Agriculture News
Mexican Who Defrauded the Undocumented Worker Stripped of Citizenship
Los Angeles, CA: California’s immigrant-friendly, and welcoming stance aside it’s tough enough to be an undocumented worker in Donald Trump’s America without having someone take advantage of you. But that’s what appears to have happened after a Mexican woman misrepresented herself as a US immigration officer and promised to help undocumented immigrants achieve legal status and US citizenship, cheating the unsuspecting victims out of thousands of dollars in the process.
On August 23 the US Department of Justice announced that Maria Araceli Ramos de Martinez, also known as Araceli Martinez, had been stripped of her citizenship as an American by US District Judge R. Gary Klausner of US District Court, Central District of California.
Undocumented immigrants in California support a vast section of the California economy, with undocumented immigrants comprising a full 10 percent of the California workforce. They toil as motel cleaners and custodians, live-in and call-in nannies, and field workers in the agriculture industry – jobs that would be hard to place with native Californians. Current overtures by the Trump Administration to malign undocumented immigrants in the wake of Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign have not superseded existing federal laws and statutes protecting the rights of undocumented workers in the US. California has gone even further, recognizing the value of undocumented workers to the State job market and the overall California economy.
Any entity that unduly threatens the undocumented worker with harassment or discrimination could face an undocumented worker lawsuit.
Of course, the California undocumented worker who values life in the US and who duly contributes will seek to become documented if given the opportunity. To that end at least eleven undocumented workers were found to have responded to Martinez when she misrepresented herself as an officer with the US Department of Immigration between June, 2011 and March 2012. It was alleged by federal prosecutors that Martinez offered to help them obtain legal status when she had no authority to do so as a federal immigration agent. According to court documents, Martinez accepted thousands of dollars in fees under false pretenses.
“The Justice Department is committed to preserving the integrity of our nation’s immigration system and the propriety of the government’s adjudication of immigration benefits,” acting Assistant Attorney General Chad A. Readler of the Department of Justice Civil Division said in a statement. “We will aggressively pursue the denaturalization of individuals who lie on their naturalization applications, especially in a circumstance like this one, which involved an alien who masqueraded as an immigration officer and was convicted of defrauding nine aliens of thousands of dollars in exchange for false promises of facilitating immigration benefits.”
Ironically, in the midst of defrauding other undocumented workers Martinez, a native of Mexico, was successful in her own bid for US citizenship. Martinez pleaded guilty to obtaining money, labor or property by false pretense in violation of California state law in Los Angeles County Superior Court in September 2012, according to federal prosecutors. She was indicted on 11 counts of obtaining money, labor or property by false pretense.
There have been other ways in which undocumented workers have been disadvantaged, as with an allegation earlier this spring that sales agents with Wells Fargo canvassed areas near construction sites and Social Security offices in order to “round up” undocumented immigrants for the opening of bank accounts and other bank products – accounts and products they may not have wanted or had no interest in receiving, or so it was alleged.
The undocumented worker has, with few exceptions, the same rights and protections against fraud and other misrepresentations, as do US citizens.
The Martinez undocumented worker lawsuit is United States of America v. Araceli Martinez, Case No. 2:17-cv-02658, in the US District Court of the Central District of California.
Do You Have a Wrongful Termination Case in California?
Sacramento, CA: For those unaware, or having forgotten the basic tenets of employment within the State of California, it is useful to know that California is a so-called ‘at-will’ state. The employee works for his or her employer by virtue of their own free will, and can also resign from their position at any time, without advance notice. Employers, in turn, can fire an employee on the spot without warning. This can sometimes trigger a wrongful termination lawsuit.
The employer in California – for those not conversant with California employment laws, or requiring a refresher – benefits from the same advantages of immediacy as the employee. In California, the same ‘at-will’ statutes that allow an employee to up and quit without giving the standard two weeks’ notice, also allows an employer to terminate an employee at any time and for any reason without warning or due process.
In other words, the employee could come into work and simply be told they’re being let go – without warning. “You’re fired.” Just like that. Yes, there needs to be a reason and that information should be duly shared with the terminated employee. But almost anything goes, here. A perpetually rumpled employee could be fired for not knowing how to iron their shirts properly. Admittedly, that’s somewhat of an exaggeration, and combined with other potential examples of undue harassment, the employee may have a case for wrongful termination.
