Caretaker Sues Betty White for Unpaid Wages and Rest Period Violations

In recent news, Betty White is being sued by a former caretaker. The caretaker turned plaintiff was a long time, live-in employee named Anita Maynard. Maynard filed suit in Los Angeles alleging that Betty White did not pay her overtime and did not allow her breaks as required by California state labor law.

Betty White is most well known for her work on the TV show, Golden Girls. The popular TV show featured four older women who lived together in Miami, Florida that were experiencing the joys and pains and annoyances of their “golden years.” Betty White played the role of the spacey, but sweet Rose alongside Dorothy, Blanche and Sophia (Dorothy’s mom in the show). The show is widely known and many recognize it from the theme song along, “Thank You for Being a Friend.” The actress is now 94 years old.

Maynard claims that she was a live-in domestic worker for Betty White for over 20 years. During this time, she alleges that White did not provide her with payment for overtime hours even though she put in more than 14 hours on a typical day. Maynard’s complaint, includes additional allegations:

·       That White required Maynard to work six days/week without overtime rates for the sixth day.

·       That since discontinuing employment on March 11th, Maynard has not received all of her earned wages or vacation pay due.

·       That she earned less than the legal minimum wage according to California state labor law.

Maynard seeks wages owed, penalties and attorney’s fees through the court. A representative for Betty White responded to the legal actions by stating that Betty White has worked with thousands of people throughout her lifetime and none of them have anything negative to say about the well-loved actress. She went on to describe Betty as a kind person who is simply nice to everyone she runs into and will continue to make her purpose in life making other people happy.

If you need additional information on what qualifies for overtime pay and/or how to recognize violations of wage and hour laws, please contact one of the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Dick’s Sporting Goods Facing Class Action for Texting Program

A proposed class action against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. has been filed in California federal court. Accusations that the sporting goods retailer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allege that the company sent text messages to consumers after they had opted out of the subscription based alert advertising program. Plaintiff, Phillip Ngiehm, states that he originally agreed to participate in the marketing program, but that he opted out in December 2015 by texting the word “stop” as instructed. According to the terms of the program, this would result in a halt of messages from the program to the subscriber – effectively removing him from the subscriber list.

Dick’s acknowledged that they received the termination of his consent to receive automated text ads, but the advertising messages continued. In fact, Ngiehm received an immediate response when he texted “stop” in order to halt his involvement in the program:

“You have been unsubscribed and will no longer receive messages from us. Reply ‘help’ for help.”

After receiving this acknowledgement, he received eight text messages. This led to the filing of the lawsuit that Dick’s Sporting Goods is currently facing. Plaintiff’s attorney states that all the SMS texts that were received by the plaintiff after he opted out as instructed, were sent without his consent and were thus unauthorized. This leaves the messages in violation of the TCPA. He seeks certification of a national class of people who were in receipt of messages from Dick’s Sporting Goods that were unauthorized. He estimates that the number of eligible class members could be in the thousands. The suit will seek statutory and treble damages as well as an injunction to prohibit Dick’s Sporting Goods from distributing unwanted advertisements by text. The suit will also seek attorneys’ fees and associated costs.

If you have questions regarding class action status and what it means to be eligible for class action membership status, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We can assist you in determining how California labor law applies to your situation. 

CVS $7.5M Wage Deal to Cover One Thousand Pharmacists

Final approval has been granted for the $7.4 million settlement between CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and the class of over 1,000 pharmacists. Pharmacists lodged allegations of unlawful denial of overtime pay when working over six days consecutively. The final approval hearing was held in Los Angeles Superior Court with Judge Elihu M. Berle granting the final approval for the proposed settlement.

Pharmacists included in the class action work or previously worked in three different CVS California regions. They filed a claim that they worked the “seven-day week,” but were not paid overtime. The judge noted that the plaintiffs believed they had viable claims, but that they were also aware that CVS did not believe their practices were in violation of wage and hour laws. The judge felt the settlement was fair and reasonable and that the plaintiffs were appropriately weighing the benefits of prevailing against risks posed by trial and potential delays of appeals, etc.

No class members objected to the settlement. Only seven class members opted out. Claims were filed for 85% of workweeks at issue in approving the settlement/deal. Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees of $2.49 million was also approved by the judge.

The three suits were filed in October 2013 alleging violations of California labor code on the part of CVS pharmacy due to requirement of pharmacists working over six days in a row without payment of overtime (time and a half for any hours worked on the seventh day of consecutive work). Preliminary approval was granted by Judge Berle in July after parties used the help of a mediator to come to a tentative agreement.

