegations that staffers were put under pressure to work on members’ campaigns as well as attend fundraising events.

Last month, a judge dismissed all but one of the claims: age discrimination.

House Republican Caucus chief of staff, Lisa Fenton, stated that the settlement of $120,000 was reached in order to end the three year long battle between the House Republican leadership and the three previous staff members who filed. The settlement agreement bars additional legal proceedings/action. The Republican House leaders did not admit to any wrongdoing.

Wrongful termination lawsuits are typically founded on claims of discrimination (age, religion, sex, nationality, etc.), retaliation (for instance, filing of or participation in a discrimination claim), refusal to commit an illegal act, departure from posted termination process or procedures, etc. Employees are protected from wrongful termination by California labor law. Winning a wrongful termination case tends to result in one of two things: reinstatement of the employee at the place of employment they were wrongfully dismissed from or monetary compensation for the wrongfully terminated paid out by the former employer.

A proven wrongful dismissal will tend to lead to two main remedies: reinstatement of the dismissed employee, and/or monetary compensation for the wrongfully dismissed.

For additional information on wrongful firing or wrongful termination please contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Netflix and Amazon Beat Blacklisting Lawsuit

Claims filed by Jerry Kowal against Netflix and Amazon included defamation and wrongful termination. The two companies, Netflix and Amazon, are competitors. They both provide online video content. But these two competitors got to share a victory together in court when the Los Angeles Superior Court judge Michael Stern dismissed claims against the two online video content giants. The claims were brought by Jerry Kowal, a former employee of both of the companies listed in the suit. He alleged that he had been wrongfully terminated by Amazon after Netflix blacklisted him.

Kowal worked at Netflix as a director of content acquisition. He had what he described as an exceptional reputation, but quickly noticed that the atmosphere at the company was cold, hostile and cutthroat. As a result, he decided to take a job at Amazon. He claims that shortly after he started at Amazon, Netflix attorneys sent a letter to Amazon accusing Kowal of unfair competition and insisting that they have access to search Kowal’s email accounts and computer/s for any business information belonging to Netflix. Kowal allowed that Netflix information could still be on his devices, but he adamantly denied using any of it for work at Amazon.

The burden of proof fell on Kowal. He needed to prove that there was a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claims. The judge decided that he did not meet the expected standard due to the fact that several of his allegations were based on speech protected by California Civil Code 47(b), which covers speech “made…in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law.” In this particular case, the letter Netflix sent to Amazon alleged unfair competition by Kowal.

For questions about wrongful termination, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, the southern California employment law experts. 

Yahoo Executive Sued for Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Termination

Nan Shi, a principal software engineer for Yahoo filed against Maria Zhang, senior director of engineering for Yahoo Mobile on July 8^th. The complaint was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California. According to the complaint Maria Zhang, the Yahoo executive, sexually harassed a woman who worked under her, Nan Shi.

Nan Shi worked for Yahoo since February 2013. She alleges that Zhang coerced her into engaging in sexual acts on numerous occasions in Sunnyvale, California with promises of a “bright future” dependent upon her agreement to participate. Nan Shi is seeking monetary and punitive damages. Yahoo is also named as a defendant in the suit. A representative for Yahoo advised that they believe there is no basis for the claims made by Nan Shi and that Maria Zhang is an exemplary Yahoo executive. They intend to fight the allegations and clear her name.  

Zhang’s mobile company, Alike, was acquired by Yahoo in 2013. She had previously worked with Microsoft and Zillow. In the complaint filed, Shi accuses Zhang of downgrading her performance reviews unfairly. Further accusations are aimed at the Yahoo human resources department personnel who Shi claims refused to conduct an investigation when she complained about advances being made by her direct supervisor.  According to Shi, instead of conducting an investigation into the matter as she requested, they put her on unpaid leave and eventually terminated her from the company.

For more information on sexual harassment in the work place or wrongful termination suits contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

What are the Protected Classes Under Discrimination Laws?

Many are familiar with the topic of discrimination and would assume they know exactly what the term refers to, but it’s not as easily defined as many think. An employer may dislike an employee. They might feel his or her personality is grating or disruptive to the team efforts and they may, as a result of their dislike, treat that employee differently. You might even say they treat that employee unfairly. Is that enough evidence for a discrimination claim? It may not be. In order to file a valid discrimination claim, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) needs to see that the discrimination falls within pre-determined categories or protected classes.

The way the courts determine protected groups under discrimination laws today was heavily influenced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prevents discrimination in educational environments as well as public workplaces. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an individual cannot be discriminated against for: age, pregnancy, national origin, race, ethnic background, religion, or sexual orientation.

There are common forms of discrimination that fall under the umbrella of protection held by the EEOC that are easily recognizable:

1. 1.       Discrimination against workers due to their national origin, heritage or country of original citizenship.
2. 2.       Being required to speak English in the workplace (this may only be enforced if speaking English is a requirement to effectively perform job duties in the workplace).
3. 3.       Discrimination against an employee because of a foreign accent.
4. 4.       Hostile workplace environments created by “teasing” or offensive comments or actions aimed at employees due to their sexual orientation.
5. 5.       Employees that are fired due to their sexual orientation have also been victims of discrimination in form of wrongful termination.

If you feel that you need to further discuss any of these issues, please get in touch with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We’d be happy to help you determine what action is necessary to right the situation. 