Be that as it may, it is quite possible to succeed in the State of California with a wrongful termination lawsuit. It’s important, however to be aware of the criteria that qualifies for a wrongful termination case, given the ‘at-will’ status of the State.
The most compelling reason to contact a wrongful termination lawyer is if an employee is fired for what is known as a ‘protected characteristic’ under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), amongst other employment laws that offer protections.
Those protected characteristics include age, race, gender, national origin, disability, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and religion.
The fired employee may also have a wrongful termination claim for experiencing harassment on the job, or failure on the part of the employer to undertake the job termination according to guidelines originating with existing workplace protocol or guidance in an existing employee handbook.
Were an employer to terminate an employee unwilling to participate in an illegal act on behalf of the employer, the fired employee likely has a case for wrongful termination – as does the employee who is coerced to resign due to intolerable working conditions about which the employer was aware.
It is also against the law for an employer to fire an employee for participating in a workplace discrimination investigation.
The take-away message here is that it’s both easier for the employee to leave a job, and easier for the employer to terminate an employee given California’s status as an at-will State.
That said, there are fewer defendable reasons for justified job termination in California than other states with a longer, more involved list – so it’s a bit easier to discern whether, or not an employee has been terminated wrongfully.
If you feel that you have lost your job in California unjustly, it’s advisable to consult a wrongful termination lawyer to ensure you have a case, and that it is handled properly.
Chevron Settles Cal OSHA Issues over Richmond Refinery Fire for $20 Million
Los Angeles, CA: An oil refinery fire in California in 2012 that injured five workers and sent thousands of nearby residents to the hospital has resulted in a $1 million fine assessed to Chevron Corp. under OSHA and an agreement to make $20 million in improvements to its refinery in Richmond, the site of the fire five years ago.
The agreement brings an end to years of wrangling between the oil giant and the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health over the Chevron refinery. The stakes were high, with no fewer than 15,000 Richmond and area residents impacted by the fire.
The inferno that affected so many resulted from a reported leak at one of the crude oil units at the refinery. The resulting investigation into the fire by Cal/OSHA determined that Chevron’s own inspectors and metallurgical scientists had recommended as early as 2002 that corroded pipes at the facility warranted replacement.
However, the pipes were not replaced. Ten years later, a leak occurred which resulted in a full rupture and a serious fire. Additionally, it was determined that Chevron failed to follow its own emergency shutdown procedures when the breach was identified. It was alleged that Chevron also dropped the ball when it came to protecting its own employees, and those of a scaffolding company who had been working at the site of the leak.
In 2013 Chevron agreed to plead no contest to criminal misdemeanor charges brought by the California Department of Justice and Office of the Contra Costa County District Attorney for violation of state health and labor codes. Chevron also agreed to pay $2 million in restitution.
Later that year Chevron faced the ire of the US Environmental Protection Agency – and last year, California proposed new regulations aimed at beefing up environmental and workplace safety at oil refineries.
Chevron had appealed a series of citations from by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health for California, which totaled 17.
The agreement concludes the matter, which was not an OSHA lawsuit per se but was nonetheless brought as a matter before the Office of Administrative Law, which still has to approve the deal. The Cal/OSHA board approved the deal in May.
Chevron agreed to replace all of its carbon steel pipes that carry corrosive liquids with chrome alloy pipes. Chrome alloys are more robust and have a longer shelf life. The company will also make various changes and updates to its Richmond refinery that will go beyond current safety requirements mandated by the State of California at significant cost.
The whole package is worth $20 million.
“The settlement requires Chevron to exceed current and upcoming requirements and to use new and innovative methods recently developed by engineering experts in the petroleum refining industry to ensure the safe operation of process safety equipment,” said Cal/OSHA Chief Juliann Sum. “This means safer operations at the refinery, which will help protect refinery workers and those who work and live nearby.”
San Francisco Startup Hit with Harassment Lawsuit
San Francisco, CA: A startup company with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco is facing a harassment lawsuit amidst allegations of rampant sexual behavior in the workplace, including the provision of a designated room for which the sole purpose was to provide consenting employees a private location for intercourse in its San Francisco office, or so it has been alleged.
