L.A. County Nurse Reaches Tentative Settlement in Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A Los Angeles County registered nurse has reached a tentative settlement in her discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in which she claimed she was repeatedly denied promotions and wage increases after speaking out about preferential treatment favoring Filipino and Asian-American nurses.

Case: Jessica Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case No.: 23STCV00176

The Plaintiff: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Jessica Castillo, a registered nurse hired by Los Angeles County in September 2015, evaluated county hospitals and health facilities as part of her job. She alleges that beginning in late 2018, she and other non-Filipino nurses were subject to discriminatory work assignments and denied opportunities for promotion and higher pay after complaining about the treatment.

The Defendant: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

The defendant, Los Angeles County, is one of the largest public employers in California. The defendant denied Castillo’s claims. They claim that Castillo was promoted twice during her tenure, and received steady overtime. They also claimed that when Castillo was not selected for promotions, it was due to one of two valid reasons: 1) her own errors or 2) because other candidates were more qualified for the position.

History of the Case: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Castillo’s complaint alleged that a program manager consistently gave more favorable assignments, telecommuting privileges, and overtime opportunities to Filipino and other Asian-American nurses, in violation of county rules and seniority rights. During the pandemic, favored employees were allegedly permitted to work remotely, while others (including Castillo) were required to work in the field. According to the plaintiff, the required field work allegedly exposed them to COVID-19. After complaining regarding the situation, Castillo claims she faced repeated denials of promotions until she was eventually transferred to another department in September 2021.

The Main Question to Consider in Castillo v. Los Angeles County:

The central question in this case is whether Los Angeles County unlawfully discriminated against and retaliated against Castillo in response to her complaints. Discrimination and retaliation in response to workplace complaints violates multiple labor laws as well as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

FAQ: Castillo v. Los Angeles County

Q: What type of discrimination did Castillo allege?

A: She claimed race and national origin discrimination, alleging that Latino, Black, and white nurses were treated less favorably than Filipino and Asian-American nurses.

Q: What retaliation did she claim?

A: Castillo alleged she was repeatedly denied promotions and pay increases after filing complaints about the alleged discriminatory treatment.

Q: Was the case resolved?

A: The parties have reached a conditional settlement, which is pending final approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

If you believe you have been denied promotions, pay increases, or other job opportunities due to discrimination or in retaliation for speaking out, you may have legal options. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to help protect your rights, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Court Grants Conditional Certification in AI Bias Lawsuit Against Workday

A landmark AI discrimination lawsuit against Workday, Inc. is moving forward, with the court granting conditional certification for Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims on behalf of what could be one of the largest collectives ever certified. The case raises major questions about the role of artificial intelligence in employment decisions.

Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Court: N.D. Cal.

Case No.: 23-cv-00770-RFL

The Plaintiff: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mobley, alleges that Workday’s AI-powered applicant recommendation system unlawfully discriminated against job seekers. According to the complaint, the AI-powered system discriminated based on race, age, and disability, which violates federal anti-discrimination laws. Mobley asserts that the AI tool design reflected employer biases and relied on biased training data that led to systemic exclusions of certain applicants.

The Defendant: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Workday, Inc., a major HR management services provider, offers widely used AI tools for scoring, sorting, ranking, and screening job applicants. Although Workday was not an employer or prospective employer of Mobley or the putative class, the plaintiff contends that the company may be liable as an “agent” for allegedly discriminatory hiring practices facilitated by its technology.

History of the Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

In July 2024, the Northern District of California denied Workday’s second motion to dismiss, allowing Mobley’s claims to proceed. On May 16, 2025, the court granted conditional certification for the ADEA claims, finding that Mobley sufficiently alleged a unified policy in the form of Workday’s AI applicant screening system. Workday argued that different employer-clients’ use of the tools and varied applicant qualifications made collective treatment inappropriate, but the court ruled those differences immaterial for certification purposes.

The Main Question in the Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The key question is whether Workday’s AI applicant screening system, as designed and deployed, had a discriminatory impact on job applicants—particularly older applicants—and whether the company can be held liable under federal anti-discrimination laws despite not being a direct employer.

