Discrimination Case Filed by Ex-Wilson Elser Attorney

Jodi Ritter, a former nonequity partner of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker sued the firm with claims that she was subjected to harassment and discrimination for her choice to have children. She left the firm in late 2012.

Ritter described the state at the firm by stating, “By contrast, women who did not have children and who availed themselves of affairs with partners were systematically rewarded and treated better than women who chose to have children and families.”

The firm, in response to the claims made in the suit, said that the allegations were baseless and lacking in any legal merit. They advised that they would be vigorously defending themselves and they were looking forward to the adjudication of the matter. The firm filed Motion to Dismiss on Friday claiming that claims are wholly without merit and precluded by the arbitration clause of her partnership agreement.  

Ritter spent five years as a special narcotics prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office before joining Wilson Elser in 1997. She stated that she didn’t have any problem meeting her billable hour quota and that she received bonuses and raises consistently until she became pregnant. Ritter announced her pregnancy in 2002. The chair of the firm’s labor and employment litigation practice, Ricki Roer, allegedly pulled Ritter aside and said, “That’s why women can’t move up in this firm.” Roer continued to explain that getting pregnant could have a negative impact on any attempt Ritter had to move up as a female in the Wilson Elser firm. Roer continued by saying that women who do get pregnant in the workforce make it harder for women who want to make a career because it makes women look weak.

Ritter gave birth to twins in January 2003. After three months of maternity leave Ritter’s twins were still in intensive care. She requested additional time. She was advised that her job could not be held if she could not return after the three months. Ritter said she had to get permission to spend one more month with her twins from the regional managing partner. In May of 2003, Ritter was required to attend a Women’s Bar Association event. Her twins were having health issues. After four hours, she asked a partner at the table, Jerold Ruderman, if she could leave to care for her sick children. She claims he said no and that she couldn’t leave an empty seat at the table where Mr. Ruderman’s wife (a sitting judge) was seated.

Ritter was transferred to the firm’s White Plains office approximately one year after her children were born.

Ritter also claims:

• Roer was known to rebuff women’s requests for childcare accommodations.
• When her husband became ill, the firm’s only concern was her ability to maintain her billable hours.
• Women in the firm who made themselves available to male partners were protected.

Upon her firing in December 2012, Ritter was told that the firm had too little work to sustain her position. She argued that she had a number of open cases as well as a number of clients preparing to send her more work. At that time she had billed 1,930 hours. She was one week away from billing 1,950 hours. And her average billing from years past was 2,000 hours per year.

Ritter filed suit because, she claims, the firm affected her ability to further he career. She worked there for more than 16 years. As Ritter’s attorney said, “She gave her life there.” Ritter is seeking damages based on lost wages and pain and suffering as well as punitive damages.

For more information on discrimination in the workplace or wrongful termination please contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

New Employment Laws In Play Regarding Licenses for Undocumented Individuals

In 2013, the Department of Motor Vehicles was authorized to issue an original driver’s license to an individual who is not able to submit proof that their presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. (California Assembly Bill 60 created Vehicle Code section 12801.9). This same bill also made it illegal to discriminate against a person who holds such a driver’s license under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. AB 60 is to take effect on January 1^st, 2015.

The licenses issued to undocumented persons under the new law will have a distinctive design/color and will have text on the photo indicating limitations for official federal purposes. Additional provisions related to the licenses were included in Assembly Bill 1660 (passed in September) to provide protections in employment context. Employers will be prohibited from discriminating against a person because they hold a license that was issued under Vehicle Code section 12801.9. Employers will be prohibited from requiring workers to present a driver’s license unless possessing one is required by the employer or otherwise permitted by laws in place. Additional provisions have been put in place to protect holders of licenses issued under Vehicle Code section 12801.9 from unlawful release of private information, use to establish citizenship or immigration status for investigation, arrest, citation, etc.

The new licenses will not be acceptable to establish eligibility for employment and they will not be acceptable for any official federal requirements or purposes. The new laws will not change the employers’ rights regarding obtaining information in order to establish an employee’s authorization to work (required under federal law). Employers will still be required to have employees provide documentation and submit the I-9 documentation to determine work eligibility. Employer action taken in accordance with federal Immigration and Nationality Act will not be in violation of the new laws regarding the licenses and the use of licenses issued under Vehicle Code section 12801.9.

For additional information regarding the new laws regarding issuance of licenses for undocumented persons or to get further information on federal work eligibility laws, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Labor Law in Place to Help Employees Beat the Heat

A newly amended California labor code provision turns up the heat on employers in order to protect employees from the heat. Amendments allow private enforcement of laws regarding heat-illness prevention. Previously, they were imposed only by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with limited resources.

With the new provision, California employers must be even more fastidious about guarding their employees from the sun’s heat. To do so they must provide employees with cool down periods or they might end up facing litigation en masse. Any employer who has an outdoor space at their place of employment will find it vital to have a heat-illness prevention program set in motion so that employees are both allowed and encouraged to rest out of the heat for at least 5 minutes whenever they feel in danger of overheating. 

Employers may feel put out by the rules. They are required to provide shade for employees who work in the sun (especially during sunny days). This can sometimes be difficult. Necessary cool-down periods any particular employee might need are unknown and cannot be scheduled ahead of time. So employers may find regulating employee behavior to ensure they are meeting the standards for heat-illness prevention difficult. It is recommended that California employers review the policies they have in place and that they offer renewed training for managers who will be responsible for compliance and the maintenance of their compliance records.

If you have questions regarding the regulations your California employer may be required to adhere to, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, your southern California employment law experts. 

