Elite Bohemian Grove Club Faces Class Action Alleging Employment Law Violations

/

In recent news, an elite secret club called Bohemian Grove faces labor law violation allegations, including failing to pay overtime and not giving workers breaks.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:2023cv02760

The Plaintiff: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Anthony Gregg, Wallid Saad, Shawn Claiborne, filed the proposed class action on June 25, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, demanding a jury trial. The plaintiffs are former Bohemian Grove valets who worked at the club’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California, for several years. They allege unfair labor practices, including 16-hour workdays with no breaks and failing to pay overtime and minimum wages.

The Defendant: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The defendant in the case, Bohemian Grove, one of the most elite and secretive clubs in the U.S. (with Reagan and Nixon listed among its elite membership), faces multiple labor law allegations:

1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

2. Collective Action - Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.)

3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods

4. Failure to Provide Paid Rest Breaks

5. Failure to Pay All Wages at Termination (Labor Code Section 201-203)

6. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

7. Unfair Business Practices; 8. Violation of Labor Code Section 2699 (PAGA)

Bohemian Grove attracts some of the world’s most powerful people to mysterious gatherings in the woods outside of San Francisco, California, and has long been the focus of conspiracy theorists and general fascination. The plaintiffs worked for several years at Bohemian Grove’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California (a secretive 2,700-acre camp near the Russian River that’s been in operation every summer for 150 years). The club lists 2,600 active members and a significant wait list.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Club is comprised of 100 camps, each with one or more captains who consistently violate numerous labor laws yearly. The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Grove treasurer, B. Dawson, personally directed valets to falsify payroll records and perform work off the clock. According to complaints in the lawsuit, throughout the 14-day summer camp each year, workers were consistently paid for eight hours when working 16-plus hour workdays without breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status. If certified, the class action status would affect 300 employees. The plaintiffs seek up to $1.5 million in damages from the all-male Bohemian Grove club.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action 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.

Did SpaceX Violate Numerous California Labor Laws?

/

In recent news, a SpaceX employee alleges the company violated numerous California labor laws.

The Case: Juan Padilla v. Space Exploration Technologies, Corp. DBA SpaceX

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

The Case No.: 23STCV17559

The Plaintiff: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case, Juan Padilla, a former SpaceX employee, filed a class action accusing the company of a slew of California labor law violations, including failing to pay hourly workers proper minimum wages, straight-time wages, and overtime wages. Labor Law entitles hourly employees to a 30-minute, uninterrupted meal period every five hours. According to the complaint, SpaceX often required employees to work more than five consecutive hours without providing them with their legally compliant meal breaks. Similarly, the complaint alleges that SpaceX required hourly workers to work over four consecutive hours without providing a legally required 10-minute rest break. The plaintiff also claims that the missed breaks were not compensated with an additional hour of pay as labor law requires.

The Defendant: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The defendant in the case, SpaceX, is a spacecraft engineering and manufacturing company co-founded by Elon Musk in 2002. In addition to the missed meal break and rest period claims and alleged minimum wage, wage and hour, and overtime pay violations, the defendant also faces allegations of failing to provide itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses (like parking and cell phone use), and timely payment of final wages (California law stipulates that all unpaid wages are due immediately upon discharge or within 72 hours of a former employee’s departure).

The Case: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case is a former SpaceX employee and California resident. Padilla was employed at SpaceX from January 2022 through September 2022. Padilla seeks to represent anyone who worked for SpaceX in California as a non-exempt hourly employee at any time during the four years and 178 days preceding the initial complaint filing and ending when the notice to the class is distributed.

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

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.

Parties Reach a Settlement in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against LA County Sheriff's Department

/

The parties in an inmate wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department agreed on a $1,500,000 settlement to resolve the case.

The Case: Joseph Charles Evans et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

The Court: USDC Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:19-cv-00793

The Plaintiff: Joseph Charles Evans, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

The plaintiffs in the case are the family members of Mr. Tony Evans, the deceased. Evans was survived by three adult sons who filed a wrongful death lawsuit on February 1, 2019. The men claim that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department failed in their duty to protect under the U.S. Constitution 14th amendment, 42 USC section 1983, and California state wrongful death claims.

History of the Case: Joseph Charles Evans et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Court records indicate that on January 17, 2018, Tony Joseph Evans, Sr. and Franklin Reveter were in LA County Sheriff’s Dept. custody at the Inmate Reception Center (where incoming male arrestees are processed before being assigned a LASD-maintained housing location). While sitting in the clinic’s waiting area, the two were said to engage in a verbal altercation that escalated into a physical altercation. The altercation was caught on the building’s security video footage. Evans was transported to a local hospital for treatment after sustaining injuries in the fight. He underwent several surgeries during a 2-month hospitalization before being transferred to a nursing facility. He eventually died on August 15, 2018.

Resolution of the Case: Joseph Charles Evans et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al.

According to the record, the court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment. Following the denial, the plaintiffs settled with LA County, agreeing to a settlement of $1,500,000 to settle the wrongful death case before it proceeded to trial. 

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

$1.9M Wrongful Death Settlement After California Inmate’s Death

/

A $1.9M settlement could settle a California wrongful death lawsuit following the death of an inmate that the plaintiff claims should have been protected after being questioned about his cellmate's illegal drug dealing activity. 

The Case: Castro v State Court

The Court: United States District Court-Sacramento

The Case No.: 2:18-cv-02115-KJM-EFB

The Plaintiff: Castro v State Court

The decedent in the case, Rodrick Castro, was an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison when he was questioned regarding his cellmate's drug dealing activity. According to court documents, the cellmate allegedly saw Castro being questioned on October 23, 2017, and Castro was killed the next day. The plaintiffs in the case are Castro's parents and Castro's three children. The plaintiffs alleged that the prison staff and officials failed to fulfill their responsibility to keep Castro safe by separating him from rival gang members who sought to harm him.

The Defendant: Castro v State Court

The plaintiffs in the case sued: 

  • The State of California (which operated the prison)

  • Kimberly Seibel (the warden of the prison)

  • R. Adolfson (a corrections officer)

  • The CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Ralph Diaz

The Defendants' response disputed all the allegations included in the complaint.

The Case:  Castro v State Court

The case Castro v State Court is based on the alleged wrongful death of Rodrick Castro. According to the court documents, Rodrick Castro (33) was questioned about allegations that a former cellmate had been involved in drug dealing. Castro was questioned on October 23, 2017. The lawsuit alleges that Castro's Salinas Valley State Prison cellmate witnessed the interrogation before Castro was transferred to another facility. The next day, Castro was found dead. He was stabbed 92 times with an ice-pick-shaped object. The family filed suit claiming wrongful death. In addition to failing in their overall responsibility to protect an inmate questioning had placed in danger, the plaintiffs allege that video recordings from the prison show that had guards properly monitored the live video feed, they would have seen suspected inmates planning the attack on Castro. However, the corrections officers allegedly failed to monitor the feed that would have allowed them to move Castro before he was killed. Court records show that the parties in the wrongful death lawsuit reported a $1.9 million settlement to the court on August 29, 2019.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death 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.

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.