Rite Aid Faces Allegations of Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination

A former RiteAid employee filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, sexual harassment, workplace retaliation, and discrimination based on an allegedly inappropriate text exchange with her RiteAid district manager.

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The Court: Superior Court of Fresno County

The Case No.: 19CECG00569

The Plaintiff: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Hanin Atalla, claims that during her employment at RiteAid, she engaged in a text exchange with her RiteAid district manager in which the district manager sent her lewd photographs. The text exchange occurred off-site and after hours, and the plaintiff and the district manager knew each other before the plaintiff’s employment at RiteAid. The plaintiff sued for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The Defendant: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The defendant in the case, Rite Aid Corp., is a drugstore chain (Thrifty Payless, Inc., dba RiteAid).

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

In Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., the trial court granted summary judgment regarding all claims in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s conclusion stating that the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of material fact regarding the requirement to show that the manager was acting in the capacity of a supervisor during the January 4, 2019 text exchange. They agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff had an extensive texting relationship with the district manager, and pairing that with the facts that the text exchange in question was offered outside of the workplace and after work hours led them to conclude it was a personal exchange based on their personal friendship rather than a work exchange. The Appellate court also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion regarding the wrongful termination claims - that the evidence indicates that the plaintiff was not terminated but that she resigned.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Determining the Burden of Proof in California Workplace Discrimination Lawsuits

On appeal, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding the burden of proof in a California workplace discrimination lawsuit.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

Lopez, the plaintiff in the case, worked for La Casa between 2002 and 2017. In 2014, Lopez was placed in a shelter manager position at a residential shelter for domestic violence victims. Two years after becoming a shelter manager, Lopez experienced complications after giving birth and notified the defendant regarding the situation. In response, the plaintiff claims that La Casa sent her harassing communications and did not make a reasonable effort to determine if Lopez’s disability could be accommodated. According to the lawsuit, La Casa declined to provide accommodations suggested by Lopez’s doctor. Lopez claims in the lawsuit that her efforts to return to work were denied, and she was forced out of her position with the nonprofit. Lopez also alleges that due to the Defendant misrepresenting the reason for her termination, she was denied a job at a different workplace.

The Defendant: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The defendant in the case, Casa de Las Madres, is a domestic violence shelter.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

On appeal, the court affirmed a judgment in favor of the Defendant. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code 12945(a)(3)(A), proof that 1) the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is required, 2) that accommodations were requested on the advice of a health care professional, 3) the employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation, and 4) the plaintiff could perform essential job functions if reasonable accommodations were provided. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court was correct in applying these requirements with the burden properly placed on Lopez, the plaintiff, to prove the condition relating to pregnancy existed and that she could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodations provided.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Farmers Group Victorious Against Age Discrimination Claims

A California jury sided with Farmers Group stating that California employment laws do not apply because the insurance agents filing discrimination claims are independent contractors.

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs in the case are former California-based insurance agents claiming that they were discriminated against for their age. The plaintiffs allege that Farmers Group fired them based on their age so they could replace them with younger, “more productive” workers. The plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence showing Farmers Group saved 440% on commissions by replacing established agents.

The Defendant: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Farmers Group Inc., argued that the insurance agents were independent contractors, not employees and that labor law did not apply to independent contractors. While the plaintiffs attempted to argue that Farmers Group imposed performance standards, office requirements, etc., that effectively “controlled” as they would an employee, the defendant argued that the evidence showed they were independent contractors:

• Farmers Group argued that the agents could not state what Farmers Group does

• I couldn’t identify their “sales managers.”

• Filed their own taxes

• Declared themselves sole proprietors or independent contractors to the IRS

• And dedicated their office equipment, supplies, etc., on their taxes as a sole proprietor/independent contractor would

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

In the case, James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al., Farmers Group Inc. was cleared of discrimination and wrongful termination allegations. The eight-week trial was followed by two days of deliberations. Still, the former California-based insurance agents claiming the company discriminated against them for their age so they could replace them with younger workers had their claims dismissed when jurors determined the four plaintiffs were, in fact, independent contractors, so Farmers did not violate California labor law.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination or 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

ADP Facing Fired Manager’s Disability Bias and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, a former manager filed a mental disability discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit alleging ADP violated labor law.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The Court: U.S. District Court Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:2022cv00898

The Plaintiff: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff in the case, Nathaniel Rutledge, was a manager for ADP from March 2019 until the company terminated his employment on August 27, 2021. After the death of his brother, Rutledge was instructed to join a video call with ADP’s Director of Associates, Sonya Everett, and Lead Investigative Security Agent, Michael Paulhus. Everett told Rutledge they were conducting a wellness check because there were indications Rutledge was “struggling.” According to the plaintiff, they did not indicate what prompted the situation. They immediately began asking a series of questions that felt like an interrogation, repeatedly demanding the plaintiff turn on the camera even though he wasn’t feeling well and was uncomfortable doing so. After Rutledge said he didn’t want to continue the call without being told what the meeting was about, the company placed him on leave and advised him he was required to obtain clearance from their Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider before returning to work. Rutledge assured the EAP counselor he had no mental issues that affected his work, but the counselor recommended Rutledge see a therapist anyway. He did not, and two days later, the counselor sent a letter to the defendant notifying them of Rutledge’s non-compliance. When Rutledge was again invited to a video call the same day, he declined, stating that the last one made him very uncomfortable. Rutledge was fired the next day. The company claimed his refusal to take the video call was insubordinate. The company claimed they terminated his employment because he refused to participate in ongoing psychological treatment.

