Does Olive Garden’s Tipping Policy Case Racial Discrimination & Harassment?

A recent lawsuit alleges that Olive Garden’s parent company, Darden Restaurants, has a tipping policy in place that causes racial discrimination, and sexual harassment.

The Case: One Fair Wage, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc., Defendant

The Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California Oakland Div.

The Case No.: 4:21-cv-2695

The Plaintiff: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

One Fair Wage, Inc. is an advocacy group suing Olive Garden parent Darden Restaurants. The plaintiffs allege that Darden’s company wide tipping policy encourages sexual harassment and racial discrimination towards the waitstaff in their restaurants.

The Defendant: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Darden Restaurants, Inc., was of the restaurants that actively opposed getting rid of the tipped wage. Darden Restaurants is the parent company for the popular, and well-known Olive Garden restaurant chain. Tipped minimum wage refers to the fact that in 43 states, employers are legally allowed to pay workers as little as $2.13 per hour as long as the hourly wage plus their tips add up to the local minimum wage. If it doesn’t, the employer is required to make up the difference.

Background for the Case: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

The One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc. lawsuit alleges Olive Garden parent company’s tipping policy is the cause of racial discrimination, and sexual harassment on the job.The complaint was filed in California federal court and is the latest push in the battle against tipped minimum wage. The rate of tipped minimum wage was last raised in the early 1990s, but there was a push by Democrats to get rid of the tipped minimum wage earlier in 2021 as a part of their overall effort to raise the federal minimum wage.

If you have questions about California labor law or if you need to file a wage and hour 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Judge Denies Disney’s Request to Have Harassment Lawsuit Tossed

In March 2021, a Los Angeles judge declined Disney’s request to toss the lawsuit against the studio alleging sexual harassment on the “Criminal Minds” set where the popular CBS series is filmed.

Details of the Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

Case No.: 20STCV19182

Disney Faces Harassment Lawsuit:

The suit, filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged both sexual harassment and assault. The judge that dismissed Disney’s request to toss the lawsuit did so because he didn’t find questions regarding putative class size appropriate at the demurrer stage.

Judge Declines to Dismiss the Complaint Targeting Disney & ABC Signature Studios, Inc.:

At an afternoon hearing, Judge Daniel J. Buckley of the Los Angeles Superior Court declined to dismiss the harassment complaint lodged against ABC Signature Studios Inc., and Disney. A few of ABC’s Criminal Minds TV show execs, and the Director of Photography for the popular crime show, Gregory St. Johns, were specifically accused of harassment throughout the course of the show’s time on air. The lawsuit alleges widespread sexual harassment.

The Defendant’s Argument to Dismiss the Complaint:

The Defendant argued that the state department did not plead a determinable class with definable common issues of law or fact, and that the loose class definition presented by the agency was too all-inclusive reaching to anyone who worked on the show. According to the defendant, this would balloon to include more than 10,000 people. Based on these arguments, the defendant claimed that many of those who would be “included” according to the presented class definition never encountered St. Johns, so they couldn’t be a potential victim in the case.

The Judge’s Decision: No Dismissal, but No Definitive Call on the Class Definition:

While Judge Buckley declined to dismiss at this point, there was no definitive decision from the court regarding the argument presented by the defendant other than the question didn’t apply at that particular stage in the proceedings.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Del Taco Sexual Harassment Suit Ending with $1.25M Settlement?

In recent news, Del Taco agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged sexual harassment and retaliation against female employees. 

Allegations of Sexual Harassment Cited in Lawsuit: 

According to the lawsuit (EEOC v. Del Taco, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-1978 CAS (SPX)), a Del Taco general manager and shift leader at the Rancho Cucamonga, California location sexually harassed young female employees daily. The alleged harassment included unwelcome physical contact, vulgar comments, and sexual propositions. According to the plaintiffs’ claims, the rampant harassing behavior on the part of the shift leader and general manager led other male employees to engage in similar behavior. The young female employees claim they complained to human resources, but that the company failed to respond to the complaints. Some of the workers claim they had no other choice but to quit. 

Sexual Harassment Allegations Led to 2018 Lawsuit:

Del Taco was initially sued in connection to these sexual harassment allegations in 2018. However, in the years since, sexual harassment is still a common issue in restaurant work spaces - particularly in the fast food industry. Del Taco is not the only major fast food chain facing similar allegations. McDonald’s is also facing a class action lawsuit citing allegations of pervasive sexual harassment of female employees (filed in April 2020). The Del Taco $1.25M settlement is one of the largest financial settlements for a sexual harassment case in 2020. 

