Teamsters Object to $27 Million Lyft Deal, but are Rejected

Katie when teamsters’ objected to the proposed $27 million settlement between Lyft and the class of 163,000 California drivers, their objection was rejected by a federal judge. But the same judge also delayed finalizing the proposed deal.

The case has been all over the news and many have heard bits and pieces as the proceedings proceed. To recap, the Uber Lyft Teamsters Ride Share Alliance (known as ULTRA) filed a brief opposing the deal in October. Claims were made that the proposed settlement fails to adequately compensate full-time drivers and also forces workers to waive their right to sue the company due to Fair Labor Standards Act violations. During settlement approval, the U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria appeared to become frustrated when the objecting attorney did not provide specific information supporting his argument that the deal should be rejected. The attorney argued that doubling compensation for individuals who driver 30+ hours per week for Lyft was not adequate because that would leave part-time drivers with a fairly high compensation for their work in comparison to full-time drivers. Yet could not tell the judge what he suggested an appropriate multiplier should be for full-time workers.

A similar argument occurred when the attorney suggested more data would be necessary in order to come up with such a number and the judge asked what data was necessary only to have the attorney unable to say precisely what data he would need to calculate the needed number.   

Other issues discussed during the proceedings were: the settlement provision shielding Lyft from lawsuits over alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations and the workers’ right to opt in to waive their rights to sue, the addition of the condition post- Cotter v. Lyft suit, and appropriate (and timely) notification to workers of the settlement terms and their rights to opt out or object to the deal, the inability to access the actual text of the agreement online, and adequate time for class members to object to the motion for attorneys’ fees (13.6% or $3.67 million in fees), objections regarding Lyft policy and procedure being inadequate in the case of a deaf driver,

According to attorney for the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against Lyft, 84,000 drivers (or 51% of the class) have filed claims for reimbursement so far. As of mid-November, attorneys estimated that drivers who drove over 2,000 hours for the rideshare service since May 2012 should receive distributions of about $11,000 for vehicle expenses reimbursement and unpaid overtime wages. As part of the settlement, drivers would agree to waive their claims that Lyft misclassified them as independent contractors in order to be denied employment benefits. Drivers may continue to submit claims for a portion of the settlement up until the first distribution is allocated to drivers in the class, which should occur about six months after final approval of the settlement is granted by the judge.

For additional information about overtime pay, overtime pay violations or class action certification, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Tellers’ Seating Suit Ending with B of A Paying $15M

In recent California news, Bank of America has decided to settle a class action over suitable seating for bank tellers for a reported $15 million. The settlement includes a deal requiring the bank to offer proper seats for tellers at their various California bank branches.

The settlement was approved by Alameda Superior Court Judge Winifred Y. Smith on October 28th, 2016. The Private Attorneys General Act claim covered all nonexempt Bank of America tellers in the state of California that were employed by the financial institution between March 2, 2010 and the date of the settlement approval. 75% of civil penalties remaining after deducting attorneys’ fees and costs will go to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The other 25% will go to Bank of America’s California tellers according to designated terms. The deal requires that Bank of America ensure all California bank branches have appropriate seat for tellers to use at their workstations within 60 days of the judgment entry.

Attorneys representing the bank in a federal suit moved to dismiss that case with prejudice in light of the deal that was reached, noting that the details of the state case’s settlement included the time period and tellers from the earlier federal action.

The action was up on appeal before the Ninth Circuit twice, but in both instances, the lower court’s dismissal of the action was dismissed. In February 2013, the appeals court stated the U.S. District Judge Real wrongly found that employees must request seats before they are provided and remanded for further proceedings. In May 2013, the suit was dismissed again on the grounds of preemption by the federal National Banking Act and the plaintiffs’ failure to properly exhaust the available administrative solutions. This dismissal was also reversed by the Ninth Circuit in October 2015. They found there was no indication that the applicable California wage order would pose a significant disturbance to the National Banking Act’s functions or purposes. It was also found that the plaintiffs did properly exhaust available administrative remedies when they offered written notice of claims to both the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the bank.

