SpaceX Faces Hiring Discrimination Complaint

Elon Musk’s rocket company SpaceX is facing claims that their hiring practices are discriminatory against non-U.S. citizens. 

All the Details of the Case: United States of America v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., d/b/a SpaceX

Court: United States District Court for the central district of California

Case No.: 2:21-mc00043

The U.S. Department of Justice is currently investigating SpaceX due to alleged company-wide discriminatory practices against non-U.S. citizens during the hiring process. The company was issued a subpoena for information, but court documents indicate that the company is not responding with the info. 

Alleged Discrimination During Hiring Process Based on Citizenship: 

The investigation started after the DOJ received an employment discrimination complaint from a non-U.S. citizen. The individual claimed that SpaceX discriminated against him due to his citizenship status. 

A Summary of the Case History: United States of America v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., d/b/a SpaceX

It is alleged that in March 2020, during an interview for a Technology Strategy Associate position at SpaceX, the company asked questions about the applicant’s citizenship status. Ultimately, the applicant was not hired. The applicant claims the company chose not to hire him for the position because he is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a request for a judge to order SpaceX to comply with an administrative subpoena seeking hiring practice documentation. 

Allegations of Discrimination in the Hiring Process at SpaceX:

A non-U.S. citizen made the original allegation of discriminatory hiring practices. After interviewing for an open position at SpaceX, the applicant got in touch with the DOJ’s Employee Rights Section to complain about SpaceX’s hiring practices. The applicant alleges that he was not hired for the open SpaceX position because he was not a U.S. citizen. 

In response to the complaint, the DOJ started an investigation.  

Is the DOJ’s Request for Supporting Documentation Burdensome? 

According to the DOJ, they notified SpaceX of the open investigation on June 8, 2020, and requested the company provide information related to the standard hiring and employment eligibility verification process currently in use. Court documents indicate that SpaceX responded in August 2020, providing a Form I-9 spreadsheet with info about employees dating back through June 2019, but refused the DOJ’s requests for additional documentation like copies of SpaceX employees’ social security cards, driver’s licenses, and passports. They obtained a subpoena on October 7, 2020. After a petition to the DOJ administrative tribunal to dismiss the subpoena was denied, SpaceX was again ordered to comply. On December 11, 2020, SpaceX responded, stating that they would not provide additional documentation in response to the administrative subpoena. The IER argues the additional documentation is necessary as it will show the extent of non-U.S. citizen hires at the company, while SpaceX claims it is a burdensome request since they would allegedly need to retrieve each document manually.                        

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from workplace retaliation, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Alleged Discrimination and Retaliation at Pinterest Lead to Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit

After agreeing to a settlement in a recent discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, Pinterest is facing more legal trouble. Another lawsuit is making its way through the courts claiming breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and violation of 14(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the allegations in the lawsuit arise from an alleged systemic culture, policy, and practice of illegal discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

All the Details on the Case: Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island v. Silbermann, Sharp, Jordan, Levine, Rajaram, Reynolds, Wilson, Kilgore, Morgenfeld, and Pinterest, Inc. (Nominal Defendant)

Case Number: 3:20-cv-08438

Filed: Nov. 30, 2020

Court: Northern District of California San Francisco Division

The Plaintiffs in the Case: The Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, derivatively on behalf of Pinterest, Inc. 

Defendant: Benjamin Silbermann, Evan Sharp, Jeffrey Jordan, Jeremy Levine, Gokul Rajaram, Fredric Reynolds, Michelle Wilson, Leslie Kilgore, and Todd Morgenfeld, Defendants, and Pinterest, Inc., Nominal Defendant. 

Pinterest’s Alleged Discrimination and Retaliation in the Workplace: 

The shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in November 2020 in the Northern District of California against Pinterest, Inc. The social media platform is a visual discovery search engine used to collect ideas that went public in April 2019. The cited complaint alleges that the platform executives breached their fiduciary duties to the company by ignoring a systemic (and long-standing) culture of retaliation and discrimination. Allegedly, the company provided unequal salaries to females and racial minorities, and also failed to provide equal promotional opportunities for women based on experience and skill. 

Complaint Alleges Four Causes of Action Against Defendants:

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty

• Waste of Corporate Assets

• Abuse of Control

• Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14A-9

Plaintiffs claim that Pinterest’s top executives boardmembers engaged in, facilitated or knowingly ignored discrimination and retaliation against Pinterest employees who spoke up or attempted to challenge the White, male leadership clique. 

Revised Version of the Complaint Filed December 31, 2020:

After the district judge assigned ordered the parties involved to revise the “copious redactions” in the original complaint, a revised version was filed on December 31, 2020. In the revised complaint, certain allegations are now public including the claim that the Pinterest Compensation Committee was aware of the inconsistent pay practices in place at Pinterest, but did not take action to oversee any discriminatory pay complaints. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: Pending 2021 Cases for the California Supreme Court

With several potentially significant pending cases scheduled to go before the California Supreme Court in 2021, California employers and employees should consider the possible implications. 

