$300 Million Suit Insists Ogletree Law Firm Supports Gender Pay Gap

In recent news, Ogletree Law Firm was accused of gender pay gap in connection with a $300 million lawsuit. The case is all the more interesting because Ogletree Law Firm specializes in defending companies against this type of lawsuit.

How did they end up as a Defendant? It started with Dawn Knepper, California employment lawyer, transferred to the Orange County office in 2012. She requested equal or greater pay in comparison to a male associate with similar seniority whom she had surpassed in both billable hours and new business leads. Rather than agree to her requirement, the firm paid her about $100,000 less than what the male associate was being paid.

This led to one of the claims in Knepper’s l$300 million gender discrimination lawsuit citing Ogletree Deakins as the Defendant. According to Knepper, the firm is male dominated with the majority of decision makers being male and the culture one that fosters the marginalization of women. She also accused the firm of supporting a work culture that demeans and undervalues women.

The website for the firm boasts diversity and equality in their workforce, but Knepper’s suit claims that approximately 80% of equity partners at the firm are men and that the situation means fewer opportunities and lower pay for female associates. She filed her proposed class action complaint against the firm (with more than 700 attorneys throughout the US) was filed on January 12, 2018.

Ogletree insists that they have always kept equal opportunity as a core value at the firm and that they in no way tolerate discrimination of any kind. They also claim that half the firm’s employees are female and that 2 of the 4 elected members of its compensation committee are also women. They went even further to claim that many of their most successful attorneys are women.

If you feel you are being unfairly treated in the workplace, if you are the victim of a gender pay gap or you need assistance obtaining filing a proposed class action lawsuit, please contact an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Does Google Discriminate Against White Male Conservatives?

A former Google Engineer, James Damore, filed a class action lawsuit against Google claiming that they discriminate against white, male, conservatives after he was fired in August. Damore’s firing occurred after he posted a memo to an internal message board at the company presenting a very specific argument:

Damore’s memo argued that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are “biologically less capable” of engineering.

In response to his termination, Damore filed a class action lawsuit against Google in Santa Clara Superior Court. In his suit, Damore claims that Google unfairly discriminates against white men with conservative political views that are not “popular” with Google execs. 

Damore is not making allegations alone either. He is joined by another former Google engineer: David Gudeman. Gudeman spent 3 years working on a query engine for the company. According to his publicly accessible LinkedIn profile, Gudeman left Google in December 2016 and has since been self-employed.

The lawsuit states that it is intended to represent any employees of Google that have been discriminated against as a result of their “perceived conservative political views” by the company or due to their male gender or being a Caucasian. The plaintiffs specifically accuse Google of singling out and systematically mistreating employees that express views that deviate from the popular or “norm” at Google pertaining to various political topics raised in the workplace and/or issues that are relevant to Google’s policies and procedures in relation to employment or business. The lawsuit includes examples, such as: diversity hiring policies, bias sensitivity, social justice, etc.

The men are seeking monetary, non-monetary and punitive remedies.

Google stated that Damore was fired for violating the company code of conduct and promoting negative gender stereotypes in the workplace. The Labor Department is conducting a separate investigation into systemic pay discrimination at Google, but Google denies that there is a problem stating that they have found no pay gap in their own analysis.

If you need assistance filing a California wrongful termination law suit, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Whistle-Blower Points the Fraud Finger at Banc of California

Banc of California, Inc. is under investigation by U.S. regulators. The investigation follows a situation in which a short seller linked the institution to an imprisoned con man, alleged inflated profits and a top executive who allegedly supported his stripper habit with company funds. Allegations were detailed in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by Heather Endresen, a former managing director for the Small Business Administration’s Loan Program.

According to the lawsuit, a decision was made at management level that reversed accrued employee bonuses, which caused Banc of California Inc. to carry over revenues generated in 2016 improperly in order to create a “false” representation of profits for the year. After complaining about the shifting of the pool of bonuses, as well as the inappropriate behavior of the then-CFO, Francisco Turner, Endresen claims she was wrongfully terminated.

According to the complaint filed by Endresen, Turner used company money to pay for strippers as well as engaging in sexual conduct with employees at the office, using drugs at work and putting pressure on lower level employees to join him in his behavior.

Turner declined to comment on the allegations other than to say that there are no claims against him personally and he disputes the allegations made about him. He stated that he would be vindicated through the legal process.

