SmartTalent Staffing Agency Allegedly Refused to Place Women per Client Requests

SmartTalent, a Gig Harbor, Washington-based staffing agency, faces allegations that they complied with client demands to refuse to place females.

The Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01102-RSM 

The Allegations: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

According to the lawsuit, EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC, SmartTalent staffing agency made a practice of honoring requests some of their business clients made to fill positions with strictly male applicants. Allegedly, the staffing agency violated employment law by refusing to place females in open positions per client demands. The lawsuit alleges that SmartTalent managers trained recruiters to fill gender-based recruitment requests to keep their company's clientele satisfied. As a result of this standard practice at the agency, SmartTalent specifically advised female workers that specific jobs were not available or that certain jobs would not be a good fit based on their sex. Specifically, SmartTalent told women that warehouse jobs were mainly for men, labor-intensive jobs were too hard, and that women didn't belong in these types of positions.

The Defendant: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The defendant in the case, SmartTalent, LLC, is a staffing agency based out of Gig Harbor, Washington. Their contingent and temp workers are part of a large group of workers vulnerable to losing employment opportunities, which frequently occurs due to client preferences regarding long-standing stereotypes of men's or women's work.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

SmartTalent, LLC's alleged conduct on behalf of its clients violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids using gender-based criteria in employment practices. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the women workers affected by SmartTalent's alleged discriminatory practices, and the lawsuit seeks lost wages and monetary damages (including compensation for emotional distress). The suit also seeks punitive damages and injunctive relief (like a permanent injunction and ongoing monitoring procedures to ensure that SmartTalent policies and practices comply in the future). Lawsuits like EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC assist in removing unnecessary barriers to employment and remedying class-wide sex discrimination by staffing agencies and employers, which is critical for the health of the workforce.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

BaronHR and Radiant Services Face Discriminatory Recruitment and Hiring Lawsuit

In recent news, BaronHR and Radiant Services have been accused of discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices.

The Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

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

The Case No.: 2:22-cv-06517

Staffing Agencies & Employers in a Dual-Employer Relationship: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

In EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, two entities are accused of violating employment law due to a dual-employer relationship. When staffing agencies and employers work together in a dual-employer relationship, they are both responsible for complying with employment law. A discrimination-free workplace is required by employment law, and preferential hiring has no place in the workforce. When a staffing agency agrees to discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices requested by an employer, the liability for the employment law violation extends from the employer to the staffing agency.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, the defendants in EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, face allegations of employment law violations as dual employers. BaronHR is a national staffing agency that works with Radiant Services Corporation, a commercial laundry facility that provides services in Southern California’s hospitality industry. The two face accusations of discriminatory denial of work based on race, national origin, and sex. According to the case documents, BaronHR and Radiant have avoided recruiting, referring, and hiring Black, Asian, and White applicants for low-skill jobs since 2015. The company allegedly requested women applicants for particular “light” jobs and only men for other “heavy” jobs. According to the lawsuit, BaronHR fulfilled the company’s request to recruit new hires based on sex. In addition to recruiting applicants based on sex, the company also required applicants to have no medical conditions or past injuries, which excluded qualified individuals with disabilities (perceived disabilities or past disabilities) from any open positions at the company.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Federal law prohibits screening qualified job applicants to exclude individuals or groups based on sex, race, national origin, or disability. A policy that supports the practice violates employment law and creates an unhealthy, likely hostile work environment.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$100M Riot Games Workplace Gender Discrimination Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval

In recent news, the court granted preliminary approval to the proposed $100 million settlement to resolve workplace gender discrimination claims against Riot Games.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 18STCV03957

The Plaintiff: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

In 2018, the plaintiffs in the case, Melanie McCracken and Jess Negrón, filed a class action lawsuit against Riot Games in California federal court, arguing their former employer violated the California Equal Pay Act due to the allegedly hostile workplace. The female employees claimed Riot Games fostered a workplace culture of gender discrimination and harassment.

The Defendant: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The defendant in the case, Riot Games, was founded in 2006. The company develops, publishes, and supports player-focused games worldwide. In 2009, the company released its debut title, League of Legends, which received worldwide recognition. League has since become the most-played PC game in the world and a significant component in the explosive growth of esports.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

Previously, McCracken and Negrón agreed to a $10 million settlement with Riot Games. However, California's Department of Fair Employment Housing (DFEH) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement halted the settlement after determining the amount inadequate for the case. The new settlement agreement calls for Riot Games to pay at least $80 million of the settlement in compensation to current and former female employees and contractors (employed by Riot Games between November 6th, 2014 to the present). According to the agreement, Riot Games will also put $6 million in a cash reserve for the next three years to fund programs designed to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion. The settlement agreement also requires Riot Games to hire third-party experts to ensure it improves its workplace culture by incorporating compliance audits and gender-equity analyses for the company. Judge Elihu M. Berle, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, approved the $100 million settlement on July 22nd, 2022. The settlement resolves claims that Riot Games' workplace was filled with systemic gender discrimination and harassment against female employees and temp workers. Under the agreement, approximately 1,065 female Riot employees and about 1,300 temp contract workers will receive a minimum of $80 million (with an additional $20 million paid in attorneys fees).

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss workplace discrimination violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Credit One Bank HR Generalist’s Disability Suit Proceeds After Ninth Circuit Reversal

Due to District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey’s reversal, a former HR Generalist’s disability claim against Credit One Bank will proceed.

