Female Disney Executive Filed Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A former female Disney executive filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, a California Corporation, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV08350

The Plaintiff: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Asta Jonasson, is taking the network, parent company Disney, and John Ridley to court, claiming they engaged in gender, racial, and economic discrimination and wrongful termination.

During her ten years with ABC under Ridley and IFPRPC(Ridley’s International Famous Players Radio Picture Corporation), Jonasson claims her salary went unchanged and was lower than the standard for her position at the company. According to the complaint, she was also overlooked for promotions. Jonasson brought her concerns to Ridley regarding the alleged pay disparity, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination multiple times. She also states that she complained to ABC about unlawful discriminatory actions but saw no corrective action. In 2021, a white woman was hired to perform tasks Jonasson was already performing, but at a significantly higher pay rate. Jonasson eventually put her grievances in writing and was allegedly “pink-slipped” in 2022. Claiming her firing was a direct result of her written complaints of labor law violations, Jonasson filed a California wrongful termination lawsuit listing the studio, Ridley, and the parent company, The Walt Disney Company as defendants.

The Defendant: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The case has a trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley (Oscar winner Ridley is the co-host of Deadline’s Doc Talk podcast), and ABC, face multiple alleged labor law violations, including:

• Discrimination in violation of the FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of the FEHA

• Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation

• Violation of the Equal Pay Act

• Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Negligent supervision and retention

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

In Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, the plaintiff seeks a jury trial and various unspecified damages from the trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley, and ABC.

Not the Only Labor Law Allegations Disney Faces:

Disney is facing more allegations regarding gender discrimination in a class action suit from potentially thousands of past and present employees, claiming the company shows a pattern of gender discrimination and pay disparity favoring male employees. The class action was filed in 2019 by Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. It includes claims that female employees receive lower pay rates than male counterparts with similar job duties in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. After repeated failures to get the class action discrimination lawsuit tossed out, the action seeks at least $150,000,000 in lost wages for female Disney employees, with the potential for damages to grow to more than $300,000,000.

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

Elon Musk’s Neuralink Faces Allegations of Discrimination and Retaliation

In recent news, a former Neuralink employee claims she faced discrimination, workplace retaliation, and disregard for her pregnancy accommodations during her time at the company.

The Case: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The Court: Superior Court of Alameda County

The Case No.: 24CV079691

The Plaintiffs: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Lindsay Short (formerly known as Lindsay Tatum), is a former Neuralink employee. Neuralink hired Short on March 9, 2021, as an Animal Care Team member at Neuarlink’s Dixon location. During her hiring process, it was understood by all parties involved that Short would require flexibility to accommodate her children’s work schedule and doctor’s appointments. After the Dixon location was closed in January 2022, Short was promoted to Animal Care Lead and transferred to Fremont with a pay raise. After negotiating her need for flexible time off to care for her children, Short accepted the new position as Animal Training Lead for the Non-Human Primate population and moved from Dixon to Fremont. Upon starting the job at the Fremont location, Short quickly discovered that management heavily discouraged taking rest breaks, and employees were frequently not relieved of job duties during their meal periods. Management at the Fremont location also quickly began pressuring Short to prioritize her work over her family, disregarding the oral agreement they entered into offering flexibility to accommodate her need to care for her children.

Alleged Labor Law Violations Escalate: Failure to Provide Appropriate PPE

Additionally, Short claims in the complaint that Neuralink conducted experiments within its research lab using rhesus macaque non-human primates (NHPs) that carried the deadly Herpes B virus without providing her with the appropriate PPE and failed to acknowledge her concerns regarding training, safety protocols, and violations of government regulations, which eventually led to her potential exposure. In response to her complaints, Short claims she was subjected to a retaliatory demotion under the erroneous guise of poor work performance that took effect in May 2023. In June 2023, Short advised HR in a teleconference meeting that she was pregnant. The next day, her supervisors presented her with a separation agreement and notice of termination for alleged “performance issues.” Short filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming she suffered economic loss and emotional distress due to the company’s unlawful conduct.

The Defendant: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

The defendant in the case is Neuralink, Corp., and two of Short’s managers during her time working at the company. Short claims Neuralink and two of her managers, specifically Thurman and Sorrells, subjected her to discrimination, failure to provide appropriate accommodations for pregnancy, exposure to unsafe conditions, a pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory actions, and whistleblower retaliation. Additionally, Short claims Neuralink violated labor law’s meal break and rest period requirements.

The Case: Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp.

