Former Tinder Exec Attorneys File Motion to Dismiss Retaliatory Defamation Suit

Greg Blatt, the former Tinder CEO, filed a defamation lawsuit in response to claims made by Sean Rad and Rosette Pambakian. Rad and Pambakian are part of a larger group of Tinder founders and former execs who accused Blatt of sexual harassment and assault, amongst other allegations. Rad and Pambakian's legal counsel responded to the defamation lawsuit with a motion to dismiss. They based the motion on the argument that the defamation suit was an attempt to hinder protected speech through costly litigation. California's anti-SLAPP law prohibits this type of lawsuit.

Rad and Pambakian's attorney further argued that Blatt's defamation lawsuit was an attempt to muzzle their clients; to stop them from telling the truth about Diller and Blatt's wage theft and sexual assault coverup. They claim the defamation lawsuit is nothing more than an unlawful retaliatory lawsuit and, as such, is in violation of the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. Rad and Pambakian's legal counsel argued that the defamation suit was intended to launch a smear campaign against Pambakian and the individual who reported the sexual assault. The attorneys also indicate that Blatt only altered his course (requesting the complaint he himself filed now be sent to private arbitration) because he already reached his media objective through the public filing.

Blatt's attorney denies the accusations, claiming that they will prevail in court.

Both suits (Blatt's defamation suit and the new case filing) have been connected to the #metoo movement, which has seen many high-profile figures accused of sexual assault respond by filing defamation lawsuits. Blatt's attorneys insist that Rad and Pambakian are weaponizing the #metoo movement and undermining the claims of actual assault and harassment victims with false accusations. They even claim the plaintiffs in the case are cynically pursuing the $2 billion in damages.

If you have questions about how to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace or if you need to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Franchising Industry Rejoices Over Federal Appeals Court Decision Regarding McDonald’s as a Joint Employer

In a recent development, the federal appeals court held that McDonald’s could not be held liable as a joint employer of franchise location employees. The case (Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp.) involves close to 1,400 workers employed by one of McDonald’s franchise locations. The lawsuit alleges several wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code as well as negligence and relief under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Previously, the class settled with the franchise, but they sought to take the case further by holding McDonald’s responsible as the joint employer. The District Court disagreed, finding that McDonald’s was not a joint employer of the employees hired by a franchise. The court rejected the employees’ theory of joint liability for violations. The employees in the case appealed, but the Ninth Circuit court affirmed.  

What is the Law on Joint Employment Liability in California?

The Ninth Circuit court based its findings regarding joint-employer status on the meaning of “employer” as defined by California law.

An employer, as defined by California Wage Order No. 5-20001, Section 2(H), is someone who “directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.”

The definition of “employer” received further clarity through the findings of the California Supreme Court in the 2010 Martinez v. Combs decision. In this case, “employ” was further defined as:

·      the act of exercising control over the wages, hours or working conditions

·      to “suffer or permit” someone to work

·      to engage, creating a common-law relationship

The Ninth Circuit court explained that, in the context of franchising, the California Supreme Court held that a franchisor becomes potentially liable for the actions of the franchisee’s employees only if the franchisor retains or assumes an overall right of control over various factors: hiring, direction, supervision, termination, discipline, and other everyday elements of the workplace activities of franchise employees (2014 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC). 

Using these definitions, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision that McDonald’s is not liable as a joint employer:

·      McDonald’s does not retain “control” over franchise employee wages, hours, or working conditions.

·      McDonald’s does not “suffer or permit” franchise employees to work.

·      McDonald’s is not a common-law employer since the common-law test focuses on whether an employer has the right to control how the goals of the company are met by employee job duties.

The Salazar case is an important one for franchisors, franchisees, and the entire franchising industry. The Ninth Circuit court recognized that franchisor could apply control over their brand and their trademark without being held responsible as a joint employer. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ex-Dancer Sues Strip Club for Misclassification

The misclassification controversy is not exclusive to the gig economy. As the gig economy’s problems seem to escalate, problems are growing in other industries as well. In Daytona Beach, a former dancer at Grandview Live is suing the strip club claiming they owe her back wages because they misclassified her as an independent contractor when she was allegedly an employee.

