Female Workers at California Winery Claim Employer Allowed Sexual Harassment

Women at a California winery claim they were sexually harassed daily on the job, and the company failed to investigate their complaints.

The Case: EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery LLC, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-cv-06039

The Plaintiff: EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated federal law by allegedly allowing a class of female employees to be subjected to sexual harassment. According to court documents, the harassment began as early as 2017. Male managers at Justin Vineyards & Winery LLC’s production and restaurant locations in Paso Robles, California were allegedly allowed to sexually harass female employees daily. The sexual harassment was described as widely varied, including unwanted, repeated sexual advances, sexual comments, general sexually offensive conduct, and even unwelcome physical contact. The women allegedly complained to Justin Vineyards & Winery LLC and The Wonderful Company LLC about the situation. Still, they claim the company did not attempt to properly investigate the complaints or take any appropriate steps to stop the ongoing sexual harassment. After complaining of sexual harassment, some female employees claim they faced workplace retaliation or were forced out of their jobs.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery

The defendants in the case are Justin Vineyards & Winery, a wine production company headquartered in Paso Robles, California, and its parent company, The Wonderful Company LLC, headquartered in LA.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery

The court documents for the case, EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery, allege actions violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits a hostile environment based on sex (including sexual harassment), as well as retaliation against anyone who complains about sexual harassment. After pre-litigation settlement negotiations failed, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit seeks monetary damages for the claimants, including compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the company to prevent similar unlawful conduct against employees.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Lowe’s Settles Sexual Harassment Claims with $700,000 Settlement

In recent news, Lowe's settled sexual harassment claims spanning a decade with a $700,000 settlement.

The Case: EEOC v. Lowe's

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

The Case No.: Case No. 22-08152-PCT-SPL

The Plaintiff: EEOC v. Lowe's

The plaintiffs in the case claim that Lowe's allowed sexual harassment of female employees at their Lake Havasu City location for approximately ten years in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After a year's worth of attempts to reach a prelitigation settlement failed, the sexual harassment lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on August 30th, 2022. The three women who filed suit allege more than a decade of "open, notorious, and frequent" sexual harassment and abuse by a male co-worker at Lowe's.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Lowe's

The defendant in the case, Lowe's, is a nationwide hardware and home improvement giant based out of Mooresville, North Carolina. One of the three women who filed the lawsuit alleging sexual harassment at Lowe's stated that she asked the male co-worker to stop and reported the harassment to her supervisors for ten years. After ten years, the 59-year-old Lowe's customer service employee filed a grievance through Lowe's telephone hotline in 2018. After reporting the on-the-job harassment, the woman went on short-term disability. According to court documents, she could no longer handle the stress and anxiety caused by the daily sexual harassment at work. In response, Lowe's allegedly forced the woman to choose between returning to the office with the same people who harassed her (or failed to protect her from harassment for a decade) or quitting her job.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Lowe's

The defendant settled the lawsuit on September 16th, 2022. Lowe's will pay the $700,000 settlement and provide other relief to settle the sexual harassment discrimination lawsuit. The additional relief specified in the three-year consent decree required the Lowe's Lake Havasu City location to:

•Revise anti-discrimination policies

•Respond to sexual harassment complaints promptly

•Conduct thorough investigations of any complaints of sexual harassment

•Provide employee training on sexual harassment

•Offer the three women who filed the sexual harassment lawsuit letters of reference

• Provide reports on their revised training, future complaints of discrimination, and revisions to Lowe's policies or procedures to the EEOC

If you have questions about how to file a California sexual harassment lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Tinder Brand Manager Alleging Sexual Harassment Must Adhere to Arbitration Agreement

A former Tinder Brand Manager took her sexual harassment case to the Ninth Circuit arguing the arbitration agreement did not apply as the incidents predated the agreement. The court found the arbitration agreement enforceable based on broad language.

The Case: Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al.

The Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-55819

The Plaintiff: Elizabeth Sanfilippo

Elizabeth Sanfilippo, the plaintiff in the case, was hired by Tinder in September 2016 as a brand manager. According to the complaint, the plaintiff complained to human resources at her employment in mid-2017 and January 2018 stating that she was being subjected to sexual harassment at the hands of her Tinder coworkers and supervisors.

The Defendant: Match Group LLC et al.

During the same time period when Sanfilippo submitted sexual harassment complaints to the Tinder human resources department, the company was acquired by Match Group, Inc. (in July 2017). After Match Group acquired Tinder, they sent out a mandatory arbitration agreement to the employees. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Sanfilippo, signed the agreement and continued working for Match Group until March 2018 when Match Group terminated her employment.

Summary of the Case: Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al.

Sanfilippo sued in California state court claiming sexual harassment and retaliation. The case was removed to federal court where Match Group successfully moved to compel arbitration. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable, and did not cover her claims (which predated the arbitration agreement with Match Group). However, the Ninth Circuit held the arbitration agreement enforceable and applicable to the allegations (even though the plaintiff didn’t sign the arbitration agreement until after the claims occurred).

More Details on the Case: Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al.

The court noted the arbitration agreement’s broad language applying the arbitration requirement to “all claims and controversies arising from or in connection with [the employee’s] application with, employment with, or termination from the Company.” Since the arbitration agreement referenced “all claims and controversies,” the court found that the plaintiff’s claims that predated the arbitration agreement were included. The Ninth Circuit was also not swayed when the plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement included a provision allowing the employer to modify the terms unilaterally. The court did recognize that this provision could be unconscionable. However, since Match Group did not attempt to modify the agreement and were instead attempting to enforce the agreement as is, the court found that while the provision itself could be found unconscionable, its existence did not render the entire arbitration agreement unenforceable. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff, ex-Tinder employee, Sanfilippo, must arbitrate her claims against her former employer.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help with an arbitration agreement, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Court Denied the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Harassment Suit

In recent news, The Northern District of California court denied the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in Katheryn Moses v. Aerotek, Inc.

The Case: Katheryn Moses v. Aerotek, Inc.

The Court: United States District Court Northern District of California San Jose Division

The Case No.: 17-cv-06251-BLF

The Plaintiff: Katheryn Moses v. Aerotek, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case is Katheryn Moses. Aerotek, the defendant, hired Moses in September 2014 as a recruiter in their San Jose office, and was promoted to Account Manager about one year later. In December 2016, Moses reached a benchmark at the company that earned her a company trip to Cancun, Mexico in January or February of 2017. Prior to taking the trip, Moses was terminated from her employment on Jan. 25, 2017. After her termination, Moses filed suit alleging retaliation, failure to prevent retaliation, failure to prevent harassment (violating FEHA), and failure to provide records (violating California’s Labor Code). Moses claims she was terminated in retaliation for reporting inappropriate conduct of a senior manager, Onyeka Ossai, who she had a sexual relationship with during her time employed at the company. He was also part of the interview panel when she received her promotion to Account Manager. Ossai denies that the two were in a relationship, claiming they had only one encounter in 2015.

The Defendant: Katheryn Moses v. Aerotek, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Aerotek, a staffing company, claims that Moses was fired for performance issues, including interviewing with other companies during work hours. In response to their former employee’s lawsuit, the defendant, Aerotek, Inc. filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment in regard to Moses’ FEHA claims as well as her claim for punitive damages.

More About the Case: Katheryn Moses v. Aerotek, Inc.

According to court documents, the difficulties between Moses and Ossai escalated to a confrontation at a company event at which Moses claims Ossai pushed her. After this incident, Moses called an Aerotek supervisor, Lane, to report that there had been an inappropriate relationship and that Ossai had put his hands on her. Lane advised Moses to skip work the next day and since she was already scheduled for time off for the holidays, she didn’t need to return to work until January 2017. Lane reached out to Ossai, who denied pushing Moses. When all three returned to work in January 2017, Lane urged Moses to sit down and work it out with Ossai, but she refused. Moses then suggested that Lane contact Aerotek’s Human Resources Manager, Shelia Simmons, which he did.