Endresen claims that when she reported the problems, she was told by Banc of California’s legal counsel that the company did not have a policy in place that prohibited employees from engaging in either behavior (engaging in sexual activities in the workplace or using company money to pay for strip clubs). Turner resigned from his position as Banc of California CFO in June in order to pursue other interests. According to the official statement on the matter, Turner’s decision to leave did not relate to any issues regarding the company’s financial reporting, system integrity, etc.

The company insists that the action has no merit and that they will be defending against the claims.

If you have questions regarding wrongful termination or you have been wrongfully terminated from your employment, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Nurses Call for Approval for $40M+ Settlement in Putative Class Action

In a putative consolidated class action alleging St. Joseph’s Healthcare System acted in violation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, counsel for the plaintiffs called for approval on a settlement in excess of $40 million. Counsel noted that a related high court ruling set their case back. When seeking preliminary approval, plaintiffs stated that St. Joseph’s already put $45 million towards an employee pension plan as a part of the proposed deal. This is $2.5 million more than is required by according to tentative agreements between parties.

The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval is unopposed and the completed payment represents half of the agreed upon funding. The plan is designed to offer relief to the class members and remove the uncertainty of litigation while addressing the original concern of improving the retirement security for plan participants/class members.

Plaintiffs in the case allege that St. Joseph’s denied ERISA protections to plan participants and beneficiaries of their pension plan and that they did so by incorrectly claiming the plan was exempt under ERISA due to claims that it was actually a church plan. Central to plaintiff arguments against this line of reasoning is that a church plan must be established by a church in order to legally qualify for this level of exemption.

On June 5th, a Supreme Court opinion extended ERISA’s religious exemption to include benefit plans that are maintained by church affiliates. This decision overturned a number of federal circuit court rulings maintaining that this particular exemption could only be applicable when the benefit plan was established by the church itself. The decision also effectively negated the plaintiffs’ main argument that only a church established plan can qualify as a “church plan” for ERISA.

The plaintiff case included additional arguments, but it cannot be argued that the June 5th Supreme Court opinion negatively affected the decision on the case. Due to this, the settlement is particularly favorable for the proposed class. The ruling was handed down after parties in the St. Joseph’s case had already negotiated settlement terms and memorialized key terms of the proposed agreement.

According to the Proposed Settlement Terms:

·       Accrued benefits will be paid over a seven-year period.

·       Summary plan descriptions will be provided.

·       Pension benefit statements will be provided.

·       Other certain protections similar to ERISA provisions will be included.

If you need to discuss an ERISA violation, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.
 

ERISA Fee Class Action Does Not Look Favorably on Edison International

Edison International was recently round liable for breaching its fiduciary obligations in accordance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) after a suit from works alleged the energy utility company used unnecessarily expensive retirement plans. Damages come close to $8 million.

Edison International was found liable for the actual loss due to excessive fees paid in a suit from a class of Midwest Generation LLC employees. The company is an LLC of Edison International unit Edison Mission Group Inc. Workers alleged that the company chose 17 different mutual funds in connection with the workers’ 401(k) plan, but that all of them were more expensive “retail class” fund shares instead of the wholesale “institutional class” shares that come at a significantly lower cost to investors.

The judge found that any prudent fiduciary should have invested in wholesale “institutional class” shares instead of the more expensive “retail class” fund shares. Edison argued that they had the right to choose the higher cost shares offering revenue sharing – which helps to significantly offset administration fees paid by the company – because the company provided notification to the plan participants of the availability of revenue sharing.

The judge did not find the company’s argument viable, stating that no prudent fiduciary would purposefully choose to invest in more expensive retail shares based on speculative fear that higher administrative costs may be reallocated to plan participants.

The decision in the case followed 10 years of litigation. On the 10th anniversary of the lawsuit’s filing, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing them to receive damages in accordance with the suggested formula.

If you need to discuss ERISA and how it applies to your retirement income, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Colgate Retirees Alleging Benefit Denial Receive Class Certification

A class of former Colgate-Palmolive Co. brought denial of benefits claims in an ERISA action. Their suit was filed in June 2016 following an earlier ERISA case that included allegations that Colgate miscalculated retirement benefits. The June 2016 suit resulted in a $45.9 million settlement.

In July 2017, a New York federal judge approved class certification. The certification of the class of former workers essentially shut down the company’s arguments stating that a former employee is not an adequate representative for a class that is seeking resolution on an additional benefits case.

