Gender Bias Case: Silicon Valley Jury Clears Kleiner Firm

May 1, 2015 - A venture capital firm known as Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers (or Kleiner) was cleared of gender discrimination claims by a California jury. A former female partner at Kleiner lodged the discrimination claims. The jury trial took place in Silicon Valley.

In addition to the discrimination claims, the firm was also cleared of allegations of retaliation against Ellen Pao, a former partner at Kleiner. Ms. Pao filed suit against the firm in 2012. She was then fired from her employment. A number of admittedly embarrassing disclosures were made during the course of the jury trial regarding the treatment female employees at Kleiner. Regardless of this information, Pao was unable to receive vindication through a winning verdict. What her efforts did achieve was a newfound awareness of the Silicon Valley corporate culture, leaving many calling into question the very evident lack of diversity.

The suit included allegations that former male partners used business trips as a chance to make inappropriate advances towards their female colleagues (including, but not limited to Pao).

Pao, no longer a partner at the firm, is now the interim chief executive at Reddit, a social-news service. Ms. Pao claims that while she did engage in an affair with Ajit Nazre, a partner at Kleiner, it was brief. She also claims that when she ended the brief affair, she quickly began to lose her footing at work. What she claims was already a workplace unfriendly to female employees, became even worse. She claims that Nazre and Kleiner as a whole started to actively retaliate against her after she ended her affair with Nazre.

The company denies the allegations. They insist they did not support a workplace climate that was unfriendly towards female employees. They also presented evidence that they actually went out of their way to hire women.

Pao was not the only female employee who cited inappropriate sexual advances from partner, Nazre. Allegations were made by another employee, Trae Vassallo. She claims that he showed up at her hotel room during a business trip inappropriately clothed and urging her to join him for a drink. The company provided assurances that these claims were investigated. Post-investigation, Nazre left the firm.

If you have questions about gender bias in the workplace, please get in touch with the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Protection for Transgender Inmates: Elton John calls the Issue to the Public’s Attention

April 24, 2015 -Claims that a transgender woman was mistreated at a Georgia prison inspired Elton John to call for equal rights for transgender inmates. In a recently released statement, John stated that transgender women housed in male prisons should be afforded the equal right to protection from violence and abuse while in prison, but that they somehow continue to be put in situations where they must endure horrific injustices.

The Justice Department responded to the situation by assuring the public that prison officials must approach inmate gender identity condition the same as they would any other medical or mental health condition. Attention was brought to the subject after a lawsuit was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center in February against Georgia Department of Corrections officials. The suit was on behalf of a transgender woman named Ashley Diamond. 

In the February lawsuit, it is alleged that prison officials did not maintain proper treatment for Ashley Diamond, a 36-year-old prisoner with gender dysphoria. Allegations were made that Diamond was forced to go without hormone treatment for three years, that her body suffered as a result of the halted hormone treatments, and that she was both sexually assaulted and ridiculed as a result of her situation while in prison.

Elton John, founder of the Elton John AIDS Foundation, stated that in many cases, assaults such as those that Diamond suffered go unreported because the perpetrators are prison guards, wardens or other staff members. It sends a horrible message that violence and discriminatory behavior is not only allowed, but also sanctioned by the prison system when in relation to trans people.

A judge ordered California’s corrections department to make sex-reassignment surgery available to a transgender inmate. This is the first time such an operation has been ordered by the state of California.

For additional information on transgender discriminatory behavior, contact the southern California discrimination attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Sex Bias Class Action Sued Filed Against Twitter

March 27, 2015 - After complaining that Twitter’s sexist company policies were arbitrary and unjust, a software engineer named Tina Huang was fired. She claims she was fired in retaliation for her complaints and filed a class action. The previous Twitter software engineer claims she was one of Twitter’s earliest hires, but that she was overlooked for/denied promotion opportunities because Twitter discriminates against women. She claims that Twitter management fails to promote equally qualified or even more qualified women to leadership positions in engineering.

In her complaint, Huang points out that Twitter’s promotion system creates a glass ceiling for women that can’t be explained. She claims it does so by:

• The company has no meaningful promotion process for engineering leadership positions.
• No company approved, published criteria for promotion, internal hiring, advancement, or application processes.

Ms. Huang started work with Twitter in 2009. At that time, the company had less than 100 employees. She also claims that its dramatic growth in the time since that point is due in large part to the work of its early hires. Many of the early hires now hold senior positions within the company’s structure. Without exception, male employees hold all of those senior positions within the software engineer department.

Huang also claims that the sexual bias problem is one that has been recognized by Twitter. According to the complaint filed by Huang, Twitter has conducted internal diversity studies focusing on barriers blocking female employee advancement. There is a company-wide, pervasive problem with discrimination and acknowledged gender disparities. In an attempt to address the company-wide problem, Twitter recently put in place bias mitigation training throughout the entire company.

