Fired During her Battle Against Cancer, Tulare Woman Sues Harris Ranch Beef Co.

Yolanda Alcala, a Tulare woman who worked for Harris Ranch Beef Company for more than 20 years, filed a lawsuit at the Fresno County Superior Court claiming she was fired when she took medical leave to undergo chemotherapy after breast cancer surgery. Harris Ranch Beef Co., a Selma-based company, denies they faired Alcala.

Employment law requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations for employees when they have a disability or a severe illness. Common reasonable accommodations employers regularly make for employees include extending the worker’s medical leave or modifying the employee’s job duties. 

Alcala Claims She Was Fired for Taking Medical Leave to Receive Necessary Medical Treatment for Cancer:

Yolanda Alcala, the plaintiff, claims that when her long-time employer fired her, it felt like being disposed of like an old, used up rag. She turned to the law to get help because she wanted to see Harris Ranch Beef Company respect her rights as a worker as well as the rights of other workers in similar situations.

Harris Ranch Beef Co. Denies the Wrongful Termination and Disability Discrimination Allegations:

Harris Ranch Beef Co. tells a different story. They say that the story, as told by Alcala, is not what actually happened. Harris Ranch Beef Company Vice President for Risk Management and Human Resources, Mike Casey, claims the company is disappointed to hear about the pending litigation instigated by Alcala. He says the company complies with all state and federal laws and that they did not fire Alcala. Casey claims it was Alcala who chose to leave Harris Ranch Beef Company. Casey insists that the company provided Alcala with a superior health care plan that completely covered the costs of her cancer care and medical treatments throughout her two decades with the company. He also claims that Alcala’s complaint is full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations. They look forward to setting the record straight as the case proceeds.

The Company’s Claims of Inaccuracy and Misrepresentation Do Not Slow Alcala Down:

Alcala’s lawyer responded to the company’s claims on the plaintiff’s behalf, reaffirming that the company’s claims that Alcala was the one that terminated their working relationship of her own volition are not true. According to Alcala, there was a meeting in January 2018 where Alcala was terminated from her position without notice.

Allegations Included in the Lawsuit:

Alcala’s lawsuit includes numerous employment law violation allegations, including disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate a disability, retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, failure to engage in the interactive process, violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act, and wrongful termination. Before her cancer diagnosis and need for medical leave, Alcala had a record of being a dedicated and hardworking employee at Harris Ranch Beef Company receiving regular attendance bonuses and enjoying positive relationships in the workplace with both management and peers on the job.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file a disability discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Wayfair Employee Sues After Alleged Co-Worker Harassment

Emily Forsythe, a 33-year-old associate director of industrial engineering at Wayfair, filed a harassment lawsuit on January 3, 2020. Forsythe claims that during her time working for the Boston-based online furniture retailer, she was regularly harassed by a male colleague, she supervised on the job. The harassment continued for several months.

Forsythe Claims Wayfair Ignored Harassment Complaints:

Wayfair employs a significant portion of the area’s 20 and 30-somethings. Despite its status as a major employer of such a substantial portion of the population, they allegedly failed to respond appropriately to the harassment problem. Forsythe claims that they completely overlooked the harassment complaints and then proceeded to retaliate against her for filing a harassment complaint.

Months of Harassment Lead to a Lawsuit Alleging Employment Law Violations:

Emily Forsythe responded to the company’s non-response and retaliation by filing a lawsuit on January 3, 2020. According to the lawsuit, Forsythe was harassed over several months by a coworker she supervised on the job as Wayfair’s Associate Director of Industrial Engineering in 2019. In the documents, Forsythe described the situation claiming that the man doggedly pursued a relationship with her, making repeated (and unwanted) physical contact. When Forsythe rejected his advances, he allegedly started sending combative messages to both her and other employees at Wayfair. 

One Example of the Harassment Cited in Forsythe’s Lawsuit:

While at the Wayfair facility in Perris, California, the plaintiff claims that the male coworker took it upon himself with no expressed or implied invitation from Forsythe to stare at her chest and then run his hand down from her cleavage across her breast to her waist. When she moved out of his reach, he laughed and walked away. Later that day, again, without an invitation from the plaintiff, he started to talk to Forsythe about internet dating applications, aired speculations about the pair of them dating while noting their consistent conflicts, and invited Forsythe to spend the day together then go to dinner. She refused. He repeated the same invitation as both were leaving the workplace, and Forsythe refused again. He later told 3rd parties that he and Forsythe were dating.

Many other examples were included in the lawsuit, similar to the one detailed above.

