Sedgwick Partner Sued Firm: Gender Bias Case Nears Settlement

Traci Ribeiro, a nonequity partner from Sedgwick LLP’s Chicago office, sued the firm alleging that she and other female lawyers at the firm were being short-changed. Recent updates in the case indicate they may be nearing a settlement deal. Ribeiro first proposed class action citing accusations that the firm’s all-male leadership team routinely denies female attorneys equal pay and opportunities for promotion. Within her complaint, Ribeiro described Sedgwick LLP as a male-dominated culture utilizing systemic gender discrimination.

Definition of Gender Bias: Unequal treatment, particularly in relation to an employment opportunity, such as promotion, benefits, work privileges, pay rate, expected job duties, etc. When differences in these employment opportunities are based on the sex of an employee or a group of employees, this is referred to as gender bias. Gender bias in the workplace, during the application process, as a reason for termination, etc. can be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit in accordance with anti-discrimination statues.

Ribeiro’s allegations continued, claiming that she had not advanced to equity partner even though she was just as qualified and just as accomplished as male attorneys at the firm. In addition, she cited multiple examples of female attorneys that were being paid less than males in equal positions at Sedgwick LLP.

Due to terms included in an alternative dispute resolution provision in the firm partnership agreement, Sedgwick quickly moved the suit to federal court and then arbitration. U.S. District Judge William Alsup indicated in November, 2016 that two things must be determined: 1) whether or not the dispute is arbitrable, and 2) if Ribeiro’s 1012 partnership agreement’s arbitration clause can be enforced.

The parties submitted a joint report noting that they had conducted a meeting April 4th, 2017 with a mediator in an attempt to reach a provisional settlement. Having successfully done so, they executed a memorandum of understanding in anticipation of a full settlement executed in short order. Ribeiro also amended her complaint.

If you have questions regarding gender bias, or how to react to gender bias in the workplace, please get in touch with an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible.

UC Berkeley Is Rocked by Another Sexual Misconduct Scandal

As University of California Berkeley again faces sexual harassment allegations, some might refer to their history in recent years as a plaque of sexual harassment reports. Most recently, a renowned University of California Berkeley professor was sued due to alleged groping of an Asian-American research assistant. The former student, 24-year old Joanna Ong, filed the lawsuit against UC Berkeley’s star Philosophy professor, John R. Searle. She claims that he groper her and when she declined his advances, he fired her.

The California sexual harassment lawsuit was filed at Alameda County Superior Court seeking damages for sexual harassment and assault, wrongful termination and the creation of a hostile work environment. In addition to the star Philosophy professor being listed as defendant in the case, Regents of the University of California were listed as co-dependents.

Ong stated that as such a renowned professor of philosophy, Searle should be completely familiar with the concept of coercion, but that instead both the professor and the university used their power and their platform to abuse others. While 84-year old Searle has stepped down from teaching, he retains emeritus status at the university. He has been teaching at UC Berkeley since 1959 and just last year, the university unveiled the John Searle Center for Social Ontology, the 1st center of its kind in the nation.

It was the same year when Ong was offered a job under Searle. According to court documents, the offer was for $1,000 per month salary as a consultant for the new center, plus $3,000 per month supplemented by Searle himself. Based on Searle’s reputation as an esteemed philosopher at UC Berkeley, Ong accepted the job offer willingly in July 2016. Ong claims the first few days of her job went well. Ong stated that she even shared her worries about making ends meet while pursuing a career in academia. Searle’s response was to reassure Ong that her living costs and needs would be taken care of and urged her to have a relationship of “total trust” with him. Things escalated quickly from that point. Searle allegedly groped Ong in his offer after advising her that they were “going to be lovers” amid other inappropriate claims and insinuations. When his proposal was rejected, Searle apologized and paid Ong the promised $3,000.

When Professor Searle went on vacation, Ong reported the incident to the center’s director, Jennifer Hudin, but no appropriate action was taken. Ong claims that Hudin told her that she would protect her from further advances, but that she also said Searle had previously had sexual relationships with his students in exchange for “academic, monetary or other benefits.”