Ruling of California Supreme Court: Federal Aviation Authorization Act Does Not Preempt California Meal and Rest Break Claims

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court will affect truck drivers throughout California. The finding that the Federal Aviation Authorization Act does not preempt California meal and rest break claims means that any truck driver in or through California is entitled to take a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period prior to their fifth (5^th) hour of work. Drivers are entitled to this benefit regardless of the crossing of state lines during their route or the payment of overtime to the driver.

The issue originated with a meal break class action lawsuit filed against Penske Logistics that Penske won at the district court level. The panel of judges held that the meal and rest break laws in California are unrelated to Penske’s “prices, routes or services” and would therefore not be preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The appeals court also stated that it was never intended to preempt general state transportation safety, etc.

The meal and rest break law will add costs for motor carriers and motor carriers being affected are, of course, disappointed with the decision. The court defended their ruling stating that the law does not “set prices, mandate or prohibit certain routes, or tell motor carriers what services they may or may not provide, either directly or indirectly.”

The decision is excellent news for truck drivers on California roads.

For more information on California meal and rest break laws, contact your Southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Law Protecting Whistleblowers Lacking Work Authorization from Retaliation

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Assembly Bill No. 2751 into being. The Bill amends a recently enacted law prohibiting employers from retaliating against undocumented workers who engage in protected activity. The amendment is in reference to Assembly Bill No. 263, which restricted employers’ ability to put disciplinary action in place for employees who misrepresented their personal information (criminal history, immigration status, etc.)

The new law makes it illegal under California law for employers to retaliate by targeting immigration status when employees lacking work authorization are exercising a protected right such as filing a complaint for unpaid wages. The new law would prohibit employers from responding to whistleblowers lacking proper work authorization with threats to contact immigration authorities, discharging the employee, etc. California law now prohibits this type of action unless employee updates to personal information are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge necessary for their job. The original bill’s intended purpose was to protect employees who are updating their work-authorization status, but it can be read to include protection for those wishing to update other information based on prior misrepresentations like criminal history. The amendment (AB 2751) clarifies the scope of the bill (AB 263) so that it specifically protects those employees who are attempting to update personal information in relation to name, social security number or federal employment authorization documentation. The amendment’s clarification allows employers to discipline/terminate employees who provides false statements not related to immigrate status, but continues to prohibit retaliation or disciplinary action against any workers who update records on lawful changes to immigration related information and documentation.

If you are unsure whether or not the new California law applies to your situation, you should contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik immediately for legal advice regarding your specific situation. 

Commission Wage Allocation Limited by California Supreme Court Ruling

The California Supreme Court ruling on June 14, 2014, limited commission wage allocation by holding that employers could not satisfy the California compensation requirements for commission sales exemptions by assigning commission wages paid in one pay period to alternate pay periods. The decision could have a notable impact on employers who regularly pay their employees on a commission basis. It could have a particularly significant impact on those who pay commission sales employees a base salary that falls near the minimum wage requirement.

California’s commissioned employee exemption requires (among other things) employee’s earnings to exceed one and a half times minimum wage. It also requires that more than half of the employee’s compensation be commissions.

In Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. Case No. S204804, the employer (Time Warner) argued that their former account executive wasn’t entitled to overtime pay due to the fact that she was a “commissioned employee” and was therefore exempt. As noted above, there are limitations as to which employees can fall under the commissioned employee exemption. In the case of Time Warner, Peabody was paid an hourly wage of $9.61. This did not fulfill the one and half times minimum wage minimum pay requirement. The wages were paid every other week. Total compensation of the plaintiff did exceed the minimum one and a half times minimum wage requirement when the hourly was combined with the commissions paid to the employee. Commissions were paid only once/month. The commissions paid were earned throughout the previous month.

Due to the pay structure set up by Time Warner, the employee’s compensation fell short of the one and a half times minimum wage requirement during some pay periods. It is also notable that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the employee worked 45 hours per week and was not paid any overtime. In an attempt to meet requirements set down in the commission employee exemption, Time Warner suggested that employee commissions should be reallocated to be paid during earlier pay periods (in which they were earned) rather than the bi-weekly pay periods that were in place. They felt that satisfying the exemption’s minimum wage earnings requirement in this manner should free them from the obligation to pay commission employees overtime. The California Supreme Court rejected their argument. It was concluded that the Time Warner’s attribution of commission wages to meet minimum requirements was impermissible.

If you need to discuss implications of the recent ruling and how it could affect you as a commission employee, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, the Southern California employment law experts. 

Landmark Iskanian Decision’s Effect on Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Claims

Attorneys are predicting an uptick in PAGA claims that open up California employers to greater financial exposure as a result of the California Supreme Court’s landmark Iskanian decision. The decision strengthened the enforceability of class waivers in arbitration agreements, but also held that PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) claims can’t be waived in employment arbitration deals.

The decision allows employees to sue on behalf of other workers to recover California Labor Code violation penalties. The issue of whether PAGA and other claims will be decided in a single forum or separately via bifurcation with individual claims going to arbitration and the PAGA claim to litigation has been remanded by the Court. If bifurcated, the lower court could decide to stay one of the matters. Employers would be likely to push for arbitration of individual claims to proceed first in bifurcated matters since the arbitrator’s findings could make a difference in whether or not plaintiffs were able to proceed with PAGA claims in the court system. The argument that employers could present to obtain their end would be that arbitration going first would be more quick and efficient and that putting the individual claims on hold while the PAGA claim is determined isn’t the best use of the courts’ or involved parties’ resources and time. Courts who are overseeing bifurcated cases could potentially choose not to stay the arbitration or litigation. Individual actions are not necessarily dispositive of the issues in the PAGA action – this is something to consider as the potential differences between the individual pursuing a claim in arbitration and the end result the class as a whole is pursuing in court could be notable.

If you have questions on California employment law and how recent landmark decisions could affect your workplace situation, please contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik immediately.