According to KCBS All News 740 AM / 106.9 FM in San Francisco (05/17/17) the principles of UploadVR maintained a so-called ‘boy’s club’ atmosphere at the workplace that amounted to a hostile environment for women. The former executive, who brought the complaint filed in May, asserts there was a room set aside in the office complex that was equipped with a bed and designated the ‘kink room,’ or so it is alleged. The plaintiff further alleges that items such as condom wrappers and underwear were sometimes left behind in the room following various assignations amongst employees.
“The atmosphere…was marked by rampant sexual behavior and focus, creating an unbearable environment for Plaintiff and other female employees,” the complaint says, according to the report by KCBS.
“In the office, Defendants would frequently talk about how much sex they were going to have at each party, and how many girls they were going to have sex with. UploadVR even set up a room to encourage sexual intercourse at the workplace. The room was referred to as the “kink room” and contained a bed. Male employees used that room to have sexual intercourse, which was disruptive and inappropriate. Often, underwear and condom wrappers would be found in the room.”
The plaintiff, identified as Elizabeth Scott, states in her complaint that she was hired on May 4, 2016 as the Director of Digital and Social Media for UploadVR, a startup dedicated to the virtual reality industry. While employed at the facility, the plaintiff asserts she, together with other female staff, were surrounded by crude conversation of a sexual nature on the part of male staff. The plaintiff also alleges that various hurtful, unkind and suggestive comments were directed towards her by one of the defendants, and that she felt harassed.
Co-founders Will Mason and Taylor Freeman were named amongst a total of 25 defendants in the harassment lawsuit, which also alleges suggestive and inappropriate language was used within inter-office emails, and various other examples of sexual and inappropriate behavior at conventions and other professional events to which the plaintiff attended, off-site.
“Male employees, including Mason and Freeman, would even speak sexually about women that worked in the office, right in front of them. For example, male employees stated how they were sexually aroused by female employees and how it was hard to concentrate and be productive when all they could think about was having sex with them.”
Other allegations included discrimination against women in the office, with women provided with menial tasks and with pay rates on a lower scale than their male counterparts in spite of sharing similar roles and responsibilities.
KCBS reported that Mason and Freeman were recently named to Forbes’ ’30 Under 30’ list of entrepreneurs to watch.
UploadVR characterizes the harassment lawsuit as being without merit.
The harassment case is Elizabeth Scott v. Upload Inc., UploadVR Inc., Upload Productions Inc., Taylor Freeman, Will Mason and DOES 1-25, Case No. CGC-17-558730, filed May 8 of this year in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.
El valor del trabajador indocumentado en California es incalculable
Los Ángeles, California: La retórica contra el trabajador indocumentado se había atenuado después de que otros tomarán una relevancia más inmediata en la Casa Blanca de Trump, mientras que el apoyo al trabajador indocumentado continúa aumentando por toda California junto con el impacto positivo que estos tienen en la economía del estado.
Sin embargo, hay quienes compran la afirmación del presidente Donald Trump de que los inmigrantes están quitando trabajo a los trabajadores nacidos en Estados Unidos, y que los trabajadores indocumentados lo tienen fácil.
Aquellos que están familiarizados con la economía en el estado de California, y lo difícil que a menudo es atraer a los residentes nacidos en los Estados Unidos a empleos con salarios bajos en el estado, discrepan vehementemente con los opositores que quieren que todos los trabajadores indocumentados sean deportados.
Ellen Brokaw dirige un rancho en el condado de Ventura. Ella dijo a Public Radio International (PRI 03/06/17) que su dependencia del trabajo de inmigrantes en sus cultivos - y los desafíos que tendría que enfrentar si la mano de obra indocumentada desapareciera repentinamente - se refleja en todo el sector agrícola del Condado de Ventura. "No hay manera de que podamos cuidar y recoger nuestras cosechas sin el trabajo de inmigrantes", dijo a PRI. El rancho de Brokaw - como otros - abarca cientos de acres de árboles que producen cultivos de aguacates, naranjas y limones. Los trabajadores deben subir escaleras, recoger la fruta a mano y transportarla en sacos, los cuales pesan 80 libras cuando estén completamente llenos, totalmente a pie hasta los contenedores de colección.