Short F/K/A Lindsay Tatum vs Neuralink, Corp., lawsuit alleges several labor law violations. The alleged labor law violations started after Short took a promotion with an accompanying pay raise and oral agreement for a flexible work schedule that accommodated her need to provide care for her children. The promotion necessitated a move of approximately 80 miles from Dixon to Fremont. Short seeks economic damages, non-economic damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and any other remedies available under applicable laws.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Appeals Court Overturns Whistleblower Retaliation Award

In recent news, the California Appeals Court overturned a jury award to Ortega, a fired employee in a California whistleblower retaliation case.

The Case: Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings

The Court: California Appeals Court

The Case No.: B309931

The Lawsuit: Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings

The plaintiff in the case, Ortega, sued Carson Wild Wings for whistleblower retaliation after being fired from her server job. Ortega alleges the company fired her in retaliation after she made complaints of wage and hour violations. Ortega’s argument hinged on the timing of her complaints (April 6th and 7th, 2017), with the employment termination following on April 10, 2023. The company claimed the termination was based on allegations that the plaintiff manipulated the tip-out procedure, a recent “water bombing” incident, and past write-ups. The plaintiff denied manipulating the tip-out system, claimed past write-ups were in the distant past and were unrelated to her termination, and that the “water bombing” incident was an accepted “prank” to pull on new servers to teach them to remember to log out of the system. The manager testified she didn’t know about the employee’s meal break complaint when she decided to fire Ortega.

The Jury Trial’s Award: Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings

The jury awarded the former Carson Wild Wings server $200,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The defendant appealed the court’s decision.

On Appeal: Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings

On appeal, the court considered the timeline of events. Following the water-bombing incident that infuriated the general manager, the GM drafted the corrective action memorandum serving as notice of termination listing multiple reasons, including manipulating the tip-tracking system to avoid paying taxes on tips, the water-bombing incident, break violations, and tardiness. The GM forwarded the memorandum to the district manager and HR to request approval for the employee’s termination on April 6, 2017. After sending the email, the general manager left for the day. Later that evening, during the night shift, the plaintiff’s shift manager asked her to clock out for her meal break but work through it and take her break later. The employee complained about never receiving a meal break around midnight. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiff was asked to work through her scheduled meal break again. She complained to another shift manager about the missed breaks and other wage and hour violations. On April 9, 2017, after reviewing the general manager’s corrective action memo, the company suspended Ortega before her shift started. On April 10, 2017, Ortega was terminated from her position. Considering the timeline of events, the California Appeals Court reversed the jury trial’s award, finding insufficient evidence to support the award. The uncontested evidence showed the employer’s supervisor did not know about her labor law violation complaints when deciding to request termination of employment, so the corrective action could not be retaliation.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace retaliation or whistleblower retaliation 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.

Did Sunsweet Retaliate When Employee Notified HR of Discrimination?

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the court considered a case of alleged workplace retaliation when a Sunsweet worker spoke up about alleged discrimination and harassment at work.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The Court: Sutter County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CVCS23-0000742

The Plaintiff: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa, was a non-exempt hourly employee for Sunsweet Growers. Renteria-Hinojosa alleged that she submitted multiple complaints to HR and filed an EEOC charge due to sexual harassment and discrimination at work. According to the lawsuit, Renteria-Hinojosa was enduring harassment and discrimination daily when she reported for work. She claimed the company discriminated against her for being a “female dating other females” and that her complaints regarding the situation received no effective response. Eventually, Renteria-Hinojosa took a stressful leave from work (in April 2022) to escape the untenable situation. Renteria-Hinojosa also claimed Sunsweet’s non-exempt employees were not provided off-duty meal breaks because their work schedules were too rigorous. She filed a class action lawsuit citing California labor code violations.

The Defendant: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sunsweet Growers Inc., is a California employer. All California employers are required to comply with federal and state labor laws. According to California labor law, employers must provide their employees with a thirty-minute off-duty, uninterrupted meal break before the end of every 5th hour of work and a second meal break before an employee completes their 10th hour of work in one shift. According to the complaint, Sunsweet did not provide additional compensation to employees who missed their breaks.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the plaintiff claims harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations based on missed meal breaks and rest periods. The failure to provide employees with the missed meal breaks and rest periods or additional compensation for missing them led to inaccurate wage calculations and inaccurate overtime wage distribution, constituting additional alleged labor law violations.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace retaliation 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.

AM Retail Group, Inc. Faces Workplace Retaliation Allegations

In recent news, AM Retail Group, Inc. faces allegations of workplace retaliation violating labor law.