The tellers, of course, seek to make the order precedential, as the first ruling affirmatively stating the content that satisfies California Labor Code requirements for notification.

The original class action was filed in April 2011 by former Bank of America tellers, Green and Giddings. They accused the bank of making them stand even though it was in violation of the wage order and there was plenty of room in the workspace for appropriate seating. Similar suits have been brought against large retailers throughout California since 2009.

If you have questions about this or other California class actions, please get in touch with the experienced class action and employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

California Guard Veterans Told to Repay Enlistment Bonuses

Close to a decade ago the Pentagon used a classic maneuver to entice soldiers to reenlist: hefty bonuses. Now, officials are demanding that thousands of those vets pay the money back. One California veteran affected by the situation is Christopher Van Meter. He was awarded the Purple Heart after being thrown from an armored vehicle during a deployment to Iraq. When the moment came for him to retire back in 2007 after serving for 15 years in the Army, he was encouraged to reenlist. According to Van Meter, he was encouraged with a reenlistment bonus of about $15,000. About a decade later, officials realized that Van Mater and many others like him were not technically eligible to receive the bonuses they were given to reenlist.

Bonus Eligibility: In recent news, bonus eligibility has been discussed – particularly the fact that only soldiers holding certain assignments (i.e. intelligence, noncommissioned officer posts, civil affairs, etc.) were eligible for the bonuses. Investigation into the situation uncovered both fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials who were desperately offering the bonuses in order to meet their enlistment target numbers.

In 2011, the California Guard incentive manager, retired Master Sgt. Toni Jaffe, pleaded guilty to filing false claims of $15.2 million. During the course of her admission, she stated that from Fall 2007 through Fall 2009, she routinely submitted fictitious claims on behalf of California National Guard members to pay bonuses to members she knew were not eligible, and to pay off officer’s loans she knew were ineligible for loan repayment. She was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Three other officers involved pleaded guilty, were required to pay restitution and put on probation. As a result, thousands of soldiers are now being asked to pay a hefty price for the fraudulent/fictional claims. Millions in enlistment bonuses are basically being recalled.

Van Meter, mentioned above, was shocked to receive a letter stating he owed $46,000: a combination of $15,000 enlistment bonus, a student loan repayment amount and an officer bonus…plus a processing fee. After his retirement in 2013, he had three years to pay back the debt. That meant monthly payments of more than $1,300 –leaving Van Meter struggling to provide the basics for his family. They were eventually forced to refinance their mortgage in order to pay off the staggering debt that they didn’t even know they had accumulated. The Van Meter family is one of many in similar situations. Some claim that approximately 9,700 current and retired soldiers have been told to repay some or all of the bonuses they received years ago, but the military auditor handling the process, Col. Michael Piazzoni, stated that the number was lower.

According to Piazzoni, 11,000 soldiers were included in the audit. 1,100 were discovered as receiving unauthorized distributions that need to be repaid. 5,400 soldiers were discovered to have missing paperwork or proper documentation of eligibility and have to pay back the money they received. Approximately 4,000 soldiers were found to be eligible for the payments as they were distributed. The process is not yet complete, but auditors have already confirmed 2,300 instances of unauthorized bonus payments to about 2,000 soldiers. The total comes to $22 million in unauthorized bonuses. That number includes 1,100 soldiers who received unauthorized money and the soldiers from the 5,400 who were unable to show proof of eligibility. The remaining recipients will need to produce the proper documentation proving their eligibility for the funds or they could be held liable to repay the amounts back to the Defense Department.

The audit and recoupment is being handled through a federal program jointly administered by the National Guard Bureau and the Department of the Army. The California National Guard has stated that it does not have the authority to waive the debts and that their hands are tied in this situation. As of now, there is no law passed by Congress to waive the debts so they stand, leaving the California National Guard in a difficult position as there isn’t much they can do to advocate for their soldiers. Affected soldiers are able to petition to have a debt waived. The military does hole the authority to waive an individual repayment, but only on a one-by-one basis. There is no authority held by the military to issue a blanket waiver to cover all soldiers affected by this situation.

