Gina Carano Sues Disney for Wrongful Termination

In recent news, Gina Carano filed a wrongful termination lawsuit after being fired from Disney’s The Mandalorian. In an interesting twist, problematic social media posts instigated her termination, but another social media post led to her ability to seek resolution through the legal system.

The Case: Gina Carano v. The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc.

The Court: US District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: S2:2024cv01009

The Plaintiff: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Carano, is a former Disney+ “The Mandalorian” actor. Carano played the former Rebellion soldier Cara Dune during two seasons. After Carano shared problematic social media posts in 2021, Lucasfilm announced they no longer employed Carano. In response to the abrupt dismissal, Carano filed a wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit in California federal court seeking more than $75,000 in compensatory damages and reinstatement as Dune in “The Mandalorian” series. Carano seeks a jury trial. Elon Musk funds Carano’s wrongful termination lawsuit through X (formerly known as Twitter).

The Defendants: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

The defendants in the case, the Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc., took action against Carano after a February 2021 Instagram post (since deleted) making an implied comparison between being a conservative in the modern setting to being Jewish during the Holocaust. Before this, she was called out for other right-wing social media posts stating opinions about the 2020 presidential election, mask requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic, and opinions regarding other people’s declared pronouns that incited critics to declare her racist or transphobic and demanding that Disney/Lucasfilm fire her from “The Mandalorian.”

The Case: Carano v. The Walt Disney Company

While problematic social media posts instigated the original incident, a different type of social media post led to the filing of Carano v. The Walt Disney Company. Legal counsel for X reached out to Carano after she responded to one of Elon Musk’s posts offering to help individuals who lost their jobs based on activity on the social media platform. X hired legal counsel to look into Carano’s story and assist her in seeking an appropriate resolution. X states they support Carano’s suit as a sign of their commitment to free speech.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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 Pfizer Director Alleged Wrongful Termination

A former Pfizer Analytics Director claims Pfizer fired him after he attempted to expose the company’s FCPA violations.

The Case: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The Court: Superior Court of State of California, County of San Francisco

The Case No.: 4:23-cv-03908-DMR

The Plaintiff: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The plaintiff in the case, Frank Han, a former director of global compliance analytics at Pfizer, filed a whistleblower suit claiming he was fired from his position with the drugmaker because he tried to expose FCPA violations at the company. According to Han, he raised compliance concerns and possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations to an immediate supervisor (along with additional colleagues) at Pfizer during a November 2021 virtual meeting. Before the meeting, Han received a higher-than-perfect score on his performance review. During his next performance review, he received a reduced score, and his supervisor advised him his performance wasn’t aiding the desired results. The meeting escalated, and his supervisor allegedly demanded Han quit. After Han’s request to report to a different supervisor was denied, he received another performance review with an even lower score. Running the complaints up the official chain at Pfizer resulted in an investigation. However, the result of the investigation was that Pfizer decided no further action was necessary. A month later, Han was fired.

The Defendant: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The defendant in the case, Pfizer, is a pharmaceutical giant. During Han’s work from 2019 to 2021, he claims he discovered evidence of payments of $168 million to potentially influential government officials (PIGOs) in China. The ex-Pfizer compliance officer attempted to address the possible violations indicated, but the following chain of events ended in his firing and a wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation lawsuit.

The Case: Frank Han v. Pfizer

In Frank Han v. Pfizer, the plaintiff originally filed his wrongful termination lawsuit in California state court. However, it was later moved to federal court. The lawsuit seeks lost wages, mental and emotional distress, legal fees, injunctive and declaratory relief, and interest, among other damages.

If you have questions about how to file a wrongful termination 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.

Morgan Stanley Faces Wrongful Termination and Reverse Discrimination Claims

In recent news, a former Morgan Stanley executive claims wrongful termination and reverse discrimination.

