Top Performer Claims Age Discrimination &Wrongful Termination

After finding himself out of a job after a company restructure, a top performer claims he was wrongfully terminated due to age discrimination.

The Case: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

The Case No.: B318216

The Plaintiff: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The plaintiff in the case, Gregory J. Kasparian, is a former employee of Edge Systems LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company (Hydrafacial). Kasparian, a resident of Georgia with a 2nd home in Pennsylvania, started working with the company in 2012 at the age of 51. After an interview in California, he was hired and held the position of Corporate Account Director (CAD), running the East Coast domestic sales team. Kasparian was a top performer who produced consistently good sales numbers. During his last 18 months with the company, Kasparian sold just under $1 million of “rolling sales” and was encouraged as a top achiever during the last two years of his time with the company, even earning a spot in the coveted “Presidents’ Club,” a revenue based performance award. Hydrafacial terminated Kasparian’s employment in July 2018 due to a corporate realignment. At that time, Kasparian was 57 years old. About five other employees in corporate account sales were let go - all over 40. Kasparian sued his former employer in Los Angeles County Superior Court for age discrimination and related causes of action, and causes of action based on Labor Code violations and breach of contract stemming from Hydrafacial's alleged failure to pay him earned commissions.

The Defendant: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The defendant in the case is Edge Sys. (aka Hydrafacial). The company designs, manufactures, promotes, and sells aesthetic products and technology. The company’s corporate office is located in Long Beach, California. While the company maintains various regional sales areas throughout the nation, the only physical locations they maintain are in the state of California. Vice President of Sales Dan Watson was the plaintiff’s supervisor at Hydrafacial from March 2017 until Kasparian’s employment was terminated.

The Case: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

Before Hydrafacial’s realignment, there were three CADs: Kasparian (age 57), Tracie Wertz (age 53), and Dan Townsley (age 39). Kasparian claims his numbers were higher than both Wertz and Townsley, and he had seniority over both, yet he was the only one of the three that wasn’t offered a new position in the company. Kasparian alleged Hydrafacial failed to pay his full commissions, and terminated him to avoid having to full the obligation. The two parties entered a stipulated judgment in favor of Hydrafacial and against Kasparian that the court signed and filed on November 29, 2021. On appeal, the court found that Kasparian failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that his age was a substantial motivator for his termination. The appellate court concluded the trial court properly granted summary adjudication and affirmed the judgment in favor of respondent Edge Systems LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company.

If you have questions about filing a wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

FedEx Worker Claims Wrongful Termination, Harassment, and Discrimination

In a recent case, a FedEx worker appealed the trial court’s decision in a wrongful termination case.

The Case: Freem v. The Superior Court

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

The Case No.: 06-07-2024

The Plaintiff: Freem v. The Superior Court

The plaintiff in the case, Mitchell Freem, worked for FedEx for 18 years, starting as a part-time material handler loading packages and ending his career as a senior vehicle technician for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), reporting to Fleet Manager Andrew Sweet. Freem filed a California employment law complaint alleging Sweet harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against him because of his age. Freem also claimed FedEx wrongfully terminated his employment.

The Defendant: Freem v. The Superior Court

The Defendant in the case, FedEx, also faces allegations that Freem’s employment was wrongfully terminated in May 2018. Freem claims that FedEx’s reasons for terminating his employment were a pretext for age discrimination and Freem’s reporting of unlawful conduct in the FedEx workplace. FedEx claimed they terminated Freem’s employment due to falsified time cards, repair orders, and DOT PM forms that indicated completed work on specified FedEx vehicles that he had not performed. Freem claims his handling of the documentation was a direct result of instruction and harassment from his supervisor. FedEx argued there was no evidence supporting Freem’s wrongful termination claim that FedEx’s reasons for terminating his employment were untrue. The Defendant also argued that the internal complaint lodged by Freem regarding Sweet’s behavior listed multiple comments the supervisor made, and none were based on age and did not seem severe enough to be considered harassment. FedEx claims Freem failed to present evidence of harassment or discrimination and that following Freem’s internal complaint, the company investigated and found no evidence of harassment, discrimination, or workplace retaliation. The company further claims that it took reasonable steps to prevent such actions.  