FAQ: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Q: What law is central to this case?

A: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a law that prohibits employment discrimination against individuals age 40 and older.

Q: How large could the collective be?

A: Workday has stated that 1.1 billion applications were rejected using its software during the relevant period, meaning “hundreds of millions” of job seekers could be part of the collective.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It is one of the first major court tests of AI-driven hiring tools, raising critical questions about bias, accountability, and liability in the use of automated systems for employment decisions.

If you believe you have been denied employment due to discrimination; whether by a potential employer or because of biased hiring technology—you should speak with an experienced employment discrimination attorney as soon as possible. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our knowledgeable attorneys can help protect your rights, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Lord v. Renner: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed After Teen's Beating at Arizona Party

The parents of 16-year-old Preston Lord have filed a wrongful death lawsuit following his fatal beating at a large, unsupervised Halloween party in Queen Creek, Arizona. This case stands out from the criminal cases the young defendants are already facing because the civil suit intends to hold both the young defendants and numerous "parents" legally responsible for the circumstances leading to Preston's death.

Case: Lord v. Renner

Court: Maricopa County Superior Court

Case No.: CV2024-018033

The Plaintiff: Lord v. Renner

The plaintiffs in the case are Preston Lord's parents, Nicholoas Lord and Autumn Curiel. After their son died from injuries sustained at a Helloween party on the night of October 28, 2023, the two filed suit claiming wrongful death. The night of the incident, a fight allegedly broke out, and a severe beating left Preston unconscious. He was rushed to a nearby hospital and then airlifted to Phoenix Children's Hospital. However, he died due to injuries sustained just two days after the incident.

The Defendants in the Case: The Youths and Their Parents

Seven young party attendees are listed as defendants on the wrongful death complaint: Talan Renner, Treston Billey, William Owen Hines, Jacob Meisner, Dominic Turner, Taylor Sherman, and Talyn Vigil. However, the list of defendants does not stop there. In addition to the youths accused of the fatal attack on Preston Lord, some of the parents of the young people are also included on the defendant list. The Renner family and the owners of the property where the party was hosted (Roberto and Emily Corres) are also listed as defendants.

History of the Case: Lord v. Renner

According to the complaint, the Correas hosted a Halloween party promoted on Snapchat as a "Halloween Rager" that was open invite, with alcohol available on a first-come, first-served basis. Up to 200 teens and young adults reportedly attended. The lawsuit alleges the Correas remained inside during the party, were under the influence of alcohol, and failed to supervise the minors or prevent alcohol from being provided to them.

When the homeowners told attendees to leave, a fight broke out between two groups. Preston was allegedly beaten to the point of unconsciousness by the seven named individuals. The lawsuit also cites prior alleged violent behavior by defendant Talan Renner, including a fifth-grade threat to "shoot up" his school, a middle school fight/bullying incident, and an assault at a Utah boarding school. The plaintiffs argue that Renner's parents failed to take reasonable steps to control or supervise their son despite his volatile history.

The Main Question in the Case: Lord v. Renner

Can both the individuals who physically attacked Preston and the parents who allegedly failed to supervise or intervene be held liable under wrongful death and negligence laws? The fatal incident that led to Lord v. Renner occurred in Arizona. However, the issues raised of parental liability, negligent supervision, and social host responsibility are issues that could easily be echoed in wrongful death and negligence claims in other areas throughout the nation.

Why This Case Matters: Lord v. Renner

This case puts a spotlight on the potential civil liability for parents and property owners when minors at unsupervised gatherings where alcohol is present cause harm or injury. The issues presented in this case also underscore how wrongful death and negligence claims can extend beyond the direct perpetrators to those who allowed dangerous conditions to occur. Such cases can result in significant financial judgments intended to provide justice for grieving families.

FAQ: Lord v. Renner

Q: What is a wrongful death lawsuit?

A: A wrongful death lawsuit is a civil claim filed by certain surviving family members when a death is caused by another party's negligence, recklessness, or intentional act.

