The Number of California Small Businesses Facing Employment-Related Claims Continues to Increase

Large corporations frequently face allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, but these employment law claims are not unique to large corporations. The headlines are full of discrimination lawsuits against big names like Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and Ford and the associated multi-million dollar settlements. Yet under California state law protections, workers at smaller, California businesses can file suit alleging employment law violations. Many of these small business lawsuits are filed against dental practices. 

More California Workers Employed at Small Businesses Are Alleging Employment Law Violations:

 California workers enjoy protections under state law, and they are turning to these protections more and more often. In 2017, California ranked 3rd in the nation for employment lawsuit risk to small to medium-sized businesses specifically (Hiscox “Guide to Employee Lawsuits”). The Hiscox publication pulled data from both national and state agencies. So, according to the data, smaller California businesses faced a 46% chance of facing an employment law allegation compared to the significantly lower 10% national average.

Any business with at least one employee runs the risk of facing an employment law allegation or a wrongful employment claim.

Do Dental Practices Face a Higher Risk of Employment Law Violation Allegations?

The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) recorded 82 employment law-related claims in 2018. This number is up from the 66 employment law-related claims received in 2017. Experts attribute the increase to the growing number of legislative actions designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination and harassment. Additionally, changing legal views and interpretation of wrongful termination and the increasing number of employees seeking justice and retribution through legal measures add to the overall rising claims trend.

Employment Law Violations & California Small Businesses:

Large corporations generally survive costly litigation. However, the same is not true of California's small businesses. A small business facing a lawsuit can be quickly overwhelmed. A lawsuit alleging employment violations may ruin a small business entirely by draining them of both financial resources and employee morale.

One type of “small business” that faces this danger is dental practices. Most dental practices do not have general counsel on staff. Additionally, many do not have a human resources department to manage claims. The time investment to address allegations of employment law violations can take a toll on the dentist and create the potential for decreased quality of care. The average employment law violation claim (according to the 2017 Hiscox report) requires 318 days to resolve with an average settlement of $160,000.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file an employment 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.

California Workers File a Class Action Lawsuit Against Cannabis Companies

Casey Denning and Natalia Cole filed a California lawsuit suing Cannabis harvesting company Loud Buddha LLC and Pura Cali Management Corp, a cultivation contractor associated with Loud Buddha. The companies allegedly violated provisions of the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) and California labor law. According to the lawsuit, the companies forced workers to work long hours in an oppressive workplace with no overtime pay or meal breaks. They also allegedly failed to provide accurate wage statements. The plaintiffs filed on their own behalf as well as others in similarly situated positions with the cannabis companies.

According to Plaintiffs: Workers’ Duties Were Dangerous & Included:

• Cultivating marijuana plants

• Harvesting marijuana plants

• Bucking marijuana plants (removing buds and stems)

• Hanging marijuana plants

• Placing marijuana plants in large commercial freezers to be transported

According to the lawsuit, over 50 workers completed these job duties to total multiple tons of cannabis each year from the Pura Cali marijuana farm.

The Complaint Against Loud Buddha & Pura Cali: What Were the Alleged Violations?

1. Employees forced to work 12-hour days every day of the week.

2. Workers were expected to stay on the job site in a remote location, sleeping on cots. Workers were threatened with discipline if they failed to comply.

3. Employers failed to keep track of workers’ time accurately.

4. Employers failed to provide required meal breaks and rest breaks.

5. Workers were not reimbursed for work expenses (i.e., meals, travel, etc.)

6. Employers allegedly failed to provide overtime pay, paying workers $15/hour in cash.

7. Time records kept by the employer were allegedly unreliable and inaccurate – depriving workers of earned wages and failing to comply with FLSA record-keeping requirements.

Workers employed by the cannabis company are often referred to as “trimmigrants.” The trimmigrants are typically young and often undocumented seasonal workers. The abusive, arguably dangerous conditions endured by the trimmigrants working in Northern California’s Emerald Triangle have been going on for years. The chronicles of their situation include tales of murder, sexual assault, and disappearances.

If you have questions about how to identify employment law violations or if you need to file a California class-action 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.

New California Labor Laws: Are Changes Coming to Your Workplace?

