Settlement Between Former Employee and NFL Network Approved

A settlement was approved for a lawsuit brought against the NFL Network by a former wardrobe stylist, Jami Canton. Canton claimed a slew of labor law violations, including: sexual harassment, age discrimination, workplace retaliation, wrongful termination and defamation. The settlement was approved by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern after Jami Cantor filed a motion to resolve the suit seeking civil penalties. In exchange for the settlement, Cantor agreed to drop all claims.

Donovan McNabb and Eric Davis, former NFL Network analysts, were both fired in January by ESPN after a month-long investigation into claims of inappropriate behavior on the job made by Cantor. Cantor, as an aggrieved employee, will receive 25% of the approved settlement amount while the other 75% will be distributed to the state Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). The LWDA is a cabinet-level state agency responsible for coordinating workforce programs and oversight of seven different departments that deal with benefit administration and upholding and enforcing employment laws of the state of California.

Cantor filed the California lawsuit in September. In the complaint she claimed she began work in 2006 and was employed at the NFL’s Culver City studio. As part of her job, Cantor claims she was responsible for creating a wardrobe closet to make sure that talent would have clothes to wear for the NFL shows. During the course of her employment, Cantor alleged that she was subjected to numerous instances of sexual harassment at the hands of a number of different NFL employees. Claims of harassment included: inappropriate touching, inappropriate references, inappropriate comments, texted photos of a sexual nature, etc. All this while Cantor repeatedly made it clear that the advances were unwanted and not reciprocated.

Cantor claims that nothing was done in response to her complaints and that rather than assisting her with the situation, the NFL made her life more difficult by increasing her workload and decreasing her hours. In addition to the harassment claims, Cantor levied a number of other labor law violation complaints against her former employer, including: failure to pay overtime, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for business expenses, and wrongful termination.

Cantor was fired in October of 2016. She claims she was falsely accused of stealing clothing from an employee. She also claims that internal video would prove that she had not taken anything. When she was terminated, Cantor was 51 years old. Her replacement was 30 years old.

If you have questions about overtime pay, harassment in the workplace or wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

AT&T Faces Sales Representative Overtime Lawsuit

An AT&T/Charter retail store employee, Andrew Prizler, filed a lawsuit (Prizler v. Charter Commc’n, Inc., S.D. Cal., No. 3:18-cv-01724) alleging that his overtime pay was miscalculated because the sales commissions and bonuses were not accurately included in the calculations. 20 of Charter’s appearances in federal court in the past 5 years (3.3%) were for wage and hour cases. For AT&T, it’s 216 cases (10.9%).

When a company calculates an employee’s overtime pay rate, federal law requires that commissions and bonuses be counted in as part of their regular rate of pay. The regular rate of pay is multiplied by one-and-a-half. When an employer does not include amounts that should be included in the “regular rate of pay,” it can significantly decrease their overtime pay rate.

Prizler, the plaintiff, filed suit on July 27th in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The proposed class action was filed on behalf of all other retail employees with AT&T/Charter who earn commissions and/or bonuses. (The lawsuit also named two Charter subsidiaries: Spectrum and Time Warner Cable).

When asked about the lawsuit, an AT&T spokesperson responded that the defendant was reviewing the complaint and the allegations claimed by the plaintiffs in the case. They also stated that their policy is to always follow the law – including wage and hour laws. Charter did not respond when asked for comments regarding the suit.

If you have questions about overtime pay calculation or if you feel you aren’t being paid the overtime you deserve, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Patent Attorney Loses Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Suit

A patent attorney, Geneva Lai, claiming wrongful termination recently lost her lawsuit against Silicon Valley firm LegalForce RAPC. The wrongful termination suit was tossed by a California judge. The attorney claims she was fired for challenging an allegedly biased revenue requirement that was imposed on women working at the Firm. After hearing the arguments, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge James L. Stoelker ruled in favor of the Defendant, noting that the law firm stated they had fired the attorney, in part, for creating a fake client.

The judge issued a written tentative decision before the hearing, but after hearing oral arguments during the June 26th hearing, he stated the matter needed additional consideration. On Friday, the judge dismissed the plaintiff’s gender discrimination claims, retaliation claims and wrongful termination claims.

According to court documents, the firm hired Lai as a patent attorney in September of 2015. The Firm had three others working in their patent department at the time: Raj Abyhanker (law firm principal), Laura Figel, and Oscar Au. Abhyanker met with the team in April 2016 and advised Lai and Figel they would need to start finding their own clients. According to LegalForce, Lai failed to meet the new revenue requirement, so they ended her employment. There were also questions about a client that Lai said she had secured.

The judge noted that there was an investigation regarding whether or not Lai made up a client that ended up hitting the target goal set by the Firm. The judge noted that when an employee is attempting to “game the system” in that way, it’s hard to ignore.

