California Labor Law News
Preliminary Settlement Reached Quickly in California Wage and Hour Dispute
San Francisco, CA: A somewhat unique wage and hour lawsuit that stemmed from what appeared to be an attempt at bartering is winding down with the preliminary approval of a settlement worth $1.65 million. The defendant, CorePower Yoga, denied any wrongdoing in the matter. A fairness hearing is scheduled for June, to determine whether final approval is warranted in the California wage and hour settlement.
Plaintiff William Walsh filed the wage and hour class action lawsuit in October of last year at US District Court for the Northern District of California. At the core of the wage and hour lawsuit is an allegation that CorePower Yoga failed to pay minimum wage to various employees required to purchase studio memberships at a discount.
In what appeared to be a pseudo barter arrangement, CorePower had initiated a program dubbed ‘Yoga for Trade,’ whereby the operator extended memberships to students in its yoga classes willing to work a weekly shift as a custodian. The shifts would be of two, or three hours duration.
Sometime later, according to the California wage and hour lawsuit, the defendant began to phase out the Yoga for Trade program. As part of the process to wind the program down, CorePower Yoga allowed the students formerly involved in the program to instead be part of the Studio Experience Team, whereby participants earn an hourly wage for weekly shifts. However, the students asserted they were also required to apply a large portion of their wages towards the purchase of a discounted membership.
Plaintiffs alleged that under both programs, plaintiffs were in actual fact paid below minimum wage under statutes observed under federal law, as well as California employment law.
The wage and hour settlement, hammered out with help from wage and hour lawyers, came together swiftly. Court records show that US Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James conditionally certified a class of California students who had been involved in both the Yoga for Trade and Studio Experience Team programs, together with a collective action involving Studio Experience Team students alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, in order to facilitate the proposed settlement.
The wage and hour class encompasses about 2,700 students who participated in the Yoga for Trade Program, together with some 4,900 students enrolled in the Studio Experience Team. There is some overlap between those two groups, members of which all hail from California. The FLSA collective encompasses about 6,800 students involved in the Yoga for Trade program, who live outside the state of California.
California Harassment Lawsuit Finds for Movie Actor Defendant
Los Angeles, CA: A harassment lawsuit against a movie actor / comedian ended with a finding for the defendant following a decision by a California appeals court affirming a lower court’s ruling over alleged harassment of a movie extra by defendant Marlon Wayans.
According to court documents, the harassment was alleged to have occurred on the set of the movie A Haunted House 2. Pierre Daniel, an African American, was working as an extra during the filming of the movie starring Wayans, who also wrote the script. Daniel had a non-speaking part in the film.
According to the harassment lawsuit filed in August, 2014 Daniel alleged that Wayans, who is also an African American, repeatedly referenced a racial slur allegedly directed at the plaintiff. Daniel also asserted that Wayans, who is also a comedian, mocked the plaintiff’s hair (Daniel sported an Afro), and is alleged to have called the plaintiff a “black fat ass” in addition to the racial slur.
It was further alleged in the harassment lawsuit that Wayans proceeded to post a photograph of Daniel to social media, comparing him to the black character on the animated TV show Family Guy.
Daniel alleged harassment from Wayans – specifically, racial harassment, misappropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Wayans, in response at trial, asserted that his alleged comments were protected under a California statute known as anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). To wit, such comments are part of the creative process and are protected.
The trial court sided with the defendant, noting that Wayan’s alleged comments and the related conduct the plaintiff asserts was injurious to him, was associated with the creative process involved with crafting the film and the promotion of the film across the internet.
In sum, the trial court found that Wayan’s comments were tied to his constitutional right to free speech.
The appellate panel, comprised of three judges, affirmed the lower court’s ruling in a majority decision. “The allegedly harassing and offensive conduct and comments by Wayans on the set of A Haunted House 2 were made in furtherance of his constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest,” wrote Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson for the panel.