Are new California labor laws bringing changes to your workplace? Have you already seen the new laws take effect at your place of employment? 2020 is said to be a year of reckoning for California businesses with sweeping new California labor laws going into effect to curb longtime employment practices that generate economic inequality and keep the power in the hands of employers.  

Many California companies will be forced to reclassify hundreds of thousands of independent contractors as employees in 2020. Doing so will leave the workers with access to broad labor law protections. Another new California labor law should prevent employers from forcing workers to sign closed-door arbitration proceedings to protect the employer from potentially expensive lawsuits and court proceedings. 

Other notable employment law changes California workplaces will need to embrace in 2020 include: 

A law requiring employers to offer workers a place for mothers to pump breast milk (other than.a bathroom). 

A law designed to make it easier for first responders to obtain workers’ compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

A statute banning discrimination in the workplace based on a hairstyle. For example, Afros, dreadlocks, cornrows, etc. 

A statute that grants organ donors additional guaranteed leave. 

An extension of whistleblower rights and protections to patient rights advocates assigned to county mental health centers. 

The changes to California’s employment law intend to improve job quality for the state’s workforce by addressing day-to-day issues on the job. Look for additional changes to California’s minimum wage law, corporate diversity, and discrimination labor law standards. California leads the way in labor law and is working to prevent employers from going around the set standard.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how new changes to California labor law may affect you, 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.

California Safeway Cashier Suit Ends with $12 Million Deal

Did you know that Safeway has recently agreed to pay $12 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by one of their cashiers? The lawsuit alleged Safeway failed to provide seats to cashiers at their California grocery stores, which is in violation of California state law(Sharp v. Safeway Inc., No. 2011-1-CV-202901 (Superior Ct. of Calif., County of Santa Clara, Oct. 21, 2019)).

According to California labor laws, employers must generally provide employees with “suitable seating” if the nature of their job duties permit sitting. Safety argued that they truly believed, in good faith, that the nature of a cashier’s job did not reasonably permit sitting. While the court decertified the class in the case, the settlement still has a wide impact. It is estimated that Safeway may need to provide seats for up to 30,000 cashiers at different California stores over the next two years in order to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. This requirement is in addition to the agreed upon monetary sum.

This case is an example of when a non-compliant policy that affects a large pool of employees can turn a seemingly small issue into a massive issue. And this type of massive issue can turn into a big, expensive problem for the employers involved. This is a frequent scenario with wage and hour mistakes by employers.

Other Examples of “Small” Compliancy Mistakes that Can Turn Into Expensive Problems for Employers:

1. Auto-deduct Policies – they become an issue when employees work through planned breaks.

2. Pre- and Post-Shift Work – Failing to pay employees for off the clock work necessary to their job duties can result in expensive wage and hour claims.

3. Miscalculated Overtime – miscalculated overtime adds up quickly.

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination 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.

When Companies/Vendors Are Linked to Deaths, Amazon Cuts Ties and Contracts

Did you know that over 2,000 workers in eight different states are going to lose their jobs because Amazon is dropping three different major delivery firms after news and media mentions? Amazon abruptly canceled their contracts even though doing so will leave thousands out of work. This move seems to indicate a change in how the massive online retailer plans to fulfill millions of orders with millions of packages being delivered across the nation daily. 

The 3 Major Delivery Firms Losing their Amazon Contract: 

Inpax Shipping Solutions is based out of Atlanta, Georgia. They’ve estimated that the loss of the Amazon contract will result in approximately 925 layoffs in six different states. Layoffs began at the beginning of October 2019. They will stop all services for Amazon by the beginning of December.  

Sheard-Loman Transport is located out of Chicago, Illinois. They described the loss of the Amazon contract as entirely unexpected. In a recent court filing, they noted that the Amazon contract would not be renewed, and it was cause for serious concern. The loss of the Amazon contract will lead to the termination of about 200 employees in three different states across the nation. This shipping company stopped delivering Amazon orders in September 2019. 

Letter Ride LLC, out of San Diego, California, will also be losing its Amazon contract. They will start laying off approximately 897 drivers, dispatchers, and other workers in December 2019. 

All three contract terminations follow investigations by online news sources into Amazon’s delivery network’s explosive growth. The investigations focused on extreme financial pressure combined with intense deadline pressure from Amazon on their ever-growing fleet of delivery companies and independent contractor drivers. The reports indicated that the situation often leads to mistreatment of the workforce and a threat to the public’s safety. In the course of the investigation and the following report, numerous deaths were linked to each of the above-noted delivery service companies. 

