Farmers Insurance Co. Sued by Female Attorneys for Pay Discrimination

Female attorneys employed by Farmers Insurance Co. filed suit alleging that the company paid them less than the male attorneys employed by the company. The pay discrimination class action group reached a $4.1 million deal with the insurance company in California federal court. The settlement amount is to be split amongst 300 women who either are or were employed by Farmers as attorneys working as claims litigators throughout the past 4-5 years. The agreement requires that Farmers Insurance Co. hire an outside human resources professional to consult on an independent basis.

Also as a part of the resolution of the case, Farmers agrees to a three-year injunction that sets down a new set of rules for treating female employees. In addition to hiring the independent human resources consultant, Farmers will be required to abide by the rules set down in the injunction. The rules include a requirement to allow attorney employees to openly discuss their pay rates with one another, the conducting of a statistical analysis of pay rates each year, strive to promote more female lawyers in the company, move more women employees into higher pay grades, etc.

The lead plaintiff, Lynne Coates, alleged that a male colleague handling a similar workload and job duties was paid from $150,000-200,000. In comparison Coates’ salary was capped at $100,000. When Coates lodged a complaint, she was “demoted” from her position in the company as an attorney and asked to handle other, lesser duties.

The suit was filed in April of 2015. It involved both federal and California state equal-pay laws. It was also among the first of this type of suit to test California’s new Fair Pay Act (effective 2016). The settlement discussed and agreed on between the parties is still waiting for approval from the U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California with a June 23rd hearing already scheduled.

If you have questions regarding pay discrimination or California’s state equal-pay laws, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Discrimination & Workplace Retaliation: KKK Hood Placed in Worker’s Station

Isiah Washington, a 27 year old African American factory worker, claims he was fired in retaliation after he reported what can only be described as an inappropriate action taken in the workplace: racist co-workers hung a Ku Klux Klan “hood” in his workstation. This alleged act of racial discrimination also constituted a hostile work environment for the former employee of Sierra Aluminum Company in Riverside, California. As a result of the occurrence last April, Isiah filed a racial discrimination suit against the company.

Washington claims that the “hood” was clearly a symbol of the KKK, one of the most violent and ruthless organization in the history of the country. He also claims that when it was reported, the company not only didn’t respond, but they didn’t even pretend to take it seriously, even though Washington noted that this particular incident was the final move in a months long campaign of discrimination. He stated that he was scared and felt very threatened in the situation. When he asked his supervisor to “please take it down” the supervisor blew Washington off. He states that the supervisor started talking to other employees and that they all began laughing. Washington remembers that he was scared for his life and “everyone was laughing” (including his supervisor to which Washington had just reported he incident). Washington claims in the lawsuit that the offensive (and terrifying) white sheet remained above his workstation for another hour while he continued his work. He clarifies that he did not see it as a prank or a joke, but as an intimidation technique – a threat.

Washington filed a complaint with the company’s HR department about the incident. It was ignored. The firm actually claimed that the “sheet” must have been blown in with a gust of wind. Seeing the action as a threat that wasn’t addressed in any way by the company, Washington alleges he had to continuously watch his back on the job – resulting in extreme emotional distress, fear and even anxiety. From that day on, Washington had to put up with derogatory comments from his co-workers.

At Washington’s request, the company agreed to move him to a different shift, but he ran into trouble again a few months later. After accidentally cutting his thumb on some aluminum, Washington covered the cut with a band-aid. On the following day, his supervisor questioned him about the incident – wondering why he had accessed the First Aid box on site. He replied and advised his supervisor that he was fine at which point the supervisor insisted that Washington visit the company driver and that he allow someone to drive him. Wary because of the recent negative activity in the workplace, Washington declined the ride to the doctor and advised the supervisor he could drive himself. The supervisor became angry and advised Washington he could no longer go to the company doctor. He went anyway and received clearance to work. When he returned to work the next day, he was fired. The reason he was offered for his termination was that he did not follow company policy.

Washington feels that the company obviously used this situation as an excuse so they could fire him, which could be referred to as wrongful termination.

If you have concerns about discrimination in the workplace, workplace retaliation or wrongful termination, please contact the experienced southern California employment law attorneys with your questions at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Guide Dog Discrimination Lawsuit Against Uber Moves Forward

June 22, 2015 - There has been a recent wave of complaints aimed at the popular driving service, Uber (and similar services). In response, there could be a new ruling that raises the bar for accountability amongst such driving services. In fact, the ruling could raise the bar for all tech companies; not just those related to ride-hailing services.

A federal judge in San Francisco allowed the National Federation of the Blind of California (NFB) to file suit claiming that Uber actively discriminates against visually impaired guide-dog users. Allegations indicate that Uber drivers have refused to provide rides for passengers who have service animals in use, which is in violation of ADA laws. The suit claims that drivers have also denied transport to blind individuals without service dogs. In addition, other instances are cited in which the blind individual and their service dog were allowed to utilize the ride service, but the service animals were allegedly mistreated during the drive time. The original civil complaint cites over 30 instances of discriminatory action towards blind people and/or their service animals.