There was a dissenting opinion, however: Judge Elwood Lui disagreed with his other two colleagues with regard to the scope of anti-SLAPP and the statute’s capacity to protect free speech on constitutional grounds in view of alleged harassment.
“Under the majority’s analysis, it seems that a writer or actor has free rein to insult and degrade others so long as he or she claims that it somehow helps him or her to make movies,” Judge Liu wrote.
The California harassment lawsuit is Daniel v. Wayans, Case No. B261814, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.
Former Employee at Odds with Sonoma State University over Cal/OSHA Concerns
Santa Rosa, CA: A whistleblower lawsuit currently being litigated in California accuses Sonoma State University of improperly handling contamination from asbestos and lead in multiple buildings on the campus, and that testing according to standards required under the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA, Cal/OSHA) was inadequate.
According to a report in the Sonoma State Star (Sonoma State University, 02/06/17), plaintiff Thomas Sargent is an asbestos consultant with knowledge of the hazards related to the known carcinogen. Sargent is also identified as a former employee with Sonoma State University (SSU).
The OSHA lawsuit is currently underway at Santa Rosa, in Sonoma County Superior Court. Sargent – who seeks $15 million in damages from the defendant – alleges he was mistreated by SSU after blowing the whistle with regard to the presence of asbestos in various buildings on campus, including Stevenson Hall.
SSU, for its part, is not disputing the presence of asbestos in the venue. However, the university counters that testing for levels of toxic materials in Stevenson Hall were conducted by a third party, identified in the trial as RHP Risk Management (RHP). The university noted, in its submissions that levels of toxic materials submitted by RHP found levels were within the parameters considered by Cal/OSHA as safe, or at the very least not unsafe.
Sargent countered that in his view the testing was inadequate, given that testing was alleged to have been conducted at a time in which asbestos sources were not being disturbed. Sargent testified further, according to the report, that to obtain a true picture of the potential for levels of toxic materials in the air, testing needs to be completed during a time when the venue is populated, at a time when sources of asbestos have the potential to be disturbed.
Thus, in the plaintiff’s view, the testing undertaken by the university through a third party failed to adequately measure the threat.
It has been reported that Sargent notified the Division of Occupational Safety and Health for California, as well as the California Department of Public Health Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, and the Sonoma Department of Emergency Services. Having done so he alleges retaliation by his employer after going to OSHA with his findings, claiming he received his lowest scores in job performance after he blew the whistle on the asbestos situation. Sargent claims to have resigned from the university “in protest.”
The trial continues.
Meanwhile, in an official release earlier this month it was announced that California Governor Jerry Brown has appointed Chris Laszcz-Davis, of Orinda, to the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. The release notes Laszcz-Davis brings a wealth of experience in the areas of environmental affairs, health and safety, risk assessment and compliance to the OSHA board.
Discrimination Lawsuit against Presidential Executive Order Launched in California
Oakland, CA: It didn’t take long for discrimination lawsuits to begin flowing following President Donald Trump’s January 27 Executive Order barring citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US. To that end the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of three university students and others in California, citing the Trump executive order as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, filed with the help of a discrimination lawyer, also includes amongst the plaintiffs the Jewish Family and Community Services (JFCS) organization of East Bay. The lawsuit is proposed as a class action and casts the travel ban as unlawful, as well as an attempt to needlessly discriminate against Muslims and establishing a preference for one religion over another, or so it is alleged.
The three student plaintiffs carry F-1 student visas. In spite of possessing those documents, the students are now unable to travel. Plaintiff Wasim Ghaleb, a Yemeni student at Grossmont College in San Diego, had traveled to Saudi Arabia on January 15 – 12 days before the ban – to visit his family. Ghaleb had planned to return to California for the spring semester.
Hadil Al-Mowafak is a Stanford University freshman with an F-1 student visa who was originally unable to travel to visit her husband in Yemen because of the executive order.