Q: Can parents be held liable for their child's actions?

A: Yes. In California, as in Arizona, parents may be held civilly responsible if they knew or should have known of their child's dangerous behavior and did not take reasonable actions to stop them from doing harm.

Q: How does social host liability apply?

A: California's social host laws differ from Arizona's, but in both states, providing alcohol to minors — or failing to control a gathering where minors drink — can contribute to civil liability when injuries or deaths occur.

Q: How does a civil wrongful death case differ from a criminal case?

A: A criminal case seeks to punish wrongdoing with penalties such as imprisonment. A civil wrongful death case seeks compensation for losses filed by surviving family members.

Q: What damages can be recovered in wrongful death cases?

A: Compensation can include funeral expenses, medical bills, and other damages related to loss of companionship, loss of future earnings, etc. In some cases, punitive damages may be included, especially for reckless conduct.

If you have lost a loved one due to another party's negligence or wrongful actions, contact an experienced wrongful death attorney as soon as possible. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Retired LAPD Sergeant Wins $4.5M in Whistleblower Retaliation Lawsuit

A Los Angeles County jury has awarded retired LAPD Sergeant Randy Rangel $4.5 million after finding the department unlawfully retaliated against him for reporting alleged overtime fraud within the Transit Services Division.

Case Name: Randy Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: 22STCV34806

The Background: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

Rangel, who served the LAPD for 32 years, claimed that in 2018 and 2019, he reported a fellow sergeant for billing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for overtime work that was never performed. He alleged no investigation was launched. Instead, he says his identity as the complainant was leaked—despite whistleblower confidentiality rules—triggering months of retaliation.

Alleged Retaliation: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

According to the lawsuit, Rangel was:

• Removed from his role as captain’s adjutant, a key promotional stepping stone.

• Targeted with false rumors about his personal life.

• Subjected to ongoing harassment from colleagues and superiors.

• Written up for potential discipline over a separate incident, which was eventually dismissed.

He claimed the retaliation continued even after he filed an anonymous Internal Affairs complaint in 2020, and that the hostile work environment contributed to his decision to retire in 2023.

The Verdict: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

According to court documents, the jury awarded Rangel $4.5 million in damages. (It's possible the award amount could change due to potential post-trial proceedings). In some cases, the final payout is adjusted on appeal or other post-trial proceedings. Rangel v. City of Los Angeles. It is just one of several recent suits involving the LAPD Transit Services Division. Other allegations include misconduct cover-ups, retaliation for reporting violations/wrongdoing, and discrimination. 

Why This Case Matters: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

California law protects employees who report misconduct from retaliation, but in some cases (like Rangel v. City of Los Angeles), whistleblowers can still face serious consequences in the workplace. The verdict in this case sends a message about the significant legal and financial penalties associated with violating these essential labor law protections.

FAQ: Whistleblower Retaliation Case

Q: What was the basis of Randy Rangel’s lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles?

A: Rangel, a former Los Angeles Metro employee, alleged he was retaliated against after reporting an overtime fraud scheme involving other employees.

Q: Which court heard this case?

A: The case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV34806.

Q: What was the outcome of the trial?

A: The jury awarded Rangel $4.5 million in damages for retaliation, including lost wages and emotional distress.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It underscores California’s strong whistleblower protections, especially for public employees who report suspected fraud or misconduct.

Q: Can the City of Los Angeles appeal the verdict?

A: Yes. As with most civil verdicts, the City has the right to appeal within a specified timeframe under California law.

If you have experienced workplace retaliation, please speak with an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible. Get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Claims Big Oil is to Blame for Climate Related Heatwave Death

Misti Leon made a historic move when she filed a wrongful death lawsuit targeting major fossil fuel companies. Leon's complaint alleges that the companies' actions and active climate deception directly contributed to her mother's death during a record-breaking 2021 heat dome in the Pacific Northwest. Leon's case marks a new frontier in climate accountability litigation.

