$150,000 National Car Dealers Settlement to Resolve EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit

National Car Dealers to pay $150,000 settlement after worker allegedly fired after disclosing a potential cancer diagnosis filed an EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit.

The Case: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 2:20-cv-02245-MCE-KJN

The Allegations: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

According to the allegations in the case, the employers terminated one of their title clerks in a Sacramento dealership over a possible cancer diagnosis. The employee was suddenly ill and missed several days of work. Following the missed days, she informed management that she was hospitalized and diagnostic testing was being completed to search for signs of cancer. According to the suit, the company fired the title clerk one day before her planned return - despite a medical release that allowed her to continue working. In the termination letter the company stated that they advised her to “focus on her health,” and noted it was not a performance-related termination.

The Defendant: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

The alleged conduct on the part of the employer in the case violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on a disability or a perceived disability. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 10, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-02245-MCE-KJN). Before filling, the EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Case Details: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

Defendant will pay $150,000 as well as hire a consultant to assist in facilitating positive change to current policies and training practices. Doing so enables them to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit as per settlement negotiations. In the consent decree settling the disability discrimination lawsuit, the $150,000 is designated as lost wages and emotional distress damages for workers. The companies are required to put new policies and procedures (or updated, revised policies and procedures) in place to offer reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Doing so requires them to retain an ADA consultant. Additionally, leave-based terminations will now require secondary reviews, and the company will begin to offer annual training to management and human resources personnel. Finally, the company will also start submitting reports to the EEOC during the three-year term of the settlement decree.

If you have questions about California employment law 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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

After Being Ousted from “Jackass Forever” Movie, Bam Margera Sues

Bam Margera claims he was coerced into signing an agreement requiring him to submit to drug tests, use a breathalyzer 3x/day, and take his medications under the watch of a witness via Facetime.

The Case: Margera et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 21STCV29254

The Plaintiff: Margera

Margera, the plaintiff in the case, claims he signed the Wellness Agreement requiring him to submit to drug tests, take medication over Facetime under the watch of a witness, and use a breathalyzer 3x/day under duress while he was in rehab. Margera filed a lawsuit at the beginning of August claiming that forcing him to sign the Wellness Agreement mandating all cast members remain sober during the filming of the upcoming 4th movie in the popular (and long-running) prank series was psychological torture. Margera was fired from the film for breaking his wellness agreement when he did not remain sober throughout filming. Margera claims not only that the Wellness Agreement was a sham, but that he was ultimately fired for his protected class status due to his medical condition (ADHD), and his complaints about the discriminatory nature of the Defendant’s behavior and requirements for him during filming.

The Defendant: Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

Defendant, Paramount Pictures Corp. et al., claims that all cast members working on the Jackass Forever film were required to sign a Wellness Agreement. Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s claims saying that the suit is riddled with lies. Defendant claims that Margera’s allegations that he was accosted by costars/coworkers in rehab and browbeat into signing a sobriety contract are false. Other claims included in the suit that Defendant argues are false include:

• Margera claims he was fraudulently induced or coerced into signing a talent agreement with Paramount; Paramount claims this is a lie.

• Margera claims paramount hired a doctor to force Margera to take a regimen of medication prescribed to Margera against his will; Paramount claims this is absurd and did not happen.

• Margera claims that he complied with the Wellness Program; Paramount claims he breached it.

• Margera claims he was fired for taking Adderall as a prescribed treatment for ADHD; Paramount claims the Adderall in Margera’s system was not prescribed and that Margera admitted he purchased it off the street.

Summary of the Case: Margera et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

In response to the August filing, Paramount responded with a special motion to strike claims for unfair competition and copyright infringement under California’s anti-SLAPP statute; which is intended to stop frivolous lawsuits arising from free speech claims on public issues. The filing immediately pauses discovery in any dispute. L.A. Superior Court Judge Draper’s tentative ruling on December 17, 2021, found the matter arises from “the creation, development, release, and distribution of Jackass Forever.” The judge acknowledged that the movie is intended for global distribution and has attracted additional attention due to the legal dispute, but he also found the minimal merit necessary in Margera’s claims what allows them to survive the anti-SLAPP motion and continue to discovery. While Defendants may ultimately prevail in the case, the SLAPP statute’s accelerated hearing ​​determined that the plaintiff should have the chance to conduct discovery to identify specific examples of orally developed ideas that may have been used in the creation of the film. Margera alleges wrongful termination, discrimination, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help establishing a wrongful termination claim, please 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.