An Official Investigation Begins: Katheryn Moses v. Aerotek, Inc.

On January 19, 2017, Simmons opened a formal investigation and notified the company’s Regional VP, Eric Bowen. Bowen reprimanded Lane for his mishandling of the complaint and warned him that a future failure to report workplace issues could mean he’d lose his job. Simmons’ notes on the investigation indicate that she conducted interviews with Moses, and 8 others, but that much of the investigation focused on Moses’ behavior outside of and unrelated to the reported incident. Simmons’ notes do not reflect that she interviewed Ossai. However, she does testify that she spoke with him to ask if he put his hands on Moses, and that when she asked about his relationship with Moses, he was evasive. On January 20, 2017, Moses was presented with a disciplinary write up. Moses claims that when Lane presented her with the form, he was angry and made it clear she had put Ossai’s career at risk. Moses was terminated on January 25, 2017. Moses filed a DFEH complaint on June 2nd, 2017 followed by the present action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on September 1st, 2017. The defendant removed the action to federal court October 27, 2017.

Defendant Seeks Partial Summary Judgment: Katheryn Moses v. Aerotek, Inc.

Most recently, the defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Based on the lack of documentation regarding Moses’s alleged performance difficulties in 2016, her obvious job success in 2016 (she won a contest in Dec. 2016), Lane’s admission that he had never terminated other employees for interview-related activities, evidence that Lane was angry Moses’ actions could jeopardize Ossai’s career, and the small window of time between Moses’ reporting of the incident, and her termination, the court finds that the evidence seems to suggest retaliatory intent. Aerotek’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied based on these facts.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or need to file a hostile work environment or retaliation complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Health Care Services & Staffing Agency Accused of Fostering Racially Charged Hostile Work Environment

In recent news, did Cardinal Health and Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency foster a racially charged, hostile workplace?

The Case: EEOC v. Cardinal Health and Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency dba AppleOne Employment Services

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: 5:19-cv-00941

The Plaintiff: EEOC v. Cardinal Health

The retaliation discrimination lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, African American workers employed by Cardinal Health or assigned to work at the Cardinal Health location under the AppleOne staffing agency, endured unwelcome (and ongoing) racial harassment. When employees complained about the hostile work environment and racial harassment, neither Cardinal Health or AppleOne took appropriate, timely corrective action. Additional allegations were made that employees that complained about the situation experienced retaliation, discipline, and termination. In addition, some employees felt they had no choice but to quit due to the hostile environment and lack of response to complaints regarding the situation.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Cardinal Health

The defendant in the case, Cardinal Health, is a global health care services and products company providing solutions for hospitals, health systems, medical offices, pharmacies, and ambulatory surgery centers

The Case: EEOC v. Cardinal Health

The defendant in the case, Cardinal Health, agreed to pay $1.45 million to resolve the racial harassment and retaliation discrimination lawsuit. Both Cardinal Health, and the California-based staffing agency, AppleOne, agreed to implement sweeping injunctive relief as a term of the settlement. The injunctive relief is designed to prevent future instances of workplace harassment, discrimination and workplace retaliation. Some of the specific terms of the agreement have the defendants retaining an equal employment opportunity (EEO) monitor, conducting regular audits, reviewing and revising policies to prohibit and prevent discrimination, and distributing the policies to both temporary and permanent employees. The defendants will also develop and institute an internal complaint management process.Additionally, the defendants agreed to maintain a toll-free complaint hotline and offer discrimination training for employees.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from discrimation, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Tesla Materials Handler Awarded $1M After Arbitration of Harassment Claim

A former Tesla materials handler filed a lawsuit claiming that he was subjected to racial harassment in the Fremont, California factory.

