Samsung Advices New Galaxy Note 7 Owners to Turn Phones Off Immediately

If you are the proud owner of a new Samsung Galaxy Note 7, Samsung needs you to turn it off immediately. The alert was issued soon after release of the highly anticipated new smart phone when it became clear that there was an identifiable trend of the product spontaneously catching fire. The alert came directly after Samsung halted all production of the devices now best known for their dangerous glitches.

Samsung made an official corporate statement on the issue, assuring the media and the public that it was also planning to request that all carriers and retail partners worldwide to stop sales and exchanges of the Galaxy Note 7 immediately to allow Samsung time to investigate the problem. They also made it very clear in their public statement that any consumers who own the original Galaxy Note 7 or the replacement Galaxy Note 7 devices should turn them off and stop using them immediately.

In response to the situation, the company’s stock dropped more than 5% after the announcement.

The product, 5.7 inch Galaxy Note 7, was released by Samsung in August 2016 as an anticipatory move due to Apple’s impending release of the new iPhone 7 in the fall. Yet almost immediately after the exciting new product was launched, reports of phones catching on fire started to circulate. The company has indicated that faulty lithium-ion batteries were overheating and causing the devices to ignite. As of early September 2016, Samsung had recalled millions of devices across the world. When Samsung offered replacement phones, they started to spontaneously combust as well. One user reported that his replacement device caught fire and it wasn’t even plugged in. Another device began to smoke while aboard a Southwest Airline plan prior to departure resulting in the cancellation of the flight. (This incident is still being investigated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Samsung users were advised to stop using the power down their Original Note 7 phones in early September, but after the increasing incidents, Samsung is now issuing similar warnings regarding the replacement devices that were supposed to act as a solution to the problem.

According to the U.S. Federal Regulators, Samsung users affected by this problem are entitled to a full refund.

If you have questions or concerns regarding the safety of your Samsung Note 7 or if you have similar concerns regarding another product and need to discuss your legal options, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Celadon Being Held to the Ruling in Favor of Drivers by the Eighth Circuit Court

In recent news, the Eighth Circuit was asked to reconsider their decision favoring a class of workers suing Celadon Trucking Services, but they refused to budge on the layoff notice ruling. In refusing to reconsider their ruling, the Eighth Circuit repeated their prior conclusions that the commercial trucking company should have provided drivers with notice prior to laying them off.

The Eighth Circuit’s brief order stated its intent to stand firm behind the July rejection of Celadon’s argument that it did not have a legal duty to provide a 60 day Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act notice in connection to the termination of over 400 Continental Express Inc. truck drivers. The mass layoff occurred after the company purchased Continental at the end of 2008 for $24.1 million.

The appeals court denied Celadon’s petition that took issue with the panel’s conclusion that the district court found the situation to be more than just a sale of assets. This conclusion effectively transferred the responsibility for providing workers with notice from Continental to Celadon. Celadon’s petition argued that the ruling was in conflict with both the Eighth Circuit and the U.S Supreme Court precedent. They pointed to questions of exceptional importance that they indicated the full appellate court should hear. They also included a challenge to the panel for endorsing a legally flawed basis for determining damages and liability for damages for the employees in connection to the rejection of claims that the lower court’s decision was founded on inadmissible evidence.

The class argued against Celadon’s attempt to have the case reconsidered in circuit court stating that the commercial trucking company had no new arguments to be considered and did not specify which evidence was objectionable. They argued that Celadon’s request for reconsideration was not valid because the district court and Eight Circuit panel did not commit any clear errors.

The suit was filed by drivers in January 2009 seeking damages under the WARN Act. The drivers obtained class certification for 449 employees (including full-time workers of Continental’s operations in Little Rock, Arkansas employed on Dec. 4, 2008, and suffering a employment loss as defined by WARN Act, but not in receipt of the mandatory 60 days notice of a plant closing/mass layoff.

The case was referred to a magistrate judge in order to establish whether the workers had sown that all 449 individuals qualified as class members. According to documents of the court, three individuals were excluded from the class before the workers were awarded $2.1 million in statutory damages.