Brokaw ha tratado de contratar a trabajadores nacidos en Estados Unidos, anunciando contratos adheridos a las reglas incorporadas en un programa de trabajadores invitados. Pero los estadounidenses no parecen querer el trabajo. "Es un trabajo duro, y no es muy bien pagado", dijo Brokaw a PRI. "El salario inicial es de $12 a $13 la hora. A veces algunas personas aplican pero casi nunca permanecen mucho tiempo. "
Los defensores del trabajador indocumentado citan esta sencilla observación como la razón por la que el trabajador indocumentado debe ser aceptado, y no abandonado: este acepta trabajos que pagan menos y que la mayoría de los estadounidenses no quieren, como trabajar en los campos, limpiar habitaciones de hotel o servir como niñeras.
Si el trabajador indocumentado desapareciera repentinamente mañana, ¿quién asumiría esos trabajos? En el condado de Ventura, por ejemplo, hasta 36.000 trabajadores de campo trabajan para la cosecha de cítricos, aguacates y fresas en la temporada de cosecha, y ??eso sólo en el condado de Ventura. El Buró Rural del Condado de Ventura dijo al PRI que el 95 por ciento de esos trabajadores son inmigrantes.
Esa realidad se refleja en todo el sector agrícola del estado. Cuando todos los sectores se toman en su contexto, dijo la reguladora del estado de California, Betty Yee, la mano de obra inmigrante vale 180.000 millones de dólares solamente para el estado de California. Mientras que esa cifra es aproximadamente el diez por ciento del producto interno bruto total de California - $2.448 billones, la cual representa la economía individual más grande de todos los estados en los EE.UU. - sigue siendo un aspecto de vital importancia para la salud general y vitalidad del estado.
Los críticos sugieren - y algunos estudios lo han demostrado - que la prevalencia de los trabajadores indocumentados se traduce en una presión a la baja sobre los salarios de los trabajadores poco cualificados. Sin embargo, otros estudios económicos no apoyan esa conclusión y en general, los informes PRI junto con los economistas en general coinciden en que la inmigración en su conjunto beneficia a la economía de los EE.UU.
Eso es especialmente cierto en California.
Más allá del valor que el trabajador indocumentado tiene en la economía del estado, todavía hay signos de que los trabajadores indocumentados son a menudo maltratados. Informes de salarios no pagados, largas horas de trabajo y malas condiciones de trabajo continúan salpicando el panorama legal a pesar de la postura progresista de California cuando se trata de justicia y derechos para el trabajador indocumentado.
Esta es la razón por la cual una demanda de trabajadores indocumentados puede ser de un valor significativo no sólo para un demandante que ha sido tratado injustamente, sino también como un ejemplo para los empleadores que ejercen la injusticia y los malos tratos. El trabajador indocumentado que conoce su valor para la economía del estado -y las leyes laborales del estado- no lo pensará dos veces antes de contactar a un abogado de trabajadores indocumentados para hacer valer la justicia no sólo en su propio nombre, sino también pensando en el interés de los demás.
Un trabajador indocumentado de Corea del Sur que entró a los Estados Unidos en 2014 con una visa de estudiante y se quedó en el país, ahora trabaja en un club nocturno en Los Ángeles y gana un muy buen salario en efectivo bajo la mesa - alrededor de $5,000 por mes. Y sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, el hombre está envuelto en una disputa con un antiguo empleador que le pagó menos durante años. El trabajador indocumentado ha sido amenazado con la deportación - su antiguo jefe promete denunciarlo a la inmigración - si continúa su búsqueda de los salarios que le corresponden.
"Soy indocumentado, no tengo papeles. Yo no tengo un número de Seguro Social, no tengo una tarjeta verde, así que se vuelve algo natural para mí que los empleadores se aprovechen de mi situación", dijo el trabajador indocumentado a PRI. “Sólo tengo que aceptarlo.”
Pero el hecho es que no tiene por qué aceptarlo. Un abogado de trabajadores indocumentados, conocedor de los derechos de los empleados en California y de un estado sensible a las necesidades de su economía y empático a la difícil situación del trabajador indocumentado, puede defender su caso a través de una demanda de trabajadores indocumentados.