The Case: Berry v. Tesla

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

The Case No.: RG21104057

The Plaintiff: Berry v. Tesla

The plaintiff, Melvin Berry, is a former Tesla employee. Berry states he was hired as a materials handler for Tesla in 2015. Only 17 months later, Berry quit because he was allegedly being harassed at work. Berry filed a racial harassment and discrimination lawsuit citing multiple counts of harassment on the job via co-workers and supervisors. The original legal complaint alleged that Tesla supervisors called him the N-word while working in the electric automaker’s Fremont, California factory.

The Defendant: Berry v. Tesla

The defendant in the case is Tesla. Tesla, a popular and well known electric automaker employed Berry out of their California factory as a materials handler. According to the plaintiff, he filed two complaints in 2017 alleging harassment coming from his Tesla supervisors. In the complaint, the plaintiff claims that after he confronted his supervisors for alleged use of the racial slur, he was given a heavier workload and longer hours.

The Case: Berry v. Tesla

Earlier this year, the plaintiff hired an employment lawyer to represent him in a private arbitration hearing in which it was argued that supervisors at Tesla ignored Berry’s complaints of harassment in the California Tesla factory. The arbitrator found that there was evidence that two of the supervisors at the Tesla factory where Berry was employed used racial slurs and that the experiences caused him harm both emotionally and psychologically. It was noted in the ruling that a supervisor using the N-word in reference to a subordinate in the workplace is enough to clearly constitute severe harassment based on case law. The former Tesla employee was awarded $1 million, however, the majority of the award will go toward attorney fees and legal fees.

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

Jiffy Lube Employee Files Suit Claiming FEHA Violations

An African-American Jiffy Lube employee filed suit claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and Unruh Act violations. The claims were made against a non-employer company and the representative they sent to present a new product/service during a training session to Jiffy Lube employees.

The Case: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeal

The Case No.: E073174

The Plaintiff: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

African-American employee Plaintiff Robert Smith, an African-American employee at Jiffy Lube, attended a presentation for Jiffy Lube employees to learn about a new product by Defendant BP Lubricants USA, Inc. (“BP”). A BP company representative led the presentation.

The Incident: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The BP Lubricants USA Inc. representative allegedly made racially offensive comments to the plaintiff in front of his coworkers during the training presentation. Approximately 50 Jiffy Lube employees were in attendance (some at the supervisory level) when the BP representative allegedly made racially charged comments including comparing the plaintiff’s voice to Barry White, indicating the couldn’t see the plaintiff, and asking other attendees how they would feel if the plaintiff’s “big banana hands” were working on their vehicles. According to Smith, all the employees in attendance with the exception of other African-American employees laughed at the inappropriate comments (including three of the plaintiff’s own supervisors).

The Case: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

Smith sued BP and the individual company representative for harassment (in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)) and racial discrimination (in violation of the Unruh Act). While BP is not the plaintiff’s employer, Smith argues that they violated FEHA’s prohibition on racial harassment in the workplace when they “aided and abetted” the Jiffy Lube employees and supervisors’ discriminatory and harassing behavior. Smith also sued the BP representative who allegedly made the offensive statements to the group for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The Defendant in the case demurred and the trial court sustained without leave to amend. Smith appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the order holding that Smith failed to allege any facts suggesting concerted activity between the named entities (BP, the BP representative, and Jiffy Lube) to violate FEHA, which is required for non-employer liability for “aiding and abetting” workplace discrimination under FEHA. However, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s orders in relation to the IIED and Unruh Act claims.

The Court’s Findings: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The court held that the BP representative’s actions were intentional and unreasonable and likely to result in illness through mental distress, which rendered the actions extreme and outrageous as an IIED claim requires. The appeals court also found that Smith plausibly alleged that the representative was acting as the business establishment while offering the training materials through the presentation since he was acting on behalf of BP Lubricants, a business generally open to the public. The court also allowed that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the BP representative treated Smith differently during the course of the presentation by targeting only him with racist comments, which violates the Unruh Act. This case is a reminder that businesses can be subject to Unruh Act liability in relation to training programs or presentations even if the presentation or training itself is not open to the public.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.