Additionally, the Eighth Circuit panel defended the district court’s actions in denying Celadon’s motion to decertify the class of workers and in rejecting many of the findings of the magistrate judge. They found that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

If you have questions or concerns regarding class certification, mass layoffs or mandatory notice of plant closure or mass layoffs, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

California Orchid Farm Accused of Pregnancy Discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Dash Dream Plant, an orchid farm located in Dos Palos, California, 65 miles northwest of Fresno. Officials state that the California business broke federal law when they refused to give women their jobs back after completing maternity leave. At least four women are involved in the suit, making the same pregnancy discrimination allegations against the company.

The Defendant: Dash Dream Plant, Inc. Dash Dream holds over 140,000 square feet of land and utilizes multiple greenhouses to handle wholesale and personal orchid based orders. They keep an experienced staff on hand, claiming over 20 years of experience. The business began in Korea and expanded to the United States in the late 1990’s. The Dash Dream Plant facility is designed to facilitate both wholesale and retail orders with a retail location within the farm. The farm grows: Cybidiums, Dendrobiums, and Phalaenopsis Orchids in a variety of colors.  

Officials involved in the case state that during Dash Dream Plant staff meetings, managers advised women in attendance not to get pregnant because there were already “too many of them.” They also advised workers that the next to get pregnant should just consider themselves fired from their position with the orchid farm.

Pregnant workers in California are protected by both state and federal employee laws. They have the right to take pregnancy leave without penalty. In fact, California is one of the best states in the nation for pregnant workers and/or workers who plan to have or adopt children. Employers are required by law to respect the right to take disability leave or pregnancy leave in accordance with California pregnancy leave laws.

The law related to this lawsuit states that businesses that have 15 or more employees have to hold a job for women who will be returning from maternity leave. When advised of the lawsuit and the allegations included, Dash Dreams did not respond with a comment.

The southern California employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have the experience needed to help workers in California. Having served as legal representation for both employees and employers in the southern California area, we offer a unique perspective of both sides of the legal argument in employment law cases. If you need assistance with pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch as soon as possible. 

Chipotle Now Facing Alleged Racism Allegations in Another Lawsuit

Chipotle is having a rough year – at least in regards to legal allegations. From class action food poisoning lawsuits, animal welfare issues, drops in both sales and stock price…the popular restaurant chain can’t seem to catch a break in 2016. What are they facing now? Chipotle is making news again, but this time because they are facing allegations of racial discrimination and harassment at one of their California franchise locations.

The California lawsuit filed by Sheqweshu Clark, a previous employee at the El Segndo, California location, states that Latino managers assign day shifts to other Latino employees, but leave “black” staff, like herself, with the less desirable night shifts. But this is not the only claim being made by Clark in the recent lawsuit. She also alleges that management denied there was a problem with either shift assignment or discrimination and then fired Clark a few weeks later without offering an explanation. Clark claims she when she attempted to confront by Chipotle supervisors about preferential treatment, she was summarily dismissed and advised that “black girls” always have “attitude.” Formal allegations included in the lawsuit against Chipotle include: retaliation, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, racial discrimination, and failure to prevent harassment.

Chipotle is not commenting on the allegations at this time, but do state that they have received the suit and will consider its merits in order to determine a course of action. The Chipotle spokesperson did advise that, generally speaking, the filing of a lawsuit constitutes a series of allegations, but does not actually represent proof of wrongdoing.

If you have questions about wrongful termination, discrimination in the workplace, or workplace retaliation, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible.    

Paula Lopez, Former News Anchor, Files Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Paula Lopez, a former news anchor for KEYT/KCOY, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against NPG of California, owner of KEYT and KFFX stations. Lopez worked as a news anchor for the stations for close to 30 years before he was terminated in September 2015. At that time, Lopez was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and assaulting an officer.

Lopez pleaded no contest to DUI, refusing a chemical test, delaying a peace officer, and battery on a peace officer in a plea agreement. As a result she was sentenced to 120 days in jail and probation. She served 50 days in the electronic monitoring program.

Lopez filed the California lawsuit on September 2nd claiming that Lopez’s time with the station/s resulted in a loyal following of viewers through her distinguished and experienced work as one of the most trusted and vibrant television journalists on the Central Coast. Allegations were made the in spite of her history with the company, Lopez was discriminated against, demeaned and degraded on the basis of her sex, disability and Hispanic race/ancestry.