FMLA and CFRA is a Complex Relationship Requiring Expert Advice
Sacramento, CA: Few would argue that while the federally-regulated Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and its State counterpart The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) go to great lengths in guaranteeing certain rights and protections for workers who are themselves ill or have responsibility for a sick or injured family member, the interaction of the two can be complex. And while pundits observe that claims and lawsuits within the FMLA and CFRA are increasing, so too are the cautions that such regulations are complex and require the expert services of a qualified attorney to wade through the quagmire.
The take away message – especially in California – is that the employee cannot blindly rely on the Human Resources Department to have a good handle on the FMLA and CFRA regulatory landscape. It remains the primary bastion of the California employee to pursue his, or her due diligence to be reasonably conversant with the basic tenets of both Acts in order to optimally manage a situation as it unfolds, and / or to have the proper documentation in place should a violation occur.
It is important to keep in mind that FMLA and CFRA protections go beyond guaranteeing time off (for those who qualify) in order to care for a sick child, or aging parent. Such protections also guarantee the qualifying employee time off to battle an illness, or recover from a serious health issue.
An example of this is a lawsuit brought in the State of New Jersey against Blue Apron Inc., a meal and ingredient service. A former employee of the firm, identified as Tapshea Bowman, worked as a kitchen associate beginning in November, 2015. According to Bowman’s FMLA lawsuit, she was diagnosed with an E. Coli infection in February of this year and immediately forwarded a text to an employee hotline maintained by Blue Apron for matters involving employees. Bowman claims in her lawsuit that it was a “common practice for employees” to send notice of absenteeism from work via text message.
Upon returning to work, the plaintiff continued to experience extreme symptoms and determined it would not be wise to report to work for two additional days, February 19 and 20. Bowman asserted she sent a text message to the Blue Apron employee hotline, returning to work on February 21.
A week later, on the first of March Bowman was summoned to her supervisor’s office, where she was summarily fired for not reporting for work. When asked to confirm the dates during which Bowman was cited for not reporting to work, it is alleged neither the supervisor or the team lead were able to do so, or so it is alleged. Familiar with her rights under FMLA, Bowman attempted to explain why her absences qualified under FMLA – but she was allegedly not permitted to do so.
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful interference with Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA, Plaintiff has been deprived of economic and non-economic benefits including, but not limited to lost wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of fringe benefits, disruption of her personal life and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of life,” the lawsuit states.
Federally, the FMLA provides a comprehensive basket of protections for needed absences from work for those who qualify (for example, employees working for a company employing the minimum number of staff or greater, must be an employee for a minimum period of time to qualify, and cannot be in the top 10 percent pay grid). Most employees, with a bit of study can become conversant with these rights. FMLA attorneys note that a potential plaintiff’s case and corresponding potential for success can increase provided the employee makes copious notes of all claims and disputes, and documents everything. It’s also important, legal experts opine, to not necessarily wait until you are terminated if an issue surfaces while an employee is still gainfully employed.
Of course, that’s looking at the Family and Medical Leave Act in isolation. In California, the CFRA works in concert with the FMLA. One doesn’t supersede the other, but rather both Acts are valid at the same time in an intricate compliance structure best sorted out by qualified experts. The primary difference with the CFRA is that qualifying employees are paid for their leave (as opposed to FMLA leave, which is unpaid).
Be that as it may, there remains a complex template in the State that allows the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the California Family Rights Act to co-exist – so much so that it’s often beyond the scope and capability of the Human Resources Department of a small firm to be fully conversant.
The Bowman lawsuit in New Jersey is Tapshea Bowman v. Blue Apron Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-05357-MCA-LDW, filed July 21 2017 as a civil matter in The US District Court for the District of New Jersey.
California Class Action Alleges ERISA Violations
San Francisco, CA: A former employee of Franklin Resources Inc. (FRI), which is more commonly known as Franklin Templeton, has blown the whistle on his former employer by launching a California class action lawsuit alleging ERISA violations. To that end, late last month a federal judge certified the class after finding there were sufficiently common issues of law to warrant the class action.
The allegation is that Franklin Templeton violated tenets of the Employee Income Retirement Security Act (ERISA, as amended 1974) by favoring its own funds than better-performing funds from other providers. It is also alleged those better-performing funds were cheaper to acquire and maintain, as well.
