Sweetgreen Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations in Discrimination Lawsuit

/

In recent news, Sweetgreen faces allegations of labor law violations in a discrimination lawsuit. The complaint accuses the employer of discrimination, racial harassment, and a hostile work environment. The workers who filed the complaint claim that Sweetgreen’s upper management and human resources department ignored their complaints for years.

The Case: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 804089/2023E

The Plaintiffs: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The ten plaintiffs in the case, who are black, claim that human resources and upper management at Sweetgreen ignored their complaints of discrimination for years. The plaintiffs level their allegations at seven different NYC Sweetgreen locations and two different “head coaches” (the term Sweetgreen uses to refer to their general managers), Donald Izquierdo and Edwin Ventura. The lawsuit amended a previous lawsuit filed in March on behalf of two plaintiffs. The new complaint claims managers and other store employees regularly used the “N-word” and other similarly derogatory terms to refer to Black workers. The complaint also claims employees in supervisory/management positions on site also made racist and sexual comments to female workers and customers.

The Defendant: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The defendant in the case, SweetGreen, is a salad-making restaurant chain with multiple locations.

The Case: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs, who were Sweetgreen employees, allege that Sweetgreen and its management discriminated against their employees based on race and sex and created a hostile work environment in at least seven different NYC Sweetgreen locations. Ventura would allegedly disqualify Black job applicants, citing subjective objections. For instance, rejecting a female Black job applicant because she “looked like she had an attitude problem.” The plaintiffs noted that the comment was never applied to any non-Black job applicants. The case was filed in Bronx County Courts, Supreme Court Civil Term in Bronx, New York. The case is currently pending.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

Compass Group Faces Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

/

In recent news, Compass Group, a multinational corporation, faces discrimination and wrongful termination allegations after a former employee claims she was fired for refusing to participate in a “diversity” program she felt blatantly discriminated based on race and gender.

The Case: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al.

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

The Case No.: 23CV1347 KSC

The Plaintiff: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Courtney Rogers, is a former Internal Mobility Team recruiter for Compass Group USA. While Rogers was working for the company’s human resources department in 2022, the company introduced “Operation Equity,” a new “diversity” program in which only “women and people of color” were invited to participate. The program was promoted as offering special training and mentorship alongside guaranteed promotion. Rogers expressed her concerns that the “diversity” program was openly discriminating against white males, denying them employment opportunities and benefits made available by Compass to women and people of color through the program. The initiative directly conflicted with Rogers’ religious belief that all people, regardless of race or gender, are created equal, so she requested accommodation by assigning her to a different project. A senior HR officer assured her there would be no retaliation against her for expressing her beliefs, and she could be assigned different responsibilities as accommodation. However, within two weeks, Rogers was fired.

The Defendant: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Compass Group USA, Inc., is one of the largest employers in the world and the parent company of many recognizable names like Bon Appétit Restaurant Management, Wolfgang Puck Catering, TouchPoint, etc.

The Case: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

In the case Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., the plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks relief from “Religious Creed Discrimination” (a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The lawsuit seeks financial compensatory damages resulting from Compass’ discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, as well as asking the court to require Compass’s senior human resources management to participate in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Fair Treatment training, classes, and oversight to prevent a repeat of retaliation against other employees in the future.

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.

Former Target Employee Claims Wrongful Termination

/

A former Target employee claims the massive box store wrongfully terminated her.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 34-2022-00316991

The Plaintiff: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

Torres, the plaintiff and former Target employee in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging Target violated labor law. Torres claims that she was fired due to a disability and that Target failed to provide hourly, non-exempt workers with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

The defendant in the case, Target Corporation, faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

  • Failure to pay minimum wages

  • Failure to pay overtime wages

  • Failure to provide legally required meal and rest periods

  • Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

  • Failure to reimburse employees for required expenses

  • Failure to pay wages when due

The allegations constitute violations of various applicable Labor Codes, including California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged violations would give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

According to the complaint and the plaintiff's allegations, Target wrongfully terminated Torres, an employee allegedly subject to protected activity. Torres claims that Target subjected her to adverse employment actions, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed the company of her asthma disability. The company fired Torres after informing them of her disability, which led her to claim a causal link between the protected activity and Target's decision to terminate her employment.

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.

Did Sunsweet Retaliate When Employee Notified HR of Discrimination?

/

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the court considered a case of alleged workplace retaliation when a Sunsweet worker spoke up about alleged discrimination and harassment at work.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The Court: Sutter County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CVCS23-0000742

The Plaintiff: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa, was a non-exempt hourly employee for Sunsweet Growers. Renteria-Hinojosa alleged that she submitted multiple complaints to HR and filed an EEOC charge due to sexual harassment and discrimination at work. According to the lawsuit, Renteria-Hinojosa was enduring harassment and discrimination daily when she reported for work. She claimed the company discriminated against her for being a “female dating other females” and that her complaints regarding the situation received no effective response. Eventually, Renteria-Hinojosa took a stressful leave from work (in April 2022) to escape the untenable situation. Renteria-Hinojosa also claimed Sunsweet’s non-exempt employees were not provided off-duty meal breaks because their work schedules were too rigorous. She filed a class action lawsuit citing California labor code violations.

