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.

Traumatic Brain Injury Case for Mother and Daughter Settled Directly with Company

In recent news, a mother and her daughter suffered traumatic brain injuries after being hit from behind while stopped in traffic on the Interstate.

The Case: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The Court: Roanoke County Circuit Court

The Case No.: CL22000088-00 and CL22000097-00

The Plaintiff: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case is a mother and her daughter. On February 7, 2021, the two were stopped in Roanoke County's Interstate 81 North for traffic when a tractor-trailer struck their vehicle from behind. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff's vehicle struck the vehicle in front of them, killing a passenger and leaving the driver of that vehicle quadriplegic. The plaintiff sustained orthopedic and traumatic brain injuries.

The Defendant: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Edwards and Edwards Fleetmaster Express, Inc., operated a tractor-trailer vehicle that struck the plaintiff's vehicle from behind on Interstate 81 North on February 7, 2021.

The Case: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

Due to the collision, three personal injury cases and one wrongful death case were filed. The defendant's coverage was limited to $5 million, and the damage to the vehicle's occupants in front of the plaintiff's car exceeded the maximum coverage and the defendant's assets. The parties held a joint mediation to avoid the elimination of any recovery for the plaintiff. However, mediation failed to resolve the case. Since mediation failed, the plaintiffs' counsel approached the company directly after the cases were set for trial. The company settled with the plaintiffs, providing special damages to Kelly for $145,980 and Shields for $63,228. The parties also agreed on a $1,550,000 settlement.

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

Determining Duty of Care and Workers’ Comp Exclusivity for California Employers

A recent California case questioned whether or not the California Workers’ Compensation Act blocks an employee’s spouse’s negligence claim and whether California employers owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to spouses of employees.

The Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:20-cv-09355-MMC

The Plaintiff: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Kuciemba, started working for Victory Woodworks, Inc. (Victory) on May 6, 2020, at a San Francisco construction site. Two months later, a group of employees from another job site were transferred to the San Francisco site without the company’s compliance with precautions required by the county’s health order. After exposure to the new workers, Robert became infected. He carried the virus home and exposed his wife, Corby. Corby was hospitalized for several weeks and, at one point, was even kept alive on a respirator. The Kuciembas sued Victory in 2020, alleging negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, and public nuisance.

The Defendant: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The defendant in the case, Victory, moved to dismiss. When the district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. On June 22, 2022, the appeals court agreed to answer the certified questions regarding workers’ compensation exclusivity and the duty of care.

The Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

In today’s case, the Supreme Court of the State of California issued an opinion addressing two questions of California law to determine the scope of an employer’s liability when an employee’s spouse is injured by transmission of the virus1 that causes the disease known as COVID-19. First, if an employee contracts COVID-19 and brings the virus home to their spouse, does the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA; Lab. Code, § 3200 et seq.) bar the spouse’s negligence claim against their California employer? And second, does a California employer owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members? The court determined that the answer to both questions is no. The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not prevent the spouse’s negligence claim against their California employer. However, recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would create an intolerable burden on California employers (violating public policy). Considering this, the California Supreme Court determined that California employers do not owe a tort-based duty to nonemployees in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

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

Jury Rejects $34.7M in Roller Coaster Brain Injury Lawsuit

In recent news, a Los Angeles jury found in favor of Six Flags Magic Mountain, clearing them of all liability in a long-running lawsuit claiming one of the amusement park’s roller coasters caused a visiting girl’s traumatic brain injury.

The Case: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case No.: BC679307

The Plaintiff: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Talia Wise, claimed the Green Lantern ride at Six Flags Magic Mountain caused damage to her brain in 2015 when she was 13 years old. Wise claimed the Green Lantern rollercoaster ride’s individually spinning seat design was unsafe. (The ride was closed in 2019 after generating some controversy among coaster enthusiasts). The plaintiff argued that due to the rollercoaster design causing her head to snap back and forth violently, she started suffering physical symptoms, including nausea and weakness, immediately after leaving the ride. Wise claims the symptoms escalated into symptoms of alleged traumatic brain injury in the following months. Wise’s counsel argued that Six Flags Magic Mountain should have responded after 44 other first aid incidents related to the Green Lantern rollercoaster and riders allegedly complaining of head-related symptoms.