The Case: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The Court: United States District Court Southern District of New York

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-07638

The Plaintiff: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Meyersburg, was Morgan Stanley’s Managing Director and Head of Executive Service. During his time in the position, Meyersburg accumulated many accomplishments and successes for the company, including massive growth, productivity, and profitability in his department when other departments struggled to make a profit. In April 2023, Morgan Stanley started announcing a series of layoffs due to the Firm’s financial underperformance. Most layoffs were completed by combining and collapsing teams performing similar functions. Meyersburg’s Executive Services Team didn’t see many adjustments or layoffs due to their excessive success and productivity. However, despite his documented strong performance and the success of the Executive Services team while under his leadership, on May 11, 2023, Morgan Stanley told Meyersburg he was being terminated from his position. The company replaced him with a Black female with significantly less experience and qualifications. The company provided no performance or work-related deficiency for Meyersburg’s termination. Instead, his termination was allegedly the Firm’s attempt to comply with its Diversity and Inclusion objectives, which would mean the Firm illegally fired Meyersburg because of his sex, race, and/or color.

The Defendant: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The defendant in the case, Morgan Stanley, did not make a public statement regarding the allegations.

The Case: Kevin Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC

The case is one of many that target corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and practices that allege reverse discrimination. The influx of legal actions targeting corporate diversity and inclusion practices seems inspired by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions in June. However, even before the decision to strike down affirmative action in the college admissions process, reverse discrimination cases increased as internal concerns around DEI increased. Recent cases targeting corporate diversity policies supporting reverse discrimination attempt to translate the court’s race-blind stance toward college admissions to the workplace.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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 Starbucks Employee Awarded $25.6 Million in Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, a former Starbucks employee was awarded $25.6 million for wrongful termination claims.

The Case: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

The Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

The Case No.: 19-19432

The Plaintiff: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Shannon Phillips, is a former Starbucks regional manager. In her wrongful termination lawsuit, Phillips claims Starbucks fired her because she's white. Phillips filed her California wrongful termination lawsuit in 2019, claiming she was being designated the scapegoat in Starbucks's effort at damage control following an incident caught on video that went viral online. The viral video showed two black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, during their arrest at a Philadelphia Starbucks coffee shop. The incident's exposure sparked so much outrage across the country that Starbucks temporarily closed its shops to provide anti-bias training for employees.

The History of the Case: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

The case concerns an incident at a Starbucks in the Rittenhouse Square area of Philadelphia in April 2018. Two black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, went to Starbucks. According to Nelson, he asked to use the restroom and was told it was for paying customers only. A Starbucks employee approached the two men's table and asked if they wanted to order. According to Robinson, he replied that they were okay and waiting for a business meeting. A manager then called 911, stating that there were "two gentlemen ... refusing to make a purchase or leave." Neither man heard the manager tell them to leave. The incident resulted in an eight-minute video of the arrest as three police officers reported to the scene to question the two men before handcuffing them and leading them out of Starbucks. Nationwide outrage led to protests and a public relations crisis for Starbucks. The chief executive issued a public apology and closed stores nationwide to provide anti-bias training for all 175,000 employees across the U.S.

The Repercussions: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

Part of the terms of the settlement Starbucks reached with Nelson and Robinson included a pledge to continue taking actions to address discriminatory incidents. In her complaint, Phillips noted that no corrective action was taken against the manager of the Rittenhouse Starbucks, who is black, and who promoted the store manager who made the 911 call that led to the arrest. A few weeks after the arrest, Phillips was told to suspend a white manager at one of the chain's Philadelphia stores due to accusations of discrimination. Phillips fought the allegations because she claimed the allegations were "factually untrue." According to Phillips, she was fired shortly after objecting to the white manager's suspension.

The Defendant: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

In the complaint, Phillips states that her race was a "motivating and/or determinative factor" in her termination. Still, the defendant in the case, Starbucks Corp., denies firing Phillips because of her race.

The Case: Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

After six days at trial, a federal jury in New Jersey unanimously agreed to award Phillips $25 million in punitive damages and $600,000 in compensatory damages. Phillips is also seeking damages for back and future pay.

If you have questions about how to file a wrongful termination 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.

Compass Group Faces Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

In recent news, Compass Group, a multinational corporation, faces discrimination and wrongful termination allegations after a former employee claims she was fired for refusing to participate in a “diversity” program she felt blatantly discriminated based on race and gender.