One instance of harassment involved the Uber driver forcing the guide dog of a blind woman named Leena Dawes into the trunk of the sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When she realized where the Uber driver had placed her dog, she asked repeatedly if they could pull over so she could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the Uber driver denied her requests. This is just one of the many instances noted in the suit.

Uber requested the case against them be dismissed on the basis that due to contracts in place, users are required to take complaints/disputes to arbitration and argue as individuals not in the form of a class action lawsuit. They also argued that due to their unique service, they can’t be classified as “public accommodation” and therefore shouldn’t be held liable for ADA requirements.

This reasoning was tossed out by a federal judge who stated that the NDF could more forward with the suit on behalf of those members who have not yet signed the mentioned Uber contracts. This refers to class action lawsuit members who have not necessarily used the Uber service yet.

Other related legal news includes:

• Uber came under fire last March when their app was rendered useless to blind users after a software bug. They failed to fix it for a number of months.
• An ongoing suit in Texas argues the question of whether or not Uber offers sufficient access for users in wheelchairs.
• Lyft was sued as well, but settled out of court.
• Leap, the San Francisco private bus start up with a $6 fare, found themselves the focus of a suit due to the fact that they don’t provide wheelchair access.

Services such as Lyft, Uber and Leap are important as they make integration more convenient and accessible (through low pricing) for vision-impaired individuals. Most new smartphones’ built-in screen reading functionality makes the app based ride services an excellent option that allows for greater independence when traveling.

Many are hoping that the San Francisco ruling will set a precedent that will leave new, app-based services such as Lyft and Uber, etc. accountable to the same civil rights laws as other businesses and ride services.

For additional news and information on discrimination lawsuits or class action suits, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Alleged Discrimination: Female Farmers Attorney Employee Sues

June 18, 2015 - A class action lawsuit was filed by Lynn Coates against Farmers Insurance on behalf of female attorney employees containing allegations that the insurance conglomerate has policies and procedures in place that are discriminatory against women in the workplace.

Accusations made in the class action lawsuit indicate that the Los Angeles, California based insurance company was illegally paying their female attorneys significantly lower wages than their male attorneys that were performing the same work duties.

The suit claims that Farmers fails to compensate female attorneys on staff in equal measure when compared to their male counterparts performing equivalent work and that they actually systematically offer female attorneys less pay than the men. The men are also disproportionately offered higher profile work assignments, more opportunities for promotions and pay increases as well as workplace recognition for accomplishments on the job. In short, the suit claims that Farmers advances their mail attorneys’ careers much faster than that of their female attorneys. The suit even goes so far as to claim that rather than being treated equally, the female attorneys are treated more like support staff for the male attorneys.

• Coates was paid less than male attorneys who had decades less experience on the job.
• While Coates was working for Farmers, younger, male attorneys received the best cases.
• Procedures and practices discriminating against women have been in place at Farmers since the 1970s.

A previous lawsuit was filed in the 1970s by the Secretary of Labor against Farmers claiming unequal pay, Marshall v. Farmers Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 75-63-C2. In this suit, Farmers’ salary policy was found to be discriminatory. Specifically, it was found to exclude women in the workplace from appropriate promotion, etc.

Coates, the original plaintiff in the current suit against Farmers, is a resident of California. She worked in the Farmers’ San Jose branch legal office in the 1990s and again in 2010. Coates received positive reviews regarding her work and periodic raises, but even so, male attorneys on the job with decades less experience were making significantly more for comparable work. One male attorney on staff with similar experience and equivalent workload was making up to 50% more than Coates.

As soon as Coates became aware of the pay discrepancy, she attempted to discuss it with a supervisor. As a result, she was demoted from her position as an attorney to that of a paralegal. Coates states that the demotion was in retaliation for complaining about the unfair pay policies.

If you feel that there are discriminatory policies or unfair practices in place at your workplace, please get in touch with the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Southern Californian Cosmetologist Claims She Was Fired for Getting Pregnant & Preparing for Maternity Leave

June 10, 2015 - A cosmetologist, Shana Wilson, is suing the Sherman Oaks salon that denied her breaks and then fired her for getting pregnant and preparing for maternity leave. Her allegations of the abusive conditions at the salon are similar to other allegations being made in similar businesses in other California cities.

Ms. Wilson filed suit against Nail Garden and her supervisors at the salon, Marc and Sally Awad. Allegations include in Wilson’s suit include pregnancy discrimination and harassment, wrongful termination, failure to prevent harassment, workplace retaliation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, etc. Suit was filed seeking compensation (of an unspecified amount) and punitive damages as well as a desired injunction that would prevent the Nail Garden salon from continuing the same treatment in the future.

