Former Yield Monitor Claims Foster Poultry Farms Violated Labor Law

A former yield monitor for Foster Poultry Farms LLC claims the company violated labor law by engaging in discriminatory practices and failing to accommodate a disability.

The Case: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

The Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District

The Case No.: 17CECG03360

The Plaintiff: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Kaur, the plaintiff in the case, was employed as a yield monitor at Foster Poultry Farms LLC, a chicken processing facility. In 2013, she slipped on the job while wearing company-issued rubber boots. The incident left her with a broken left wrist. In May 2016, Foster Farms announced a restructuring. The following month, the labor relations manager told Kaur she was losing her job because Foster Poultry Farms was eliminating several positions. In July 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, claiming labor code violations.

The Allegations: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Kaur’s 2017 complaint alleged the following claims:

• Discrimination (based on race/nationality and disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA))

• Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (under FEHA)

• Failure to engage in an interactive process (under FEHA)

• Failure to take all appropriate measures to prevent discrimination (under FEHA)

• Retaliation for asserting FEHA rights

• Retaliation under section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code

The History of the Case: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

The plaintiff, Kaur, is of Indian origin. She testified that three company employees discriminated against her: one supply room worker and two supervisors. In 2019, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge denied the WCAB petition under section 132a. Kaur’s former employer filed a motion for summary judgment citing legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barring the plaintiff’s claims in light of the WCAB’s decision and the statute of limitations barring the discrimination claim based on race/national origin. The trial court agreed with the company’s arguments and granted summary judgment in its favor, but the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the trial court’s decision was reversed in connection with the plaintiff’s FEHA claims of disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in an interactive process. The court of appeal found that the WCAB’s decision denying the disability discrimination claim under section 132a had no preclusive effect under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace discrimination 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.

Tesla Inc. Facing Allegations of Fostering Racial Discrimination and Harassment

In recent news, Tesla Inc. couldn't escape a California racial discrimination and harassment lawsuit alleging they fostered a hostile work environment in a Tesla factory in San Francisco Bay, California.

The Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, Alameda County

The Case No.: 22CV006830

The Allegations: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc., Tesla allegedly fostered a workplace environment that supported discrimination and harassment. According to the case, black workers at Tesla claimed they heard racial slurs at work as often as 50 to 100 times a day. In addition, they also regularly saw racist graffiti in the factory's bathrooms, on workstations, at lunch tables, etc. On top of that, black Tesla workers were allegedly paid less than their non-Black co-workers for substantially similar work.

The Defendant: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The defendant in the case, Tesla Inc., attempted to avoid the lawsuit requesting the court throw out the complaint. However, the court tentatively denied Tesla's request to dismiss the complaint in late August 2022. According to Tesla spokespeople, the company strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment and feels the lawsuit is misguided.

Details of the Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

Citing claims of hundreds of Black workers with evidence supporting their claims of general racially based mistreatment, harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation at Tesla's Fremont plant, the lawsuit is set to move forward. The original lawsuit was filed in February 2022, and Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo will consider the case. The defendant, Tesla Inc., is also defending against similar claims in a proposed class action on behalf of California factory workers in state court. Last year, a judge rejected Tesla's similar request to dismiss the claims made in the class action. Tesla denies any wrongdoing in relation to employment law violations and hostile workplace allegations and states they've implemented several policies in the last few years to prevent racial discrimination and harassment and establish consequences when they occur in their workplaces. In a case citing similar accusations, a former Tesla contractor was awarded a $137 million jury verdict due to racial abuse at the factory. A judge later said the award should be reduced to $15 million and that former contractor disagreed with the adjustment, so the case is headed for a retrial.

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

SmartTalent Staffing Agency Allegedly Refused to Place Women per Client Requests

SmartTalent, a Gig Harbor, Washington-based staffing agency, faces allegations that they complied with client demands to refuse to place females.

The Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01102-RSM 

The Allegations: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

According to the lawsuit, EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC, SmartTalent staffing agency made a practice of honoring requests some of their business clients made to fill positions with strictly male applicants. Allegedly, the staffing agency violated employment law by refusing to place females in open positions per client demands. The lawsuit alleges that SmartTalent managers trained recruiters to fill gender-based recruitment requests to keep their company's clientele satisfied. As a result of this standard practice at the agency, SmartTalent specifically advised female workers that specific jobs were not available or that certain jobs would not be a good fit based on their sex. Specifically, SmartTalent told women that warehouse jobs were mainly for men, labor-intensive jobs were too hard, and that women didn't belong in these types of positions.

The Defendant: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The defendant in the case, SmartTalent, LLC, is a staffing agency based out of Gig Harbor, Washington. Their contingent and temp workers are part of a large group of workers vulnerable to losing employment opportunities, which frequently occurs due to client preferences regarding long-standing stereotypes of men's or women's work.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

SmartTalent, LLC's alleged conduct on behalf of its clients violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids using gender-based criteria in employment practices. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the women workers affected by SmartTalent's alleged discriminatory practices, and the lawsuit seeks lost wages and monetary damages (including compensation for emotional distress). The suit also seeks punitive damages and injunctive relief (like a permanent injunction and ongoing monitoring procedures to ensure that SmartTalent policies and practices comply in the future). Lawsuits like EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC assist in removing unnecessary barriers to employment and remedying class-wide sex discrimination by staffing agencies and employers, which is critical for the health of the workforce.

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

BaronHR and Radiant Services Face Discriminatory Recruitment and Hiring Lawsuit

In recent news, BaronHR and Radiant Services have been accused of discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices.

The Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-cv-06517

Staffing Agencies & Employers in a Dual-Employer Relationship: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

In EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, two entities are accused of violating employment law due to a dual-employer relationship. When staffing agencies and employers work together in a dual-employer relationship, they are both responsible for complying with employment law. A discrimination-free workplace is required by employment law, and preferential hiring has no place in the workforce. When a staffing agency agrees to discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices requested by an employer, the liability for the employment law violation extends from the employer to the staffing agency.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, the defendants in EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, face allegations of employment law violations as dual employers. BaronHR is a national staffing agency that works with Radiant Services Corporation, a commercial laundry facility that provides services in Southern California’s hospitality industry. The two face accusations of discriminatory denial of work based on race, national origin, and sex. According to the case documents, BaronHR and Radiant have avoided recruiting, referring, and hiring Black, Asian, and White applicants for low-skill jobs since 2015. The company allegedly requested women applicants for particular “light” jobs and only men for other “heavy” jobs. According to the lawsuit, BaronHR fulfilled the company’s request to recruit new hires based on sex. In addition to recruiting applicants based on sex, the company also required applicants to have no medical conditions or past injuries, which excluded qualified individuals with disabilities (perceived disabilities or past disabilities) from any open positions at the company.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Federal law prohibits screening qualified job applicants to exclude individuals or groups based on sex, race, national origin, or disability. A policy that supports the practice violates employment law and creates an unhealthy, likely hostile work environment.

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

$100M Riot Games Workplace Gender Discrimination Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval

In recent news, the court granted preliminary approval to the proposed $100 million settlement to resolve workplace gender discrimination claims against Riot Games.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 18STCV03957

The Plaintiff: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

In 2018, the plaintiffs in the case, Melanie McCracken and Jess Negrón, filed a class action lawsuit against Riot Games in California federal court, arguing their former employer violated the California Equal Pay Act due to the allegedly hostile workplace. The female employees claimed Riot Games fostered a workplace culture of gender discrimination and harassment.