The Defendant: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sunsweet Growers Inc., is a California employer. All California employers are required to comply with federal and state labor laws. According to California labor law, employers must provide their employees with a thirty-minute off-duty, uninterrupted meal break before the end of every 5th hour of work and a second meal break before an employee completes their 10th hour of work in one shift. According to the complaint, Sunsweet did not provide additional compensation to employees who missed their breaks.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the plaintiff claims harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations based on missed meal breaks and rest periods. The failure to provide employees with the missed meal breaks and rest periods or additional compensation for missing them led to inaccurate wage calculations and inaccurate overtime wage distribution, constituting additional alleged labor law violations.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace retaliation 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.

Female Disney Employees File Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

/

A group of female Disney workers filed a lawsuit accusing Disney of sexual discrimination and demanding that Disney provides employees equal pay for equal work regardless of gender.

The Case: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The Court: Superior Court for County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 19STCV10974

The Plaintiff: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Laronda Rasmussen, and a group of current and former female Disney employees claimed they were paid more than $150 million less than men in similar middle management positions. The women claimed the alleged pay difference violated the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. According to the plaintiffs, Disney regularly underpays their female employees, skips over them for promotions, gives them extra work with no additional compensation, and fails to provide them with sufficient support staff to enable them to succeed.

The Defendant: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The defendant in the case, The Walt Disney Company, underwent statistical studies that seem to support the gender pay inequality claims. David Neumark, a professor at California Irvine, labor economist, and gender pay gap expert, analyzed Disney’s human resource data from April 2015 through December 2022 and determined female Disney employees were paid about 2% less than male employees. From 2015 to 2017, the study discovered an even greater gender difference in starting pay (4.36%). When Disney stopped using their prior salary policy that affected starting pay for new hires, the starting pay disparities dropped to 1.3%.

The Case: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiffs filed their discrimination lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, demanding equal pay for equal work. The plaintiffs hope the judge will certify their four-year-old civil suit as a class action. Approximately 12,500 current and former female Disney employees in California could be affected from 2015 to the present. LaRonda Rasmussen, a manager of product development for Disney, originally filed the suit. Rasmussen claimed that six male employees were paid between $16,000 and $40,000 more than her for similar job duties.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

Elon Musk’s X Faces Discrimination and Breach of Contract Allegations

/

In recent news, X (previously known as Twitter) faces discrimination and breach of contract allegations.

The Case: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The Court: U.S. District Court, State of Deleware

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-00780-UNA

The Plaintiff: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The plaintiff in the case, Chris Woodfield, filed a workplace discrimination and breach of contract lawsuit on July 18th in Delaware. In addition to breach of contract and discrimination allegations, Woodfield alleged the company engaged in fraud. According to Woodfield, X targeted women, older employees, and employees of color in the mass layoffs. Woodfield also claims that the company stalled attempts to address the dispute through arbitration, specifically claiming that the company failed to pay the required fees to initiate arbitration of the issues. Like the California ERISA violation lawsuit the company faces, the Woodfield v. Twitter/X lawsuit claims the company owes former employees more than $500 million.

The Defendant: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The defendant in the case, Twitter/X, engaged in multiple layoffs after new ownership/management took over the social media giant. Nearly 4,000 workers were laid off (layoffs occurred in November 2022, twice in December 2022, and again in February 2023). According to court documents, HR officials at the company repeatedly told Musk and employees that any laid-off employees would be eligible for severance pay as determined in their 2022 agreement when X merged with Twitter.

The Case: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The case, Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X, makes it clear how important it is for employers to be transparent about their severance benefits. Employers must communicate the reasons behind any layoffs clearly to all affected employees and explain the severance packages they receive in detail. Employers and employees benefit from a consistent severance pay policy that clearly outlines the criteria for determining any potential severance pay package based on pre-determined factors like time at the company, job title/level, performance history, etc. The clearly outlined policy must then be followed with a consistent application of the policy to all employees to avoid discrimination.

If you have questions about how to file a California discrimination class action 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.

Foodservices Giant Faces Religious Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

/

A food services corporation recently found itself facing serious employment law violation allegations.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The Court: United States Court for the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01347-TWR-KSC

The Plaintiff: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Rogers, worked as an Internal Mobility Team recruiter for the defendant. During her time with the company, Rogers consistently received positive performance feedback from her colleagues and supervisors. However, she claims that the defendant fired her after she would not endorse, promote, or participate in a program she felt was blatantly discriminatory (based on both race and gender). Rogers filed a discrimination and wrongful termination federal lawsuit on July 24, 2023.

The Defendant: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

Compass Group USA, Inc., is the defendant in the case, one of the largest corporations in the world. According to the plaintiff, Compass Group USA Inc. initiated a program they falsely labeled a “diversity” initiative. According to the plaintiff, the program was designed to prevent white men from participating in promotions and benefits. Courtney Rogers discussed her concerns with the company and requested accommodations to work in a different area. According to Rogers, she advised the company the program conflicted with her strongly held religious beliefs that hold all people equal regardless of race or gender. According to court documents, HR assured Rogers that the company would not retaliate against her for her beliefs and that she would receive a different assignment as an accommodation. However, that same HR representative terminated Rogers’ employment two weeks later. In their first meeting, Rogers was assured she was doing excellent work, but her termination letter two weeks later stated she was being terminated for unsatisfactory performance.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

In the case, Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al., Compass describes their program initiative as “Operation Equith,” calling it a diversity program offering qualified members special training and mentorship with the promise of guaranteed promotion within the program. The program was only available to women and people of color. The lawsuit demanded a jury trial seeking relief from religious discrimination, citing a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and violations of wrongful termination public policy. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and mandatory training for the company’s senior management in human resources.

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