Harassment Allegedly Followed by Retaliation in the Workplace:

In Forsythe’s lawsuit, she also alleges that another Wayfair employee later discriminated against her in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Forsythe claims she was excluded from meetings and email communications. Forsythe claims they received Forsythe’s harassment claims but concluded they were unfounded as other employees denied her allegations. When Forsythe announced her intention to file a discrimination complaint, Wayfair fired her. She was terminated on September 22, 2019. In a statement responding to the lawsuit, Wayfair denies the allegations. They insist they take all reports of misconduct seriously and that they conducted a thorough investigation into the matter in response to Forsythe’s complaints, but did not find any merit to the allegations.

Forsythe claims she suffered emotional distress due to Wayfair’s failure to handle her complaints appropriately and is seeking back pay, court fees, and damages. Her legal counsel found Wayfair’s handling of the matter insensitive, inadequate, and unusual, claiming that they relied on denials issued by the alleged harasser and retaliator to come to the conclusions that there was no misconduct.

If you have questions about how to identify harassment in the workplace or if you need to file a California harassment lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Burgers & Beers Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $150,000

A Southern California food chain known as Burgers & Beer agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit. The company is based out of El Centro, California, and allegedly denied server positions to men.  

Disqualifying Male Applicants and Employees from Server Positions:

According to the lawsuit filed against Burgers & Beer, the So Cal food chain denied all male applicants and current employees access to server positions. The men were refused the job based solely on their sex. The lawsuit also claims that the denial of server positions to any men interested in the job was an ongoing standard practice at the food chain since 2015. The standard practice resulted in the current, almost all-female serving crew.

The denial of a position based solely on the sex of the applicant violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex for hiring or promotions. The EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement with the Defendant through its conciliation process. When this wasn’t possible, they filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

What Terms Are Included in the Settlement?

The two-year consent decree settling the lawsuit includes:

• A monetary settlement

• Injunctive relief to prevent future workplace sex discrimination

• Revision of the company’s job descriptions for all positions

• Creation of a plan to purposefully increase the number of male applicants for server positions

• A hiring and retention rate goal for men in server positions

• A review and revision of company discrimination policies

• Providing discrimination training to all employees

• Required record-keeping to demonstrate compliance with all elements of the settlement agreement

The two-year consent decree settling the suit remains under the court’s jurisdiction for the full term of the order.

If you are experiencing discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. 

Former Juul Employee Sues San Fran Vaping Co. Alleging Harassment and Wrongful Termination

On December 20, 2019, former Juul employee Kai Yin “Carrie” Chuang filed a complaint with San Francisco Superior Court, alleging she was the victim of sexual harassment. Chuang also claims the San Francisco vaping company wrongfully terminated her employment after reporting harassment incidents to her superiors. 

Chuang worked at Juul, as well as its predecessor company Pax Labs. She was employed as a supply chain manager starting in 2017 through 2018. Chuang claims that three different male Juul employees made unwanted sexual advances to her on multiple occasions. The incidents involved suggestive comments and inappropriate physical contact. According to the lawsuit, Chuang reported the incidents to her supervisors at Juul. Still, the managers discouraged her from pressing the issue and did not conduct a thorough investigation of her claims.

Alleged Incidents of Workplace Harassment:

While on a business trip in 2017, a male employee requested the Chuang come to his room and “sleep with him.” When Chuang refused, the male co-worker touched her inappropriately and kissed her against her will.

Juul executives allegedly spread false rumors that Chuang accepted bribes from a vendor, indulged in a romantic relationship with vendor representative, and downloaded company files and shared them with an ex-employee in violation of company policy. Chuang claims the executives spread these rumors in retaliation for reporting the abusive incidents.

Was Chuang Wrongfully Terminated?

In December 2018, Chuang was terminated from her position with Juul. In February, Chuang filed a complaint. She received a right-to-sue notice the same day. Chuang’s lawsuit seeks back pay, lost fringe benefits, and additional monetary relief. A specific amount is not specified in the lawsuit.

How Did Juul Respond to the Harassment, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Allegations?

Juul claims that Chuang did not raise allegations until months after her separation from the company. They also claim that an internal investigation was completed in response to her complaints. Juul insists Chuang’s claims have no merit and that they are dedicated to creating and sustaining a safe, comfortable workplace for all employees that is free from all forms of harassment.

If you need to discuss harassment or workplace retaliation, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Delta Facing Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Former Delta Airlines flight attendant, Ida Gomez Llanos, 79 years old, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging age discrimination after she was fired (Gomez Llanos v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.). 

Gomez filed the wrongful termination lawsuit on November 15, 2019, in California Superior Court. Gomez claims she started work as a flight attendant for Delta in November 1962. Additionally, Gomez claims the airline terminated her employment on June 6, 2019.

Delta Faces Employment Law Violation Allegations:

According to the lawsuit, Gomez Llanos faced both age discrimination and a hostile work environment at Delta Airlines.

Gomez Llanos was allegedly fired following numerous allegations: 1) that she stole company-owned items from one of the Delta aircraft for her personal use, 2) spiked her coffee with alcohol, and 3) failed to fill her assigned position on the job (specifically paying another flight attendant to cover her shift on an international flight). Gomez Llanos was the company’s most senior flight attendant; as such, other employees resented the privileges and salary that the seniority granted. Other employees allegedly voiced their resentment by lodging official complaints to management.