There have been developments since the lawsuit was launched. A federal justice on Friday placed a temporary stay on the travel ban, effectively blocking Trump’s executive order. The Trump Administration, in response, immediately announced it would fight the stay of the travel ban and launched an appeal. Earlier this weekend immigration experts were opining that while the temporary stay on the travel ban would, in theory allow immigrants holding valid visas from the seven targeted countries to enter the US, the situation remained tenuous. Officials were advising targeted individuals to travel ‘as soon as possible,’ amidst a caution there were still no guarantees.
Early yesterday, The Los Angeles Times (02/05/17) in the wee hours of Sunday morning, reported that the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied a request by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for a stay on the travel ban issued February 3 – effectively opening ports for those who were affected by the ban when Trump’s executive order was signed on January 27.
The government, however while indicating it would respect the decision of the Ninth Circuit, nonetheless signaled it would continue to pursue any means within its jurisdiction to re-instate the travel ban.
In sum, individuals originally affected by the travel ban – including the three student plaintiffs – should now be in a position to travel, for the time being. It is unknown if the discrimination lawsuit will pause, or move ahead given a situation that continues to be tenuous.
“The federal government has made it clear that it intends to favor Christian immigrants over Muslims in making decisions about who to detain, interrogate, deport, or entirely refuse entry,” Julia Mass, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, said in a statement on February 2. “We are a diverse society. American Muslims, immigrants and US–born alike, are part of the fabric of this nation.”
A spokesperson for JFCS East Bay, Avi Rose, expressed similar sentiments. “This executive order is dishonoring our history, it’s dishonoring our values, and it’s bringing chaos and despair to the lives of everyday people,” said Rose, who serves as Executive Director of JFCS East Bay.
Discrimination lawsuits can run the gamut from age discrimination, to gender inequality. Racial and religious discrimination is also not without precedent. In this case, the discrimination lawsuit alleges that the federal government’s actions violate the First Amendment, as well as equal protection and due process rights granted under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In excess of 60 federal discrimination lawsuits have been filed in the days since President Trump signed his Executive Order on January 27.
The California lawsuit, alleging discrimination, is Al-Mowafak et al. v. Trump et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00557, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
California ERISA Lawsuit Drags on for a Decade, Remains Unresolved
Los Angeles, CA: In the latest salvo of an ERISA lawsuit that’s been ongoing for a decade now, employees of Northrop Grumman Corp. (plaintiffs in the ERISA complaint) this week made a request to a federal judge in California asking that certain witnesses for the defense should be blocked from testifying, together with various audits performed by the US Department of Labor (DOL). The plaintiffs hold that audit documents, and the testimony from the named witnesses, should be deemed as inadmissible.
It was in September of 2006 that four class representatives launched a putative class action lawsuit against defense giant Northrup Grumman – together with three committees and a handful of executives – over the alleged mismanagement of two 401(k) plans under ERISA.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, as amended 1974) is designed to protect investors and members of group retirement plans. Plan managers have various fiduciary duties to the plans, and to plan members, and are required to conduct investments and management related to ERISA plans with the best interests of the members at the forefront, rather than for any perceived benefit of the employer or any other parties.
The ERISA lawsuit was originally filed in US District Court for the Central District of California. In addition to the lawsuit filed in 2006, another employee of Northrup Grumman with an ERISA lawyer in tow filed a similar class action, in the same court, in 2007. Four years later, in 2011 US District Court Judge Margaret M. Morrow, the original justice assigned to the case, certified two consolidated putative class action lawsuits – but not before an appellate court became involved, deeming the relief appropriate in the two cases.
Judge Morrow was later petitioned, in December of 2015, to reconsider a partial order of summary judgement. The plaintiffs had since petitioned US District Court Judge Andre Birotte Jr., who was reassigned to the case and took over from Judge Morrow, to consider the possibility that Judge Morrow had failed to consider a precedent previously rendered under the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, regarding if receipt of retirement account statements constituted “actual knowledge” of an underlying violation subject to a three-year statute of limitations, rather than depending upon what the plaintiffs referenced as a mistaken reading of a decision by the US Supreme Court.