Soldiers are being encouraged to take advantage of the appeals process while the Pentagon, the Army, the National Guard Bureau, the California Army National Guard and other relevant authorities and institutions work together to work towards a resolution. Soldiers affected who have petitioned for debt forgiveness have been denied, Van Mater multiple times. Van Meter is just one California vet who accepted an incentive payment in good faith. Many of them paid a heavy price for their military service; many even experienced severe injuries after reenlisting. And now, years later they are offered processing fees, interest charges, wage garnishment, tax liens and fines. It’s possible that Congress will take action to resolve the issue when members return from election recess.

If you have questions or concerns regarding enlistment bonuses, or proving your eligibility for bonuses please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Former Kohl’s Employee Not to Be Discriminated Against for Medical Marijuana Use

A former Kohl’s employee, Justin Shepherd, was fired for his use of medical marijuana after he was injured on the job and a drug test was conducted. A federal court judge in California determined that this employee may move forward with his lawsuit against Kohl’s, his former employer. Shepherd worked at Kohl’s Department Store for over five years before he was diagnosed with acute and chronic anxiety and given a recommendation for medical marijuana use. He did not inform his employer of his use of medical marijuana, but the company did update their policies to include rhetoric protecting California employees from medical marijuana use discrimination.

When Shepherd’s job injury led to a drug test that revealed his use of marijuana, he was terminated. When he sued for the alleged breach of contract, covenant of good faith, fair dealing and defamation, the court denied Kohl’s motion for summary judgment, but placed a few claims under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. This is a noteworthy case as there is still heavy discussion about the contradictions between federal law that still identifies marijuana as an illegal substance and state laws that permit marijuana use for medical and sometimes recreational use (depending on the state).

Shepherd worked as a material handler at Kohl’s in June 2006. When he was hired, he signed an agreement including a clause stating he was an at-will employee. By 2011 Shepherd had been promoted. He had also been diagnosed with acute, chronic anxiety with his doctor recommending medical marijuana use. Shepherd did not disclose his condition or treatment to Kohl’s. In 2012, the company policies were updated to include exceptions to its drug testing and substance abuse policies protecting California (and other applicable states) employees from discrimination for medical marijuana use in regards to hiring, firing, and other employment matters. Shepherd claims he took note of these policy changes and was depending on them when he decided to continue his anxiety treatment and stay at Kohl’s rather than look for new employment elsewhere.

In 2014, Shepherd was injured on the job. He went to a healthcare provider contracted with the company where a drug test revealed trace amounts of marijuana metabolites. Shepherd then showed his manager his medical marijuana recommendation and advised them that he only used it when off duty, and that the metabolites can stay in the system for quite a while. Shepherd was terminated for his “drug use.” He was told that he should have chosen to address his anxiety issue with a different medication. He filed suit quickly thereafter.

If you have questions about medical marijuana policies in your workplace or about what constitutes wrongful termination, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

The Ruling in Burns’ Wrongful Termination Suit vs. SDSU

In recent news, Beth Burns was victorious in her wrongful termination lawsuit against SDSU. The former San Diego State women’s basketball coach was awarded a $3.35 million judgment in San Diego Superior Court per jury decision. The case was founded on whistleblower retaliation accusations that occurred after Burns complained about potential Title IX violations at the college.  

The jury trial went on for a month. The jury consisted of five women and seven men who voted 9-3 in Burns’ favor after deliberating for two days. The 9-3 vote represents the minimum required by California civil court.

Burns is known as SDSU’s “winningest” women’s basketball coach. The wrongful termination lawsuit was drawn out into a three-year legal battle. She did not want to go through the process, but felt she had not other choice as she was being accused of physically hitting someone, others were saying she was not a good person, and she couldn’t accept that. She felt the legal battle was necessary in order to clear her name from the false accusations. 