Allegedly, Colgate miscalculated pension benefits for retirees under their “residual annuity amendment” the standard retirement plan/policy. The amendment was generated to correct an error that failed to provide beneficiaries with specific benefits when lump sum payments were taken out. The complaint alleges that Colgate didn’t address those payments until it was included in a previous Employee Retirement Income Security Act action.

The judge’s 15-page decision stated that the plaintiffs met all the requirements for certification (in accordance with Rule 23(a)). Colgate’s challenge to the putative class was based on typicality and adequacy requirements. No arguments were made regarding numerosity or commonality. Colgate specifically claims that plaintiff Rebecca McCutcheon is not an adequate representative because she defers to legal counsel. The judge did not find the argument persuasive enough due to the highly technical nature of the case at hand. McCutcheon, who is not a lawyer, would obviously have difficulty providing answers to questions about claims in the case. She exhibited a general understanding of the case and a general desire to be a “watchdog” for the proposed class in seeking corrections to calculations. The judge felt this was sufficient in fulfilling the adequacy requirements.

Colgate also stated that McCutcheon was atypical of the class and that claims being made were barred by the 180-day contractual limitations period as defined in the retirement plan. The judge disagreed. He found that the limitations period was unenforceable due to the omission from a denial latter Colgate issued in 2014 in reference to an administrative claim for benefits and the letter’s explicit statement that she had a year to file suit regarding the matter. As the judge found that the limitations period does not apply in regard to McCutcheon’s claim, the argument does not currently define McCutcheon as atypical.

The judge granted class certification and appointed McCutcheon class representative as well as naming counsel. The proposed class includes approximately 1,200 members and applies to specific subcategories of retirees that received lump sum payments from their retirement plan and who are still due additional benefits from the company.

According to the suit, Colgate agreed to provide a residual annuity benefit in 2005 that would provide a residual annuity benefit to workers for close to a decade. When the company started to pay the benefit out, they distributed it to some plan participants and not others. They also failed to provide the benefit to certain plan participants (like McCutcheon) who had already received lump sum payments of their benefits – even when they requested payment.

If you need to discuss alleged retirement benefit denial or if you are due retirement benefits you are not receiving, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Peet’s Coffee Allegedly Violates California’s Automatic Renewal Law

In July 2017, a San Francisco judge rejected Peet’s Coffee’s attempt to put an end to a putative class action. The California class action alleges that Peet’s violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law due to improper notification of customers regarding the automatic renewal of coffee and tea subscriptions. The judge rejected Peet’s Coffee’s findings that the class members could not provide evidence of an injury.

It was argued that allegations against Peet’s Coffee could not stand due to the inclusion of legally required disclosures on the company’s website and due to the class’s failure to state an injury in accordance with the Unfair Competition Law claim requirements. After hearing the arguments, Judge Karnow found both to be factually disputed. He stated that the ARL claim was pled sufficiently and that the class’s injury was the fact that a lack of proper disclosure left plaintiffs that had not consented to pay for services. Without consent for payment, the coffee may be considered a gift and the “price” charged for it is the injury.

Due to the facts of the case, the judge found that motion for summary judgment or a quick bench trial would be the best way to handle the case.

The class includes California Peet’s Coffee customers who purchased subscriptions after February 2013. Allegations state that Peet’s did not comply with California state law because they did not provide “clear and conspicuous” disclosures and did not provide notification prior to every additional charge. Allegedly, the checkout page for the Peet’s subscription service did not include the appropriate notifications regarding automatic renewal.

Class members seek recovery of the money paid for recurring products because they can be defined as “unconditional gifts” under California state law.

Legal counsel for Peet’s Coffee argues that the plaintiffs’ allegations are full of conclusory allegations regarding conspicuous disclosure and that the complaint itself stated that Eduardo Leon Castillo, plaintiff, selected a different coffee blend, then cancelled the subscription service. There is no mention in the complaint that the subscription was difficult to cancel, only that the plaintiff cancelled when he wanted to cancel and made purchases according to his own wishes. Peet’s attorney pointed out that Castillo’s ordering of the coffee was proof that it wasn’t “unsolicited.”

The judge responded that if the info presented was accurate, then Peet’s would come out the victor, but that it didn’t warrant an argument that the members didn’t have standing to bring the case to court.

Castillo’s attorney responded to Peet’s arguments by stating that according to California state law, Eduardo’s state of mind is not relevant to the case. According to the law, it doesn’t matter if the plaintiff knew or not – it matters if the disclosure requirements were met.

If you have questions or concerns about California’s Automatic Renewal Law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.