Judge Birotte Jr. determined that the district court, under Judge Morrow, had committed “no clear error in ruling that the plaintiffs’ receipt of communications disclosing the selection of the high-fee funds was sufficient to give plaintiffs actual knowledge of their investment fees claim.”
Judge Birotte Jr. rendered his decision on that matter in March of last year. Next month, a bench trial is scheduled for March 14. The plaintiffs involved in the two consolidated ERISA class actions, made their overtures to Judge Birotte Jr. ahead of that bench trial starting.
The specifics of the allegations involved in the alleged mismanagement of 401(k) funds under ERISA, were not spelled out.
The ERISA lawsuit is In Re Northrop Grumman Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-06213 in US District Court for the Central District of California.
California Could Expand Parental Leave
Sacramento, CA: California is looking to expand parental leave laws to require smaller businesses to provide parental leave to employees. If approved, the law would require employers with 20 to 49 employees to provide parental leave to employees. Current law only requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide parental leave.
The proposed Senate Bill—S.B. 63—was introduced to the California legislature on December 22, 2016 by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson. It is similar to a bill that Governor Jerry Brown vetoed in September 2016, but Senator Jackson has said she will continue to push for it. When Brown vetoed Senate Bill 654, he cited concerns about the impact of the bill on small businesses.
Under S.B. 63, mothers and fathers would be given 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave to bond with their babies during the first year of the child's birth, adoption or foster placement. The vetoed bill had only offered six weeks of such leave. This leave would be available to employees of companies with 20 or more workers within a 75-mile radius of the worksite.
"Any new parent knows that the birth of a new baby comes with a host of changes and challenges," Jackson said. "But losing a job should never be among those challenges."
Jackson also introduced Senate Bill 62, which would expand the included family members employees could take leave to care for to include grandparents and grandchildren, siblings, parents-in-law, or adult children.
"Too many hardworking Californians cannot take time off from work in times of need—whether to care for a new child or a seriously ill family member—without risking their jobs," said Julia Parish, a sponsor of the bills. "Senator Jackson's bills ensure that California leads the way for working families so that they can keep their jobs during these critical times."
In a news release announcing the proposed bills, Senator Jackson's office noted that 37 percent of California employees who knew about California's Paid Family Leave Benefits and needed that leave did not apply because they feared they would face consequences at work for doing so.
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, employees who are covered by the Act can take their protected leave without fear of retaliation from their employer. In cases where employers fire protected employees or give them other negative consequences for taking their leave, employees can file a lawsuit against the employer.
Oracle Hit with Federal Discrimination Lawsuit, Allegations Stem from California
Redwood City, CA: A software and tech juggernaut has come under fire from the US Department of Labor (DOL) for alleged discrimination against women and minorities. The allegation, which is backed by a lawsuit against Oracle America Inc., accuses the defendant of paying women and minorities less than their counterparts.
The discrimination lawsuit also alleges that Oracle discriminates against qualified non-Asian applicants, in favor of Asian candidates for certain roles.
Even though the discrimination lawsuit has national scope, the litigation has a founding in California, which is where the multinational tech giant maintains its headquarters. The discrimination complaint grew out of findings gleaned from a routine compliance review at Oracle’s head office in Redwood Shores conducted in 2014. Alleged discrimination may have occurred prior to that time, however the DOL is using January, 2014 as the starting point for alleged discrimination which, in the DOL’s view, has been going on at the Redwood Shores facility from at least January, 2014 to present day.
The DOL found that women who worked in the areas of information technology, product development and support services were paid less for their work than their male counterparts working in comparable roles.
Minorities also suffered from discrimination, the DOL asserts in its discrimination lawsuit. The review found that Oracle paid qualified African-American workers, and employees of Asian descent, less than their Caucasian counterparts performing similar work in similar roles.
The DOL also found California discrimination within the communities of minorities working at Oracle’s Redwood Shores headquarters. Court records suggest that Oracle snubbed qualified Caucasian, Hispanic and African-American applicants in favor of Asian candidates for jobs in the technical and product development realms.