The Case: Freem v. The Superior Court

In May 2022, FedEx and Sweet moved for summary judgment, each seeking judgment in their favor on the employment law complaint. Freem appealed the trial court’s decision, claiming the court incorrectly granted summary adjudication on his claims for age discrimination, harassment based on age, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  

On Appeal: Freem v. The Superior Court

On appeal, the court found that Freem presented no evidence that any harassment was based on Freem’s age, that Freem did not come close to carrying his burden of presenting evidence supporting claims that age discrimination motivated his termination of employment and that the record does not show any evidence that FedEx intentionally discriminated based on age. It was noted that while the Defendant submitted various evidential pieces to refute claims of discrimination and harassment and support the stated reasons behind the firing of Freem, Freem failed to provide any evidence to the contrary other than vague declarations. For example, Sweet reviewed security video of the shop where Freem worked and compared it to the entries on Freem’s time cards with an Excel spreadsheet documenting the discrepancies he noticed. Freem stated that the discrepancies could be explained by a standard policy/practice of supervisors encouraging techs to alter their billing to eliminate “fluff” and calling the evidence into question by pointing out that the video itself was no longer available for verification. However, he did not provide evidence to contradict the defense’s claims. The appellate court found that Freem’s harassment and discrimination claims were not viable based on the evidence provided and that the trial court was correct in granting FedEx and Sweet’s motion for summary adjudication regarding the FEHA claims.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Google Faces Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Allegations

The Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC case highlights several common labor law violations often seen in California workplaces, from disability discrimination to workplace retaliation.

The Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

The Case No.: 22CV399886

The Plaintiff: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The plaintiff, Stayce Cavanaugh, is an experienced software engineer and former Google employee. Cavanaugh was employed by Google from 2012 until she was terminated in 2020. Cavanaugh started work in 2012 as a UI developer for Wildfire (Wildfire Interactive Inc.), a software development company developing a social marketing app that measures the "presence" of businesses on social platforms. When Google acquired Wildfire, they assigned Cavanaugh to a UX Designer role. A few years later, in 2015, Cavanaugh transferred to YouTube (a Google subsidiary) as a UX Engineer. Then, in 2017, she transferred again to Area 120, an incubator inside of Google, as a UX Engineer and web developer. During her time with the company in various roles, Cavanaugh received consistently positive performance reviews, bonuses, equity grants, and raises, indicating she excelled in her work. During her employment with various Google companies, Cavanaugh built the YouTube keyboard used on TVs and game consoles and co-created ChatBase (a cloud-based tool that can integrate with Google accounts).

History of the Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The plaintiff claims she suffered discrimination and mistreatment due to her disabilities, which include a generalized autoimmune disease and endometriosis. According to the complaint, Cavanaugh first disclosed her disabilities to Google around 2013. Her supervisor allegedly responded by notifying her teammates of her diagnosis (telling them Cavanaugh needed to take time off for "painful periods)" and offering her unwanted natural healing remedies. Following a hospitalization related to her disability, Google allowed Cavanaugh to work from home on a reduced schedule for a month. At that point, HR suggested a leave of absence, which she took. Cavanaugh was on leave from March 24, 2018, through May 22, 2019. When Cavanaugh returned to work, Google advised her that her previous Area 120 position was backfilled during her absence. Google gave her a limited time to search for a new role, and she picked up a 6-month temporary "bungee" role with Crowdsource. But only after the Global Program Manager indicated it could become a permanent position at the end of the term. The temp position was part-time, but she worked 25 to 30 hours weekly. However, in April 2020, Cavanaugh was given 60 days to find a new role, or her employment would be terminated. She applied for 18 different available roles and was a finalist for several. However, on April 25, Cavanaugh became ill, and the severe COVID-19 symptoms severely affected her interview process. She even fainted during one of her follow-up interviews. As a result, Cavanaugh requested a medical leave based on her physician's recommendations, but Google denied her request based on the number of hours worked in the year before requesting the leave. She then requested an extension of her job search deadline because she showed years of full-time employment before the part-time accommodations. This request was also denied, and Cavanaugh's employment was terminated.

