Elon Musk’s X Faces ERISA Violation Allegations

Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) faces allegations of ERISA violations.

The Case: Courtney McMillan v. X Corp.

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-03461

The Plaintiff: Courtney McMillan v. X Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Courtney McMillan, alleges X violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In the California ERISA lawsuit filed July 12th, the former Twitter (now X) employee claims the company owes former employees more than $500 million.

The Defendant: Courtney McMillan v. X Corp.

The defendant in the case, X (formerly known as Twitter), allegedly agreed to distribute severance pay as determined by the employees' initial offer letters. The company also allegedly later confirmed that employees' severance pay would be equitable or better than the pre-merger terms put in place by old Twitter management. According to the severance plan, laid-off workers were entitled to:

• A minimum of two months of base salary plus pro-rated performance bonuses (as if the triggers for all such bonuses were met) plus

• The cash value of any restricted stock units that would have been vested within three months of separation plus

• A cash contribution for health care coverage continuation

However, according to the lawsuit, the company offered two months base salary (in compliance with the notice requirements of the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act plus one month of severance pay.

The Case: Courtney McMillan v. X Corp.

Like retirement and group health plans, corporate severance plans can be subject to ERISA. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, severance benefits are not a pension plan if the payments are not contingent on retirement, the payments do not exceed double the employee's annual compensation, and the payments are completed within two years of the employee's layoff or termination. Companies that violate ERISA can face steep consequences.

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

$72.5M Settlement in California Home Depot Wage & Hour Class Action

In recent news, Home Depot faces allegations of California labor law violations.

The Case: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 16-01854

The Plaintiff: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The plaintiff in the case, Utne, filed the class action wage and hour lawsuit in March 2016, claiming Home Depot violated labor laws. While the plaintiff filed suit in 2016, the case was scheduled for trial in 2023.

The Defendant: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The defendant in the case, Home Depot USA, is the largest U.S. home improvement retailer in the U.S. The company denies the labor law violation allegations but agreed to settle to avoid costly and uncertain litigation. The company stated that the settlement allowed them to focus on serving their employees and customers. The parties agreed to a settlement with the settlement covering over 272,000 California Home Depot employees (employed since March 8, 2012).

The Case: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The case, Utne v Home Depot USA Inc, turned into a long-running class action lawsuit based on allegations that Home Depot underpaid California workers. Home Depot agreed to resolve the case with a $72.5 million settlement to avoid the litigation costs and the uncertainty of litigation. The parties filed the preliminary settlement in San Francisco federal court seeking the judge’s approval. After taking out legal fees and costs (estimated at $24.2 million plus $3.5 million in expenses), the settlement would go to hourly employees who worked the closing shift and waited off the clock after the Home Depot stores were locked for the night. 41% of the settlement is designated for employees who were unpaid for the time they spent off the clock prepping for their shift (putting on their aprons, etc.) And 9% is designated for employees who lost pay due to Home Depot’s standard policy of rounding hours to the nearest quarter hour.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Rite Aid Faces Allegations of Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination

A former RiteAid employee filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, sexual harassment, workplace retaliation, and discrimination based on an allegedly inappropriate text exchange with her RiteAid district manager.

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The Court: Superior Court of Fresno County

The Case No.: 19CECG00569

The Plaintiff: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, Hanin Atalla, claims that during her employment at RiteAid, she engaged in a text exchange with her RiteAid district manager in which the district manager sent her lewd photographs. The text exchange occurred off-site and after hours, and the plaintiff and the district manager knew each other before the plaintiff’s employment at RiteAid. The plaintiff sued for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The Defendant: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

The defendant in the case, Rite Aid Corp., is a drugstore chain (Thrifty Payless, Inc., dba RiteAid).

The Case: Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp.

In Hanin Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., the trial court granted summary judgment regarding all claims in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s conclusion stating that the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of material fact regarding the requirement to show that the manager was acting in the capacity of a supervisor during the January 4, 2019 text exchange. They agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff had an extensive texting relationship with the district manager, and pairing that with the facts that the text exchange in question was offered outside of the workplace and after work hours led them to conclude it was a personal exchange based on their personal friendship rather than a work exchange. The Appellate court also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion regarding the wrongful termination claims - that the evidence indicates that the plaintiff was not terminated but that she resigned.

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.

Former Xceed Vice President Claimed Wrongful Termination and Age Discrimination

A former Xceed Financial Credit Union Controller and Vice President of Accounting filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming she was fired due to age discrimination.

The Case: Elizabeth Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The Court: Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct.

The Case No.: 19STCV28608

The Plaintiff: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Castelo, was employed by Xceed as a Controller and Vice President of Accounting. Xceed notified Castelo her employment was being terminated in November 2018, with the termination effective December 31, 2018.

The Defendant: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

The defendant in the case, Xceed Financial Credit Union, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on November 19, 2018. The agreement was titled “Separation and General Release Agreement,” among other things, it specified Castelo’s severance payment in consideration for a full release of all claims, including a release of age discrimination claims.”