From that point forward, Ong states that the workplace became increasingly hostile and awkward. When Searle returned from vacation, he pretended nothing happened. Ong stated that for the rest of her time in the position, Searle watched pornography at work, made inappropriately sexist comments when she was nearby, requested that Ong log into an inappropriate website for him, and insisted that Ong read and respond to his emails including flirtatious correspondence with young women (both UC Berkeley students and foreign students from Europe). Some of the women corresponding were asking to be his research assistant; which was at that time Ong’s position. Further complaints to Hudin garnered the response that nothing was done out of respect/loyalty for the professor and because Hudin needed to protect Searle.

Searle eventually cut Ong’s salary in half and fired her soon after the pay cut. Ong’s attorney points out that Hudin and other administrators and professors at UC Berkeley were aware of the lecherous behavior on Searle’s part based on a large amount of evidence of his sexual misconduct by both emails and actual complaints made against him.

If you need to discuss a hostile work environment or sexual harassment in the workplace, please contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Shedding Some Light on the Serious H1B Visa Program Issue

60 Minutes recently ran a story on the H1B Visa program that showed the impossible situation many American workers found themselves in when they were told to train their own replacements. These workers from foreign countries were a part of the H1B Visa program, which is intended to save taxpayers millions of dollars through outsourcing, but the alleged long-term benefits for taxpayers are of no comfort to those who are facing the loss of their jobs.

American workers interviewed about the situation were still having trouble “wrapping their minds” around actually being forced to train someone to take their own position; their livelihood. Workers agreed with interviewers that the situation feels like being forced to dig their own grave…and then get in it.

Robert Harrison, one of the workers interviewed regarding the situation, is an engineer previously employed by UCSF Medical. Harrison was fired along with 80 of his co-workers recently when their jobs were outsourced to India. Before leaving his position, Harrison, like his coworkers, was forced to train his own replacement. The situation left Harrison, and many American workers in similar situations, outraged and angry. Harrison had to sit next to the worker chosen to replace him in his position at UCSF Medical - wishing the entire time that he wasn’t being forced to work with his own replacement sitting next to him “shadowing” him and attempting to learn all that he knows in order to step into Harrison’s place at the company. Yet doing so was the only way to ensure that he would receive pay through February 2017 as well as a promised bonus. Making the full pay contingent upon fulfilling obligations to train replacements left Harrison, and many like him, with his hands tied. 

Representation for hundreds of workers who have been fired from their jobs in favor of foreign workers with H1B Visas stated emphatically that the situation should offend everyone. She insists that no one should be told that they are losing their job because they are being replaced by cheap, foreign labor. It is an insult to each and every worker being forced to train their own replacements and seek employment elsewhere.

The H1B visa was created in 1990 to help the United States attract the top foreign graduates and offer them a path to United States citizenship. When the program was created, Congress promised American workers that their jobs would be protected. Almost every major tech company has employees here on H1B visas, including Apple, Google, etc. Media companies also embrace the practice. The author of the H1-B Visa bill, Former Congressman Bruce Morrison, has stated that the bill has been “hijacked.”

If you have questions about how the H1B visa program could affect your job or your workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern and northern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Wells Fargo

Diana Duenas-Brown worked at a California Wells Fargo location for 14 years. During 11 of those years she worked as the Branch Manager. On December 9, 2016, Duenas-Brown filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and retaliation. Allegedly, Duenas-Brown reported wrongdoing at Wells Fargo and as a result, she was fired in obvious retaliation for her reporting of illegal activity. In addition, her Wells Fargo supervisors harassed her.

According to the record, Duenas-Brown was fired on March 16, 2015 following her report of illegal sales practices by co-workers (i.e. opening customer accounts and issuing credit cards without prior customer consent). After an investigation uncovered widespread wrongdoing on the part of its sales representatives, Wells Fargo faced sanctions.

Duenas-Brown states that after reporting the illegal activity to her supervisors at Wells Fargo, she was harassed. She received unwarranted discipline, endured hostile interrogations, and was given poor performance reviews. She was also demoted, and transferred and had her wages reduced. This all occurred in the ten months preceding her termination from Well Fargo.

According to the lawsuit, Duenas-Brown suffered financial loss, the loss of her employee benefits and the loss of expected advancement opportunities as a direct result of the actions of Wells Fargo in response to her report of illegal activity in practice at the bank.

