$107,000 Payment to Settle San Ysidro Wrongful Termination Suit

Danielle Clark is the former district official who was fired in 2016 without explanation and just 11 days after the San Ysidro school board honored her for hard work and dedication. Two years later, the San Ysidro school board approves a $107,000 payment to settle her wrongful termination suit. Clark was the district’s special education director, but only for a short time period (less than five months). After she was abruptly let go from her position, she sued the district for wrongful termination.

Danielle Clark’s termination occurred under Julio Fonseca, the former Superintendent. After his resignation last year, a state audit was conducted. The audit revealed that Fonseca’s top deputy was overpaid $324,000 (including life insurance and vacation days). The district will be undergoing an additional state audit looking at past contracts and vendor payments in connection to the school’s construction projects.

The $107,000 payment to Clark was approved by the school board as part of their regular monthly meeting. Clark last heard from the board 3-4 weeks previously and was actually expecting a settlement of at least $150,000. She was not aware that any payment had been formally approved until she was contacted by the media. As of yet, she has not received any payment from the media.

Very few details were made public regarding the wrongful termination suit and the negotiations leading to the agreement intended to resolve the lawsuit. The line item on the board’s meeting agenda actually made no mention of Danielle Clark, her wrongful termination suit, or even her former job or department. Clark’s settlement was listed with her name amid 140 other listed expenses on a document that was one of 200 pages of material and backup material for the monthly board meeting. The vote at the meeting was 3-0. Two of the board members were absent (Marcos Diaz and Antonio Martinez). The board gave approval for the district’s attorneys to settle the case in May 2018.

If you need to talk to an experienced California employment law attorney because you have been wrongfully terminated from your job, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Amazon May Have Beat the Class Action, but Still Has to Deal with Joint Employer Issue

In recent news, Amazon ended up beating the class action because the proposed driver class didn’t have enough in common, but the individual wage, overtime and meal break claims survived. Class claims were dropped in the delivery driver lawsuit that sought wages, overtime and relief for a number of different alleged labor violations. But the question of whether or not Amazon and other big businesses could be exposed to significant liability remains.

On December 6th, a federal judge found that California Amazon drivers could not seek class status because proposed class members (including current and former employees of Amazon and a number of staffing businesses subject to Amazon delivery guidelines) didn’t have enough in common. The federal judge on the case, Judge Maxine M. Chesney, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District, did leave room to for a potential finding that Amazon is a joint employer alongside 1-800-Courier. If the curt were to come back with a joint employment finding, it would mean that both Amazon and the courier company were Jasmine Miller’s (the plaintiff) formal employers. This precedent would leave major businesses regularly depending on contracted or subcontracted labor in California facing significant implications.

The judge stated that Miller’s working conditions (as an alleged joint employee of Amazon and 1-800-Courier) may not match the working conditions of other drivers at Amazon contractors who are also allegedly jointly employed. This resulted in a failure of the test for class action status requiring that all putative class members face essentially the same experiences and conditions.

Miller is moving forward with claims that she was not paid minimum wage, overtime wages, provided required meal breaks and rest periods, and accurate wage statements. Miller has until January 4th, 2019 to amend her class complaint per Judge Chesney. The judge added that the joint employment will likely hinge on an assessment of how much control Amazon has over the working terms and conditions of employees at the courier company (or other similar companies providing Amazon with workers).

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss overtime violations, or wage and hour violations in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Did You Sign an Arbitration Agreement?

Did you know that millions of US workers are currently “barred” from the court system? Did you know that you may be one of them and not even realize it? Approximately 60 million American workers have signed arbitration agreements or arbitration clauses and they may not have even realized they were doing so.

Close to 50% of all non-unionized workers employed at companies in the United States are subject to arbitration agreements (according to the Economic Policy Institute). This number has more than doubled since the early 2000s. Major employers across the nation have adopted them as standard, including: Uber, Google, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Walmart, Macy’s, and more.

The increase in the use of mandatory arbitration agreements is making it increasingly difficult/impossible for employees to seek justice when they are victims of wage theft, discrimination in the workplace, retaliation, harassment, overtime violations, etc. The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing employers to prohibit class-action claims from workers in arbitration only increased the incentive for companies to include arbitration clauses right in their employment contracts for new hires.

The practice was once limited to business to business contract disputes, but it is now extending to legal disputes with employees and consumers. This change occurred after a significant Supreme Court ruling in 2001 related to sexual harassment. In Circuit City Stores Inc. v. Adams, an associate working at a Circuit City store in California sued the company for sexual harassment. The associate’s name was Saint Clair Adams. He said he was harassed by his co-workers because he was gay. He, like all the other employees of Circuit City, had signed an arbitration agreement stating that all disputes with the company must be resolved through private arbitration. The company argued their case in federal court, insisting that Adams was required to move his claim to arbitration due to the agreement.

The judge on the case sided with the plaintiff, Adams, and cited the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act allows companies to resolve contract disputes through arbitration but includes a provision that excludes employment contracts. The judge’s ruling was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The argument didn’t die with the appellate court though. Circuit City took the case to the Supreme Court where the lower court’s ruling was overturned – extending the reach of arbitration clauses to nearly all employment contracts. The justices based their decision on a close reading of the employment exclusion in the Federal Arbitration Act, which reads, “but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.” The justices interpreted this to mean that “transportation workers” were exempt from mandatory agreements; and that non-transportation workers would be required to take their claims to arbitration.