The agreement will result in each class member receiving approximately $2,846. The actual amount will depend upon the number of workweeks the pharmacist worked during the time period designated by the class action.

If you have questions regarding the class action process or any other southern California employment law issue, please get in touch with the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. We can answer your questions and provide you with the legal counsel you need. 

$12M Lyft Settlement: Company Refuses to Classify Drivers as Employees

In late January 2016, Lyft, a ride-hailing service out of California, agreed to pay a $12.25 million settlement in order to provide extra job security to members of a proposed class including both current and former drivers. The drivers filed suit against Lyft in California federal court. One of the more interesting terms of the settlement agreement for many is Lyft’s insistence that drivers will still NOT be classified as employees.

The suit filed against Lyft is just one of several that popular “ride” services are dealing with in both state and federal courts. Another popular ride service that is handling similar suits is Uber Technologies Inc. The numerous suits in the last few years against these types of ride providing companies seek a clearer delineation between employees and independent contractors (which is the current classification of drivers at such companies). In the suit recently settled against Lyft out of California federal court, the company made a few additional concessions that were included in the proposed settlement:

• Lyft conceded the right to terminate drivers at will enabling drivers to “turn down” rides without fear that they will lose their ability to drive for the company.
• Lyft agreed to create a “favorite driver” option for riders to use to designate their favorite drivers – providing drivers with the opportunity for additional benefits.
• Lyft conceded paying costs to arbitrate driver grievances.
• Lyft conceded the implementation of a prearbitration process. 
• Lyft conceded the provision of drivers with additional “rider” info (passenger ratings, etc.)

Lyft representation announced that the company was pleased with the resolution of the matter and that opportunity the settlement terms presented to preserve the flexibility of the drivers that is necessary for them to control their own driving schedule on the platform while still providing consumers with affordable, safe transportation as originally intended. The company designed their platform as a symbiotic relationship between driver and rider. The driver controls when they drive, where they drive and how far they drive and consumers get home safely.

The original plaintiff, driver Patrick Cotter, filed suit against Lyft in September 2013. He alleged that the company’s classification of drivers as independent contractors was inappropriate as they were treated like employees. He also alleged that the company’s policy to “skim” 20% of drivers’ tips as an “administrative fee” was in violation of California labor law. He cited company required inspections of drivers’ vehicles (personal cars) and insurance policies, the company’s right to fire at will, mandatory policies and training, etc. as actions more suited to the role of an “employee” according to California labor law and that drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. The suit was originally proposed as a nationwide class action, but at a later date was limited to California drivers.

The counsel for the plaintiffs saw the terms of the proposed settlement as positive even if they did not attain all that they hoped for with the legal proceedings. Lyft did not agree to reclassify drivers as employees as other “sharing economy” services have recently (i.e. Shyp, Instacart, etc.), but they did agree to make changes that will provide significant benefits to their drivers.

If you would like additional information about misclassification of employees as independent contractors, we would love to discuss it with you. Contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

Desperate Housewives Star Files Retaliation Lawsuit

Many have heard of the popular TV series called the Desperate Housewives. Of those who watch the show, almost all should be familiar with Nicollette Sheridan. She has been called the most “risqué” of the women on the show. In most recent news, she may be better known for her recently filed lawsuit.

According to Sheridan, she got into a verbal argument on set with the writer/creator of the show, Marc Cherry. She claims that the argument ended when Cherry slapped her. According to Sheridan, this was battery. According to Cherry, this was stage direction.

Sheridan responded to the incident by complaining to the network as well as the show’s producer. The next year, her character, Edie Britt, was killed in the midst of the show. Sheridan saw this as retaliation for her complaints regarding the “battery” on set the previous year and filed a lawsuit claiming such. The lawsuit was twice dismissed by trial courts and revived twice by the court of appeal.

What secret, sordid detail led to such an intriguing on again, off again response from the courts? It’s not nearly as intriguing as one might expect from a plaintiff known for being “spicy.” In fact, it’s downright boring. The question that is causing the confusion is this: Did Sheridan have to file an administrative complaint with the Labor Commission before suing?