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (B294872, Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BC676917, Second Appellate District, April 7, 2020). 

According to lawsuit documents, the Plaintiffs in this case, Ducksworth and Pollock, allege race discrimination, and one of the Plaintiffs, Pollock, also alleges sexual harassment. 

The Plaintiff, Vazquez, Claims Jan-Pro Violated California Labor Law: 

According to the lawsuit documents, the Plaintiffs in this case were long-time customer service representatives at Tri-Modal Distribution Services or Tri-Modal. Neither of the two plaintiffs was promoted, but other customer service representatives were promoted. The Plaintiffs claim they were looked over for promotions because of discriminatory practices against African Americans, and filed suit citing the same allegation against Tri-Modal and two staffing agencies, Scotts Labor Leasing Company, and Pacific Leasing. 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

The trial court granted summary judgment for Scotts and Pacific since they were not involved in Tri-Modal’s decision to promote or not promote any specific employee. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s summary judgment finding both staffing agencies free of liability for any discrimination claims based on promotion or failure to promote due to uninvolvement in staffing decisions at Tri-Modal. The district court also granted summary judgement for Tri-Modal’s Executive Vice President, overruling Pollock’s hearsay objection to a declaration. The district court concluded Pollock’s claims are barred because no administrative complaint was filed within one year of the incident (per Government Code Section 12960). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grants of summary judgment and held that the trial court concluded correctly regarding Government Code Section 12960. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: 

If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts’ decisions, their decision could significantly increase liability for any discrimination allegations, particularly discrimination claims filed against joint employers like staffing agencies. Staffing agencies are typically not involved in day-to-day decisions regarding staffers they place at various clients’ operations, however, a dissenting opinion from the California Supreme Court on this case could mean more claims against California employers. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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 Pay Discrimination Claims Result in HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Paying $1.5M

HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise are well-known Bay Area tech giants. Together the companies will pay $1.45 million due to “systemic pay discrimination” allegations negatively affecting their female workforce.

The $1.5M Payment from HP & Hewlett Packard:

The $1.5 million is intended to cover back pay for close to 400 female employees of the two tech giants. The affected employees work for operations in California and three other states. The amount paid to the affected employees will also include interest.  

The Terms of the Settlement Resolving Gender Pay Discrimination Claims:

Under the terms of the settlement, HP and Hewlett Packard agreed to investigate compensation policies and actively seek ways to make sure the companies’ employment policies and practices (including record-keeping processes, and internal auditing of company records) comply with employment law. The tech giants are cooperating with the terms of the agreement, which should be good news for their female employees and future female employees.

Tech Giant Denies Gender Pay Discrimination Claims:

Hewlett Packard denied the discrimination allegations, but settled in order to put the entire matter in the past. The company insists that, as a company, they are dedicated to unconditionally including all employees (including pay equity issues) and do not discriminate on any basis, including gender, race, or sexual orientation. Since the tech giant firmly believes their current policies and business practices are strong and effectively provide equal pay for equal work, they believe the charges made in the case are without merit. However, they decided that it was in the best interests of the company and everyone involved to resolve the issue quickly by voluntarily settling with the plaintiffs.

Allegations of Pay Discrimination:

While the company repeatedly claimed that they do  not tolerate discrimination of any kind at their company, or in their business or employment policies or practices, the Labor Department found compensation disparities during routine employment law compliance checks. These disparities seemed to clearly indicate a disparity in compensation between Hewlett Packard’s male and female workers performing similar job duties in similar positions at the company.

If you need to discuss how to file a California gender pay discrimination lawsuit or if you have questions about identifying California Labor Law violations, 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.

Uber Facing San Francisco Discrimination Class Action Suit

A recent class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco claims Uber ratings posted by racially biased customers resulted in wrongful terminations.

Former Uber Drivers File Class Action Lawsuit in San Francisco Court:

A group of former Uber ride-share drivers filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco, California court including allegations that the company uses an evaluation system that is heavily influenced by racial and ethnic biases of riders/customers. According to the lawsuit, riders decide to cancel scheduled rides or provide lower ratings/scores based on the race or ethnicity of their driver.

The Uber Rating/Scoring System:

Since a lower score or rating affects a drivers employment and can, in fact, be a significant factor in the driver’s termination from their job, drivers can allegedly be fired because of their race or ethnicity. Plaintiffs claim that Uber has done nothing to correct this glaring issue tying lower scores and more firings due to rider race biases. In response, the plaintiffs turned to the court with a class action lawsuit claiming that firing a worker based on customer or rider ratings is illegal discrimination.