The Defendant: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The defendant in the case, Six Flags Magic Mountain, responded to arguments that no riders on the Green Lantern rollercoaster, including Wise, were subjected to g-forces that could have caused any brain injuries at any time. According to Six Flags Magic Mountain spokespersons and experts, Wise’s initial symptoms at the park resulted from dehydration, and the symptoms that developed over the following months resulted from underlying psychological issues. The legal team for Six Flags Magic Mountain also pointed out repeatedly that medical specialists hired by the plaintiff’s legal team failed to find any physical evidence of a brain injury. According to the Magic Mountain spokesperson, the safety of guests at Magic Mountain is one of the most important aspects of the Six Flags park operation. During the trial, park employees and experts presented information regarding the many safety tests and inspections in place to maintain visitor safety.

The Case: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The plaintiff in the case sought approximately $34.7 million in damages. However, Six Flags Magic Mountain successfully argued that the medical records provided by the plaintiff contradicted her injury claims. They also pointed out to the jury that Wise led a productive life after visiting Magic Mountain, even gaining admission to several colleges post-high school. The trial began on August 4th. One day after hearing closing arguments, the Los Angeles jury rejected the plaintiff’s claims and the $34.7M in damages she sought. In a 10-2 decision, the jury found that Magic Mountain’s Green Lantern rollercoaster did not cause traumatic brain injuries to 13-year-old Talia Wise in 2015.

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

Northern California’s Plum Healthcare to Pay $30.9M in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, a Sacramento jury returned a $30.9 million verdict against long-term care provider Plum Healthcare in wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Sam Rios Jr., et al. v. Pine Creek Care Center, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

The Court: Sacramento Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2018-00244263

The Plaintiffs: Sam Rios Jr., et al. v. Pine Creek Care Center, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs are the Rios family, Sam Rios, Jr., deceased, his wife, and his eight adult children. They filed a wrongful death lawsuit against long-term care provider Plum Healthcare and its skilled nursing facility in Roseville, California, known as Pine Creek Care Center. Sam Rios, Jr. was married to Christina for 40 years and had eight children. He was a military veteran, civil rights activist, community pillar, and Chicano Studies professor at Sacramento State for over 30 years. In April 2017, the 86-year-old spent two weeks as a Pine Creek Care Center patient. According to the lawsuit, during his short stay at the skilled nursing facility, Mr. Rios acquired severe bedsores resulting from a pattern of neglect and understaffing at the nursing home facility. The plaintiffs allege that the main cause for the failures in Mr. Rios’ care was purposeful understaffing at the facility to maximize profits. As a result of the facility management’s purposeful staffing changes to increase profits, Mr. Rios suffered from a Stage IV to-the-bone pressure ulcer for almost a year before he died.

The Defendant: Sam Rios Jr., et al. v. Pine Creek Care Center, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case is Pine Creek Care Center of the Plum Healthcare Group, a long-term care provider. Pine Creek is one of Plum Healthcare Group’s skilled nursing facilities in Roseville, California.

The Case: Sam Rios Jr., et al. v. Pine Creek Care Center, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

The case was at trial for ten weeks before a Sacramento jury found the defendant, Plum Healthcare (and its parent company), liable for reckless, malicious, and fraudulent conduct in Sam Rios, Jr.’s care. The jury’s award of $30.9 million appears to be the largest nursing home elder abuse verdict ever seen in the greater Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Area. The total verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was $5.9 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

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.

Will Superior Court Judge Give Final Approval to $36M Equinox Settlement?