Wilson claims she was hired as a licensed cosmetologist in February 2014 after demonstrating her abilities for the Awads. Her job duties included: styling hair, manicures, pedicures and waxing. During her employment, Wilson indicates that she regularly received praise regarding her work from both clients and her employers. Her hairstyling was seen as particularly excellent and was featured numerous times on their Nail Garden social media sites.

Even so, Wilson claims that as soon as she became pregnant (three months after being hired) she was harassed. When she started to have stomach pains in response to bending over to perform pedicures for clients, she requested a reprieve from that particular job duty. Sally Awad started to criticize Wilson’s work and reduced her hours from a full 40-hour work week to 32 hours.

According to the suit, one week after Wilson asked about taking maternity leave, Marc Awad advised her that she was fired due to “complaints about her nail work” from clients. Wilson claims that she was fired because she was pregnant and was planning to take maternity leave. Wilson also alleges that during her time at Nail Garden, her supervisors had her take clients during her breaks and that she did not receive the required itemized statement of hours worked and wages earned. She claims that Nail Garden purposefully failed to compensate her for the full amount of hours she put in on the job.

The problem is so widespread amongst salons that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced that he will establish a task force to look into the matter as many are claiming that employees at such establishments are being short-changed and asked to work in unsafe working conditions.

If you need additional information regarding appropriate workplace conditions, wrongful termination or pregnancy discrimination, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik./contact

California Woman Claims Discrimination and Harassment: Suit Filed Against Facebook

May 11, 2015 - Chia Hong, a former Facebook employee, filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Facebook, alleging discrimination, harassment and that she was belittled during her time as a Facebook employee. Hong worked at Facebook first as a product manager and then as a technology specialist. Her employment lasted about three years. She was terminated in October of 2013. Hong claims that upon her termination, Facebook filled her position with a less qualified and less experienced male worker.

Facebook denies the allegations made by Hong while Hong goes into more detail regarding the inappropriate behavior. Hong states that company officials actually asked her why she didn’t stay home to take care of her kids. She also states that she was consistently and regularly ignored and that her professional opinions were belittled in workplace meetings at which she was among a notably smaller group of female employees. Hong also lodged allegations that she was required to organize parties/serve drinks for male colleagues. This was in no way a part of her job description as either a project manager or a technology specialist.

Hong is of Taiwanese descent and claims that she was told that she hadn’t been able to integrate well with the team at Facebook because she “looked and talked” different than the other team members.

Facebook denies that claims made by Hong – insisting that they did not mistreat her in any way during or after her employment with the company. They claim that they put great effort into diversity, gender and equality issues in the workplace and they believe they have done well in improving in those areas.

The case against Facebook involves a multitude of factual disagreements. Hong insists that her treatment at the company was sub-par with numerous instances of discrimination because she was female and because of her race. Facebook insists that the record will show that Chia Hong was treated fairly as an employee.

If you need help because you are experiencing gender discrimination or harassment at work, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Discrimination Allegations: Pregnant Women Sue Raley’s

May 7, 2015 - Luciana Borrego, new mother to a baby boy born on Nov. 13, 2013, claims that she lost her job in Ukiah at Raley’s due to her pregnancy.

Raley’s is a part of a West Sacramento-based retail grocery store chain. In June of 2013, Borrego recalls advising her managers of her pregnancy (five months before her baby was born). On July 11, approx. one month later, she came to work with a doctor’s note advising her supervisors that she should not be lifting anything over ten pounds. Within an hour, Borrego claims she was called to the director’s office at the store and advised that she needed to take unpaid leave.

She was advised that she needed to go home, as the company didn’t accommodate pregnant workers even with the doctor’s note. Ms. Borrego claims she was devastated by the treatment she received. She never went back.

Ms. Borrego is one of two plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court against Raley’s. The suit contains allegations that the policy mentioned by Borrego’s director that Raley’s didn’t accommodate pregnant workers is unlawful. The company policy makes reasonable accommodations for workers injured on the job, but fails to provide any type of accommodation for pregnant workers.

Raley’s spokesperson responded denying the accusations and objecting the suggestion that they don’t care about all their team members, and in particular, their pregnant team members. They continued by indicating that Raley’s has been known to go above and beyond legal minimum requirements in this area. They are known as a strong, family owned business and, as such, it’s important to them that people see them as appreciative of the role women play in their workplace. They will defend themselves against the charges being brought by the plaintiffs.

Raley’s (also operating under the names Bel Air Markets, Nob Hill Foods and Food Source) operate more than 120 supermarkets in Northern California and Nevada.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status for current/former Raley’s California employees who were denied acceptable accommodations for pregnancy related needs over the past four years.

If you are interested in discussing California laws protecting pregnant women in the workplace, please contact your southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.