Increased Termination and Discrimination Lawsuits on the Horizon Due to Coronavirus

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, many companies furloughed or laid off some or all of their workforce. The trend already spurred employment lawsuits throughout the nation, and many expect more to follow – particularly when employees start returning to the workplace.  

Recent Covid-19 Labor and Employment Litigation Trends:

The Covid-19 pandemic, and the recommendations issued by the government regulatory agencies concerning flattening the curve, etc. created unprecedented situations for California’s workforce. These unusual situations are leading to recognizable trends in the courts.

WARN and Mini-WARN Litigation:

According to the federal WARN Act, in certain circumstances, employers with 100 or more employees are required to provide at least 60 days’ notice before implementing a mass layoff of closing down. Failing to provide the required notice can result in employees seeking back pay and penalties. According to the mini-WARN act enacted in California, a mass layoff is defined as laying off at least 50 employees within 30 days or the closing/relocation of a commercial/industrial facility with 75 or more employees.

Wrongful Termination:

California employers facing uncertainty about the economy are letting employees go, and some of these employees are responding by filing wrongful termination lawsuits. As the pandemic drags on, more wrongful termination lawsuits are filed. For instance, workers terminated after requesting to work from home in compliance with local recommendations and stay home orders are filing wrongful termination lawsuits. In this situation, workers may allege that the employer’s refusal to allow telecommuting violates state policy and attempts to require the employee to act criminally by reporting to work against local orders. When the employee refuses to comply with the employer’s request to go against local orders, and the employer fires them, the employee claims they were terminated for refusing to break the law at the request of their employer. Other employees claim they were fired for complaining about the lack of proper safety equipment, for advising co-workers that they were not being provided with adequate safety equipment, or for being uncomfortable (and vocal about it) when co-workers reported to work with Covid-19 symptoms.

Discrimination and Harassment Claims:

Some employees are filing discrimination claims questioning why they were selected for adverse employment actions like layoffs, cut hours, termination, etc. Some employees claim discrimination based on age, pregnancy, gender, etc. More discrimination lawsuits are expected to arise from the Covid-19 pandemic when employers start to require employees to return to work.

If you need to discuss how to file a discrimination lawsuit or wrongful termination 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.

Gender Discrimination Allegations at Westside LA Ad Agency

Joe Fotheringham, former creative director for an LA ad agency, sued his prior employer. Fotheringham alleges that the ad agency terminated his employment because he protested two male supervisors’ preference for hiring females rather than hiring the candidate best qualified for the open position regardless of gender.

Plaintiff Alleges Gender Discrimination in Hiring Process:

Fotheringham claims that two of his former supervisors, Marc Simmons and Jon Haber, alongside Giant Spoon ad agency, violated employment law. Fotheringham alleges wrongful termination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and workplace retaliation. According to the Plaintiff, his supervisors, Simmons and Haber, pressured him to hire women whether they were qualified for the job or not. He was advised to hire some of the best talent after they got some women in the door.

The Plaintiff’s History with the Company:

The Plaintiff, Fotheringham, started working at Giant Spoon ad agency in March 2017. He was hired as the creative director at a point in time when the ad agency did not have a creative team. He was responsible for leading the agency’s efforts in hiring staff for both the Los Angeles and New York City offices. According to the lawsuit, he was also responsible for leading client work and building work from concept to production. In the summer of 2018, Fotheringham hired a male freelance worker. He was qualified for the position, but Fotheringham’s supervisors were not happy that the new freelancer was male and told the Plaintiff to find someone else – a woman.  

The Plaintiff’s Promotion Was Blocked Due to His Gender:

At one point during his employment, Fotheringham sought promotion at the agency, but he was denied the position. He was qualified for the promotion, but when he was denied the opportunity, he was allegedly told that the company needed a woman for the job. A woman was eventually hired for the job the Plaintiff sought, and he was ultimately terminated from his position allegedly without cause.

If you have questions about how to identify wrongful termination or if you need to file a California gender 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.