Dave Ramsey Allegedly Mocked & Fired Employee for Taking Precautions Against Covid-19 Exposure

According to a recent federal workplace discrimination lawsuit, Dave Ramsey required employees to disregard Covid-19 work from home orders and encouraged workers not to wear masks at mandatory 900+ person meetings.

The Case: Brad Amos v. the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions; Dave Ramsey

The Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-00923

The Plaintiff: Brad Amos

According to Brad Amos, the plaintiff in the case, he started work for Defendant in 2019. He took a senior video editor job with Ramsey’s media and live events company. In March 2020, he sold his family home and moved his family to the area. According to Amos, the problem occurred when he asked to work from home out of concern for the potential workplace transmission of coronavirus.

The Defendant: Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions; Dave Ramsey

Dave Ramsey, the defendant in the case, is a personal finance guru, evangelical Christian bestselling author, and media mogul. Allegedly, when employees wanted to work from home instead of coming to the office he described them as being guilty of "weakness of spirit." Amos was particularly concerned about potential workplace transmission of the coronavirus because he has a young son with Coats' disease, a rare affliction that can restrict blood and oxygen to the retina, and a wife with a predisposition for pneumonia.

Summary of the Case: Brad Amos v. the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions; Dave Ramsey

The anti-debt advocate and radio host, Ramsey, initially allowed Amos to work from home per his request, but he received a demotion to assistant video editor. Amos also alleges that information about his family that was supposed to be confidential was shared throughout upper management. In May 2020, Amos said he returned to the office as required, but he was fired two months later. Amos described the workplace environment as discriminatory, saying that employees who work masks to meetings were derided or mocked by coworkers and superiors. Amos charges Ramsey Solutions with religiously discriminating and retaliating against him by wrongfully terminating his employment in July 2020 because he refused to adhere to the company’s zealous Covid-19 strategy based on praying and continuing to “move forward.” The plaintiff seeks back pay and damages.

The Defendant’s Response: Brad Amos v. the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions; Dave Ramsey

Defendant responded publicly to the suit, saying that the allegations are full of false statements and claiming the suit is without merit. The company claims Amos was not fired for his beliefs or actions related to Covid-19, but that he was fired during a meeting with leaders at the company to discuss his poor work performance at which he insulted his most senior leader. Amos is not the first employee to file suit against Ramsey’s company, but he is the latest. Ramsey Solutions already faced allegations in September from Julie Anne Stamps, a lesbian who came out during her time of employment who claims she felt forced to resign because the company did not agree with her lifestyle. Caitlin O’Connor, another former employee, filed a federal lawsuit in July 2021 claiming she was fired because she was pregnant, but not married to the father of her baby. Ramsey Solutions’ attorneys claim that O’Connor was not fired because she was not married to the father of her baby, but that she was fired for premarital sex (in addition to 12 other employees).

If you have questions about California employment law 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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Employer Faces Lawsuit After Refusing to Hire Applicant Who Wouldn’t Cut His Dreadlocks

In recent news, an African American man was allegedly refused a job by a California employer after refusing to cut his dreadlocks.

The Case: Thornton vs. Encore Global

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

The Case No.: 37-2021-00049996-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Thornton

Jeffrey Thornton, the plaintiff in the case, filed a discrimination lawsuit in California state court claiming that Encore Global refused him a job as a technical supervisor. An unnamed manager at the company allegedly told Thornton that he had to trim his hair off his eyes, ears, and shoulders before being hired. According to the lawsuit, to get the job Thornton would be required to change his hairstyle, which would mean altering his entire appearance, cultural identity, and racial heritage.

