​​Employment 

​​​

• Action by body technician alleging that his former employer, an automotive service provider, engaged in whistleblower retaliation, unsafe work conditions, wage and hour violations, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, unfair business practices, and wrongful termination. The employer refuted these allegations, claiming instead that plaintiff’s claims lack merit as supported by an investigation, that he had been warned of poor performance, that he voluntarily resigned and secured gainful employment elsewhere, and that all actions taken by the employer were for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons.  Resolved by mediator’s proposal.

 

• Action by care manager alleging that her former employer, a healthcare company,  discriminated against her because of her "remote work" status, retaliated against her under Labor Code section 1102.5 after she reported inadequate bandwidth on her work-assigned laptop and translation services, and wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy. The company denied these allegations, claiming instead that the manager was not responsive to company efforts to provide her with new equipment and training, and that she was terminated for poor performance. Resolved by mediator’s proposal.

​

• Pre-arbitration action by office manager alleging that her former employer, a dental practice, violated the FEHA by discriminating against her because of her gender, failed to provide her with a lactation room and interrupted her during lactation after she returned from pregnancy disability leave, created a hostile work environment in which she was allegedly sexually harassed by a coworker, retaliated against her after she complained with a performance improvement plan, and wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy. The dental practice denied these allegations, claiming instead that the manager elected to go home to lactate, which was accommodated, that she had lived together with the alleged harasser and actively participated in the sexually explicit texts and photographs she exchanged with him, and that the manager had been repeatedly counseled for wage theft, loss of patients in scheduling, and other poor performance. Resolved by mediator’s proposal.

​

• Action by general laborer on a conveyor belt alleging that her former employers, a manufacturer and a staffing agency, violated the FEHA by engaging in pregnancy, sex, and disability discrimination and harassment, retaliated against her for complaining, failed to prevent discrimination, engage in the interactive process, or reasonably accommodate her, and that her employers wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy. The employers denied these allegations, claiming instead that plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her job with or without an accommodation because of her many work restrictions, that there were no other positions for which she was qualified, and that she had abandoned her job. Resolved globally by mediator’s proposal.

 

• Action by former manager alleging that her former employer, a branch of the military, engaged in Title VII and ADA discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and whistleblower retaliation. Manager alleged that a supervisor had made sexually explicit comments and physically assaulted her, and another supervisor had engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment by demanding a romantic relationship with her in exchange for a raise, but her complaints were allegedly ignored, she was threatened with workplace violence, was given unfavorable assignments, was chastised and not permitted to work remotely like others employees under the pandemic, and was terminated. The government alleged that it had investigated and terminated the threatening co-worker, and removed her from reporting to the harassing supervisor. Resolved following mediation.

 

• Action by three-year prep cook alleging that her former employer, a restaurant, violated wage-and-hour laws on meal breaks, rest breaks, wage statements, and wait times, engaged in whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5, violated the FEHA by discriminating against her for her disability, failing to engage in the interactive process or to reasonably accommodate her, retaliated against her, and wrongfully terminating her in violation of public policy. The restaurant denied these allegations, claiming instead that its policies and procedures complied with the FEHA and the Labor Code, that it engaged the cook in the interactive process and reasonably accommodated her each time she reported an injury, and that only when no reasonable accommodation was available that the cook was given temporary leave. Further, the cook voluntarily resigned pursuant to a worker’s compensation settlement in which she was represented by counsel. Resolved following mediation.

 

• Action by police officer alleging that her former employer, a law enforcement agency, wrongfully terminated her as a whistleblower in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code section 1102.5.  The government denied these claims, alleging instead that its board terminated the officer for dishonesty. Resolved following mediation.

 

• ​Action by warehouse supervisor alleging that her former employer, an automobile manufacturer, created a hostile workplace environment in which she was discriminated against, sexually harassed, and retaliated against for taking CFRA leave, and where the employer failed to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress upon her, violated wage and hour statutes, and wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy. The manufacturer alleged that its investigations found that the supervisor herself had created a hostile workplace environment, that she failed to submit the doctor’s reports required for CFRA/FMLA and disability leave, and that she was an exempt employee not entitled to wage-and-hour protections. Resolved following mediation.

​​

• Action by project manager alleging that his former employer, a parking garage company, retaliated against and wrongfully terminated him for taking bereavement leave in violation of the FEHA. The employer denied these allegations, claiming instead that the manager had untimely requested one week off for a vacation cruise during a busy season. When the vacation was denied, the employee then requested and was granted the same period of time off for bereavement leave, which the company granted. During his leave, a government-generated motor vehicle report showed that the employee had exceeded the number of convictions permitted for the position, an essential term agreed to by the parties at the time of hire. Because the employee was already placed on a PIP for unsatisfactory performance, and there were no other positions available for which the employee was qualified, the employer terminated him. Resolved following mediation.

 

• Pre-litigation action by project manager alleging that her former employer, a construction business, and its CEO sexually harassed, discriminated and retaliated against her for rebuffing his advances, for discriminating against her for taking pregnancy leave in violation of the FEHA, for battering her, wrongfully terminating her, failing to pay her promised commission, and intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon her. The company denied these allegations, claiming instead that the project manager was a partner and not an employee entitled to salary. It claimed that neither was the project manager a sales person entitled to commission under the FEHA, but that the company nonetheless paid her when she was on pregnancy leave, and that the business was now in the red. Resolved by mediator’s proposal on follow up.

 

• Separate actions by two sisters, who are housekeepers, alleging that their former employer, a footwear business, violated wage-and-hour statutes as to minimum wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, wages due, payroll records, Business and Professions Code section 17200, and Labor Code section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation. One of the sisters also alleged disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The business denied these allegations, claiming instead that the two housekeepers, who worked without supervision in the graveyard shift, engaged in time card fraud, took all their meal breaks and an excess of rest breaks, and were poor performers, such that their terminations were for legitimate business reasons. Resolved globally by mediator’s proposal.

 

• Action by 16-year music teacher alleging that his former employer, a charter school, harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against him on the basis of his race in violation of the FEHA, retaliated against him under Labor Code section 1102.5, and failed to prevent such conduct from occurring. The school denied these allegations, which were time barred, claiming instead that the teacher was let go for mishandling a special education student. Resolved by mediator’s proposal.

 

• Pre-arbitration action by two warehouse workers, alleging that their former employers, a staffing agency and a logistics company to which the workers were temporarily assigned, retaliated against them under Labor Code sections 6310 and 1102.5, intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon them, and wrongfully terminated them. The workers claimed that the logistics company failed to provide them with a working eye-wash station, PPE, masks, and body suits in handling hazardous material. They complained internally and to Cal/OSHA, which investigated the warehouse and issued citations for the violations. The logistics company then terminated the workers. The staffing agency claimed it was unaware of any issues between the workers and logistics company and that it had not participated in any wrongdoing. The logistics company denied the workers’ allegations, claiming instead that it terminated the workers because they were no longer a good fit. Resolved globally by mediator’s proposal.

 

​​​​​​​​