Did Delta Welcome Complaints Against Senior Employees Like Gomez Llanos?

Gomez Llanos also alleged in the lawsuit that Delta welcomed any complaints against senior employees as it supported their efforts to get rid of their most senior flight attendants. By welcoming any criticism of their oldest employees, they could justify the eventual termination of their employment.

According to the lawsuit, Gomez Llanos went above and beyond in her job as Delta flight attendant. She claims she continued to receive commendations and awards from the airline for her exemplary behavior throughout her years of service. The plaintiff’s legal counsel intends to hold the airline responsible for their intolerable actions and alleged discrimination, retaliation, and harassment violations.

Delta’s Response to the Age Discrimination Allegation:

Delta’s spokesperson insists that the airline stands by its decision to terminate Gomez Llanos’ employment. The airline claims that when company policy is identified as violating employment law or when inappropriate conduct is reported, the airline conducts a thorough investigation and determines the most appropriate response. The airline considers several factors, including overall performance and length of employment. 

If you need to file an age discrimination lawsuit or if you need to discuss other employment law violations, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. 

Los Angeles and Long Beach Female Dockworkers File Discrimination Lawsuit

In a recent federal discrimination lawsuit, female dockworkers claim pregnancy discrimination against the shippers, Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 13. The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles. The lawsuit claims that the union and the shippers discriminated against pregnant dockworkers at both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. 

The pregnancy discrimination lawsuit is based on claims made by four dockworkers alleging that: 

·      they did not receive promotions or union membership

·      they saw a decrease in pay, and 

·      they were not offered lighter duties during their pregnancies.

Other violations and claims backed claims of pregnancy discrimination. At least one female dockworker who suffered a miscarriage was forced to return to work before she was ready. According to the lawsuit, male workers did not see similar consequences of missing similarly lengthy stretches of work. The attorney representing the women in the case suggested that this particular claim could apply to hundreds of dockworkers. Women make up about 40% of LA and Long Beach’s casual workforce, but the policies do not reflect the situation. This case aims to bring the situation to light.

When asked about the situation, other dockworkers had a lot to say. One California female dockworker named Tonya stated that she worked at the Port of Oakland for five years and experienced similarly discriminatory behavior. She said it happened all the time. She recalls one man who started as a checker. He took three out of five months off work at one point due to family issues without any problems. He was promoted not long afterward. A woman who worked in the same location during the same timeframe and in a similar position had a baby and took maternity leave. When she returned from maternity leave, other workers were promoted above her, who had significantly less experience and were newer hires. When the woman asked about the situation, she was told she lacked commitment to the job.

Dockworkers are usually offered generous hours off during active military deployment or when they have experienced an injury on the job. Following these periods off, employees are generally still provided back pay and offered promotions as if they never left work. But when the stretch of “off the job” time is related to pregnancy, there is a pattern of negative consequences. It acts as a blemish on their work record. One female dockworker described it as feeling as though she were being punished because she wanted to have a baby.

If you are experiencing pregnancy discrimination or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$1.25 Million to Settle Dish Network Discrimination Lawsuit

In recent news, Dish Network agreed to pay a $1.25 million settlement. The settlement would serve as compensation to job seekers who filed suit alleging that the company's online application process denied them the chance to work at the Douglas County location. Dish Network also agreed to alter their online hiring process to accommodate disabled applicants. Dish will add a prominent statement to applications advising that reasonable accommodations will be provided with instructions on how to obtain them. 

As agreed in the settlement, Dish Network will also hire a third-party consultant to evaluate the Dish Network online assessment and suggest revisions. Questions included in the application process's online assessment will be carefully considered and limited to those related to the skills needed for the jobs posted.  

Dish Network also agreed to appoint a compliance officer to provide training and monitor the online application process for compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act. The Act states that employers are required to ensure that all individuals with disabilities are offered the opportunity to request an accommodation, even if the application process is conducted online.  

The Dish Network spokeswoman, Caroline Krause, stated the company was pleased to resolve the matter. The settlement is not a finding that employment law was violated. Krause also noted that the agreement "codifies practices Dish put in place years ago to ensure all individuals, regardless of disability status, have the opportunity to apply for employment…"

Dish Network is one of the United State's largest video television providers employing approximately 17,000 workers. This is not the first time Dish Network has faced severe legal allegations. In 2005, Dish's parent company, Echostar Communications Corp., was hit with an $8 million damage judgment due to another disability case. In 2015, the court found for Dish after they fired an employee who failed a drug test after taking marijuana off-duty to treat a medical condition. In 2017, Dish Network faced a $280 million civil penalty for repeated Do Not Call Registry violations.

If you need to discuss an employer's refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for your disability, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.