The Department of Labor asserts that such favoritism towards Asians, and particularly South Asians, was going on since at least January of 2013.
Oracle is no slouch as an employer, with in excess of 45,000 full-time staff across the US. Of those 7,000 are employed at the Oracle headquarters in Redwood Shores. It should also be noted that Oracle has been the recipient of millions of dollars’ worth of government contracts, which is another reason why the DOL is taking such allegations of California employment discrimination – and similar discrimination across the country – very seriously.
“Federal contractors are required to comply with all applicable anti-discrimination laws,” Thomas M. Dowd, the acting director of DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a statement. “We filed this lawsuit to enforce those requirements.”
Oracle responded with a statement, and notes that in its view the discrimination lawsuit is without merit.
“Oracle values diversity and inclusion, and is a responsible equal opportunity and affirmative action employer,” a company spokeswoman said. “Our hiring and pay decisions are non-discriminatory and made based on legitimate business factors including experience and merit.”
The discrimination lawsuit was filed during the dying days of the Obama Administration, prior to the transition to President Donald Trump.
The case is Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Oracle America Inc., Case No. R00192699, US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges.
Donning & Doffing Plaintiffs Allege Hours of Unpaid Work per Week
Los Angeles, CA: A class action wage and hour donning and doffing lawsuit in Arkansas is not unlike similar lawsuits which have originated in California (Silva v. See’s Candy Shops Inc., Case No. D068136 in the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California) alleging employees have not been paid for all time spent working, and specifically time spent climbing into, and shedding uniforms and other related safety gear at the behest of the employer.
The issue has pitted employer against employee for years. Employers are reluctant to pay their employees for donning and doffing – the act of dressing into employer-mandated uniforms, clothing, hazmat (hazardous materials) suits or other related safety gear, because the employee is not performing actual work.
The employee responds with the view that any uniform, article of clothing or safety gear mandated by the employer in order to perform the employee’s job, should be compensated by the employer. In other words, employees should be dressing, or undressing (donning and doffing) on the clock.
Donning and doffing is a term also used to represent various wage and hour claims, such as off-the-clock work whereby an employee is directed, or expected to perform tasks before punching in for the shift, and / or after clocking out for the day. This combined with missed meal and rest periods – or a requirement to either perform tasks or remain on constant standby to do so – can add several minutes to an employee’s workday for which the employee is not being paid, or so it is alleged.
In the case of the class action wage and hour lawsuit originally filed in Circuit Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas before removal to District Court (Darrell Cato, et al. v. OK Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02202-PKH, in the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas – Ft. Smith), hourly production workers employed by OK Foods in Fort Smith allege they are missing out on six, to seven hours of pay per week performing tasks for which they are not paid.
Named plaintiffs include Darrell Cato, Jeffrey Biggs, Margee Williams and Mario Mallett.
The case was recently appealed by the defendant to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Meanwhile it’s a new day for a California wage and hour lawsuit, even though an appellate panel ruled mostly in favor of the defendant. Nonetheless, plaintiff Pamela Silva’s years-long dispute with her former employer, See’s Candy Stores Inc. will go forward based on grounds granted to the plaintiff by the appellate panel.
The dispute qualified as a California donning and doffing lawsuit, in that Silva alleged See’s Candy forced her to perform work during her lunch hour, when she was – or so it was alleged – clocked out.
Snapchat Faces California Wrongful Termination Claims
Los Angeles, CA: Snapchat is the latest tech company to face a lawsuit, but this time the plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, claiming he was fired for alerting superiors to potential misrepresentation on the part of the company. The California wrongful termination lawsuit was filed in January 2017, and claims the company purposely misled investors ahead of its initial public offering (IPO) to inflate Snapchat's valuation. The plaintiff, Anthony Pompliano, further alleges that Snapchat has since worked to destroy his career.