Additional Requirements Included in the Sexual Harassment Settlement: 

In addition to the financial settlement, Del Taco agreed to make some changes to their policy, and training practices. The company agreed to a three-year consent decree including company-wide injunctive relief with the purpose of preventing workplace harassment and retaliation. Del Taco will retain an EEO to monitor, review, and revise applicable policies and procedures related to discrimination, harassment and retaliation. A new structure will be created for employees to use when reporting discrimination or harassment. Del Taco will also need to provide all employees with training on anti-discrinination laws emphasizing sexual harassment in the workplace. 

Projections Regarding Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: 

Updated training is helpful and will likely improve the situation for many, but it will not solve the problem. This won’t be the last sexual harassment case or sexual harassment case settlement. 

If you need to discuss sexual harassment in the workplace or if you need 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 any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$175k Settlement in Carmel Restaurant Sexual Harassment Suit

To resolve a federal sexual harassment lawsuit filed on behalf of both male and female workers at California’s Carmel restaurants, owner/operator JCFB, Inc. agreed to pay a settlement of $175,000. The settlement agreement and amount was announced January 9, 2020. 

Sexual Harassment Suit Alleges Multiple Incidents:

According to the harassment lawsuit, one the the male line cooks working at Porta Bella Restaurant was repeatedly “grabbed” inappropriately; with his “private parts” being grabbed on numerous occasions by the kitchen’s manager, the chef and the cook. When the line cook reported the inappropriate behavior to the owners of the restaurant, they dismissed it as “only play.” After the dismissed report of the inappropriate behavior, the line cook claims that the chef became irate and confronted him, yelling and hitting him and finally forcing him to quit his job at the restaurant. The lawsuit alleges that the restaurant did not adequately investigate the incident or appropriately discipline the harassers.

Multiple Employees Came Forward with Harassment Allegations:

A female dishwasher working at Mediterranean Restaurant claims she endured sexual comments daily and regular unwanted and inappropriate physical touching by the same kitchen manager that harassed and retaliated against the Porta Bella Restaurant’s line cook. She informed her manager at Mediterranean Restaurant, and while it was a different manager than the one who handled the line cook’s complaint at the Porta Bella, the response was similar. The sexual comments and inappropriate behavior continued unchecked.

Workplace Harassment Violates Employment Law:

Both situations noted above are alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace. The harassment lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern California District. Before filing the lawsuit the parties involved did attempt to reach a pre-litigation settlement through a voluntary conciliation process.

Defendant Settles the Harassment Lawsuit for $175K:

The $175,000 settlement is part of a three-year consent decree ordering JCFB to pay the two former workers and provide anti-harassment training to their employees working at either Carmel Restaurant location. The JCFB is also required to work with an external consultant to monitor any future hostile workplace complaints. Doing so will hopefully assist the company as they implement effective HR practices to ensure proper training and appropriate investigating will occur as well as necessary disciplinary measures for those in violation of higher workplace standards. The changes will be made in hopes that incidents of harassment will be curbed at restaurant locations.

It doesn’t matter if the harassment is verbal or physical or if the victim is male or female, employers have to take incidents of workplace harassment very seriously and dedicate themselves to ensuring their service industry workers are protected from hostile work environments. 

If you are experiencing discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact 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.

Wayfair Employee Sues After Alleged Co-Worker Harassment

Emily Forsythe, a 33-year-old associate director of industrial engineering at Wayfair, filed a harassment lawsuit on January 3, 2020. Forsythe claims that during her time working for the Boston-based online furniture retailer, she was regularly harassed by a male colleague, she supervised on the job. The harassment continued for several months.

Forsythe Claims Wayfair Ignored Harassment Complaints:

Wayfair employs a significant portion of the area’s 20 and 30-somethings. Despite its status as a major employer of such a substantial portion of the population, they allegedly failed to respond appropriately to the harassment problem. Forsythe claims that they completely overlooked the harassment complaints and then proceeded to retaliate against her for filing a harassment complaint.