The Defendant: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff Rutledge filed disability harassment, wrongful termination, and emotional distress claims. The defendant in the case, ADP, is a payroll services company.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

FEHA explicitly prohibits an employer from harassing an employee because of a mental disability. To successfully argue a disability harassment claim, the plaintiff must show the following:

(1) they are a member of a protected class

(2) they were subject to unwelcome harassment

(3) the unwelcome harassment was based on their protected status

(4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with their work performance (by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment); and

(5) the defendants in the case are liable for the harassment

However, for the case to move forward, the plaintiff must only show that the defendant regarded them as disabled, thus creating a protected class and making them a part of the protected class. The defendant’s immediate motions to dismiss were denied.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Job Candidate Claims Discrimination: Is Workday’s AI Job Screening Tool Biased?

In recent news, Workday faces a lawsuit claiming that their AI job screening tool discriminates against certain job applicants.

The Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 23-cv-00770

The Plaintiff: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Derek Mobley, is a black man over 40 years old who suffers from anxiety and depression. Mobley claims he has applied to 80-100 job openings for companies using Workday's AI job screening tool since 2018. While Mosey holds a bachelor's degree in finance from Morehouse College and an associate's degree in network systems administration from ITT Technical Institute, his application was declined for every job. Mosley filed a class action complaint seeking to represent others who have also been affected by the screening tool's algorithm.

The Defendant: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Workday, Inc., the defendant in the case, is an HR and payroll SaaS firm. Workday's software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform is designed to help organizations manage their workforce and financial operations. One of the critical features of Workday's platform is its user interface, which is designed to be intuitive and user-friendly. The platform also uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to help automate routine tasks and provide insights into data. Workday's customers range from small and medium-sized businesses to large enterprises across various industries. The company is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. In the California discrimination lawsuit, Workday is accused of building algorithms for their AI job applicant screening tool that result in discrimination against Black applicants in their 40s.

The Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Mobley v. Workday, Inc. alleges that Workday unlawfully uses an algorithm-based job applicant screening system to determine if an employer should accept an application for employment with the decision based on the applicant's age, race, or disability.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Yield Monitor Claims Foster Poultry Farms Violated Labor Law

A former yield monitor for Foster Poultry Farms LLC claims the company violated labor law by engaging in discriminatory practices and failing to accommodate a disability.

The Case: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

The Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District

The Case No.: 17CECG03360

The Plaintiff: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Kaur, the plaintiff in the case, was employed as a yield monitor at Foster Poultry Farms LLC, a chicken processing facility. In 2013, she slipped on the job while wearing company-issued rubber boots. The incident left her with a broken left wrist. In May 2016, Foster Farms announced a restructuring. The following month, the labor relations manager told Kaur she was losing her job because Foster Poultry Farms was eliminating several positions. In July 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, claiming labor code violations.

The Allegations: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Kaur’s 2017 complaint alleged the following claims:

• Discrimination (based on race/nationality and disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA))

• Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (under FEHA)

• Failure to engage in an interactive process (under FEHA)

• Failure to take all appropriate measures to prevent discrimination (under FEHA)

• Retaliation for asserting FEHA rights

• Retaliation under section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code

The History of the Case: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

The plaintiff, Kaur, is of Indian origin. She testified that three company employees discriminated against her: one supply room worker and two supervisors. In 2019, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge denied the WCAB petition under section 132a. Kaur’s former employer filed a motion for summary judgment citing legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barring the plaintiff’s claims in light of the WCAB’s decision and the statute of limitations barring the discrimination claim based on race/national origin. The trial court agreed with the company’s arguments and granted summary judgment in its favor, but the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the trial court’s decision was reversed in connection with the plaintiff’s FEHA claims of disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in an interactive process. The court of appeal found that the WCAB’s decision denying the disability discrimination claim under section 132a had no preclusive effect under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Tesla Inc. Facing Allegations of Fostering Racial Discrimination and Harassment

In recent news, Tesla Inc. couldn't escape a California racial discrimination and harassment lawsuit alleging they fostered a hostile work environment in a Tesla factory in San Francisco Bay, California.

The Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, Alameda County

The Case No.: 22CV006830

The Allegations: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc., Tesla allegedly fostered a workplace environment that supported discrimination and harassment. According to the case, black workers at Tesla claimed they heard racial slurs at work as often as 50 to 100 times a day. In addition, they also regularly saw racist graffiti in the factory's bathrooms, on workstations, at lunch tables, etc. On top of that, black Tesla workers were allegedly paid less than their non-Black co-workers for substantially similar work.

The Defendant: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The defendant in the case, Tesla Inc., attempted to avoid the lawsuit requesting the court throw out the complaint. However, the court tentatively denied Tesla's request to dismiss the complaint in late August 2022. According to Tesla spokespeople, the company strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment and feels the lawsuit is misguided.

Details of the Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

Citing claims of hundreds of Black workers with evidence supporting their claims of general racially based mistreatment, harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation at Tesla's Fremont plant, the lawsuit is set to move forward. The original lawsuit was filed in February 2022, and Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo will consider the case. The defendant, Tesla Inc., is also defending against similar claims in a proposed class action on behalf of California factory workers in state court. Last year, a judge rejected Tesla's similar request to dismiss the claims made in the class action. Tesla denies any wrongdoing in relation to employment law violations and hostile workplace allegations and states they've implemented several policies in the last few years to prevent racial discrimination and harassment and establish consequences when they occur in their workplaces. In a case citing similar accusations, a former Tesla contractor was awarded a $137 million jury verdict due to racial abuse at the factory. A judge later said the award should be reduced to $15 million and that former contractor disagreed with the adjustment, so the case is headed for a retrial.

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.