The Case: Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

According to the documents in the case Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union, Castelo remained employed by the defendant through December 31, 2018. Xceed paid Castelo the remainder of the payment agreed to in January 2019. Castelo accepted the $132,334.00 payment. The plaintiff made no effort to revoke the Separation Agreement until August 13, 2019, when she filed a complaint against Xceed alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination violations. The parties agreed the action would be submitted to binding arbitration in October 2019 (per an arbitration agreement in place in 2013). The arbitrator granted summary judgment in favor of Xceed on the ground’s that the release in the separation agreement barred the plaintiff’s claim. Castelo claimed the release violated Civil Code Section 1668 and moved to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court denied the motion to vacate and entered judgment confirming the arbitration award in favor of Xceed. On appeal, the court confirms the trial court’s decision. Section 1668 applies to a release of liability for future unknown claims. However, when Castelo signed the separation agreement, she already believed her termination was due to age discrimination. Since Castelo was aware of the alleged violation when she signed the agreement, Section 1668 does not apply.

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.

Determining the Burden of Proof in California Workplace Discrimination Lawsuits

On appeal, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding the burden of proof in a California workplace discrimination lawsuit.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

Lopez, the plaintiff in the case, worked for La Casa between 2002 and 2017. In 2014, Lopez was placed in a shelter manager position at a residential shelter for domestic violence victims. Two years after becoming a shelter manager, Lopez experienced complications after giving birth and notified the defendant regarding the situation. In response, the plaintiff claims that La Casa sent her harassing communications and did not make a reasonable effort to determine if Lopez’s disability could be accommodated. According to the lawsuit, La Casa declined to provide accommodations suggested by Lopez’s doctor. Lopez claims in the lawsuit that her efforts to return to work were denied, and she was forced out of her position with the nonprofit. Lopez also alleges that due to the Defendant misrepresenting the reason for her termination, she was denied a job at a different workplace.

The Defendant: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The defendant in the case, Casa de Las Madres, is a domestic violence shelter.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

On appeal, the court affirmed a judgment in favor of the Defendant. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code 12945(a)(3)(A), proof that 1) the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is required, 2) that accommodations were requested on the advice of a health care professional, 3) the employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation, and 4) the plaintiff could perform essential job functions if reasonable accommodations were provided. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court was correct in applying these requirements with the burden properly placed on Lopez, the plaintiff, to prove the condition relating to pregnancy existed and that she could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodations provided.

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.

Did Acadia Healthcare Fail to Pay Employees Accurate Wages & Overtime?

Acadia Healthcare Inc. faces allegations that they failed to provide their employees with accurate wages for all the hours they worked, pay accurate overtime wages, and keep an accurate record of their employee's time worked.

The Case: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court of California

The Case No.: 22CV407143

The Plaintiff: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Rhonald Aranzaso, was a California employee of the defendant from June 2021 through September 2022. Aranzaso was an hourly, non-exempt employee at all times with the company, so federal and state labor law protected his right to minimum wage, accurate overtime pay, meal periods, and rest breaks. The plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action alleging and seeking compensation for their losses incurred during the class action period caused by the employer's policies and practices that allegedly violated labor law and failed to fully compensate the employees.

The Defendant: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The defendant in the case, Acadia Healthcare Inc., allegedly used standard practices and policies that violated employees' protections under state and federal labor law.

The Case: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

According to the lawsuit filed, Acadia Healthcare Inc. allegedly violated labor law by including non-discretionary wage earnings that increased their regular pay rate in calculating sick pay wages, resulting in an alleged loss of income for employees who qualify as class members. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that their rigorous work schedules prevented them from taking their thirty-minute off-duty meal breaks or being fully relieved of duty during their legally required meal periods. The plaintiffs also claim their employer failed to provide required second-off-duty meal breaks when necessary. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendant intentionally disregarded their obligation to comply with California Labor Codes and minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.

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

Did Unifi Aviation, LLC Fail to Provide Employees with Mandatory Meal & Rest Breaks?

In a recently filed class action lawsuit, Unifi Aviation, LLC faces allegations of labor law violations, with plaintiffs specifically alleging that the company failed to provide the meal and rest breaks required to offer employees according to labor law.

The Case: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2023-00019287-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Leiv Berg, is an Unifi Aviation, LLC employee. Berg started work with the company in January 2022. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Berg is entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages for all hours worked. During this time with the company, Berg noticed practices that he alleges violate labor law and responded by filing a class action complaint representing himself and all other similarly situated employees (non-exempt workers previously employed by the defendant or staffed by a third party during the period beginning four years before the date the complaint was filed, and ending on the date determined by the court). They seek compensation for losses incurred during the California Class Period caused by Unifi Aviation’s policies and practices allegedly failing to compensate employees legally.

The Defendant: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

Unifi Aviation, LLC, the defendant in the case, is an aviation services provider in California. According to the plaintiff, the company allegedly engaged in several policies and practices that violated labor law, including:

• Interrupting employees during off-duty meal breaks to perform work tasks (without appropriate compensation) resulting in what is often referred to as “off-the-clock” work or unpaid time working.

• Using a payroll system that rounds down employees’ time (as a standard practice) resulting in employees receiving less pay than if the company paid them for all time worked without rounding the numbers.

• Requiring mandatory temperature checks and Covid symptom questionnaires (without pay)

• Calculating overpay rates without including bonuses earned from the company’s non-discretionary incentive program

• The Case: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The court defines an off-duty rest period as the time when an employee is relieved of all work-related tasks. Employees must be free to engage in personal activities during rest periods and should not be subject to their employer’s control or restrictions. Employees should not be required to remain on-site, on call, or perform work-related tasks or duties during off-duty rest periods or meal breaks. In the case, Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC, the defendant faces wage and hour allegations, overtime allegations, failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay sick wages (in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s)).

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