Worker Misclassified as Independent Contractors Sues Google

Jacob McPherson, former Google Play unit site merchandiser out of New York, sued Google and the online staffing company Elance-oDesk. He alleges that he and others in similar positions were misclassified as independent contractors by the online search engine giant. He is demanding unpaid wages, including wages that should have been paid for overtime hours. He also seeks damages and attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiff, McPherson, worked for Google from January 2013 through December 2013 as contracted. McPherson claims that he (and many others) worked up to 45 hours/week, but that Google never provided them with payment for more than 30 hours/week. While at Google, McPherson worked through oDesk who released a statement regarding the lawsuit. In their statement about the overtime suit, oDesk stated that they were committed to operating in a “lawful and ethical manner.” They researched the claims and are confident that they have no merit.

McPherson was offered employment at $35/hour for a maximum of 15 hours per week (the maximum hours per week was later raised to 30 hours, according to the suit filed against Google). McPherson was required to register at oDesk in order to receive their employment offer and he would be considered a freelancer paid only through oDesk.

McPherson claims in the lawsuit that he performed work similar to that of (and alongside at the same offices as) W-2 employees. He was assigned to teams that included W-2 employees. He was required to be in attendance for mandatory meetings and training alongside W-2 employees. He was even issued a Google owned cell phone, tablet and laptop just like the W-2 employees of the massive online search engine giant. “Freelancers” were also required to use an email signature that designated them as representatives of Google and offering the office address, follow a Google-approved method for completing assigned tasks, adhere to dress codes and the Google blogging policies, etc.

This case could be a stepping-stone for others and could mean drastic changes for online staffing and freelance sites regarding the risk associated with managing independent contractors.

If you have questions regarding your employer/worker relationship and whether or not the classification of independent contractor is appropriate according to federal regulations, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Wrongful Termination and Discrimination Suit Filed against City by Former Trenton Park Ranger and Mack Supporter

Russell Wilson was a campaign supporter for former Trenton Mayor Tony Mack. He was given the position of park ranger in 2010 after Mack won the mayoral election. Two years later, in October of 2012, Wilson was charged with trespassing and theft. Claims were made that he stole over 10 gallons of city gas for use in his private vehicle. As a result of the charges made, he was placed on leave. The charges were soon dismissed, but Wilson was not reinstated as Trenton park ranger.

In April of 2013, Wilson’s attorney sent a letter to Mack stating that the he was eligible to return to work as a park ranger for the city.

In October Mr. Wilson filed suit claiming he was wrongfully terminated from his position as a park ranger. He seeks back pay and compensation because he wasn’t reinstated after criminal charges filed against him were dismissed. The letter was sent as a means of resolving the matter without additional legal action. 

Wilson believes that he was targeted because he was a supporter of Mack during the election. At the time of the allegations made against Wilson, Mack was under investigation. Mack, the Trenton mayor, was busted as part of a government sting and was eventually found guilty of bribery, fraud and extortion. (His brother was also found guilty of participating in a scheme to take bribes in exchange for helping obtain approvals for the development of a parking garage structure). Wilson also stated that he sees the charges as age discrimination due to the fact that the police officers identified the man they saw stealing city gas only as “old.” Wilson is 71 and believes that this descriptor leading to his being officially charged with the crime constitutes discrimination according to AARP.

If you have questions regarding age discrimination or wrongful termination or discrimination in general get in touch with an expert southern California employment law expert at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik to get the answers you need. 

Mother in Central Indiana Files Wrongful Termination Suit Over Breastfeeding Needs

A working, breastfeeding mother in Central Indiana (Shelby County) claims that she was fired from her job for requesting that her managers designate an appropriate place for her to use to pump her breast milk while at work. Could she have been wrongfully terminated for breastfeeding? Erica Zinn claims that she was fired from seasonal work at Shelbyville’s Rural King. Ms. Zinn’s daughter is 11 months old and refused to drink anything but breast milk. Ms. Zinn claims that she was clear with her employer up front about her needs when she was hired for the job.

Ms. Zinn was told by a manager to use a restroom when she needed to pump her breast milk and she refused. A coworker suggested that she use a fitting room and she assumed that everything was fine. A few days later, Zinn claims that she was again told to use the restroom for her breast milk pumping needs. Her manager fired Zinn that same day. The manager claims she was fired as a result of lack of complete availability, and issues surrounding her needs…basically concluding that she wasn’t a good suit for the job.

Zinn responds to these claims by stating that she was very clear when she applied for work about her availability. In response to reasons the company states for her firing, Zinn can’t help but wonder why she was hired in the first place if there was a problem related to availability that was thoroughly discussed.

A company spokesman for Rural King responded to media requests for responses to Zinn’s allegations by saying that there was no official comment because it is a personnel matter, but also noted that information reported by Zinn might not contain the complete story.  

If you need additional information regarding wrongful termination and what qualifies according to southern California employment law, contact the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Cannabis-based Pharmaceuticals Company Founder Files Suit for Wrongful Termination

Gary M. Cohen, a cannabis-based pharmaceuticals company founder, filed suit for wrongful termination against the company as well as its board of directors. The suit was filed in Hillsborough County, Florida in Circuit Court where Mr. Cohen made allegations that he was terminated after he pointed out a number of corporate wrongdoings and attempting to have CannaPharmaRX’s director and chairman of the board, Gary Herick, removed from his position with the company.