According to the court of appeals, she did not have to file such a complaint. Their decision was based on a brand-new labor code stating:

“A person is not required to exhaust administrative remedies…unless the section under which the action is brought expressly requires it.” The sections referenced in this case are not seen to “expressly require” it as they use the term “may” instead of “shall” in regards to filing a claim with the Labor Commission. The court of appeals does not feel that the word “may” indicates a mandatory requirement. This resulted in the reinstatement of her case allowing Sheridan the opportunity to seek resolution in court.

If you need to discuss on the job battery or if you have other questions regarding southern California employment law, please get in touch with the experienced attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.  

Bikram Wrongful Termination Suit Filed

Former employees of Bikram Choudhury of Bikram Yoga appear to be making an orderly line when it comes to filing wrongful termination lawsuits. The latest in the line of filings includes allegations that a former teacher-training recruiter, Sharon Clerkin, was fired from her position with Bikram Yoga because she was pregnant and because she refused to play along with business practices described as “shady.”

Clerkin filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court including much of the following information. Sharon Clerkin began working with Bikram Yoga as a teacher. She moved from there to the Bikram industrial complex as a teacher-training recruiter/coordinator. This was her position with the company from 2010 until August of 2015 when she was fired. Her job included scouting for trainees and helping in their registration. During her time in the position, she increased registrants from 300 to 400. She claims her success in driving up the number of registrants stopped suddenly with the filing of a number of rape suits against Choudhury.

At this point, Clerkin was allegedly asked to misguide potential registrants regarding the fall 2014 training in Atlantic City: it was abruptly cancelled, then not cancelled, then pulled to a different venue, and then not as follows. According to the information Clerkin provided in the filing, she handled the teacher training session registration for the event originally planned for fall of 2014 in the Atlantic City hotel and the training was sold at $12,500 for a shared room or $16,600 for a single room. Six weeks prior to the start of the training event, Choudhury’s assistant, M. Shigenaga, advised Clerkin that the event was cancelled; in spite of the fact that 36 individuals had already paid their training fees. The next day, the plan changed – Choudhury decided to move the training even to California (in an unspecified venue). Clerkin allegedly received further instruction from Choudhury’s assistant to keep the venue/location change a secret in order to continue collecting registration fees from prospective students interested in the Atlantic City location training. In response to questions posed by Clerkin regarding potential reimbursement of registrants’ airplane tickets to the Atlantic City location, she was told to “mind her own business” according to the complaint filed. In response, Clerkin continued to process registrations, but did not take any payments. She did not feel comfortable doing so until a decision was made regarding the location of the training session.

In summer of 2015, Clerkin discovered she was pregnant. She took days off due to doctor’s orders. When she returned to work, she had been replaced. She was advised by Choudhury that she was a “failure” and that he should have fired her years ago. Clerkin’s husband was also fired from his position with Bikram Yoga. Choudhury allegedly even had his assistant call the police to escort the two off the Bikram Yoga premises.

If you have questions regarding treatment in the workplace or wrongful termination, please get in touch with the southern California employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Target’s $39M Settlement to Card Issuers’ Regarding Data Breach Claims

A class of banks that sued Target Corp. over the huge 2013 data breach has agreed on a settlement amount of $39 million. The settlement will resolve the long-running dispute. It also goes down in history as the first ever class-wide data breach pact reached on behalf of financial institutions. In the 2013 data breach, over 40 million payment cards that were used to make purchases at Target over the course of a specific three week period were compromised. This occurred during the 2013 holiday season.

The terms of the settlement obtained preliminary approval within two hours of the deal being disclosed. According to the terms of the settlement, Target will pay up to $20.25 million directly to class members. The additional $19.1 million will be paid to fund MasterCard’s Account Data Compromise Program in connection to the breach.

The settlement is applicable to all U.S. financial institutions that issued payment cards that have been identified as “at risk” due to the breach so long as they did not already release their claims against the retailer by signing onto deals with other card brands.

Attorneys for the plaintiff indicated that they felt the agreement was an important result not only because it provided compensation well beyond what the card brand networks offered, but because it will set a precedent that the financial institution behind the method of payment is not always the one to be held responsible for extensive costs in connection to merchant data breaches.

The consolidated class action complaint that resulted in the settlement was filed in August 2014 by Umpqua Bank, Mutual Bank, Village Bank, CSE Federal Credit Union, and First Federal Savings of Lorain. The complaint made allegations that Target was negligent in their responsibilities to protect financial institution data on behalf of their customers and that they violated the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act.

If you have questions regarding the class action process or any other southern California employment law issue, please get in touch with the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. We can answer your questions and provide you with the legal counsel you need.