In the initial, written tentative decision, the judge said he was inclined to toss the plaintiff’s cause of action for unlawful sex discrimination because the roles of Lai and Figel at the Firm were different than Au’s role at the Firm. He was not a licensed attorney. Therefore, it was not an act of discrimination to impose the new revenue requirement just on the two women. Lai could not establish that a male employee at the firm in a similar work position was treated more favorably.

The judge also found that Lai failed to support her cause of action for unlawful retaliation in the workplace and wrongful termination claims.

If you need to talk about retaliation in the workplace of if you are struggling with workplace discrimination, please get in touch with an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Employee Who Went Viral Flipping Off Trump Loses Unfair Firing Claim

Juli Briskman, a marketing analyst, claims she was illegally forced to quit her job because a picture of her flipping off President Trump’s motorcade when viral. A Virginia state judge tossed her claim of unfair firing but preserved her second claim that her former employer cut her severance pay short.

Judge Penney Azcarate granted Briskman’s former employer, Akima LLC’s, motion for a demurrer on Briskman’s unfair termination claim from the bench. The Judge also rejected the company’s claims that it did not actually agree to pay Briskman four weeks severance as she claims.

Briskman’s legal representation stated that the judge outlined where there were deficiencies in the plaintiff’s argument that she qualifies for a public-policy exemption from at-will employment doctrine of the state of Virginia. Briskman and her legal representation see it as a chance to shore up the claim. Briskman’s attorneys plan to take the opportunity to review the complaint, and make amendments so the complaint may satisfy the court.

According to the original complaint, filed by Briskman in April, she was forced to quit her job because the company feared the notoriety caused by the viral photo could cost Akima LLC government contracts. The infamous photo was taken by a photographer in October. Briskman was on a weekend bike ride when President Trump’s motorcade went by and she flipped it off. At first, Briskman was not identified, but later she updated her social media profiles with the image. The picture was featured a few days later on both The Tonight Show and Jimmy Fallon. At this point, Akima forced Briskman to resign for fear of negative reprisals against the company due to the notoriety of the photo.

Akima is a private company in Virginia where state law allows businesses to fire most employees for any reason. But Briskman argues that the company was in violation of the state’s at-will employment doctrine because Akima fired her as a result of fear that they could face retaliation and lose government contracts. As it would be illegal for the government to punish the company for an employee’s political views, Briskman claims that the company was barred from firing her for the situation. Briskman also claims Akima breached her employment contract when they promised four weeks of severance upon her resignation and then only paid her for two.

If you have questions about wrongful termination or other need to discuss other unfair firing claims, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Napa Valley Resort Faces California Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Daniel Philbin (aka Dan) recently filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against a Carneros Resort and Spa, a Napa Valley Resort. Philbin is a former Director of Facilities. At this point, the facts are muddied by what very quickly became a case of he said, she said.

Philbin alleges he was fired from his job. The resort’s public relations firm claims Philbin resigned voluntarily after a renegotiation of the terms of his employment was unsuccessful.

Philbin claims that during the course of his time as Director of Facilities, he made numerous attempts to get his employer to comply with standards required by the American with Disabilities Act, provide an accurate reporting of water usage, and procure the necessary permits required by law. Philbin alleges he was fired out of retaliation for his efforts. Carneros claims that the water issues Philbin mentions pre-date the current ownership of the resort and that the current owners actually brought the problem to the attention of the County in 2014. They claim that the resort addressed all concerns regarding ADA issues when they were brought to the company’s attention. They also claim that Philbin’s California wrongful termination suit is without merit.

In support of his allegations, Philbin claims:

In 2014, the resort refused to install ramps between the deck and patio spaces and lifts at the hot tubs and pools that would have allowed guests with disabilities to access their facilities and services.

Carneros obtained a permit for the drilling of a new well in 2015, but did not obtain the associated permits required for subsequent electrical and water connections.

Philbin claims he noted an error in documents regarding water consumption that were submitted to the municipality and his efforts were ignored.

According to Philbin, the company started to exclude him from meetings, and quickly became confusing and difficult. Philbin states that he suggested he direct all his energy on the job towards the water situation since it was an important issue and allow a co-worker to handle the rest of his work duties. The suggestion was rejected by Carneros and Philbin was informed weeks later that an outside vendor would be handling the resort’s water issues and he would stay on for a flat monthly rate. Philbin states that he thought about the offer for about a week before accepting the flat rate offer. Instead, he suddenly received notice that his resignation had been accepted by Carneros – even though Philbin claims he never issued his resignation.