The Defendant: Encore Global

The Defendant in the case, Encore Global, is an event planning company based in Illinois, but with an office in San Diego, California. The San Diego location is where Thornton applied for a job as a technical supervisor. Thornton was already employed by the company for four years at a Florido location before he was furloughed in March 2020 as a result of the pandemic. In response to the lawsuit, Encore stated that the plaintiff misunderstood what the hiring manager said and that Thornton is welcome to rejoin their staff.

Details of the Case: Thornton vs. Encore Global

According to the lawsuit, Encore Global has a personal appearance policy that discriminates against Black people. Thornton is suing the company for an undetermined amount of compensatory damages. Encore Global argues that they regret any miscommunication with Thornton about standard grooming policies at Encore Global and that he appears to fully comply with their standards. They also state that they have made him an offer of employment, and have officials at the company reviewing their grooming policies to ensure future miscommunications of this type are avoided in the future.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace, please 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.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Former Household Manager Claims Harassment & Discrimination

The former household manager for the Zuckerberg/Chan household claims he was groped and propositioned during his time on staff.

The Case: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, Central

The Case No.:CGC-21-595337

The Plaintiff: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

John Doe, as the plaintiff is referred to in the court documents, is the former household manager for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan. Doe filed suit against the billionaire couple and a string of family-related corporate entities claiming employment law violations. Doe, an openly gay man, worked as the Household Operations Manager for the family from January 2017 to March 2019.

The Defendant: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

The defendants in the case are Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, along with numerous family-related corporate entities.

The Case: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

John Doe’s lawsuit makes similar allegations as those made in Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, et al. Doe claims he was subjected to a repeated pattern of discrimination and harassment at the hands of his senior managers and senior personnel at MPPR. Discrimination and harassment were allegedly based on Doe’s sex, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and medical condition. In his job as household operations manager, Doe was responsible for managing various properties for the family. Doe personalized each hotel, property and residence according to Zuckerberg's specified aesthetic and comfort preferences. In summary, his job duties included travel, cataloging furniture, performing various household tasks, and completing menial labor tasks on different Zuckerberg family properties. According to the lawsuit, Doe was often subjected to sexual harassment from those in supervisory positions. For example, according to the allegations, at an MPPR hosted event at a sushi venue, the man made an explicit gesture to Doe with his food, slapped Doe’s groin when he walked by, and ignored Doe’s requests to stop - instead responding by groping Doe. Other alleged harassing activities and communications are outlined in the court documents as well. While the harassment occurred regularly in front of other employees, managers, and agents of MPPR, the company did nothing to stop the negative behaviors, investigate the harassment or protect Doe from future incidents. Doe also claims that he was required to work as many as 17 hours a day with no overtime compensation, despite classification as an hourly employee, there were few or no breaks for rest periods or meals, and his epilepsy was not taken into consideration by supervisors when the long hours without breaks began to have a negative effect on the condition and Doe advised them of the situation. He also advised his supervisors that it was dangerous to require him to carry heavy loads or climb ladders considering his medical condition, but allegedly no compensation was made for his disabilities. When Doe took his complaints to HR he claims they were categorized as gossip and he was brought to task for insubordination.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a discrimination or harassment lawsuit, please 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.

Former Zuckerberg Security Operations Assistant Makes Discrimination, Harassent and Retaliation Claims

A former Security Operations Assistant in the employ of Limitless Specialty Services LLC, the company that provides the staff for the personal and household needs of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, filed a lawsuit claiming she was persistently harassed on the job. Her claims also included discrimination, retaliation and other employment law violations.

The Case: Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC,et al

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco

The Case No.: CGC-21-595332

The Plaintiff: Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC,et al

Mia King, the plaintiff, is described as a black woman and member of the LGBTQ community who was employed as a Security Operations Assistant for Limitless Specialty Services LLC. Limitless Specialty Services LLC works with the Zuckerberg family, and a string of other corporate entities allegedly tied to Chan-Zuckerberg and Limitless Specialty to provide security services for the Zuckerberg family. King was employed from May 2018 through February 2019. After she was fired from her position, King filed a lawsuit alleging racial, gender, sexual orientation and disability harassment.