During discussions of the acknowledged gender disparity issue, senior management has been known to say that Twitter will “continue improving its ‘diversity standing’…and ‘move the needle.”

In 2013, Huang was put in for a promotion in the software engineering division by her immediate supervisor. Huang claims this is the only method by which to obtain a promotion at the company. The move would have been a critical promotion in Huang’s career. The job would have meant a shift of her focus from coding and individual projects to a leadership role requiring company collaboration. It would also mean access to meetings with high-level management. Huang had provided years of impressive service and work to Twitter. Despite these years on the job, excellent peer and supervisor work evaluations, an absence of any criticism or disciplinary issues, Huang was denied the critical promotion without any explanation. While no official reasons were provided (even when requested by Huang), she was able to pinpoint rumors about her “aggressiveness” and “lack of high quality code” on a particular work project.

In response to her objections to the gender inequality in Twitter hiring and promotion history, she was advised by corporate to take personal leave while further investigation was handled. She then met with the CEO, Costolo, and HR, but they did not provide her with any information about an investigation into her complaint. Her assignments were given to co-workers. Her co-workers were told that she was on personal leave even though they already knew about her complaints regarding Twitter’s promotional process. Huang claims in addition to the original sexual bias, her ability to lead was also undermined by Twitter’s corporate response to her complaint. After three months, she felt she was left with no other reasonable choice, but to resign for the sake of her career.  

Huang feels that Twitter intentionally caused objectively intolerable working conditions and then in full awareness allowed them to continue. She is seeking class certification, her lost wages and benefits, full vesting of her stock options, as well as damages and punitive damages for sex discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination.

For additional information and answers to specific questions about sexual bias on the job, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by School Teacher Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

In Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist., 2014 WL 7399317 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014), Lauralyn Swanson, schoolteacher for the Yucca Valley Elementary School, sued for discrimination based on medical condition. Swanson claims that after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a mastectomy the district’s board of education voted against renewing Swanson’s teaching contract. She alleged a denial of reasonable accommodation and a refusal to engage in the interactive process.

While the trial court initially granted the Morongo Unified School District’s motion for summary judgment, the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal, holding that there were triable issues of fact regarding claims made by Swanson in the suit. Specific triable issues of fact included evidence that after Swanson provided the school district with information regarding her condition and took a medical leave in order to receive proper medical treatment, the district put in place a course of conduct that was specifically designed to set Swanson up to fail with difficult assignments and a lack of appropriate resources. When she failed to successfully fulfill the impossible requirements, the district later used Swanson’s performance as an excuse for their decision not to renew her teaching contract. 

The Court also decided that the school district failed to meet its burden to negate an essential element of Swanson’s failure to accommodate claim. They didn’t present appropriate evidence exhibiting that a second grade position was not available or proof that it was not a reasonable accommodation/that the alternate positions offered to Swanson were reasonable allowing her to perform the necessary job functions to succeed. It was also held that the district failed to provide any proof that they engaged in appropriate dialogue with Swanson as required by the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

If you would like to discuss workplace discrimination based on medical condition, please get in touch immediately. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are the southern California employment law experts and can help you reach a resolution. 

Wrongful Termination Court Case Against the Children’s Hospital of Central California

October saw a victory for plaintiffs who filed a wrongful termination case against the Children’s Hospital of Central California. Children’s Hospital of Central California is a pediatric hospital that can be found just north of Fresno in California. 

This particular case was based upon a long standing 18-year old employee of the Children’s Hospital of Central California who was improperly drug tested on his day off; which was eventually found to be in violation of the employee’s constitutional right to privacy.

In the state of California, drug testing of current employees is subject to a more stringent analysis by the legal system in comparison to pre-employment drug testing. Employers who drug test current employees must identify a compelling reason that supports their decision to drug test, i.e. a reasonable belief that an employee was intoxicated on the job. This type of situation would strengthen the argument that drug testing the employee was a reasonable action.

Testing an employee during their off-duty hours is seen as particularly invasive and is more likely to be found as invasive by the courts.

It would seem that juries support the courts general opinion on the matter as the jury made its decision on this case on October 16, 2014 after both sides presented their arguments. They found that the employee’s privacy had been violated and that this violation of his rights had resulted in his wrongful termination, which is in violation of California employment law. As a result the plaintiff was awarded $1,035,000.00.

If you feel you are being bullied or mistreated by your employer, please get in touch with one of the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

Creationist Fossil Hunter Sues University After He is Fired

Mark Armitage is a fossil hunter. He was also the manager of the California State University, Northridge’s (CSUN) biology department’s electron and confocal microscopy suite. But after making a discovery he dreamed of for years in May of 2012, he was fired. 