According to Cohen, his lawsuit serves as a derivative action because the cannabis-based pharmaceuticals company, CannaPharmaRX, was harmed as a result of the defendants’ corporate waste, mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duties to their investors. The suit was removed to U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The suit also lists four board members as co-defendants: Gerald Crocker, James Smeeding, Matthew Sherwood, and Robert Liess.

A few examples of the allegations that Cohen is making against CannaPharmaRX include: tax fraud through assignment of personal expenses as business expenses, withholding FICA and social security taxes on employee payroll, failure to accede to demands made by the plaintiff for corporate accounting records, etc.

Cohen claims that as a result of his insistence on receiving the requested information and his insistence that they stop engaging in illegal activities, the board conspired to have him removed from his positions at CannaPharmaRX as well as “steal” his 2.25 million shares of stock in the company. He claims that his removal was retaliation and therefore qualifies as a violation of Florida’s Whistleblower Act, 448.102(3), Florida Statutes. 

To discuss the details of your own termination, or what qualifies as wrongful termination, please contact your southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Wrongful Termination, Defamation Case: Former Edmonds’ HR Chief Awarded $1M

Edmonds’ long-time HR chief, Debi Humann, filed suit claiming that the mayor wrongfully fired and defamed him after her scrutiny into the pay rate and number of hours worked by Mayor Mike Cooper’s executive assistant. A federal jury awarded the former Edmonds city HR chief over $1M.

Ms. Humann was the director of human resources for the city of Edmond for 12 years until she was fired by ex-mayor Cooper in September of 2011. Her suit against the mayor and the city of Edmond in 2013 claimed small town political corruption. The trial took place in U.S. District Court in Seattle in front of a 10-member jury. They agreed, after a three week trial, to award Ms. Humann $1,035,351 in damages upon concluding that her termination was in violation of public policy and in violation of the 1^st Amendment. They also concluded that the mayor was guilty of defamation of Ms. Humann to the media.

Consequently, she was awarded over $500,000 in back pay and future income as well as $500,000 for damage done to her reputation and distress due to defamation of her character.

Cases of wrongful termination are commonplace in today’s workplace. The complete number of employment law based suits has increased by 400% over the last 20 years. Of those lawsuits, over 40% are filed against employers who employ between 15 and 100 employees.

If you have questions or concerns about wrongful termination or defamation get in touch with the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible. 

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 vs. Your Boss’s Request to Never Disclose Your Salary

It goes without saying that your boss doesn’t want you to talk about your pay with your co-workers. Why does it go without saying? Because…they’ve probably said it. The majority of American workers from fast food workers to administrative assistants to dental hygienists have been advised by their superiors/employers not to discuss their pay with their co-workers. It’s so commonplace that when employers make the request most workers don’t bat an eyelash or question the validity of their employer’s right to make such a demand.

If you consider this request in terms of employment law, any time an employer requests or demands that you keep your pay rate or salary a secret from your co-workers they are breaking the law. 

According to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA), all workers are provided the right to exhibit “concerted activity for mutual aid or protection” as well as to “organize to negotiate with [employers regarding their] wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” In six states, the law goes further and actually states that workers retain the right to discuss their payment rate.

Employers insisting that you not discuss your pay rate with co-workers are in violation of the law, regardless of whether the request/demand/threat was made verbally or in writing and regardless of what the consequences are of ignoring the often unspoken rule. Sometimes it results in firing, but sometimes consequences are more subtle, i.e. a cold shoulder from supervisors/management.

Gag rules are currently thriving in the American workplace. According to a recent study by the Women’s Policy Research, approximately 50% of the American workforce (across all industries) is not to discuss their pay with their co-workers (either explicitly prohibited or strongly discouraged). The percentage is higher in the private sector (closer to 61%). Gag rules violate fundamental labor rights and create workplace environments that support discriminatory pay structures. Reforms are necessary.

President Obama did recently sign two executive actions that address transparency and accountability in the workplace. These will assist those who work for federally contracted employers, but others are currently on their own. Another bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would address the situation for the rest of America’s workers, but it has not yet been passed.

If you have questions regarding the gag rule and wrongful termination, please contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Wrongful Termination Court Case Against the Children’s Hospital of Central California

October saw a victory for plaintiffs who filed a wrongful termination case against the Children’s Hospital of Central California. Children’s Hospital of Central California is a pediatric hospital that can be found just north of Fresno in California. 

This particular case was based upon a long standing 18-year old employee of the Children’s Hospital of Central California who was improperly drug tested on his day off; which was eventually found to be in violation of the employee’s constitutional right to privacy.

In the state of California, drug testing of current employees is subject to a more stringent analysis by the legal system in comparison to pre-employment drug testing. Employers who drug test current employees must identify a compelling reason that supports their decision to drug test, i.e. a reasonable belief that an employee was intoxicated on the job. This type of situation would strengthen the argument that drug testing the employee was a reasonable action.

Testing an employee during their off-duty hours is seen as particularly invasive and is more likely to be found as invasive by the courts.

It would seem that juries support the courts general opinion on the matter as the jury made its decision on this case on October 16, 2014 after both sides presented their arguments. They found that the employee’s privacy had been violated and that this violation of his rights had resulted in his wrongful termination, which is in violation of California employment law. As a result the plaintiff was awarded $1,035,000.00.

If you feel you are being bullied or mistreated by your employer, please get in touch with one of the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today.