The Defendant: Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC,et al

The Defendants listed in the case, Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan, and several others associated with the employment of staff managing the couple’s personal and household affairs. According to court documents filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, the employees were allegedly subjected to a variety of employment law violations including: racial, gender, sexual orientation and disability discrimination and harassment, wage theft, other illegal employment practices, retaliation and wrongful termination.

The Case: Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC,et al

The lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2021 asking for compensatory and punitive damages of unspecified amounts and injunctive relief. If the allegations are found true, they call into question the conditions minorities and disabled employees are subjected to while working to protect and serve the Zuckerberg family. The Chan Zuckerberg family office spokesperson did offer a statement regarding the allegations claiming that the complaints were investigated, but could not be substantiated. According to the lawsuit, King’s supervisor regularly made comments insinuating she did not deserve her position, but her hiring was a result of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s diversity goals that required he hire a black woman. He also allegedly criticized her natural hair style describing it as “unprofessional” as well as frequently referring to her and other black individuals as “ghetto.” The supervisor also allegedly made other discriminatory remarks in the workplace that were derogatory and inappropriate, and repeatedly invoked negative, racially derogatory stereotypes about King, other employees and even Priscilla Chan. King claims she complained numerous times to supervisors, but nothing was done. In January 2019, King met with her supervisor for a performance evaluation. He praised her work, but denied her requests for overtime (for work already completed). He criticized several employees for reporting inappropriate comments he made. King claims she faced severe retaliation for complaints raised with upper management. On Feb. 14, 2019, the supervisor issued a formal disciplinary writeup against King claiming there was an insubordination. She claims she was also disciplined because when she reported her supervisor’s homophobic, sexist, and racist comments toward other employees in the workplace, she was exhibiting a “lack of discretion.” King complained about the retaliation to upper management on Feb. 19, 2019, and received notice the same day that her claims were unsubstantiated. She was fired the next day on Feb. 20, 2021.

If you have questions about California employment law 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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Activision Fails to Convince California Court to Halt Discrimination & Harassment Case

Activision’s request to halt the sexual harassment and discrimination case to allow more time for investigation into the ethics allegations against the agency was denied.  

The Case: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard 

The Court: California Superior Court

The Case No.: 21STCV26571

The Plaintiff: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

California’s civil rights agency sued Activision Blizzard in Los Angeles Superior Court in July 2021. The lawsuit alleged that the company fostered a“frat boy” culture that left their female employees subjected to frequent sexual harassment, unequal pay, and workplace retaliation. The agency claims they conducted a two-year investigation into the Activision company leadership prior to filing that showed consistent failures to take action preventing discrimination related to equal pay, promotion, termination, etc. As the case progressed, Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing accused Activision of suppressing and destroying evidence. The Defendant denied the accusation.  

The Defendant: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

The Defendant is Activision Blizzard Inc., the maker of Call of Duty and other video games. On October 19, 2021, Activision asked the court to pause the proceedings; requesting time to investigate ethics allegations against the agency, and possibly bring a motion to disqualify specific attorneys. 

Details of the Case: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

On October 19, 2021, Activision asked the court to pause the proceedings; requesting time to investigate ethics allegations against the agency, and possibly bring a motion to disqualify specific attorneys involved. The request stemmed from a parallel federal lawsuit against Activision involving the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The federal agency agreed to a proposed settlement with Activision in September 2021. The proposed settlement would resolve discrimination and retaliation claims with a proposed $18 million settlement. The DFEH objected to the proposed settlement, arguing that the proposed agreement also released Activision from state claims that the EEOC lacks standing to prosecute. The EEOC asked the federal court to block DFEH’s attempt to intervene claiming that its investigation into the Defendant was led by two attorneys who eventually joined DFEH (in leadership roles). DFEH, after being informed of the conflict, retained new counsel. However, the EEOC argued that the intervention motion was filed only hours after the new counsel was retained, indicating strongly that the action was the product of the previous counsel. Los Angeles Superior Court denied Activision’s motion to stay without prejudice. However, the court did not block Activision from pursuing discovery on the alleged ethics violations issue. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or or how employment law protects you against discrimination and harassment in the workplace, please 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.