Another Supreme Court ruling in May 2018 made it even more difficult for workers to seek justice or force a company to change working conditions. The case was Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and the court decided that it is legal for employers in the United States to prohibit employees from joining together to file suit against the company claiming discrimination, wage theft, or other common workplace violations.

Do you have questions about how to deal with workplace violations when there is an arbitration agreement in place? Call one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

New Bill Could Protect the Rights of US Workers to Access the Court System

On Oct. 30th, 2018, House Democrats introduced the Restoring Justice for Workers Act, a bill intended to protect the rights of millions of US workers to access the court system. The Act would ban companies from requiring workers to sign arbitration clauses and would impact millions of workers across the nation.

The policy of requiring that employees and applicants sign arbitration agreements is now common practice. In fact, most sign one before they are ever officially hired. By signing the arbitration agreement, workers are essentially waiving their right to sue the company for potential violations of labor law (i.e. sexual harassment, racial discrimination, age discrimination, wage theft, wrongful termination, etc.) According to the terms of an arbitration agreement, employees with legal claims would need to take those claims to private arbitration; a forum without a judge or jury and with almost no government oversight. A fairly secretive process, private arbitration means that workers are significantly less likely to win their cases. If they do prevail in their case, they generally receive far lower settlements than if the case had been handled in the court system.

The new bill is fairly simple – employers would not be allowed to require that workers sign arbitration agreements and would also be prohibited from retaliating against anyone who chooses not to sign. It would be illegal to require employees to waive their right to join a class action lawsuit or file legal claims in arbitration as a group or class.

Supporters of the bill see it as a great stride in the right direction as forced arbitration is stripping American workers of their day in court; their chance to hold employers responsible for employment law violations (i.e. wage theft, overtime violations, discrimination, workplace retaliation, wrongful termination, harassment, etc.)

To make it through both chambers of Congress, the bill would need bipartisan support, but supporters do not expect Republican leaders to show much interest as they haven’t been interested in other legislation aimed at limiting mandatory arbitration in the past. Whether the bill is passed or not, controversy over mandatory arbitration agreements continues to escalate.

If you have questions about mandatory arbitration agreements or how to join a class action lawsuit, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

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.

Proposed Class Action Against Sally’s Beauty Supply

An ex-Sally Beauty Supply LLC employee, Rosie Nance, filed a proposed class action against the company in Florida federal court. Nance claims she was not provided with fair overtime pay despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, including bank deposits conducted on her lunch breaks.

Nance filed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit in July including allegations that from April 2015 through February 2018, she was not compensated by Sally Beauty Supply at the state-mandated time and a half for extra hours she worked over 40 per week. She filed suit on behalf of herself and other nonexempt employees at the company in similar positions.

Nance was employed by Sally Beauty Supply from February 2006 through February 2018. According to the filed complaint, she was employed to provide customer service at retail outlets.

Nance claims in the complaint that while she was required to perform off the clock work by making bank deposits on behalf of the company during her lunch breaks, she was not provided payment as required by labor law. In the suit she specifically stated that the work was “directly essential” to the company and its successful business practices.

Additional claims were lodged by Nance in the complaint, including: the company failed to maintain proper time records, and the company failed to apprise her of her rights under FLSA.

Nance filed suit to seek back overtime pay at the standard rate as required by law, and additional damages and attorneys’ fees as necessary. Sally Beauty Supply is not the only national retailer facing claims of off the clock work due to lunch break bank deposits. T-Mobile, Dollar Tree, and Children’s Place Retail Stores Inc. are all facing similar claims.

If you have questions regarding what constitutes off-the-clock work or if you feel you aren’t being paid overtime as required by law, please get in touch with one of the California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Class Action Filed Against Toms Shoes Citing Violation of California Labor Law

Plaintiff Teena M. recently filed a California labor laws class and collective action lawsuit against Toms Shoes, LLC. She claims the company violated wage and hour law. The suit was filed on behalf of herself and others in similar situations at the company. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 17, 2018. She is demanding a jury trial.

According to the plaintiff’s claims, she was hired by the famous shoe company in October of 2016 on an hourly, non-exempt employee basis. This meant that she was able to work overtime hours and receive overtime compensation as regulated by state and federal labor laws. Yet while she worked overtime hours, she alleges that Toms did not properly pay her for the overtime hours she worked. 

According to the California labor law lawsuit the plaintiff and “all of Toms other hourly, non-exempt employees who work overtime and receive commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, and/or other items of compensation aside from their base hourly rate, are not adequately paid for all of the overtime they work.”

The California labor laws lawsuit filed by Teena M. cites violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code.   

The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The class action was filed on behalf of both current and former employees of Toms Shoes, LLC.

The FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, record keeping, youth employment standards and more. All of the standards set by the FLSA affect employees in the private sector as well as in Federal, State and Local government employment. This type of FLSA class action suit can allow groups of employees who may be suffering from violations of employment law to seek recompense for the violations in a court of law.

If you have questions about overtime violations or if you are not being paid overtime for hours you work over the standard full-time work week of 40 hours, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.