Brittany Hall, former dancer at Grandview Live in Daytona Beach, claims that due to the club’s misclassification, she allegedly earned less than minimum wage and was not paid overtime. Hall, like the other exotic dancers at the club, was paid strictly in tips from customers. She worked at the strip club for over two years without overtime and receiving less than minimum wage, which attorneys for the plaintiff claim is fairly standard in the industry.

Hall claims Grandview Live owes her money because they violated wage and hour law by paying her less than minimum wage and failed to pay her overtime hours she was due. Hall also alleges that the club took tips from her in addition to their other employment law violations.

California legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 5 which will require companies to treat their workers as employees if they meet certain standards. The bill is set to go into effect January 1, 2020 and will have a massive impact on gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft and DoorDash. But it will also benefit workers like Brittany Hall, working in industries that have been around since before smartphones and apps were introduced.

Sometimes employers misclassify workers unintentionally. In some cases, it is an honest mistake. Other employers actively and purposefully misclassify their employees in order to maximize profits and minimize costs. Employers have major incentives to shift workers off their payrolls due to taxes, unemployment insurance, workers compensation premiums, etc.

If you are misclassified or if you are not being paid overtime wages for all your hours worked, please do not delay. Get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP so we can help.

9. Blind Worker in Redding to Receive $570,000 Settlement in Dignity Health Discrimination Suit

In an announcement earlier this month, the U.S. EEOC announced that Dignity Health agreed to pay a $570,000 settlement to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by Alina Sorling, a previous employee of their Mercy Medical Center in Redding.

Sorling worked as a food service technician for 10 years on the Mercy Redding campus. At that point, she suffered a severe illness that resulted in vision loss. When she lost her sight, Sorling completed the necessary training to enable her to complete everyday tasks she would need to complete on the job including cleaning, stocking, cashiering and grilling. By her account, she mastered the skills necessary to continue to live independently.

Once she completed the training necessary, she requested to return to work. She made this request in February 2015. She provided her employer with a list of accommodations that would allow her to accomplish her duties. The facility rejected her suggestions. Sorling was fired from her position with Mercy Medical in June 2015. According to the lawsuit, the company cited a vision requirement for the reason behind the termination even though the company did not test Sorling’s vision once in the ten years she had previously spent on the job.

After the unexpected loss of her sight, Sorling worked hard to complete all the necessary training and rehabilitate herself so she could learn all the necessary skills to continue to work independently without restrictions. She sought to return to the same employer she had been loyal to for over a decade. Rather than let Sorling demonstrate her abilities, the healthcare facility excluded her based on assumptions regarding her disability and how it would limit her abilities.

As a part of the settlement agreement, the healthcare company agreed to actively move forward with steps to prevent any similar forms of discrimination in the future, but Dignity did not admit any wrongdoing as a part of the agreement. They officially claim that they value their loyal employees and support any with disabilities.

Please get in touch if you would like to know more about disability discrimination in the workplace or if you need assistance filing a disability discrimination lawsuit in California. The experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can assist you in one of their law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago.

California Company that Refused to Hire ‘Non-Hispanics’ Must Now Pay $2M

Marquez Brothers, a California manufacturer of Mexican-style cheese and other food items, must pay $2 million to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed more than two years ago. The settlement was announced in September 2019.

The discrimination lawsuit was filed by two African American individuals who attempted to submit job applications. When they requested applications from the Marquez Brothers’ Hanford facility, they were refused the paperwork required to applied. One of the potential applicants had numerous years of dairy goods production experience but was not hired even though the job applicants eventually hired were far less qualified. In fact, he was not even allowed to apply at all. 