Loved ones of the victims actively seek changes to the way Amazon manages their delivery forces. They wish for a higher prioritization of worker and pedestrian safety when contracting out to various last-mile delivery services. Instead of seeing progressive change in policy or management practices, these advocates of driver and pedestrian safety claim they only see Amazon attempting to hide behind third-party contractors to escape their responsibility for the situation. 

Amazon claims they work with many different carrier partners to successfully deliver packages to their customers and that they perform regular evaluations of the partnerships. They confirm they have ended their relationship with the above companies, but also state that drivers are being supported by the opportunity to provide delivery services through other local delivery service partners.  

Amazon delivery service partners see frequent employment lawsuits, some of which name Amazon as a joint employer. Employment law violations alleged often include wage and hour violations, overtime claims, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, and other FLSA violations. 

If you need to discuss potential legal responses to a breach of contract or other employment law violations, please don’t hesitate. 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.

$1.25 Million to Settle Dish Network Discrimination Lawsuit

In recent news, Dish Network agreed to pay a $1.25 million settlement. The settlement would serve as compensation to job seekers who filed suit alleging that the company's online application process denied them the chance to work at the Douglas County location. Dish Network also agreed to alter their online hiring process to accommodate disabled applicants. Dish will add a prominent statement to applications advising that reasonable accommodations will be provided with instructions on how to obtain them. 

As agreed in the settlement, Dish Network will also hire a third-party consultant to evaluate the Dish Network online assessment and suggest revisions. Questions included in the application process's online assessment will be carefully considered and limited to those related to the skills needed for the jobs posted.  

Dish Network also agreed to appoint a compliance officer to provide training and monitor the online application process for compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act. The Act states that employers are required to ensure that all individuals with disabilities are offered the opportunity to request an accommodation, even if the application process is conducted online.  

The Dish Network spokeswoman, Caroline Krause, stated the company was pleased to resolve the matter. The settlement is not a finding that employment law was violated. Krause also noted that the agreement "codifies practices Dish put in place years ago to ensure all individuals, regardless of disability status, have the opportunity to apply for employment…"

Dish Network is one of the United State's largest video television providers employing approximately 17,000 workers. This is not the first time Dish Network has faced severe legal allegations. In 2005, Dish's parent company, Echostar Communications Corp., was hit with an $8 million damage judgment due to another disability case. In 2015, the court found for Dish after they fired an employee who failed a drug test after taking marijuana off-duty to treat a medical condition. In 2017, Dish Network faced a $280 million civil penalty for repeated Do Not Call Registry violations.

If you need to discuss an employer's refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for your disability, 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.

Is the Supreme Court Divided on LGBT Job Discrimination Case?

The Supreme Court appears divided as they struggle over whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT workers from employment discrimination. The cases under consideration are the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the place of the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court’s four liberal justices are expected to side with the employees terminated due to their sexual orientation or transgender status. The question was whether or not one of the court’s conservatives would join the four liberals in siding with the employees in either of the two highly anticipated cases. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that strong arguments favored LGBT workers. He also stated that there was a question of whether or not justices of the court should take the “massive social upheaval” that could follow such a ruling into account when coming to a decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two other conservatives, did not openly indicate their views on the matter, but Roberts did question how employers who hold religious objections to hiring LGBT individuals could be affected by the outcome of the cases.

In one of the cases, a skydiving instructor and a government employee (at the county level) were both fired because they were gay. 

In the second case, a transgender funeral home director named Aimee Stephens was fired. Stephens attended court the day of the arguments.

If the court were to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers LGBT individuals, it could lead to some required changes to:

·      Locker rooms

·      Bathrooms

·      Women’s Shelters

·      School Sports Teams 

The argument led to a discussion that lawmakers should be in charge of changing the law, not unelected judges. Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, apparently agreed with this sentiment stating that 1964’s Congress could not have imagined the law to apply to sexual orientation or gender identity cases when it was created. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presented the counter-argument that the Congress of 1964 also did could not foresee sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination.

A decision is expected in the early summer of 2020. 

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination 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.