Will California See the First Coronavirus Discrimination Lawsuit?

In recent news, an L.A. attorney announced she would be representing the plaintiff in the first U.S. coronavirus discrimination case. The plaintiff was employed at a California medical facility at the front desk. He claims that when the coronavirus pandemic made itself known several weeks back, doctors and nurses were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE). Still, workers at the front desk were not given PPE.

Unsafe Work Conditions & Wrongful Termination Amid Covid-19 Crisis:

While he was concerned about the lack of safety precautions, he continued checking patients in for care at the medical facility until the hospital discovered that a patient he interacted with later tested positive for coronavirus. Once it was determined that he was exposed, he was sent home, which was appropriate as a preventive measure at the hospital. What followed was not necessary or legal. The next day, he was fired.

Wrongful Termination Following Exposure to Coronavirus on the Job:

When the hospital fired him the day after notifying him that he was exposed to a patient that later tested positive for the virus and sending him home, he was shocked. Luckily, the law provides a means for him to seek justice through general disability laws.

General Disability Laws & Employees Discriminated Against Due to Coronavirus:

 The case will be argued based on general disability laws. Since disability refers to a condition or state that affects a primary life function (like breathing), and even if the effect is only felt for a few days, it qualifies as a disability under state law. The law prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees or harassing an employee because they have a disability.

Employee Terminated Due to Suspected Covid-19 Infection:

In this case, the employee was tested for Covid-19. While the test came back negative, the employer (who is still unnamed at this point), terminated him simply because people perceived him to be infected. Firing an employee because you perceive them to have a condition or disease is prohibited under California law. Similar arguments were seen 30 years ago when AIDS discrimination cases were prevalent, and employees who were perceived to have AIDS just because they were a gay man, and they were fired. This same theory will be back in court again, but this time, with Covid-19 rather than AIDS as the target of workplace discrimination.

Will the First Coronavirus Discrimination Case Go To Court?

While the case has not yet officially been filed, the plaintiff’s attorney did release that a letter was sent to the medical center to allow them the opportunity to make it right. The only response received was that since they’re in the middle of a crisis, they won’t be responding. Due to this non-response, the case appears to be headed to court.

The Covid-19 Crisis Does Not Negate the Law: Employees Still Have Rights

The counsel for the plaintiff in this soon-to-be case does concede that there is a crisis; she points out that it is a medical crisis – not a legal crisis. Furthermore, this is also a time of crisis for California workers. People are out of work. Families are struggling to pay their bills. And we can’t forget them. California employers cannot cast their people aside, break the law, and justify it by the fact that they’re too busy facing a crisis to deal with the consequences of their employment law violations. The law is still in place, crisis, or not. Employees still have rights and protections under the law.

If you need to discuss discrimination violations or if you need to file a 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.

Bay Area Solar Panel Company Forced to Pay Settlement for Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Fidelity Home Energy Inc. and successor NorCal Home Systems Inc. out of Concord were forced to pay a settlement for allegedly denying service to any that management deemed likely to be Indian or Middle Eastern based on their names. The Bay Area solar panel installation company will settle the racial discrimination lawsuit with a $350,000 settlement paid to a former employee. The terms of the settlement also require the company to hire a consultant to assist them in changing company policies and practices in violation of the law.

NorCal Home Systems' $350,000 settlement is paid to Ayesha Faiz. Faiz, who is of Afghan origin, learned within a week of starting her job as a telemarketing supervisor at the company that potential customers that sounded Middle Eastern or Indian were regularly rejected for home energy system sales appointments.

Lawsuit Alleged Racial Discrimination was Standard Practice:

According to court documents, Faiz watched as supervisors purposefully tagged customer records in the company's internal databases and placed them on a "do not call" list. Faiz claims the company forced her to reject the potential customers multiple times per week. Additionally, her supervisor's forced her to instruct her subordinates to practice the same discriminatory behavior towards the potential customers who had Middle Eastern-sounding or Indian-sounding names.