In response to the lawsuit and the allegations included, Wells Fargo stated that they have a zero tolerance for retaliation against employees policy – including retaliation against employees who submit a report of wrongdoing. The allegations included in the Wells Fargo lawsuit could easily be viewed as harassment on the job, but the lawsuit officially claims wrongful termination and retaliation. 

Wells Fargo is also facing lawsuits from customers who allege that the bank opened up face accounts/credit cards in their name without their consent. Some of the customers claim that the illegal action had a negative effect on their credit reports/scores. Wells Fargo has already paid $185 million in fines as a result of the illegal activity.

According to California employment law, employers must undergo training intended to prevent abusive conduct against employees, such as verbal abuse, physical abuse, derogatory remarks, etc. Abusive conduct can be defined as any act that occurs repeatedly. The law does not actually ban abusive conduct, but it does require training intended to prevent it from occurring. Sexual harassment against employees and discrimination against specified protected groups are also prohibited under employment law.

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

Versace Allegedly Employed a Code Designed to Identify Black Shoppers

One of Versace’s former employees, Christopher Sampino, has come forward to file suit against the company alleging state law violations, i.e. unfair business practices, wrongful termination, racial discrimination, etc. The lawsuit claims that the Italian design house uses a secret “black code” that alerts staff and security when there is a black shopper in one of their retail locations.

Sampino’s complaint was filed in Alameda County Superior Court and included allegations that he was discriminated against by Versace for being of mixed race. He was fired after just two weeks at the Versace outlet store in Pleasanton, California. In the complaint, Sampino alleges that new-employee training included an unnamed manger advising him regarding the “D410 Code.” The code is used for labeling black clothing, but it is also used in a casual manner whenever a black person enters the Versace store. When he was advised of the use of the code, the manager explained that it was used to alert Versace workers that a “black person is in the store.”

Sampino also claims that during his time with Versace he was harassed and eventually terminated after informing the store manager that he was, in fact, black. According to Sampino, he met and/or exceeded all expectations in connection with his Versace employment, but was fired after two weeks because he did not “understand luxury” and did not “know the luxury life.” Versace also advised Sampino that his dismissal was due to his lack of experiencing a luxury life. He was advised to quit in order to make the paperwork easier.

Labor Violation Allegations Listed in Sampino’s Suit Include:

1. Not being paid for time worked.

2. Not receiving required rest periods.

3. Being wrongfully terminated.

Sampino seeks class action certification. If the proposed class action lawsuit is certified by the court, other employees and/or former employees of Versace who found themselves in similar situations and were subjected to discriminatory treatment by Versace in the U.S. during the same time frame would be able to join in the case and share in any settlement amounts.

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

Augustus v. ABM Security Services: On Duty Rest Breaks Rejected

In the midst of the holidays, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. stating that the law does not allow employers to require their employees to utilize on-duty or on-call rest breaks. The impact of this decision will likely impact thousands of California employment centers with similar policies, particularly in security, hospitality, and retail industries.

California’s Industrial Welfare Commission’s industry-specific Wage Orders require employers in the state to allow non-exempt employees to take a 10 minute rest break for each four hour work period. The law also indicates specifically that the 10 minutes should be consecutive and that, when possible, the break should occur in the middle of the shift. In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. the question was whether or not this requirement was fulfilled if the “rest break” was on-duty or on-call.

This particular case was based on plaintiffs’ complaints that they were non-exempt security guards working for the company, ABM Security Services, Inc. (ABM) at a variety of work sites (i.e. residential, commercial, retail, office, industrial, etc.) throughout the state of California, and their principal duties providing immediate response to emergency and/or life threatening situations and physical security on site required that they keep their pagers and radios on. There was no exception to the rule for rest breaks. As part of their job duties, security guards were required to keep pagers and radios on during rest breaks and stay vigilant and respond to any calls that occurred regardless of their rest break schedule.

ABM’s policy was based on the urgency or time-sensitive nature of some of the clients’ needs pertaining to the on site security guards in a number of different circumstances. Some such situations included: building tenant who wanted a security escort to the parking lot, the manager of a building that needed notification of a mechanical issue on site, and various “emergencies.”

Security guards working for ABM saw this as a violation of labor law and filed suit complaining that ABM failed to provide employees with compliant rest breaks. The plaintiffs were granted summary judgment and awarded approximately $90 million by the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.