Case: Misti Leon v. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and the BP-managed subsidiary Olympic Pipeline Company

Court: King County Superior Court

Case No.: 25-2-15986-8 SEA

The Plaintiff: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Misti Leon, acting as the personal representative of her mother's estate, filed this wrongful death suit following the 2021 Pacific Northwest "heat dome"—an extreme weather event scientists confirm would have been virtually impossible without human-induced climate change.

The Defendant: Leon v. ExxonMobil

The lawsuit names seven major fossil fuel companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and BP's Olympic Pipeline Company—alleging that their decades-long contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and public deception about climate risk played a direct role in her mother's fatal hyperthermia.

History of the Case: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Filed on May 29, 2025, in King County Superior Court, the suit is unprecedented—marking the first wrongful death claim in the U.S. directly linking a single death to corporate actions exacerbating the climate crisis. The complaint alleges that the 108 °F heat in Seattle that killed Juliana Leon constituted a foreseeable consequence of the defendants' knowingly deceptive actions.

The Main Question in the Case: Leon v. ExxonMobil

The central legal question is whether these fossil fuel companies can be held civilly liable under state wrongful death, public nuisance, or failure-to-warn claims for creating and hiding the dangers of climate change that caused the fatal heatwave.

FAQ: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Q: Is this the first wrongful death lawsuit connected to climate change?

A: Yes—it is the first known U.S. wrongful death claim against fossil fuel companies directly attributing one individual's death to the industry's climate impact.

Q: What are the plaintiff's main legal claims against the defendants?

A: The plaintiff's main allegations in the case are wrongdul death, public nuisance, and failure to warn. Leon alleges that the companies knew of deadly climate risks, but misled consumers regardig the issues and hindered efforts to mitigate.

Q: Does the case rely on scientific attribution of the heatwave to climate change?

A: Yes. Scientific studies cited in the complaint support the claim that the June 2021 heat dome, which reached record temperatures, would have been virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Parents Claim Addictive Algorithms Caused Their Child's Death: Nazario v. ByteDance

A New York Supreme Court complaint (Index No. 151540/2024) accuses TikTok's parent, ByteDance, and related social-media firms of designing "addictive" features that target minors, promote dangerous challenges, and allegedly caused a boy's death.

The Case: Norma Nazario v. ByteDance Ltd. et al.

The Court: NY Supreme Court

The Case No. 151540/2024

The Plaintiff: Nazario v. ByteDance

Norma Nazario, individually and as representative of her late child Zackery's estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit contending that the platforms exploited children's neuro-vulnerabilities, lured Zackery into compulsive use, and pushed self-harm content that led directly to his fatal actions.

The Defendant: Nazario v. ByteDance

According to the complaint, the defendant, ByteDance (and other affiliated social media platforms/apps):

• Optimize apps for "retention" and "time spent," while valuing engagement over safety.

• Actively nudge minors to create content or "go live" with content.

• Algorithmically amplify dangerous challenges while withholding adequate warnings.

The Case: Nazario v. ByteDance

The case was put before the New York Supreme Court and listed multiple allegations:

• Defendants deliberately leverage the neuro-developmental vulnerabilities of minor users to "optimize" time spent and retention results.

• Algorithms pushed the plaintiff's son, Zackery, toward "exceedingly dangerous challenges and videos," which directly caused the child's fatal actions.

• Defendants knew their products were addictive, failed to redesign or provide adequate warnings, and even "co-created" content through prompts, music curation, and "go live" nudges.

The Main Question: Nazario v. ByteDance

Did ByteDance's product designs, recommendation algorithms, and failure to warn or safeguard young users create a defective, deceptively marketed product that caused Zackery's death—and, if so, what liability attaches under New York tort and consumer-protection law?

FAQ: Nazario v. ByteDance

Q: What makes the suit a product liability case rather than simple negligence?

A: The complaint frames TikTok as a consumer product with design defects (addictive features, dangerous content amplification) and inadequate warnings, invoking strict liability principles normally applied to physical goods.

Q: How do deceptive-practice claims (GBL §§ 349 & 350) fit in?

A: Nazario says defendants misrepresented TikTok's safety, luring families to trust a platform allegedly engineered to maximize engagement at the expense of minors' mental and physical health.