At one point during her employment, Faiz saw a note stuck on a worker's computer that stated clearly, "NO INDIANS." Some employees at the solar panel installation company wrote notes on the digital customer files within the database for anyone they thought were probably Middle Eastern or Indian. Comments on the customer files ranged from "Indian Name!" to "We Won't Run This." The company denies the allegations Faiz made in the lawsuit. They insist that they did nothing wrong and that they are moving forward with their business practices as is.

Identifying Discriminatory Practices in the Workplace:

Yet Faiz was forced to discriminate against potential customers of her own national origin. It was so distressing for her that after a few weeks, she quit the job that required active discrimination daily. She could not handle working for a company that refused service to a particular ethnicity and went out of their way to single them out and separate them from the list of possible customers. The EEOC determined this constituted a hostile work environment in violation of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination by employers based on national origin.

The settlement, a three-year consent decree, requires Fidelity and NorCal to provide money to Faiz for damages and hire an EEO consultant to assist in revising NorCal's policies and practices. NorCal is also required to update their databases and remove any notes or information used to "screen" potential customers by ethnicity or national origin.

If you need to file a racial 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.

Tesla Faces a Racial Discrimination Lawsuit at the California Factory

Tesla Inc.’s effort to dismiss claims made by two former employees at their California factory failed. The federal judge rejected the electric car maker’s request to dismiss, which cleared the way to a potential trial.

Who Are the Plaintiffs Filing the Discrimination Suit?

Tesla’s California electric car factory employs over 10,000 people. Two of the factory’s former employees, Owen Diaz and his son Demetric Di-az, claim the workplace was rampant with racial hostility. U.S. District Judge William Orrick of San Francisco found open questions over whether the plaintiffs faced harassment that was specifically severe and pervasive. The two plaintiffs allege that the harassment took place throughout both 2015 and 2016. Owen Diaz claims he worked at the factory as an elevator operator for 11 months. Demetric Di-az claims he worked at the factory as a production associate for two months.

Diaz and Di-az, black employees at the factory, claim they were forced to listen to racial epithets regularly, subjected to racist cartoons, and that factory supervisors at best did little to stop the workplace harassment, and at worst, engaged in the harassment alongside the plaintiffs’ co-workers. They may pursue claims that the company did not make a reasonable attempt to stop the racial harassment and seek punitive damages. In order to seek punitive damages, the plaintiffs will need to show that the company was aware of the harassment, even if higher management did not engage in the actual hostile treatment.

The case is scheduled for trial May 11, 2020.

The Defendant: Tesla Electric Car Manufacturer

Tesla is a Palo Alto, California based company. While the electric car manufacturer has faced numerous racial harassment lawsuits, they are not the only car company to have similar legal issues in recent years. Ford faced a similar problem in 2017. The company agreed to a $10.1 million settlement to resolve similar problems with alleged racist behavior at two different Chicago factories. Tesla insists that they did not hesitate in addressing racial abuse at their Fremont factory, but that there is no evidence in this case of fraud, malice or oppression.

Other Details in the Tesla Racial Discrimination Case:

The plaintiffs, Diaz and Di-az, may also pursue claims against the staffing agency that assigned him to the factory, as well as a liaison between that agency and the electric car manufacturer, Tesla. The plaintiffs will likely seek millions of dollars in damages.

If you need to discuss harassment or workplace discrimination, 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.

$300,000 Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Over Marriot’s ‘No Party Policy’

Marriot is facing a $300,000 lawsuit. A California woman filed the suit claiming she was singled out during check-in because of her race and required to sign a "no party policy' the Marriott desk clerk insisted was standard.

What Makes a Business Practice Standard?

While the desk clerk claimed that requiring guests checking in to sign a 'no party policy' was standard, one particular guest who was required to sign it insists she was singled out due to her race. Felicia Gonzales, a 51-year old Californian black woman, was attempting to check in to the Residence Inn by Marriott Portland Downtown/Convention Center when asked to sign the 'no party policy." The desk clerk said that all guests were required to sign the same policy. Gonzales accepted that the 'no party policy' was standard practice at the hotel until she witnessed white guests checking in without being asked to sign the 'no party policy.' For the practice to be "standard," it would need to be required of all guests, not just certain guests.