Vanity Fair (1/6/17) reports Pompliano filed his wrongful termination lawsuit against Snapchat alleging he told superiors about Snapchat's activity, including allegedly misrepresenting growth metrics. Pompliano was hired by Snapchat in August 2015. He was hired from Facebook. He alleges, however, that he was given false information by Snapchat when he was hired.
"Driven by its fierce rivalry with Facebook—a spurned suitor turned keen competitor—Snapchat fraudulently induced Mr. Pompliano away from Facebook to run Snapchat's new user growth and engagement team by falsely representing to him, among other things, the Company's growth," the lawsuit alleges. Pompliano worked only three weeks for Snapchat.
According to court documents, during his time at the company Pompliano learned that some of the metrics he had been given when the company recruited him were false. He then alerted Snapchat's Vice President of Finance about the misrepresentations and although some of the company's superiors reportedly agreed with him, Pompliano was fired. He alleges he was only hired by Snapchat from Facebook so Snapchat could obtain Facebook's proprietary information. Pompliano claims he refused to breach any agreements he had with Facebook.
"Snapchat's leadership saw Mr. Pompliano as an impediment to their planned IPO because he refused to turn a blind eye to Snapchat's misrepresentations," the lawsuit alleges. "Indeed, Snapchat accurately perceived that Mr. Pompliano would 'blow the whistle' should Snapchat continue to misrepresent its [redacted] to the public, advertisers, prospective employees, private investors, or in connection with its planned IPO."
In addition to firing him, Snapchat apparently "sought to destroy his career and reputation" by making "false representations" about the reasons why he was fired, including stating he is incompetent. Pompliano's lawsuit seeks to prevent Snap Inc, maker of the Snapchat app, from misrepresenting the reason for his firing.
Snapchat told Vanity Fair the allegations have no merit and were made up by a "disgruntled former employee."
The lawsuit is Pompliano v. Snap, Inc., et al. case number BC645641, in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
A California ERISA Potpourri to begin the New Year
Los Angeles, CA: Something old and something new to begin the year on the California ERISA file. ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (as amended 1974), a federal statute that also reaches into individual states and is designed to protect the rights, and the future incomes of workers having already retired, or nearing retirement and already beyond their peak earning years.
To that end, there’s a new rule that comes into effect in less than a week and applies to claims for disability benefits under ERISA made on, or after the first of January of 2018. The rule, recently finalized by the Employee Benefits Security Administration – an Arm of the US Department of Labor – relates to disability claims under Section 503 of ERISA.
The final version of the rule reflects a slight departure from the proposed rule, and now includes a requirement that notices of adverse benefit determinations need to spell out any applicable time limit for filing an ERISA lawsuit.
The rule kicks in on January 18. Employers both federally, and within the state of California need to be aware of the changes and comply, in order to avoid complications stemming from potential litigation.
Legal experts remind employers that maintaining and adhering to California’s equal pay law, which is now a year old, is important in terms of ERISA and pensions, given that higher pay leads to increased contributions, which can in turn grow a pension and retirement nest egg more quickly. Potential litigants bringing an ERISA lawsuit could claim that any employer having failed to implement equal pay as mandated under California law, may have also contributed to diminished growth of pension and retirement income under ERISA.
Meanwhile, on another ERISA front Anthem, Inc., in its Form 10-Q report filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in early November for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2016 updated a long-standing court case that was launched when Anthem was known as WellPoint, Inc.
The Company said, “We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network “UCR” Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
“The lawsuits were filed in 2009,” Anthem continued. “The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers.”
Anthem went on to say that plaintiffs filed several amended complaints alleging defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using the OON reimbursement database Ingenix, and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies.
Anthem noted the Court had dismissed all claims related to state and federal anti-trust claims, together with claims under RICO dismissed with prejudice.
“The only claims that remain after the court’s decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff and one subscriber plaintiff’s claim under the California Unfair Competition Law,” the company said.
Anthem added the Court has since granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims, but has yet to enter a judgement in the case. Thus, the ERISA case was still somewhat fluid as of November 2.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