The Plaintiffs in the Case:

Thomas Liu of San Diego is the lead plaintiff in the case. Liu was deactivated as an Uber driver after his score fell below 4.6 (Uber’s minimum rating or standard). Liu is an Asian-American and claims that he experienced hostile behavior from riders due to his accent. Liu claims those hostile passengers gave him low ratings that affected his overall score and eventually endangered his job due to Uber’s standard rating requirements.

Racial Bias a Factor in Uber Transactions Like Tipping:

Many Uber drivers and the massive ride-share company itself, have made note of the racial bias that plays a part in certain aspects of the Uber transaction. One obvious aspect of the overall experience that can be affected is tipping. Overall ratings can also be affected, but they can also be challenged. This is especially true when user comments are being considered.

The class action lawsuit is expected to be heard soon in court.

If you need help with a workplace discrimination claim or other California Labor Code violation, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. 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.

Mitsubishi Electric US Facing Claims of Racial Harassment & Discrimination

Four Black construction workers in Mitsubishi Electric US’s escalator and elevator division filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging harassment and discrimination. 

Black Workers Allege Mitsubishi Electric US Supervisors Harassed and Discriminated

The four Mitsubishi Electric US workers filed suit in California Superior Court alleging that the company allowed their supervisors to harass them, use racial slurs and images, and discriminate against them by passing them over for training opportunities, pay raises, chances for overtime, and career advancement. 

Complaints of Race-Based Harassment and Discrimination Allegedly Ignored: 

The four plaintiffs in the case claim that in addition to the race-based harassment and discrimnation they were subjected to constantly on San Francisco Bay Area job sites, their complaints about the inappropriate behavior were ignored. Plaintiffs claim they complained directly to Mitsubishi’s Human Resources department with the original complaint dating back to 2016. Plaintiffs claim their complaints were ignored for years. When some of the offending employees were eventually disciplined, the plaintiffs claim Mitsubishi did nothing to prevent similar behavior in the future, and this inaction fed the hostile workplace environment. 

Plaintiffs Seek Monetary Damages and Court Order to Change Mitsubishi Policies: 

The plaintiffs in the case seek monetary damages, but they also seek changes to Mitsubishi policy. They’d like a court order for Mitsubishi to provide better training for their employees regarding common problems and issues like race discrimination, harasssment and retaliation. The plaintiffs would also like the court to order Mitsubishi to conduct more thorough investigations into similar incidents in the future and to take more effective action to address racist acts in the workplace and graffiti on job sites. 

The Lawsuit Includes Evidence of Extended Harassment: 

The lawsuit’s written allegations are supported by papers and images and evidence supporting the claims such as: photos of racist images, objects and graffiti allegedly taken at various Mitsubishi job sites. Some of the allegations made in the lawsuit include: 

• Supervisors calling plaintiffs “undesirables,” “lazy,” and the N-word. 

• Supervisors joking about lynching. 

• Visual images including “KKK,” swastikas, black monkeys, the N-word, Satanic stars, etc. at job sites. 

• A noose was left on a barricade next to one of the plaintiff’s assigned job areas (photo included in the lawsuit documentation). 

• Supervisors assigning the plaintiffs to menial job tasks, and assigning them as “helpers” to less experienced White workers despite experience or skill level. 

• One of the plaintiffs had a stroke (allegedly due to stress caused by the hostile work environment). He was allegedly fired while recuperating at home).

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California discrimination or wrongful termination 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.

UC San Diego Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Reaches a Settlement

A former UC San Diego Vice Chancellor filed a discrimination lawsuit in 2019. UC San Diego recently resolved the lawsuit by agreeing to a settlement. 

Former High-Ranking UC San Diego Employee Reaches a Settlement: 

Jean Ford was the Assoc. Vice Chancellor for UC San Diego Health Sciences Advancement. Ford filed a discrimination lawsuit in 2019 suing the UC Regents and Chancellor Pradeep Khosla. Ford alleges age discrimination, gender discrimination, and wrongful termination. 

The Plaintiff’s History on the Job: 

Before working for UC San Diego, Ford was with Columbia University Medical Center for a decade. She moved to San Diego to take her place at UC San Diego in 2015. In the lawsuit, Ford alleges that she experienced both discrimination and harassment from Chancellor Kholsa because she was female and over 40. When Ford complained about illegal conduct, she claimed she was retaliated against. In her complaint, Ford claimed that Kholsa promoted a younger, less experienced man as Ford’s new supervisor. In the course of her career, Ford has been a successful fundraiser for 25 years. UCSD recruited her and after recruiting her, they had their most successful year of fundraising - hitting almost $150 million under Ms. Ford’s guidance of fundraising efforts. 

The UC San Diego Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Settlement: 

The UC Regents approved the settlement agreement recently, but the terms of the settlement agreement were not made public. The plaintiff’s counsel indicated that all parties involved have amicably resolved the claims contained in the suit, and that none of the parties involved admits any wrongdoing. Unprecedented operational challenges due to the global Covid-19 pandemic and mandated court closures causing litigation delays were cited as reasons for the expedited resolution. 

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