The second potential job applicant attempted to apply for a job at Marquez Brothers various times but was discouraged from applying and advised that the company was not hiring. During the course of the case, allegations were made that the Marquez Brothers routinely discriminated against non-Hispanic job applicants. The refusal to accept job applications from non-Hispanic job applicants was normal procedure. This standard practice occurred at various Marquez Brothers’ locations throughout California including Hanford, Fresno, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The discrimination was also evident at out of state plants in Texas, Nevada, and Colorado.

The two men who originally brought the discriminatory employment practices to light were African American, but further investigation into the issue showed similar acts of discrimination against other ethnicities including white, Asian, etc.

According to the settlement agreement, the company must provide monetary compensation, take steps to prevent future discrimination including hiring an external monitor, creating and implementing appropriate goals, improving training and resources for their hiring staff, and creating a system to manage and track discrimination complaints.

If you have experienced discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file an employment law lawsuit, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

Catholic Hospital Faces Lawsuit for Transgender Discrimination

The California Appeals court reinstated a lawsuit against Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital chain, filed after they barred a hysterectomy for a transgender patient. The court found that the state’s interest in fighting LGBTQ discrimination outweighs the facility’s alleged right to impose religious standards on healthcare they provide.

The patient denied a hysterectomy who filed suit against Dignity Health was Evan Minton. Minton’s hysterectomy surgery was cancelled abruptly in 2016 when officials at Dignity’s Mercy San Juan Medical Center in Carmichael, California discovered he was transgender. The hospital claims their actions in cancelling Minton’s surgery complied with the church’s ethical and religious directives for Catholic Health Care Services that prohibit sterilization procedures except in very rare circumstances.

The appeals court found in favor of the patient stating that any burden California places on the exercise of religion is justified by the state’s interest in ensuring equal access to medical treatment for all residents regardless of sexual orientation. The case will return to San Francisco County Superior Court for further proceedings and trial. The appellate court’s ruling may limit the ability of Catholic health facilities in California to limit what healthcare services are provided to patients. A number of procedures are forbidden by the previously cited Ethical and Religious Directives. Most denied treatments and procedures are associated with women’s reproductive rights, end-of-life care, and treatments for transgender patients.

In the Ethical and Religious Directives document, certain treatments and procedures are described as “intrinsically evil.” Some of these treatments include abortion, euthanasia, direct sterilization, and assisted suicide. Administrators and employees of the facility are barred from assisting patients with these procedures or referring them to outside providers for the services. Local bishops must approve any exceptions.

If you need help due to discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file an employment law lawsuit, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

Netflix Original Documentary Brings Up Bikram Choudhury’s Numerous Sexual Misconduct Lawsuits

The Netflix original documentary called “Bikram: Yogi, Guru, Predator” from Academy Award-winning filmmaker Eva Orner tells the story of Bikram Choudhury. Choudhury is the controversial yoga instructor who faced numerous lawsuits for sexual misconduct. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and highlights the various stories from women who sued the Indian American yoga teacher. It also artfully explores that contradiction between the healing nature of the discipline and the harmful behavior of the founder.

Orner, the filmmaker, is now asking California lawmakers to reopen the sexual misconduct and sexual assault cases against the yoga instructor. Orner hopes Gavin Newsom, the California governor, watches the film on Netflix and is inspired to call the LA District Attorney to request that she reopen the case.  

The California State Court of Appeal dismissed Choudhury’s 2017 plea and ordered him to pay $7.3 million to Miakshi Jafa-Bodden, his former attorney, who sued him for wrongful termination and sexual harassment. A string of other women made similar claims against Choudhury claiming he raped, sexually abused or harassed them.

Orner also made appeals to the yoga studios bearing his name to drop it and use generic names instead. She is adamant that no woman should go to a Bikram studio – they should go to a hot yoga studio instead.

When Choudhury arrived on the scene from Kolkata in the early 1970’s, he quickly achieved near-celebrity status and created a global fitness empire that left him extremely wealthy. By the 2010’s, he was facing numerous sexual harassment and abuse allegations.

If you have been sexually harassed in the workplace or if you have questions about what an experienced employment law attorney can do for you, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.