In April of 2013 Burns was fired from her position as women’s basketball coach at the university. This was one month after her team won 27 games (breaking a school record) and only nine month after Burns’ contract extension through 2016-17 was granted paying her $220,000 per year plus bonuses and benefits. After her termination, she was out of work for a year before taking a job as an assistant coach at USC with a pay cut to $150,000 per year.

SDSU claimed that the reason for Burns’ termination was a “history” of mistreating her subordinates with a video from a February 2013 home game showing Burns elbowing assistant coach Adam Barrett who was seated to her right on the bench. Burns described the elbow as “incidental contact on a crowded bench.”  

The $3.35 million judgment was based on an award of $468,500 for past economic losses, $887,750 for future economic losses and $2 million for past and future non-economic losses and damages. 

If you have questions about wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation or a hostile work environment, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Bank Employee Sues for Wrongful Termination Seeking $2.6B

A former Wells Fargo bank employee is suing the financial institution for $2.6 billion due to allegations of wrongful termination. Just days after lawmakers encouraged the Department of Labor to look into Well Fargo’s actions against their employees when their workers made allegations of firing and other mistreatment for failure to meet strict sales quotas. These are the same strict sales quotas that had already resulted in the opening and closing of over two million unauthorized consumer accounts.

The wild story is now nearing an end with a group of former Wells Fargo employees banding together to file a class action lawsuit in California seeking $2.6 billion in damages. Damages being sought will be on behalf of all Wells Fargo employees who endured penalties for not meeting outlandish sales quotas over the past 10 years. Allegations being made against the banking giant include: unlawful business practices, failure to pay wages, failure to pay overtime, wrongful termination and unlawful penalties against employees.

According to the two original plaintiffs (both former Wells Fargo employees), the Wells Fargo managers required employees to meet a quota of 10 accounts per day and progress reports submitted several times throughout each day. Any workers who fell short of these requirements were reprimanded for failing to meet expectations. According to the suit, the employees were unable to meet the outlandish requirements without resorting to fraud. It continues to specify that the biggest victims of Wells Fargo’s illegal activity are the employees who were fired because they did not meet the cross sell quotas by engaging in the fraudulent scam that increased profits for CEOs. Plaintiffs insist that there are thousands of loyal employees who were either fired or demoted because they did NOT resort to illegal tactics for purposes of meeting impossible cross-selling quotas.

The plaintiffs allege that employees who attempted to meet the unrealistic goals without opening unauthorized accounts engaging in other, similarly fraudulent behavior, lost wages and benefits, as well as suffering humiliation, anxiety and embarrassment.

If you have questions or concerns regarding wrongful termination, workplace retaliation, or seeking class certification, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Employee Claims Unum Wrongfully Terminated her Benefits

Leticia Salgado, a Los Angeles woman previously employed as a food service associate, alleges that her disability benefits were wrongfully terminated by Unum Life. Salgado file her complaint on October 7th, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Unum Life Insurance Co. of America. She alleges Unum Life violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Helpful Terms and Definitions:

Disability Benefits: Income received by an individual from a disability insurance policy. The income is distinct from any income due to a workers compensation plan.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) dates all the way back to 1974. It is a federal law setting minimum standards that apply to most voluntarily established pension and health plans in the private industry. The Act serves as a means of protection for individuals making use of these plans.

Leticia Salgado’s allegations included in the complaint begin in 2013. Salgado was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and soon thereafter she became disabled. According to the plaintiff’s claims, she was initially paid disability benefits. The benefits continued for two years, but at that point the disability benefits were terminated by Unum Life (the Defendants). Salgado, the plaintiff in the case, holds Unum Life Insurance Company of America responsible due to a breach of contract.

Salgado seeks long-term disability payment at the rate of $1,192 per month plus interest and any additional relief that the court feels is appropriate.

If you have questions or concerns regarding the wrongful termination of benefits, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.