Former Goodwill Manager Files Wrongful Termination Suit

Pamela Dietz, former human resources manager for Goodwill Industries in Lorain County recently filed a lawsuit against the agency. She claims wrongful termination after being fired for investigating a suspected theft scheme within the organization. Dietz filed the suit in Lorain County Common Please Court. The suit is detailed, spelling out her discovery of the theft she alleges was occurring as well as the attempts made by Goodwill Industries to cover up the problem. Dietz was employed from Feb. 18, 2013 through October 2013 when CEO Steve Greenwell fired her.

The second defendant named in the suit is Jack Arbogast. He is described in the lawsuit as the director of donated goods. Dietz is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for emotional stress as well as lost wages. The alleged theft scheme is described in the suit. Items donated to Goodwill were resold by Arbogast, a Goodwill employee, and the employee’s husband. The sales were handled through the eBay auction website. Dietz claims she discovered the theft scheme through another employee coming to her with the information in September 2013. Larry Abetya came to her with the request for time off due to “stress and anxiety” in connection with his personal relationship with Arbogast. Abetya advised Dietz that Arbogast took a 1994 Geo Prism from Goodwill and gave it to Abetya. Abetya was involved in a car accident in the Prism in April 2013. The suit alleges that Arbogast regularly took donated goods from Goodwill (i.e. cars, speakers, a boat, a pool table, etc.) There were multiple accounts set up on eBay to sell the items stolen from Goodwill’s donated goods.

Dietz was out of a job by the end of October 2013.

If you are the victim of wrongful termination the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik can help you. Call us today.

Wrongful Termination Lawyers: When should Employees seek their Help?

Wrongful termination lawyers defend employees in various situations, including discrimination, violation of public policy, fraud (via misrepresentation at the date of hire), contractual breach and constructive discharge, among others. What do all of these scenarios have in common? The employees who suffer through them all put some measure of trust into their employer, but are deceived at their own expense.


Employers should practice fair dealing and good faith at all times, meaning they should treat similarly situated employees in the same manner. However, this often times is not the case due to widespread subjectivity in our business culture. Wrongful termination lawyers can help defend those who are treated unfairly in the following scenarios: Discrimination, Violations of public Policy, Fraud and Constructive Discharge.


Discrimination: in a discrimination suit, wrongful termination of an employee occurs due to his or her possession of certain characteristics rather than for legitimate reasons.


Violations of Public Policy: in a suit based on the allegation of violation of public policy, the employee must show that (1) the public policy involved is derived from an administrative regulation, state or federal statute, and (2) that the policy is fundamental and of benefit to the general public, rather than just to the employee or employer. It is the employer’s job, on the other hand, to show that it decided to terminate the employee based on legitimate business reasons.


Fraud (via Misrepresentation at the date of Hire): an employer may be liable for fraud if it makes promises at the date of hire that it fails to keep. For example, if at the date of hire the employer promises regular pay rate increases that that it never intended to deliver, it has committed fraud. It is thus very important for employees to accurately and adequately record such promises as soon as they are made in order to give wrongful termination lawyers strong foundations to defend a claim.


Contractual Breach: this occurs when written, oral, and implied contracts are not fulfilled by the employer. It is up to the employee to prove that the contract exists and that he or she suffered from wrongful termination in violation of that contract. Employers often try to avoid these lawsuits by asking employees to sign the Confirmation of Receipt, which can defeat their claim that there was an implied or oral contract. On the other hand, employers can create a clause in a written contract that allows for termination at-will in order to protect them from wrongful termination claims. The best thing for employees to do is to read and understand all contracts thoroughly before signing them.


Constructive Discharge: in this type of suit, the employee claims that the working conditions were made so intolerable that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign. However, the employee is instead terminated, producing a breach in the employer’s implied promise of good faith. This most often occurs when the employee claims that he or she was harassed at work and that the employer did nothing to prevent the harassment.


If you are an employee who has suffered from any of the above scenarios, contact the offices of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today to file a claim with our Wrongful Termination lawyers.

California Wrongful Termination Laws

Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2922, an employment relationship between an employer and an employee of an unspecified time period may be terminated at the will of either the employee or the employer.  This employment law rule governing the discharge of employees creates a presumption of at-will employment. However, the California at-will employment presumption can be overcome by employees if the employee can show evidence that the employer terminated the employee as a result of discrimination.

Furthermore, even where an employer does not actually terminate an employee, an employee can still bring an action for wrongful termination under California labor laws using the theory of constructive discharge. In order for an employee in California to successfully bring a claim for constructive discharge, the employee must be able to show that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign. If the employee can prove that the working conditions were truly intolerable, the employee may be able to recover damages under the constructive discharge theory for a violation of state labor laws.

Pursuant to California wrongful termination laws, constructive discharge occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may ultimately say, "I quit," the employment relationship is actually terminated involuntarily because the employer has intentionally created an intolerable working environment for the employee, against the employee's will and against California labor laws. As a result, under California labor laws, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.

Even though employees can sue employers for wrongful termination under California labor laws based on a constructive discharge theory, an employee cannot simply quit and sue the employer. The conditions giving rise to the employee’s resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious, known as intolerable in the legal work, to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his or her employer. Under California state employment laws, an essential component of a constructive discharge lawsuit against an employer is that the hostile working conditions must be so intolerable that any reasonable employee would resign rather than continue to work for the employer.