Allegations Included in the Lawsuit:

·       Lopez was denied equal pay based on gender.

·       Lopez was denied reasonable accommodation for her disability.

·       Lopez was denied reasonable accommodation for legal mandated interactive processes in relation to her disability.

Lopez insists that she wasn’t offered a fair agreement when NPG purchased the stations, stating that she was only offered a “minimal pay increase” even though she was already paid a significantly lower salary than CJ Ward, her male, non-Hispanic counterpart on the news show. General manager for the stations, Mark Danielson, responded that NPG does not comment on current or former employees or potential litigation.

Lopez claims that she took leave rom work after she “went missing for a day” in 2013. Reasons for this were related to a combination of symptoms and conditions in connection to anxiety, depression, and alcoholism – all of which the plaintiff claims she was in the process of having treated. Five months later, Lopez was arrested for public intoxication and was suspended from work without pay. Lopez mentions signing a “last chance agreement” in the lawsuit in an attempt to avoid being fired from her job. In the agreement, provisions required random drug and alcohol testing. Lopez claims that the station’s access to the results of these tests violated her privacy. Lopez also alleges that she was later moved to a station with “less stature,” given a more strenuous workload, and replaced on primetime by “younger” and “non-Hispanic” women. Lopez was terminated after her Sept. 6, 2015 DUI arrest.

If you have questions about wrongful termination or if you think that you may have been fired as a result of discriminatory practices in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

San Gabriel Police Officers May Be Headed to the Supreme Court to Talk Benefits

In 2013, former San Gabriel Police Officer Danny Flores (joined by 14 other current and former officers) sued the city citing allegations of unfair calculations of overtime pay rates. After District and Federal courts ruled in favor of the police officers on the issue, they could be headed to the Supreme Court to discuss police benefits as the city looks to appeal.

In June 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the current and former San Gabriel Police Officers who sued over the way the city factored their benefits program into their overtime pay. Regardless of the ruling, the city of San Gabriel announced they would keep fighting the allegations. The city filed a petition for a rehearing of the case, but the petition was denied. On June 21st, the City Council agreed that they would appeal to the Supreme Court. This is the final step on the judicial ladder. The Supreme Court has not yet decided if they will take up the case.

The Facts of the Matter: Flores v. City of San Gabriel

The officers cited the city’s cash-in-lieu-of-benefits provision as a violation of employment law. The provision states that the city of San Gabriel employees can collect pay rather than health benefits. For instance, a city employee who already has health benefits can receive additional pay instead of the benefits their city job offers. The officers argue that the additional pay was not factored in during the city’s overtime pay rate calculations and that doing so could result in $5-10 per hour differences for city employees.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision written by Judge Andre Davis held that the City did not show that it attempted to comply with Fair Labor Standards Act, which left the plaintiffs eligible for liquidated damages.

If you need more information about the Fair Labor Standards Act or if you need to discuss overtime pay calculations that you suspect could be in violation of employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Golden State Phone and Wireless Faces Wage Allegations and Class Action

Israel Padron, a San Luis Obispo local, recently filed a class-action wage and hour suit against Golden State Phone and Wireless, his former employer. He alleges that he was not provided with appropriate overtime compensation. The complaint was filed July 20, 2016 on behalf of other employees in similar situations in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Israel Padron claims that Golden State Phone & Wireless’s practices were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiff’s complaint included allegations that he worked over 40 hours per workweek between October 2012 and September 2015 and did not receive overtime pay as deemed appropriate by law. He claims that the company miscalculated the overtime rate of pay as they failed to include the value assigned for bonuses and/or commissions applicable to his position with the company.

Employers that either require or allow employees to work overtime are required to provide pay as dictated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employees covered by the FLSA must receive overtime pay anytime they work in excess of 40 hours in one workweek. The overtime pay is required to be at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. The FLSA (with some specific exceptions) requires employers to include bonus payments as a part of the employee’s regular rate of pay when they are calculating their overtime pay in accordance with minimum rates of overtime pay set down by FLSA.

Padron requests that he receive a trial by jury in order to resolve the lawsuit and seeks compensatory, consequential, general and special damages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest on due and/or unpaid wages, legal fees, and other relief that the court may deem justified.

If you have questions about overtime pay or if you have been denied overtime pay by your employer, please contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.