Q: What "dangerous challenges" are cited?

A: While specific titles are under seal, the pleading says the For You Page pushed viral stunts encouraging self-harm and risky behavior that Zackery ultimately attempted.

Q: Could Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shield the defendants?

A: Plaintiffs argue the platforms acted as designers and co-creators of content through algorithmic amplification, prompts, and curated music, placing their claims within the product-liability sphere where Section 230 immunity is narrower.

Q: What happens next procedurally?

A: The court will rule on the pending motion (MS #3). If claims survive, discovery will address internal design documents, safety studies, and data on under-18 engagement, potentially informing settlement or trial.

If you need to file a wrongful death lawsuit, and you have questions, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Parents Claim Child's IEP was Ignored Leading to the Student's Death: Estate of Kody Townsend v. CPS

The parents of 10-year-old Kody Townsend have sued the public school system in Cook County Circuit Court (Case No. 2025L007034), alleging the school's staff ignored their son's seizure-care plans, left him unsupervised at lunch, and mishandled the resulting medical emergency, causing his death.

Estate of Kody Townsend v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

Court: Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court

Case No.: 2025L007034

The Plaintiffs: Townsend v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Chicago Public Schools)

The Estate of Kody Townsend, through parents Travis Townsend and Lakeisha Jones-Townsend, seeks damages for wrongful death. Kody had Lennox-Gastaut seizure disorder and developmental delays; his Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Seizure Action Plan required constant adult supervision (especially while eating), and included step-by-step emergency protocols.

The Defendant: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The defendant, Chicago Public Schools, operates Henry R. Clissold Elementary, where Kody was enrolled as a student. The lawsuit contends district employees willfully ignored written medical directives and then failed to provide (or relay to paramedics) the care specified in those directives.

The Case: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The Townsend family listed claims of negligence and wrongful death based on willful and wanton misconduct. They also included more details regarding their key allegations, including:

• Unsupervised Meal: On Oct 18, 2024, Kody ate without the required one-to-one monitor as specified in his IEP, suffered a seizure, choked on food, and went into cardiac arrest.

• 9 Minute Delay: Staff waited about nine minutes before attempting the first seizure-response step; when that failed, they neither advanced to the next step nor called 911 promptly.

• Airway Oversight: Staff failed to inform arriving EMS that Kody's airway was obstructed, resulting in a delay in life-saving care.

• Known Risk: Personnel were fully aware (from the IEP and Seizure Action Plan) of Kody's heightened danger during meals, yet disregarded those documents.

The wrongful death lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and systemic changes to enforce IEP compliance throughout the district.

The Main Question: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Did Chicago Public Schools act with reckless disregard by ignoring Kody Townsend's documented need for meal-time supervision and by failing to follow or communicate seizure protocols, thereby causing his fatal cardiac arrest?

FAQ: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Q: What specific protections did Kody's IEP and Seizure Action Plan mandate?

A: Continuous adult supervision during meals, step-wise seizure-response procedures (two distinct interventions), and immediate EMS notification if the first step failed.

Q: How long did the staff wait before taking action?

A: The complaint says approximately nine minutes elapsed before any seizure protocol was attempted, well beyond best-practice response times for airway obstruction and seizures.

Q: Why is failure to tell EMS about the blocked airway significant?

A: Clearing the airway is the first priority in this type of medical emergency. Failing to advise paramedics that an airway is blocked risks wasting critical minutes on ineffective interventions.

Q: The parents claimed "willful and wanton" misconduct; what standard must be met to prove this type of claim?

A: To prove a "willful and wanton" misconduct claim, they must show that the school staff knew about Kody's health risks, and consciously disregarded the information. If the plaintiffs can prove the school staff knew and disregarded Kody's condition/associated health risks, it becomes more than merely an act of negligence.

Q: Could this lawsuit lead to broader policy changes?

A: Yes. Wrongful-death suits often push districts to tighten IEP enforcement, retrain staff on medical plans, and adopt stricter emergency-response protocols.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.