Philbin seeks a trial by jury, damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

If you have questions about what constitutes wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

A Former Walt Disney Employee Accuses the Most Magical Place on Earth of Wrongful Termination

A former Walt Disney employee, Angela Devore, is suing. Allegations include: discrimination, violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act and wrongful termination. She filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division on January 3rd, 2018. The suit (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division case number 18-cv-00041) was filed against Walt Disney Imagineering Research & Development Inc. alleging that they violated her rights as an employee to family and medical leave.

The Family and Medical Leave Act or FMLA is a labor law that requires larger employers to provide employees with unpaid leave for serious health conditions, to care for family members who are sick or experiencing serious health conditions, or to care for a newborn or adopted child.

Devore was hired as a set decorator in May of 2014. She was terminated on January 4, 2016.

According to the suit, Devore suffered (and will continue suffering) damages from lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, emotional distress, mental suffering, and other pecuniary loss. Decore alleges that Disney interfered with her right to use her FMLA leave to provide care for her father when he needed assistance with serious health conditions during her time with the company.

Wrongful Termination is a legal term used to describe instances in which an employee’s contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. In this case, Devore claims she was wrongfully terminated because the FMLA required her employer to allow her to take unpaid leave without discharge. 

Devore claims that the company discriminated against her when they terminated her employment as she tried to exercise her right to take FMLA leave and then refused to reinstate her to her previous position at a later date.

Devore is seeking a trial by jury, economic, non-economic and liquidated damages, interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney fees, etc. all in accordance with what the court deems just.

If you need help handling a wrongful termination or if you are being discrimated against in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$1.35M Verdict Goes to Self-Storage Employee in Wrongful Termination Case

The California appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision in a wrongful termination suit that awarded a former self-storage employee, Eva O’Brien, $1.325 million. The award covered wrongful termination and punitive damages. Eva O’Brien was awarded:

·       Compensatory Damages: $325,000

·       Punitive Damages: $1,000,000

·       And the cost of legal fees

The case was against Dennis E. Baca, the owner of Airport Self Storage located in Livermore, California.

When the lower court issued their decision, Baca motioned for a new trial. His motion was denied. When the motion was denied, Baca appealed the lower court’s decision arguing that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. He also argued that the award for damages was excessive and accused O’Brien’s legal counsel of misconduct in the process of the trial.

Baca and his self-storage facility manager, Laura Read, hired O’Brien at $15/hour as a “relief clerk” in November 2010. In addition to being the facility manager, Read is described as being Baca’s “longtime companion.” O’Brien was to work three days each week at the self-storage facility and the other two days of the work week at the company’s business office. The self-storage business also does business as Baca Properties, owners of various commercial assets.

In early summer 2022, O’Brien discovered she was pregnant and advised her manager, Read, even though she was warned by a co-worker that Baca would be unhappy hearing the news. In a meeting between Read, Baca and O’Brien on October 7th, Baca berated O’Brien, throwing a rental agreement at her and accusing her of only thinking about her family, “making so many mistakes,” not paying attention, complaining that her “belly” was going to get so big it would prevent her from doing her work and also complaining that after that she would be breast feeding and “causing more problems.”

According to court documents, that’s not where the berating ended. Allegedly, Baca then got in O’Brien’s face and asked her if she wanted to give notice. O’Brien said no, and Baca told her to get back to work advising her that he was, “not going to take care of [her].” Baca didn’t fire her allegedly because he didn’t want her to collect unemployment, but he did advise another associate at the company that he was going to make her quit and asked another of her co-workers to confiscate her keys to the facility. A few days after the meeting in which Baca first demanded O’Brien give notice, she was told not to answer the phone, collect checks or use the computer. She was instead told to clean, dust, and mop (including cleaning the windows and toilet). These were all duties that she had not been responsible for previously.

A few days later, she was sent home from work after only three hours on the job. She filed a claim with the Employment Development Department for a reduction of work hours. This was not the last time she was sent home early from work (losing a significant number of hours). According to court documentation, the facility manager began the search for O’Brien’s replacement directly after the October 7th meeting and scheduled them to begin work on October 19th. When O’Brien reported for work on the 21st, she was advised that the owner wanted her to go home. When she called her manager to ask when she should return to work, she was told, “We see that you filed for unemployment. We no longer need your services.” Baca included a forged note with O’Brien’s last paycheck to give the appearance that O’Brien had given notice. He later admitted to the court that he wrote the note for that purpose. The court concluded that this action was an “intent to create beneficial evidence if O’Brien sought unemployment benefits for being fired.”

Baca was described as a micromanager and after her treatment on the job and her wrongful termination, O’Brien was treated for both depression and anxiety. She was awarded $25,000 for economic loss and $300,000 for emotional stress by the jury. After Phase II of the trial, the jury decided that the facility owner’s behavior was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent. As a result, O’Brien was awarded $1 million in punitive damages in addition to the other awards.

If you have been the victim of wrongful termination or if you are experiencing discrimination in your workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.