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-15647

The Plaintiff: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff in the case, Karen Shields, was an HR Generalist for Credit One Bank. After she took a medical leave of absence (citing an accommodation under the ADA), Shields claims her position was eliminated. According to Shields, her employer failed to accommodate her disability. Instead of allowing or providing appropriate accommodations after Shields underwent a bone biopsy surgery on her right shoulder and arm, the plaintiff claims that her employer terminated her from her human resources job.

The Defendant: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The defendant in the case, Credit One Bank, argued that Shields failed to plead a disability because she didn’t adequately support a claim showing a physical or mental impairment that would “substantially limit one or more major life activities.” The district court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the argument that Shields failed to adequately establish she had an “impairment” or “permanent or long term effects from an impairment.”

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit noted that the broadened ADA and applicable EEOC regulations protect effects of “an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months (29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix)). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit court held that Shields, the plaintiff in the case, adequately alleged a disability under the ADA standards.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a wage and hour 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 Diversity Recruiter Sues Google for Discrimination

April Curley, former diversity recruiter for Google, filed a class-action discrimination lawsuit. The class-action joins a long list of legal action from former employees ranging from sexual harassment to gender discrimination, many resulting in significant settlements.

The Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division

The Case No.: 4:22-cv-01735-YGR

The Plaintiff: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, April Curley, is a former Diversity Recruiter for Google, LLC. Curley was hired to work for Google in 2014. She claims that during her six years with the tech giant she helped them hire 500 students from historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). In March, Curley filed a class-action lawsuit in a California federal court alleging that Black employees at Google were told they didn’t get the corporate “culture,” they weren’t “googly” enough, and were often pigeon-holed into jobs with no chance for advancement, less visibility, deficient pay, etc. Curley also claims that black employees often received harsher job reviews, were given tougher interview questions, and were always asked to show their badge or other proof of employment. In response to the inconsistencies between her work as a Diversity Recruiter and actual business practices she alleges she saw in force at Google, Curley was very clear with her leadership about what needed to be changed. Instead of rewarding her for being proactive, Curley claims the company retaliated against her by subjecting her to policies and behaviors that she alleges were blatantly racist and biased. Curley claims they were both degrading and emotionally damaging. In 2020, Curley was terminated. Now she’s suing the company for systemic discrimination.

The Defendant: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Defendant in the case, Google, LLC, is a tech giant that has faced a long string of legal battles with discrimination claims ranging from age discrimination to pregnancy discrimination. In April Curley v. Google, LLC, the company faces accusations of racial discrimination from one of their former Diversity Recruiters, April Curley.

Details of the Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

Curley claims that during her time at the company, her white managers told her the way she speaks is a disability that should be disclosed to partners internally and externally before she conducts any meetings. She also claims that leadership at Google told her she was intimidating and unwelcoming so she was never considered for leadership positions. (The same woman who advised Curley of this also advised her that Google couldn’t afford her promotion). The Curley v. Google, LLC lawsuit seeks a court injunction to change policy and obtain back pay for Curley and other black employees allegedly denied promotion opportunities. Parties in the case are scheduled to be back in court on July 11th, 2022 for a Cas Management Conference.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss labor law violations 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.

Former Employee Sues PlayVS Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination

In recent news, PlayVS faces allegations that they engaged in pregnancy discrimination against a former employee.

The Case: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV08523

The Plaintiff: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Waynick, is a former quality assurance analyst for PlayVS. According to the complaint, Waynick started working for PlayVS in January 2021 and advised PlayVS that she was pregnant on June 10, 2021. Allegedly, once they were aware of her pregnancy, the company placed her in a performance improvement plan. When Waynick complained about the discriminatory situation to Human Resources, she claimed the company ignored her complaint. Waynick claims that she was bullied and treated with hostility in the workplace leading to extreme stress. Due to pregnancy complications, her doctor advised her to take a leave. Waynick claims she was locked out of her computer when she returned from her leave. Later that same day, she was terminated on August 16, 2021.

The Defendant: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Play Versus or PlayVS, is a high school esports platform. The company is being sued for wrongful termination by Waynick, a former employee who describes a pattern of harassment and a hostile workplace.

More About the Case: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

Waynick claims PlayVS violated five different counts of California labor, including discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, pregnancy leave violation, and wrongful termination.

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.

Playstation’s Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Dismissed by California Court

California court recently dismissed discrimination and retaliation claims against Playstation. However, they did note that further testimonies from additional women could be heard in a second filing.

The Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: United States District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-09054

The Plaintiff: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Emma Majo, is a former Sony IT Staffer. Majo worked in Sony’s PlayStation Network department as an IT security risk analyst for six years before she was fired. The case left the court determining whether Sony engaged in systemic gender discrimination and failed to implement an effective system to prevent pay discrimination. According to the complaint, Majo’s department showed a 60-40 gender split upon her hiring, but the department is now male-dominated. Details of Majo’s case hint at broader institutional gender discrimination issues.

The Defendant: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The defendant in the case, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, denies allegations of pay disparity, wrongful termination, and other gender-based discrimination. As a result, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Summary of the Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The United States District Court of North California granted PlayStation’s “motion to dismiss.” However, the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The motion to dismiss was granted for most claims because the allegations were most conclusory. Some individual claims survived, but the court does not have jurisdiction over the state claims after dismissing the federal claim, so all claims are dismissed. The court pointed out that Majo did not fully explain the allegations in the complaint. Still, the court acknowledged that three of the state claims had merit and noted that adding the additional eight women’s testimonies could lead to additional allegations. In concluding the ruling, the court indicated that the plaintiff might file a second amended complaint within 28 days. It’s likely the amended complaint, including the additional eight testimonies, will follow and allow the court the opportunity to fully examine them from the outset.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California age 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.