The Case: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2023-00011858-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Brenda Cardenas, was employed by AM Retail Group, Inc. from January 2022t through April 6, 2022, classified as non-exempt and paid hourly. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, Cardenas was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and accurate calculations and payment of overtime wages.

The Defendant: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, AM Retail Group, Inc., is a corporation that owns and operates clothing stores and conducts a substantial amount of business in California.

The Case: Brenda Cardenas v. AM Retail Group, Inc.

According to the complaint, AM Retail Group, Inc. allegedly failed to pay their employees for all the hours under the employer’s control, including when the plaintiff and other employees were required to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening before clocking in for their shifts. As the time worked off the clock did not qualify for overtime premium payment, the plaintiff also claims that the defendant failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours the plaintiff and other eligible class members worked while “off the clock.” In addition to minimum wage and overtime violations, the plaintiff allegedly reported incidences of disability discrimination to HR. According to court documents, the plaintiff was enduring continual pressure, obligations, and mistreatment by supervisors due to her mental and physical state. According to the plaintiff, when HR failed to respond to her complaints, she was forced to resign due to the hostile, discriminatory work environment.

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

Did Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County Retaliate Against an Employee

In recent news, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County allegedly retaliated against one of their employees. According to reports, the retaliation followed the employee's report of alleged safety issues in the company's workspace.

The Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The Court: California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino

The Case No.: CIVSB2218158

The Plaintiff: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The plaintiffs in the case, Madison and Marable, claim that the defendant failed to properly maintain standard safety measures in the office where employees were required to work. Beginning in March 2022, the plaintiff repeatedly reported the alleged safety issues to the company. According to the plaintiff, the company did not take the necessary action to protect the safety of its workers. The plaintiff alleges that the company retaliated against her as a direct consequence of the complaints by continuing to expose employees to ill co-workers and leaving employees unprotected in the office workspace.

The Defendant: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The defendant in the lawsuit, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County, is a nonprofit agency whose work benefits San Bernardino County residents. The organization is part of a National Community Action Network established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, known as President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" movement. The group is also part of the National Association for State Community Services Programs (CAPSBC). The group dedicates its efforts to minimizing and eliminating homelessness and poverty.

Details of the Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

In addition to allegations that the defendant supported an unsafe work environment and allegedly retaliated against the plaintiff when she engaged in a protected act (reporting a hazardous work environment), the lawsuit includes claims that the defendant violated other labor laws. On top of creating an unsafe work environment and retaliation, the lawsuit alleges the company failed to relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and provide employees with ten-minute rest periods (when they work more than four hours).

If you have questions about how to file a California retaliation 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.

Physician’s Whistleblower Claims to Proceed Against UCLA

In recent news, the Court of Appeal reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Regents of the University of California (and others), in the whistleblower retaliation action brought by Arnold Scheer, M.D., M.P.H., plaintiff.

The Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The Court: Court of Appeal of State of California, Second Appellate District Division Three

The Case No.: B303379

The Plaintiff: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The plaintiff in the case, Scheer, brought whistleblower claims in three causes of action. Scheer alleged violations under Labor Code Section 1102.5, Government Code Section 8547 et seq., and Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5. According to court documents, Dr. Scheer alleged the company retaliated against him for whistleblowing about various issues and concerns connected to patient safety, mismanagement, fraud, illegal conduct, and economic waste.

The Defendant: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

The defendant in the case, the Regents of the University of California, successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the wrong standard was applied to the case in trial court, and citing Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal. 5th 703 (2022).

Summary of the Case: Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 76

In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the California Supreme Court clarified the legal framework that applies to claims under Labor Code Section 1102.5. The recent opinion requires the plaintiff to meet a less burdensome standard for whistleblower claims under Section 1102.5. While Lawson did not specifically discuss Government Code Section 8547.10, the case did require the state Supreme Court to analyze nearly identical language, so the appellate court concluded Lawson’s legal framework can be applied to the Government Code claim in Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of California. The Court of Appeal found that the Defendants based their argument seeking summary adjudication of Scheer’s Labor and Government Code claims on a legal standard inconsistent with Lawson. Based on this contradiction, the court reversed and remanded the claims. Regarding Scheer’s Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, the appellate court concluded that Lawson didn’t change the legal framework. However, the appellate court concluded there was a triable issue of material fact regarding the stated reasons for termination, so this claim was also reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

If you have questions about California employment law, retaliation, or need help filing a California whistleblower 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.