Physician’s Whistleblower Claims to Proceed Against UCLA

In recent news, the Court of Appeal reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Regents of the University of California (and others), in the whistleblower retaliation action brought by Arnold Scheer, M.D., M.P.H., plaintiff.

The Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The Court: Court of Appeal of State of California, Second Appellate District Division Three

The Case No.: B303379

The Plaintiff: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The plaintiff in the case, Scheer, brought whistleblower claims in three causes of action. Scheer alleged violations under Labor Code Section 1102.5, Government Code Section 8547 et seq., and Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5. According to court documents, Dr. Scheer alleged the company retaliated against him for whistleblowing about various issues and concerns connected to patient safety, mismanagement, fraud, illegal conduct, and economic waste.

The Defendant: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The defendant in the case, the Regents of the University of California, successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the wrong standard was applied to the case in trial court, and citing Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal. 5th 703 (2022).

Summary of the Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the California Supreme Court clarified the legal framework that applies to claims under Labor Code Section 1102.5. The recent opinion requires the plaintiff to meet a less burdensome standard for whistleblower claims under Section 1102.5. While Lawson did not specifically discuss Government Code Section 8547.10, the case did require the state Supreme Court to analyze nearly identical language, so the appellate court concluded Lawson’s legal framework can be applied to the Government Code claim in Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of California. The Court of Appeal found that the Defendants based their argument seeking summary adjudication of Scheer’s Labor and Government Code claims on a legal standard inconsistent with Lawson. Based on this contradiction, the court reversed and remanded the claims. Regarding Scheer’s Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, the appellate court concluded that Lawson didn’t change the legal framework. However, the appellate court concluded there was a triable issue of material fact regarding the stated reasons for termination, so this claim was also reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

If you have questions about California employment law, retaliation, or need help filing a California whistleblower 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.

Playstation’s Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Dismissed by California Court

California court recently dismissed discrimination and retaliation claims against Playstation. However, they did note that further testimonies from additional women could be heard in a second filing.

The Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: United States District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-09054

The Plaintiff: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Emma Majo, is a former Sony IT Staffer. Majo worked in Sony’s PlayStation Network department as an IT security risk analyst for six years before she was fired. The case left the court determining whether Sony engaged in systemic gender discrimination and failed to implement an effective system to prevent pay discrimination. According to the complaint, Majo’s department showed a 60-40 gender split upon her hiring, but the department is now male-dominated. Details of Majo’s case hint at broader institutional gender discrimination issues.

The Defendant: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The defendant in the case, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, denies allegations of pay disparity, wrongful termination, and other gender-based discrimination. As a result, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Summary of the Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The United States District Court of North California granted PlayStation’s “motion to dismiss.” However, the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The motion to dismiss was granted for most claims because the allegations were most conclusory. Some individual claims survived, but the court does not have jurisdiction over the state claims after dismissing the federal claim, so all claims are dismissed. The court pointed out that Majo did not fully explain the allegations in the complaint. Still, the court acknowledged that three of the state claims had merit and noted that adding the additional eight women’s testimonies could lead to additional allegations. In concluding the ruling, the court indicated that the plaintiff might file a second amended complaint within 28 days. It’s likely the amended complaint, including the additional eight testimonies, will follow and allow the court the opportunity to fully examine them from the outset.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California age 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Muslim Employee Brings Claims of Harassment and Discrimination

L.A. Department of Water and Power (DWP) is facing a harassment and discrimination lawsuit from an employee. Saiara Shams filed the lawsuit in L.A. Superior Court alleging she was the target of derogatory comments about her religion made by co-workers. She also alleged that her co-workers retaliated after she reported wasteful contracts and that she was blocked from promotions at the company.

Shams claims she was the victim of a years-long campaign of harassment, retaliation and discrimination in the workplace. A spokesman from the company, DWP, refused to comment other than to state that litigation was pending, and they take any allegation of discrimination seriously. Other DWP cited in the lawsuit did go on record publicly regarding the lawsuit: Ana Romero, Henry Williams, Zebbra Corbin, and Glenn Barry.

Shams was born in Bangladesh but moved to California in 1997 and became an American citizen in 2000. She was employed by DWP on their team managing the power grid. She was the only Muslim woman in the department. Romero, cited earlier, was her supervisor. Romero allegedly made fun of her accent, made comparisons between her and Islamic terrorists, advised her to take an English writing class because she wasn’t US-born, and openly voiced her regret over not hiring a Latinx person.  