While digging in Montana, Armitage found one of the largest Triceratops horns ever discovered in the Hell Creek Formation, which is a legendary stack of fossil-bearing rocks said to date to the last days of the dinosaurs. He drove the discovery back home to Los Angeles, California, and put it under the microscope. His study revealed both fossilized bone and preserved layers of soft tissue. He was shocked. He published his findings in February of 2013 in Acta Histochemica, a journal of cell and tissue research. He was fired two weeks after publishing on his findings.

He is now in the middle of what many view as a long shot legal battle. His intentions? He wants his job back. He filed a wrongful termination suit claiming religious intolerance as motivation for his dismissal. Armitage is a young-Earth creationist. He also states that his findings of soft tissue in the fossil support his belief that his Triceratops horn and other similar specimens date to the time of the “flood” referred to in the Holy Bible. An event he dates at about 4,000 years ago. Armitage claims that associates at the University could not stand working alongside a creationist who had his work published in a legitimate scientific journal. He feels this is the reason for his termination.  

Those in support of the University point out that religious intolerance claims in this case may have a hard time standing up if the case goes to trial. The associate vice-president of marketing and communications at CSUN stressed during an email communication that Armitage’s position at the university was “temporary.” Armitage also openly admits to engaging students in discussions frequently on topics related to his personal beliefs and the well-preserved cells in the Triceratops horn as proof that they’re young – no more than 68 million years old according to Armitage. US anti-discrimination laws require employers to accommodate employee religious beliefs and practices to a reasonable degree unless doing so causes the employer “undue hardship.”

In this particular instance, Armitage’s personal and/or religious views were such that the institution/employer’s goals were undermined when Armitage shared his thoughts and beliefs with various biology and/or paleontology students.

If you have been wrongfully terminated and you need expert advice on how to proceed, get in touch with the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Discrimination Case Filed by Ex-Wilson Elser Attorney

Jodi Ritter, a former nonequity partner of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker sued the firm with claims that she was subjected to harassment and discrimination for her choice to have children. She left the firm in late 2012.

Ritter described the state at the firm by stating, “By contrast, women who did not have children and who availed themselves of affairs with partners were systematically rewarded and treated better than women who chose to have children and families.”

The firm, in response to the claims made in the suit, said that the allegations were baseless and lacking in any legal merit. They advised that they would be vigorously defending themselves and they were looking forward to the adjudication of the matter. The firm filed Motion to Dismiss on Friday claiming that claims are wholly without merit and precluded by the arbitration clause of her partnership agreement.  

Ritter spent five years as a special narcotics prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office before joining Wilson Elser in 1997. She stated that she didn’t have any problem meeting her billable hour quota and that she received bonuses and raises consistently until she became pregnant. Ritter announced her pregnancy in 2002. The chair of the firm’s labor and employment litigation practice, Ricki Roer, allegedly pulled Ritter aside and said, “That’s why women can’t move up in this firm.” Roer continued to explain that getting pregnant could have a negative impact on any attempt Ritter had to move up as a female in the Wilson Elser firm. Roer continued by saying that women who do get pregnant in the workforce make it harder for women who want to make a career because it makes women look weak.

Ritter gave birth to twins in January 2003. After three months of maternity leave Ritter’s twins were still in intensive care. She requested additional time. She was advised that her job could not be held if she could not return after the three months. Ritter said she had to get permission to spend one more month with her twins from the regional managing partner. In May of 2003, Ritter was required to attend a Women’s Bar Association event. Her twins were having health issues. After four hours, she asked a partner at the table, Jerold Ruderman, if she could leave to care for her sick children. She claims he said no and that she couldn’t leave an empty seat at the table where Mr. Ruderman’s wife (a sitting judge) was seated.

Ritter was transferred to the firm’s White Plains office approximately one year after her children were born.

Ritter also claims:

• Roer was known to rebuff women’s requests for childcare accommodations.
• When her husband became ill, the firm’s only concern was her ability to maintain her billable hours.
• Women in the firm who made themselves available to male partners were protected.

Upon her firing in December 2012, Ritter was told that the firm had too little work to sustain her position. She argued that she had a number of open cases as well as a number of clients preparing to send her more work. At that time she had billed 1,930 hours. She was one week away from billing 1,950 hours. And her average billing from years past was 2,000 hours per year.

Ritter filed suit because, she claims, the firm affected her ability to further he career. She worked there for more than 16 years. As Ritter’s attorney said, “She gave her life there.” Ritter is seeking damages based on lost wages and pain and suffering as well as punitive damages.

For more information on discrimination in the workplace or wrongful termination please contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.