The Case: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court Southern District of California

The Case No.: 23CV1347 KSC

The Plaintiff: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Courtney Rogers, is a former Internal Mobility Team recruiter for Compass Group USA. While Rogers was working for the company’s human resources department in 2022, the company introduced “Operation Equity,” a new “diversity” program in which only “women and people of color” were invited to participate. The program was promoted as offering special training and mentorship alongside guaranteed promotion. Rogers expressed her concerns that the “diversity” program was openly discriminating against white males, denying them employment opportunities and benefits made available by Compass to women and people of color through the program. The initiative directly conflicted with Rogers’ religious belief that all people, regardless of race or gender, are created equal, so she requested accommodation by assigning her to a different project. A senior HR officer assured her there would be no retaliation against her for expressing her beliefs, and she could be assigned different responsibilities as accommodation. However, within two weeks, Rogers was fired.

The Defendant: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Compass Group USA, Inc., is one of the largest employers in the world and the parent company of many recognizable names like Bon Appétit Restaurant Management, Wolfgang Puck Catering, TouchPoint, etc.

The Case: Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

In the case Courtney J. Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., the plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks relief from “Religious Creed Discrimination” (a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The lawsuit seeks financial compensatory damages resulting from Compass’ discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, as well as asking the court to require Compass’s senior human resources management to participate in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Fair Treatment training, classes, and oversight to prevent a repeat of retaliation against other employees in the future.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace discrimination 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 Target Employee Claims Wrongful Termination

A former Target employee claims the massive box store wrongfully terminated her.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

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

The Case No.: 34-2022-00316991

The Plaintiff: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

Torres, the plaintiff and former Target employee in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging Target violated labor law. Torres claims that she was fired due to a disability and that Target failed to provide hourly, non-exempt workers with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

The defendant in the case, Target Corporation, faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failure to pay wages when due

The allegations constitute violations of various applicable Labor Codes, including California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged violations would give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

According to the complaint and the plaintiff's allegations, Target wrongfully terminated Torres, an employee allegedly subject to protected activity. Torres claims that Target subjected her to adverse employment actions, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed the company of her asthma disability. The company fired Torres after informing them of her disability, which led her to claim a causal link between the protected activity and Target's decision to terminate her employment.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination 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.

Foodservices Giant Faces Religious Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Allegations

A food services corporation recently found itself facing serious employment law violation allegations.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The Court: United States Court for the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01347-TWR-KSC

The Plaintiff: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Rogers, worked as an Internal Mobility Team recruiter for the defendant. During her time with the company, Rogers consistently received positive performance feedback from her colleagues and supervisors. However, she claims that the defendant fired her after she would not endorse, promote, or participate in a program she felt was blatantly discriminatory (based on both race and gender). Rogers filed a discrimination and wrongful termination federal lawsuit on July 24, 2023.

The Defendant: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

Compass Group USA, Inc., is the defendant in the case, one of the largest corporations in the world. According to the plaintiff, Compass Group USA Inc. initiated a program they falsely labeled a “diversity” initiative. According to the plaintiff, the program was designed to prevent white men from participating in promotions and benefits. Courtney Rogers discussed her concerns with the company and requested accommodations to work in a different area. According to Rogers, she advised the company the program conflicted with her strongly held religious beliefs that hold all people equal regardless of race or gender. According to court documents, HR assured Rogers that the company would not retaliate against her for her beliefs and that she would receive a different assignment as an accommodation. However, that same HR representative terminated Rogers’ employment two weeks later. In their first meeting, Rogers was assured she was doing excellent work, but her termination letter two weeks later stated she was being terminated for unsatisfactory performance.

The Case: Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc. et al.

In the case, Rogers v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al., Compass describes their program initiative as “Operation Equith,” calling it a diversity program offering qualified members special training and mentorship with the promise of guaranteed promotion within the program. The program was only available to women and people of color. The lawsuit demanded a jury trial seeking relief from religious discrimination, citing a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and violations of wrongful termination public policy. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and mandatory training for the company’s senior management in human resources.

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