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.

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.