Romero, according to court documents and an interview with The Times, allegedly made fun of Shams’ accent, compared her to Islamic terrorists, told her she “needed to take an English writing class because she was not born in the U.S,” and lamented that she would have rather hired a Latinx employee. Shams claims that the harassment and discrimination escalated with other employees getting involved. The comments began to come more frequently if there was a terrorist attack.

Shams claims that she reported the behavior repeatedly, but that management at DWP did not stop or punish those who were involved in the harassment, discrimination and retaliation.

If you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, our employment law attorneys have the resources and experience companies fear in litigation. Let us help you protect your rights as a California employee. 

Discrimination Lawsuit: Wilshire Hospice Allegedly Denied Reasonable Accommodations for Disability

Victoria Thorp, a former employee of Wilshire Health and Community Services alleged in a recent discrimination lawsuit that she requested reasonable accommodations for her disability and was denied. She also claims that Wilshire Health fired her due to the request for reasonable accommodations.

Thorp filed the discrimination lawsuit against Wilshire Health on August 8th, 2019. Allegations include discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination.

Thorp was a full-time employee of Wilshire as a licensed registered nurse. Her employment with the company started on Sept. 26, 2017. She was diagnosed with a serious medical condition qualifying as a disability under applicable provisions of California Fair Employment and Housing Act on October 28, 2017. After her diagnosis, Thorp claims she informed her managers as well as Wilshire human resources of her disability and requested accommodations that would enable her to fulfill her job duties and continue in her employment with the company. According to the lawsuit, Wilshire and its managers involved in the incident refused to even engage with Thorp in discussing how the situation could be managed.

Thorp claims that the company refused to provide her with accommodations even though she was completely honest in her communication regarding the matter and offered them all the necessary medical information. According to the timeline presented in the lawsuit, Wilshire took action on March 28, 2019. They allegedly made false accusations that Thorp violated her stated physical restrictions, informed her that no further accommodations would be offered, denied her the chance to apply for other vacant positions with the company that she was qualified for (in violation of Fair Employment Housing Act) and forced her to take a leave of absence.

Less than a week later, Wilshire demanded Thorp appear to sign documents and turn in her phone and laptop. The demand was for her immediate appearance, and Thorp requested a postponement until she had a chance to confer with legal counsel. Her request was allegedly refused. Wilshire then issued Thorp a letter of termination.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you are being denied reasonable accommodations for a disability, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Our employment law attorneys have the resources and experience to help you protect your rights in the workplace.

YouTube Facing Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by their LGBTQ Creators

In recent news, GNews!, a group of LGBTQ creators, are suing YouTube, the popular video platform, and their parent company, Google. The group is alleging that YouTube restricts their abilities to generate revenue with their videos due to their sexual orientation. The discrimination lawsuit was filed in federal court in California in August 2019 and is seeking class action status.

The plaintiffs’ legal counsel argues that YouTube regularly engages in discriminatory, anticompetitive, and unlawful conduct. The standard practice is harmful to LGPTQ, a protected group of persons under California law. A spokesperson from YouTube responded to the lawsuit on record stating:

“We’re proud that so many LGBTQ creators have chosen YouTube as a place to share their stories and build community. All content on our site is subject to the same policies. Our policies have no notion of sexual orientation or gender identity and our systems do not restrict or demonetize videos based on these factors or the inclusion of terms like “gay” or “transgender.” In addition, we have strong policies prohibiting hate speech, and we quickly remove content that violates our policies and terminate accounts that do so repeatedly.”

The GNews! group consists of Bria Kam, Chrissy Chambers (BriaandChrissy), Chase Ross (uppercaseCHASE1), Lindsay Amer (Queer Kid Stuff), and Amp Somers (Watts The Safeword). The group’s lawsuit claims that YouTube labels their uploads offensive and sexually explicit, but only because of their sexual orientation and that their videos are consistently demonetized. They also claim that YouTube changes the GNews! thumbnail videos and excludes them from content recommendations. As a result of YouTube’s actions, the group claims that they receive suppressed view counts.