What Is a 'No Party' Policy?

' The 'no party policy' was allegedly two pages long and included a variety of potentially discriminatory information including:

• Noise limits

• Instruction not to "insinuate distrust" in other guests

• Clarification that hotels do not want to have parties and that their hotel did not want that sort of business

• Notification that guests were responsible for any missing items from suites

• Notification that guests were responsible for any damage "invited or uninvited people" cause to the outside hotel property

Why Was Gonzales Asked to Sign the 'No Party' Policy?

Gonzales was a Marriott rewards member and had not had any problems in the past. She had never had a noise complaint at the hotel or any Marriott hotel. Gonzales signed the policy so she could check into her room; the desk clerk would not check her in for her five-night stay unless she signed. But being required to sign a 'no party' policy did not feel right, so she went back to the check-in desk later and observed numerous white guests checking in for their stay. There was no mention of the 'no party policy' to any of the white guests Gonzales saw checking in to the Residence Inn.

The $300K Discrimination Lawsuit:

Gonzales, the plaintiff in the suit, seeks $300,000. She claims the situation was frustrating, embarrassing, and humiliating, and that she felt racially stigmatized. It is noted in Gonzales' discrimination lawsuit that it could be amended to seek $1 million in punitive damages at a later date. Marriott does not comment on pending lawsuits.

If you need to discuss discrimination violations or if you need to file a 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.

Bay Area Solar Panel Installation Company Settles Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

In recent news, a Bay Area solar panel installation company was ordered to pay a settlement to settle a discrimination lawsuit. The East Bay solar company was allegedly denying their services to anyone management believed had Middle Eastern or Indian names. Racial discrimination of this type was supposedly standard practice at the company.

The Terms of the Settlement: Resolving Racial Discrimination Claims 

Fidelity Home Energy Inc. (out of San Leandro) and their successor, NorCal Home Systems Inc. (based out of Concord), paid $350,000 to a former employee. The two are also required to hire a consultant. Both actions are required to resolve the racial discrimination lawsuit. 

Racial Discrimination as a Standard Business Practice:

A former employee of NorCal Home Systems Inc., Ayesha Faiz, is of Afghan origin. Allegedly during Faiz’s first week on the job as a telemarketing supervisor, she learned that all prospective home energy systems clients whose names were considered Middle Eastern or Indian were rejected for sales appointments as a standard practice.  

The lawsuit claims that Faiz actively observed supervisors as they flagged customer records in the company’s internal database. Potential home energy systems customers with names that appeared to be Middle Eastern or Indian were placed on a “do not call list.” Faiz claims she was required to reject all the flagged potential customers and to expect her subordinates to do the same. These discriminatory actions occurred almost every day.

Alleged Discriminatory Behavior in the Workplace:

In addition to the standard business practice of placing all prospective customers with Middle Eastern or Indian names on a “do not call” list, Faiz claims she saw a post-it note on an employee’s computer that read, “No Indians.” She claims that some employees added notes to prospective customers’ records in the database with discriminatory comments like “Indian Name!” and “We won’t run this.”

Faiz was not only forced to discriminate against potential customers but specifically against potential customers of her own national origin, which left her so distressed that she quit her job after only a few weeks. During her resignation, Faiz told the company that it made her sick to know the company refuses service to any specific group or ethnicity - to go out of the way to single them out.

Faiz’s allegations described a hostile work environment, which violates the Civil Rights Act that prohibits employers from discriminating due to national origin. According to the terms of the settlement, Fidelity and NorCal will pay money for damages (as agreed) and hire an EEO consultant to help revise policies and procedures. The company is also required to update its database to remove the option to screen customer records by national origin, race, or ethnicity. The company is also expected to post a notice to all employees about the order.

If you need to file a racial 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.