In recent news, an Alameda County Superior Court judge gave Equinox a nod indicating they can expect to receive final approval on the $36 million global settlement to resolve California state and federal labor law allegations claiming Equinox pushed more than 15,000 employees to complete off-the-clock work and skip meal periods, and rest breaks.

The Case: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

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

The Case No.: 19-cv-05072-WHO

The Plaintiff: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The plaintiffs in the case are group fitness instructors and personal trainers employed in a nonexempt status. The plaintiffs claim they regularly worked over 40 hours in one workweek and more than 8 hours in one workday. According to the complaint, nonexempt workers were paid hourly for the time they were clocked in and at a piece rate for finishing specific tasks. Equinox allegedly let plaintiffs and qualifying class members complete numerous tasks off-the-clock without pay, such as:

• Interacting with clients outside of classes or training sessions

• Organizing and creating calendars for scheduling

• Scheduling work meetings

• Engaging with supervisors

• Contacting prospective clients

• Prepping client programs for sessions.

In addition to not receiving pay for the hours required to complete the off-the-clock tasks, the hours spent were also not considered for overtime calculations.

The Defendant: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The defendant in the case, Equinox, owns and operates luxury health clubs in California. According to allegations in the labor law complaint, Equinox's published policies discouraged/prohibited workers from submitting all the hours they worked. For instance, personal trainers were limited to two to three hours weekly for session-related activities. They were required to reach out to management if they felt they needed to spend more time than that on their fitness programming outside of training sessions. According to the plaintiffs, performing all the tasks associated with programming required by Equinox within the time allotted was not realistic. As a result, plaintiffs claim that Equinox's standard policy resulted in inaccurate wages, overtime wages, and wage statements.

The Case: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

In the case, Fodera v. Equinox Holdings, the $36 million wage and hour settlement approved by the court represents the resolution of claims from numerous California State and Federal Court cases. The hefty settlement covers a class of more than 15,000 hourly nonexempt current and former Equinox workers employed from April 2015 to December 2022. The class includes a PAGA group of nonexempt personal trainers and fitness instructors. Equinox allegedly failed to pay for pre-short work and post-shift work. Additionally, the plaintiffs pointed out that Equinox's company policy regarding meal periods, rest breaks, wage statements, and other wage and hour practices are not in line with labor law requirements. Superior Court Judge Herbert issued final settlement approval on September 21, 2023.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

Sweetgreen Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations in Discrimination Lawsuit

In recent news, Sweetgreen faces allegations of labor law violations in a discrimination lawsuit. The complaint accuses the employer of discrimination, racial harassment, and a hostile work environment. The workers who filed the complaint claim that Sweetgreen’s upper management and human resources department ignored their complaints for years.

The Case: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 804089/2023E

The Plaintiffs: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The ten plaintiffs in the case, who are black, claim that human resources and upper management at Sweetgreen ignored their complaints of discrimination for years. The plaintiffs level their allegations at seven different NYC Sweetgreen locations and two different “head coaches” (the term Sweetgreen uses to refer to their general managers), Donald Izquierdo and Edwin Ventura. The lawsuit amended a previous lawsuit filed in March on behalf of two plaintiffs. The new complaint claims managers and other store employees regularly used the “N-word” and other similarly derogatory terms to refer to Black workers. The complaint also claims employees in supervisory/management positions on site also made racist and sexual comments to female workers and customers.

The Defendant: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

The defendant in the case, SweetGreen, is a salad-making restaurant chain with multiple locations.

The Case: Alvarado et al. v. SweetGreen

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs, who were Sweetgreen employees, allege that Sweetgreen and its management discriminated against their employees based on race and sex and created a hostile work environment in at least seven different NYC Sweetgreen locations. Ventura would allegedly disqualify Black job applicants, citing subjective objections. For instance, rejecting a female Black job applicant because she “looked like she had an attitude problem.” The plaintiffs noted that the comment was never applied to any non-Black job applicants. The case was filed in Bronx County Courts, Supreme Court Civil Term in Bronx, New York. The case is currently pending.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.