The Defendant: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The defendant in the case, Riot Games, was founded in 2006. The company develops, publishes, and supports player-focused games worldwide. In 2009, the company released its debut title, League of Legends, which received worldwide recognition. League has since become the most-played PC game in the world and a significant component in the explosive growth of esports.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

Previously, McCracken and Negrón agreed to a $10 million settlement with Riot Games. However, California's Department of Fair Employment Housing (DFEH) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement halted the settlement after determining the amount inadequate for the case. The new settlement agreement calls for Riot Games to pay at least $80 million of the settlement in compensation to current and former female employees and contractors (employed by Riot Games between November 6th, 2014 to the present). According to the agreement, Riot Games will also put $6 million in a cash reserve for the next three years to fund programs designed to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion. The settlement agreement also requires Riot Games to hire third-party experts to ensure it improves its workplace culture by incorporating compliance audits and gender-equity analyses for the company. Judge Elihu M. Berle, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, approved the $100 million settlement on July 22nd, 2022. The settlement resolves claims that Riot Games' workplace was filled with systemic gender discrimination and harassment against female employees and temp workers. Under the agreement, approximately 1,065 female Riot employees and about 1,300 temp contract workers will receive a minimum of $80 million (with an additional $20 million paid in attorneys fees).

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss workplace discrimination violations, 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 Credit One Bank HR Generalist’s Disability Suit Proceeds After Ninth Circuit Reversal

Due to District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey’s reversal, a former HR Generalist’s disability claim against Credit One Bank will proceed.

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-15647

The Plaintiff: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff in the case, Karen Shields, was an HR Generalist for Credit One Bank. After she took a medical leave of absence (citing an accommodation under the ADA), Shields claims her position was eliminated. According to Shields, her employer failed to accommodate her disability. Instead of allowing or providing appropriate accommodations after Shields underwent a bone biopsy surgery on her right shoulder and arm, the plaintiff claims that her employer terminated her from her human resources job.

The Defendant: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The defendant in the case, Credit One Bank, argued that Shields failed to plead a disability because she didn’t adequately support a claim showing a physical or mental impairment that would “substantially limit one or more major life activities.” The district court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the argument that Shields failed to adequately establish she had an “impairment” or “permanent or long term effects from an impairment.”

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit noted that the broadened ADA and applicable EEOC regulations protect effects of “an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months (29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix)). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit court held that Shields, the plaintiff in the case, adequately alleged a disability under the ADA standards.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a wage and hour 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Diversity Recruiter Sues Google for Discrimination

April Curley, former diversity recruiter for Google, filed a class-action discrimination lawsuit. The class-action joins a long list of legal action from former employees ranging from sexual harassment to gender discrimination, many resulting in significant settlements.

The Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division

The Case No.: 4:22-cv-01735-YGR

The Plaintiff: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, April Curley, is a former Diversity Recruiter for Google, LLC. Curley was hired to work for Google in 2014. She claims that during her six years with the tech giant she helped them hire 500 students from historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). In March, Curley filed a class-action lawsuit in a California federal court alleging that Black employees at Google were told they didn’t get the corporate “culture,” they weren’t “googly” enough, and were often pigeon-holed into jobs with no chance for advancement, less visibility, deficient pay, etc. Curley also claims that black employees often received harsher job reviews, were given tougher interview questions, and were always asked to show their badge or other proof of employment. In response to the inconsistencies between her work as a Diversity Recruiter and actual business practices she alleges she saw in force at Google, Curley was very clear with her leadership about what needed to be changed. Instead of rewarding her for being proactive, Curley claims the company retaliated against her by subjecting her to policies and behaviors that she alleges were blatantly racist and biased. Curley claims they were both degrading and emotionally damaging. In 2020, Curley was terminated. Now she’s suing the company for systemic discrimination.

The Defendant: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Defendant in the case, Google, LLC, is a tech giant that has faced a long string of legal battles with discrimination claims ranging from age discrimination to pregnancy discrimination. In April Curley v. Google, LLC, the company faces accusations of racial discrimination from one of their former Diversity Recruiters, April Curley.

Details of the Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

Curley claims that during her time at the company, her white managers told her the way she speaks is a disability that should be disclosed to partners internally and externally before she conducts any meetings. She also claims that leadership at Google told her she was intimidating and unwelcoming so she was never considered for leadership positions. (The same woman who advised Curley of this also advised her that Google couldn’t afford her promotion). The Curley v. Google, LLC lawsuit seeks a court injunction to change policy and obtain back pay for Curley and other black employees allegedly denied promotion opportunities. Parties in the case are scheduled to be back in court on July 11th, 2022 for a Cas Management Conference.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.