The group further claims that while YouTube actively discriminates against their account due to the creators’ sexual orientation, the company does nothing to enforce their own content policies against LGBTQ harassment. The group of LGBTQ creators published a video on YouTube discussing YouTube’s mishandling of homophobic speech by one of their users and YouTube CEO’s apology for the situation described in the high-profile case involving a far-right YouTube commentator named Steven Crowder who mocked gay Vox journalist Carlos Maza on the platform. GNews! claims this was simply a PR exercise and that YouTube does not take these issues seriously.

If you have questions about how to protect your rights in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Our employment law attorneys have the resources and experience companies fear in litigation.

Jury Awards $11M in California Sexual Harassment Case

The $11 million verdict awarded by a California jury is just the second sizeable verdict against an employer to stem from a sexual harassment lawsuit this year. Billionaire Beverly Hills producer of holograms and celebrities, Alki David, faced sexual harassment allegations filed by his former employee, Chastity Jones.

In the complaint, Jones claimed that David touched her inappropriately, hired a stripper to put on a show at work, and insisted that she watch pornographic videos with him. Jones testified in court that because she refused to have sex with David, she was fired.

The first sexual harassment case of 2019 to receive a significant jury award on behalf of the plaintiff was also handed down from a Los Angeles jury. In January, two employees were awarded over $11 million after alleging they were sexually harassed and then retaliated against because they complained about the sexual harassment. The plaintiffs in this case, Megan Meadowcroft and Amber Brown, were former employees of Keyways Vineyard and Winery in Temecula, California. The two alleged that Carlos Pineiro, the company’s general manager, harassed them on the job.

During the Jones trial, the plaintiff’s attorney stated during opening statements that David ran his hands up Jones’ legs and ordered her to watch porn with him. Jones later testified that ea David hired a male stripper to come to the workplace and perform in celebration of an executive’s birthday. Jones stated that the stripper’s performance was offensive and qualified as another instance of sexual harassment.

While the jury agreed with Jones, David responded to the ruling by announcing that he intends to appeal.

If you need more information about what to do when you are sexually harassed in the workplace or if you need to file a workplace harassment or retaliation lawsuit, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Jones Day Seeks to Have Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs Revealed

Jones Day, a BigLaw firm, thinks gender discrimination plaintiffs should be forced to come forward and reveal themselves to the public. Following last year’s lawsuit filed by a former partner, Wendy Moore, alleging gender discrimination in pay at the firm, a new lawsuit was filed against the firm by six former associates. The new lawsuit also goes after the firm’s compensation system, but also makes claims in connection to the firm’s alleged “fraternity culture.”

The six former associates include two named plaintiffs (Nilab Rahyar Tolton and Andrea Mazingo) and four anonymous. The anonymous plaintiffs were permitted to use pseudonyms by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Chief Judge Beryl Howell. Now the Defendant in the case, Jones Day, is objecting to the anonymity of four of the plaintiffs.

The law firm argues that the court’s approval of the use of pseudonyms impugns Jones Day’s reputation by implying that they would retaliate against the anonymous plaintiffs involved in the suit if their identities were made known. They also argued that the pseudonyms prevent the public from thoroughly evaluating the plaintiffs’ allegations and credibility. Jones Day also brought up various problems connected to the case and the anonymity of the plaintiffs. The Defendant cited plaintiffs’ public relations strategy surrounding the lawsuit that made the anonymity particularly inappropriate. They also mentioned that the firm was not served with the official complaint, but the plaintiffs offered the document to the media before filing. The firm also brought up that the two named plaintiffs had already spoken to the press about their reasons for filing. Jones Day argued that for all the reasons mentioned, anonymity was unfair and prevented the firm and the public from determining the credibility of the plaintiffs and their claims.

As support for their arguments against anonymity in the case, Jones Day pointed to another BigLaw gender discrimination case brought against Morrison & Foerster. Jane Doe plaintiffs also filed the pregnancy discrimination case. In that case, the judge has already made comments that the plaintiffs cannot remain anonymous forever and stated that the plaintiffs in BigLaw gender discrimination cases were in the same position as plaintiffs in an employment litigation case.

If you need to talk to an experienced California employment law attorney about gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination or any other form of discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP as soon as possible. We can help you determine your next step in protecting your rights and seeking compensation for damages.