The Defendant: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

According to the complaint, the defendant, Google LLC, faces multiple labor violation allegations, including:

• Disability discrimination in violation of FEHA

• Failure to accommodate for disability in violation of FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of FEHA

• Interference in violation of CFRA

• Retaliation in violation of CFRA

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

The Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

In the Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC case, the plaintiff alleges that Google denied her accommodation requests, made derogatory comments about her disabilities, and ultimately terminated her employment. She seeks relief through economic and non-economic damages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Female Disney Executive Filed Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A former female Disney executive filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, a California Corporation, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV08350

The Plaintiff: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Asta Jonasson, is taking the network, parent company Disney, and John Ridley to court, claiming they engaged in gender, racial, and economic discrimination and wrongful termination.

During her ten years with ABC under Ridley and IFPRPC(Ridley’s International Famous Players Radio Picture Corporation), Jonasson claims her salary went unchanged and was lower than the standard for her position at the company. According to the complaint, she was also overlooked for promotions. Jonasson brought her concerns to Ridley regarding the alleged pay disparity, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination multiple times. She also states that she complained to ABC about unlawful discriminatory actions but saw no corrective action. In 2021, a white woman was hired to perform tasks Jonasson was already performing, but at a significantly higher pay rate. Jonasson eventually put her grievances in writing and was allegedly “pink-slipped” in 2022. Claiming her firing was a direct result of her written complaints of labor law violations, Jonasson filed a California wrongful termination lawsuit listing the studio, Ridley, and the parent company, The Walt Disney Company as defendants.

The Defendant: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The case has a trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley (Oscar winner Ridley is the co-host of Deadline’s Doc Talk podcast), and ABC, face multiple alleged labor law violations, including:

• Discrimination in violation of the FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of the FEHA

• Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation

• Violation of the Equal Pay Act

• Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Negligent supervision and retention

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

In Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, the plaintiff seeks a jury trial and various unspecified damages from the trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley, and ABC.

Not the Only Labor Law Allegations Disney Faces:

Disney is facing more allegations regarding gender discrimination in a class action suit from potentially thousands of past and present employees, claiming the company shows a pattern of gender discrimination and pay disparity favoring male employees. The class action was filed in 2019 by Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. It includes claims that female employees receive lower pay rates than male counterparts with similar job duties in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. After repeated failures to get the class action discrimination lawsuit tossed out, the action seeks at least $150,000,000 in lost wages for female Disney employees, with the potential for damages to grow to more than $300,000,000.

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

Meta Worker Claims He Was Wrongfully Terminated Due to His Muslim Faith and Palestinian-American Heritage

A former Meta-engineer claims he was wrongfully terminated due to his heritage and Muslim faith.

The Case: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The Court: California District Court of Santa Clara County

The Case No.: 24CV440543

The Plaintiff: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The plaintiff in the case, Ferras Hamad, is a former Meta software engineer. On June 4, 2024, Hamad filed a complaint alleging the company discriminated against him for his Palestinian-American heritage and Muslim faith. According to the complaint, one of Hamad’s job duties was to assess the quality of Instagram integrity filters related to Gaza, Israel, and Ukraine and investigate any severe issues (including users complaining their posts were censored or curbed). In December 2023, Hamad stated that after joining a “Palestine SEV” chat, he noticed irregularities in how pro-Palestinian posts were flagged for content removal. His investigation of the SEV related to a Palestinian photojournalist, Motaz Azaiza. Azaiza, a user with over 17 million followers, was one of the most famous Palestinian photojournalists during the conflict in Gaza. The situation led him to raise concerns over how Meta handled these posts. According to Hamad, he did not receive similar scrutiny or adverse employment actions when responding to SEVs connected to Ukraine or other world events.

The Defendant: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

The defendant in the case, Meta Platforms, claims that Hamad was dismissed for violating Meta’s data access policies, which is known to result in immediate termination.

