Cooper Wrongful Termination Lawsuit: Set for September Trial

June 29, 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.

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

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.

Lawsuit Claiming Bias in Firing: Former Athletic Director vs. St. Francis

April 27, 2015 -Sacramento native, Kolleen “Koko” McNamee was recently banished from the St. Francis Catholic High School campus. Prior to her banishment, she was the athletic director. The school was her alma mater (as well as that of her three sisters and her aunt). She spent 11 years as the schools athletic director. She even had plans for her own three daughters to attend her beloved alma mater. She was a very unlikely candidate for banishment. 

McNamee was fired from her position as athletic director in August of 2012. A guard watched as she packed her few belongings and then she was escorted off campus. Later that year McNamee sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento (the school’s owner), two former administrators, and one administrator still actively involved at the school. In her suit, McNamee claims she was subjected to gender discrimination as well as defamation and workplace retaliation. She filed suit in order to obtain monetary damages of an unspecified amount.

The diocese requested the lawsuit be thrown out. Federal Judge Morrison C. England, Jr rejected the request. As is the case in many such cases, there are multiple characters and numerous stories and details that can make determining what actually happened difficult. McNamee claims that she saw “ugly” behavior from the varsity basketball coach at the games. When she reported the behavior as inappropriate, is escalated into her being fired and banned from campus. The varsity basketball coach, Vic Pitton, still works at the school.

Pitton denies claims that he has been seen as exhibiting negative behavior, but his story conflicts with not only McNamee, but also the school’s principal who said that he was “removed” from his position because his behavior was contrary to how she wanted the school to be perceived. She described his behavior as volatile and mentioned that he would go into rages during the games, yell at the referees, etc. Other documentation supports this information from another leader at the school: Vice Principal Urhammer.

For more information on bias in firing, retaliation and other discrimination in the workplace, contact your southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Sexual Harassment Case Results in $300,000 Punitive Damages Despite Nominal Damages Award

In the State of Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 2014 WL 6918577 (9^th Cir. 2014) (en banc) Angela Aguilar claimed she was sexually harassed on the job, experienced workplace retaliation, was subjected to purposeful infliction of emotional distress and was finally terminated from employment after approximately 11 months working in a copper mine.

The trial, lasting eight days, ending with the jury finding ASARCO liable on sexual harassment claims (violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), but not on constructive termination or retaliation claims made by Aguilar. Ms. Angela Aguilar was awarded $1 in nominal damages and $868,750 in punitive damages. Based on the statutory cap that can be found in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D), the district court reduced the award to $300,000.

ASARCO cited BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) as they argued for appeal that the 300,000 to 1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages was in violation of due process rights. The United States Court of Appeals did allow that the cited “Gore” case was of relevance to the context of the case, but clearly noted a differentiation between the two saying that Aguilar, the plaintiff in the case against ASARCO, had asserted a claim (under a statute, Title VII, including provision § 1981 imposing a cap on punitive damages. Using this as a basis for argument, the due process issues that were raised in the Gore case are not applicable to employment discrimination claims filed under Title VII.

The Court also noted that the jury was given instruction from the district court not to award any nominal damages over $1 to the plaintiff, Aguilar. The Court also found no mistake in the district court’s admission of sexually explicit graffiti in bathrooms as evidence. The graffiti used as evidence was similar to the graffiti that was directed at Aguilar. The Court affirmed the award to Aguilar of $350,902.75 for attorney’s fees and other costs.

For additional information on sexual harassment in the workplace and how to handle hostile work environments in California contact your southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Female Employees Sue Papa Murphy’s for Secret Filming in Workplace Bathrooms

Four women are suing the Martinez franchise owner of the popular Papa Murphy’s Take ‘N’ Bake Pizza. The suit is based on their allegations that their former boss secretly videotaped them in the employee restroom while using the toilet and undressing. The women claim they suspected their boss, Jason Lassor, of secretly taping them in the workplace’s unisex bathroom for three months before they eventually discovered a hidden camera inside of a cardboard box placed on a shelf in the bathroom.

Lassor already pleaded guilty to one felony count of child pornography and a misdemeanor unlawful electronic video recording charge. One month after pleading guilty, Lassor was sentenced to 120 days in county jail. His time was served by electronic home detention.

One of the four women (who will go unnamed as sex assault victims) was under 18. The women’s representation indicated that the situation was a significant breach of trust and that they were completely devastated when they learned of the filming device. They will continue dealing with the after effects of learning that their privacy had been so irrevocably breached by their employer for some time.

While the women had suspicions that they were being filmed for months prior to finding proof, they feared reprisal and workplace retaliation if they were to complain about their suspicions. When the video camera was discovered in January of 2013, the woman who discovered it called one of the other women who was at home at the time. She came to the place of business, picked up the camera and delivered it to the Martinez police. Lassor was arrested later that same day.

The suit filed by the women against the company and the franchise owner claims negligent supervision, training and retention as well as invasion of privacy, sexual discrimination, harassment and other workplace violations of employment law.

If you have questions regarding your rights to address uncomfortable work situations (suspected or otherwise) while avoiding employer retaliation in the work place contact the California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.