The case presented two issues to be considered by the Supreme Court:

1.     Are employers required to allow employees to take “off-duty” rest breaks?

2.     Can employers require employees to remain “on-call” during rest breaks?

After considering the issue, the California Supreme Court came to a decision. They first noted that California law did not explicitly require employers to provide “off-duty” rest breaks, but they also took into consideration the plain meaning of the word “rest” and other language included in the Wage Order and Labor Code. When they concluded that rest breaks need to be off-duty they noted that California Labor Code section 226.7 prohibits employers from requiring any employee to work during any meal or rest period and that the relevant Wage Order’s wording indicated that rest breaks needed to be considered time worked. The court decided that the language indicating that “rest breaks” be counted as “work time” would not be necessary unless it was the intention of the law for rest breaks to be off-duty. ABM attempted to sway the court’s decision in their favor by pointing to language in the Wage Order discussing the possibility for employers (on rare occasion) to require employees to take on-duty meal breaks. Their argument did not hold as the Court’s opinion was that the absence of language authorizing the same for on-duty rest breaks was more telling than the existence of the exception made for meal breaks. The Court held that rest breaks must be off-duty.

The Court also had to consider whether employers could comply with requirements to provide employees with breaks while also keeping them “on call” during the break. ABM argued that there was a difference between an employer requiring that an employee keep working throughout their rest break and an employer requiring that the employee remain on call. The Court did not agree and noted that the practical realities of a 10-minute rest period must be considered. The time limitation alone already restricted the employees’ options regarding what they could do on break. The Court felt any additional limitations (i.e. requirements for pagers or phones or availability on site, etc.) were not in accordance with the intention of the law to offer employees a small period of “freedom” from the job for rest and to use for their own purposes. Based on these arguments, the Court held that on-call rest breaks were not compliant with the law. 

The Augustus decision will have a significant impact on California employers who utilize on-duty or on-call rest breaks in order to maximize staff productivity and accommodate single-employee shifts. Employers who are unable to comply with the rest break requirement to relieve employees of all duties may have to pay rest break premiums as an alternative. If you have questions regarding how the Augustus decision could affect you, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Chinese Toy Factory Cut Off by Disney for Alleged Labor Violations

Walt Disney Co. recently halted all business dealings with a Chinese toymaker and warned another of pending similar action due to reports of labor violations.  

As the world’s largest entertainment company, Burbank-based Disney felt it was important enough to post a memo on their website stating that it would no longer allow Dongguan Qing Xi Juantiway Plastic Factory to manufacture products that featured Disney characters. Labor violations were flagged by China Labor Watch, which is a New York-based non-profit whose mission is to monitor overseas manufacturing.

The investigation into the practices of Dongguan Qing Xi Juantiway Plastic Factory found that the company failed to remediate hiring and human resources problems that were identified at the facility last year. This was in spite of encouragement from and a contractual obligation to Disney to comply. Disney did not share additional information on their website regarding the specific problems/issues that were identified.

Lam Sun Toy Limited Co. was also noted as failing to meet expectations for accurate record-keeping, health and safety requirements and human resources policies. The Lam Sun company will have a chance to address the issues, but if they do not bring their practices and policies into compliance, Disney plans to discontinue their relationship as well.

Labor standards abroad are a continuing problem for U.S. companies who look to their foreign partners to manufacture goods and products that are then sold around the world. Policing foreign plants is riddled with challenges. In this instance, the challenges of policing a foreign plant are compounded by the sheer size of the Disney company, as they likely license their brands to hundreds of similar foreign vendors who then contract separately with manufacturers. 

Disney continues to maintain their International Labor Standards program (started in 1996) that works with companies and governmental agencies in order to prevent abuse. According to the company’s website, there are 120 people staffed in 12 different countries working to monitor and improve conditions in over 30,000 factories. Approximately 28% of the factories are found in China. Labor violations were listed by China Labor Watch in connection with five Chinese toy plants known to do business with Disney last year (including Dongguan Qing Xi Juantiway Plastic Factory).  A second report was released in June by China Labor Watch indicating that Lam Sun was only hiring women for assembly jobs, lacked of safety equipment and training, and forced overtime work in excess of local limits (90 hours overtime in one month).

If you have questions or concerns on how to handle overtime issues or other employment law violations, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.