The Case: Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms

In the case Ferras Hamad v. Meta Platforms, Hamad, the plaintiff, and former Meta software engineer, claims he was fired after his investigation into why Meta limited the reach of a Palestinian photojournalist’s post led him to discover that the user’s content was incorrectly labeled “pornographic.” According to the complaint, Hamad documented his findings and immediately started receiving communications from supervisors at Meta who were not on his team alleging he violated company policy. Hamad claims he later confirmed with a Meta security team member that his actions did not violate company policy and he handled the SEV appropriately. On December 25, 2023, Azaiza, the photojournalist whose content was the subject of the SEV, posted a screenshot showing how Instagram incorrectly labeled the Gaza coverage as “pornographic.” Meta allegedly fired Hamad for violating the company’s data policy on February 2, 2024.

If you need to discuss filing a wrongful termination lawsuit in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys are available to assist you from their offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Ambulnz Fail to Stock Necessary Life-Saving Equipment for EMTs?

In recent news, a former employee filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that DocGo’s Ambulnz failed to provide essential life-saving equipment for their EMTs.

The Case: Chase v. Ambulnz

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 19STCV36675

The Plaintiff: Chase v. Ambulnz

The plaintiff in the case, Chase, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleged that DocGo’s Ambulnz did not stock necessary life-saving EMT equipment and tools, frequently failed inspections by the County, and failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses when they purchased the necessary life-saving equipment and tools using their personal funds.

The Defendant: Chase v. Ambulnz

The defendant in the case, Ambulnz, has approximately 3,500 field-based paramedics and EMTs offering patients a full suite of Mobile Health home medical services. According to the plaintiffs in the case, DocGo’s Ambulnz violated labor law; the company faces claims of wrongful termination.

What is Wrongful Termination?

Wrongful termination in California refers to the unlawful firing of an employee in violation of state or federal laws. When employees are terminated for reasons such as discrimination, retaliation, or exercising their legal rights, they can seek protection from employment law and hold California employers responsible by pursuing legal action through litigation or negotiation. If a California employer wrongfully terminates an employee, they may be liable for damages that could include back pay, compensation for emotional distress, or reinstatement.

The Case: Chase v. Ambulnz

In the case Chase v. Ambulnz, the plaintiff claims Ambulnz engaged in multiple labor law violations, including failing to pay all wages earned, minimum wage violations, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to pay full wages upon termination, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses, workplace retaliation, etc.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact 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 Blue Origin’s Program Manager Claims Wrongful Termination

A wrongful termination lawsuit alleges Blue Origin LLC violated several labor codes, and the plaintiff demanded a jury trial.

The Case: Craig Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles Central District

The Case No.: 23STCV28816

The Plaintiff: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Craig Stoker, is the former program manager of Blue Origin's BE-4 rocket engines and primarily worked out of the company's Woodland Hills, California location. Stoker filed a wrongful termination complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, including a detailed narrative about Stoker's efforts (over seven months) to escalate concerns about safety and a hostile work environment at Blue Origin.

The Defendant: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

The defendant in the case, Blue Origin LLC, allegedly "brushed off" multiple complaints regarding CEO Bob Smith's explosive response to employees when issues frequently led to employees violating safety protocol to meet unreasonable expectations and impossible deadlines. According to court documents, Blue Origin was working on fulfilling a contract with ULA that required communicating any issues that could impact rocket engine delivery a year in advance. While Stoker wanted to communicate information regarding a probable delay to ULA, Smith allegedly instructed him not to do so. After concluding an internal investigation, Blue Origin decided that Smith did not violate company policies or create a hostile work environment. Stoker objected. He also claims in the lawsuit that he later found out no one from the engine program was interviewed as part of the internal investigation. Stoker was terminated seven months after initially raising his safety concerns.

The Case: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

In the case Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC, Stoker claims he was wrongfully terminated in response to his complaints regarding the company's CEO creating a hostile work environment that caused employees to disregard safety measures to meet unreasonable deadlines on projects. While the company states their internal investigation found that Smith did not violate company policy or create a hostile work environment, Blue Origin announced Smith was stepping down from his role as CEO in September (after a tenure of close to six years). His tenure was marked by numerous successes, including growing the team from less than 1,000 people to over 12,000 and landing multiple high-profile and high-value contracts with NASA. However, his tenure was also not without serious controversy. In addition to Stoker's claims, Smith faced allegations of supporting a culture of sexism among senior executives at the company.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.