Months of Harassment Lead to a Lawsuit Alleging Employment Law Violations:

Emily Forsythe responded to the company’s non-response and retaliation by filing a lawsuit on January 3, 2020. According to the lawsuit, Forsythe was harassed over several months by a coworker she supervised on the job as Wayfair’s Associate Director of Industrial Engineering in 2019. In the documents, Forsythe described the situation claiming that the man doggedly pursued a relationship with her, making repeated (and unwanted) physical contact. When Forsythe rejected his advances, he allegedly started sending combative messages to both her and other employees at Wayfair. 

One Example of the Harassment Cited in Forsythe’s Lawsuit:

While at the Wayfair facility in Perris, California, the plaintiff claims that the male coworker took it upon himself with no expressed or implied invitation from Forsythe to stare at her chest and then run his hand down from her cleavage across her breast to her waist. When she moved out of his reach, he laughed and walked away. Later that day, again, without an invitation from the plaintiff, he started to talk to Forsythe about internet dating applications, aired speculations about the pair of them dating while noting their consistent conflicts, and invited Forsythe to spend the day together then go to dinner. She refused. He repeated the same invitation as both were leaving the workplace, and Forsythe refused again. He later told 3rd parties that he and Forsythe were dating.

Many other examples were included in the lawsuit, similar to the one detailed above.

Harassment Allegedly Followed by Retaliation in the Workplace:

In Forsythe’s lawsuit, she also alleges that another Wayfair employee later discriminated against her in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Forsythe claims she was excluded from meetings and email communications. Forsythe claims they received Forsythe’s harassment claims but concluded they were unfounded as other employees denied her allegations. When Forsythe announced her intention to file a discrimination complaint, Wayfair fired her. She was terminated on September 22, 2019. In a statement responding to the lawsuit, Wayfair denies the allegations. They insist they take all reports of misconduct seriously and that they conducted a thorough investigation into the matter in response to Forsythe’s complaints, but did not find any merit to the allegations.

Forsythe claims she suffered emotional distress due to Wayfair’s failure to handle her complaints appropriately and is seeking back pay, court fees, and damages. Her legal counsel found Wayfair’s handling of the matter insensitive, inadequate, and unusual, claiming that they relied on denials issued by the alleged harasser and retaliator to come to the conclusions that there was no misconduct.

If you have questions about how to identify harassment in the workplace or if you need to file a California 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.

Former Juul Employee Sues San Fran Vaping Co. Alleging Harassment and Wrongful Termination

On December 20, 2019, former Juul employee Kai Yin “Carrie” Chuang filed a complaint with San Francisco Superior Court, alleging she was the victim of sexual harassment. Chuang also claims the San Francisco vaping company wrongfully terminated her employment after reporting harassment incidents to her superiors. 

Chuang worked at Juul, as well as its predecessor company Pax Labs. She was employed as a supply chain manager starting in 2017 through 2018. Chuang claims that three different male Juul employees made unwanted sexual advances to her on multiple occasions. The incidents involved suggestive comments and inappropriate physical contact. According to the lawsuit, Chuang reported the incidents to her supervisors at Juul. Still, the managers discouraged her from pressing the issue and did not conduct a thorough investigation of her claims.

Alleged Incidents of Workplace Harassment:

While on a business trip in 2017, a male employee requested the Chuang come to his room and “sleep with him.” When Chuang refused, the male co-worker touched her inappropriately and kissed her against her will.

Juul executives allegedly spread false rumors that Chuang accepted bribes from a vendor, indulged in a romantic relationship with vendor representative, and downloaded company files and shared them with an ex-employee in violation of company policy. Chuang claims the executives spread these rumors in retaliation for reporting the abusive incidents.

Was Chuang Wrongfully Terminated?

In December 2018, Chuang was terminated from her position with Juul. In February, Chuang filed a complaint. She received a right-to-sue notice the same day. Chuang’s lawsuit seeks back pay, lost fringe benefits, and additional monetary relief. A specific amount is not specified in the lawsuit.

How Did Juul Respond to the Harassment, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Allegations?

Juul claims that Chuang did not raise allegations until months after her separation from the company. They also claim that an internal investigation was completed in response to her complaints. Juul insists Chuang’s claims have no merit and that they are dedicated to creating and sustaining a safe, comfortable workplace for all employees that is free from all forms of harassment.

If you need to discuss harassment or workplace retaliation, 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.

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.