ERISA holds that those responsible for managing funds have a fiduciary duty to place the best interests of clients ahead of their own and all others. In other words, all investment decisions must have the very best interests of fund participants at heart.
According to Court documents, lead plaintiff Marlon H. Cryer worked for Franklin Templeton until his employment was terminated in February of last year. Six months later, in July of 2016 Cryer filed an ERISA lawsuit alleging that his former employer, on behalf of plan participants, placed investments in funds that resided in-house. Additionally, it is alleged that said funds carried fees that were higher than comparable funds that were available.
The ERISA lawsuit claims that at the time of filing – a year ago July – fund managers had invested on behalf of their clients nearly $1 billion in various investment options that are alleged to have been imprudent, and unlikely to outperform their benchmarks. In so doing, fund managers are alleged to have violated their fiduciary duties to plan participants as required under the Employee Income Security Act.
In certifying the class, US District Judge Claudia Ann Wilken ruled that “Plaintiff and unnamed class members have allegedly been injured by FRI’s management of the plan; that conduct is not unique to plaintiff; and the unnamed class members were allegedly injured by the same conduct,” Judge Wilken wrote. “FRI does not identify any defenses unique to plaintiff.”
In response to the class certification, FRI issued the following statement: “Franklin Templeton takes pride in its 401(k) plan, which offers a generous matching program and provides employees with a diversified lineup of investment choices, including proprietary and nonproprietary funds.”
The class consists of those who participated in the 401(k) plan between July 28, 2010 and the date of any eventual judgment.
With employees changing jobs more often than workers of a previous generation – and with employers evolving away from provision of retirement pension plans, it behooves the employee to fund much of their own retirement through participation in various investments and retirement plans funded by those investments. As employees near retirement, their peak earning years are behind them and there is less time to make up any shortfall that may originate from misguided, improper or illegal investment decisions.
The California ERISA lawsuit is Cryer v. Franklin Resources Inc. et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-04265, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
California Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Sports Agency
Los Angeles, CA: A California discrimination lawsuit that was filed back in May alleges discrimination and retaliation suffered by plaintiff Joyce Li, a former employee of Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE, which used to be known as Relativity Sports). Li, who alleges she was terminated from her job, asserts that the work environment at ISE was blatantly discriminatory.
According to Forbes (05/05/17), Li had worked with the firm since March of 2013 when it was known as Relativity Sports. Her eight-count discrimination lawsuit alleges that her former employer subjected the plaintiff to discriminatory work policies, excluded her from sports division retreats and paid Li less than her male counterparts at the firm.
The Complaint, according to Forbes, attempted to illustrate the behavior and events behind Li’s allegations. “For example, Human Resources and upper management made issue of Li’s office attire,” states the Complaint. “She was admonished for supposedly violating the office dress code when she wore walking shorts (mid-thigh length) to work. Yet, all the male employees came to work in casual and beach attire, such as board shorts, flip-flop sandals, sweats, T-shirts and work out gear. Men were not similarly reprimanded for unprofessional attire.”
Li seeks monetary, non-monetary and punitive damages in her eight-count Complaint, which was filed May 4 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
ISE released a statement that suggested, in their view the lawsuit was without merit. ISE also characterized the lawsuit as having been orchestrated by another former employee of the firm, a basketball agent, who was terminated from ISE last year. ISE itself filed a lawsuit against the agent, identified in the Forbes story as Dan Fegan, in an effort to prevent Fegan from poaching ISE clients, agents and employees from ISE following his termination from the firm.
Li, it was reported, worked with Fegan while at ISE, and during ISE’s previous incarnation as Relativity Sports. The latter had previously purchased Fegan’s existing business and brought Fegan into the firm, together with the various National Basketball Association (NBA) players Fegan had as clients.
Li, the plaintiff in the discrimination lawsuit, noted that Fegan was supportive of Li when they were both employed by the firm, and had voiced her concerns to Fegan with regard to alleged discrimination. Fegan, according to Li’s discrimination lawsuit, advocated on her behalf but ISE executives allegedly ignored his advocacy.
Both Fegan and Li are no longer with ISE.
Specific case information for the discrimination lawsuit was not available.
California Wage and Hour Class Action Seeks Nearly $19 Million
San Francisco, CA: A proposed wage and hour class action lawsuit filed near the beginning of the year in California state court is seeking nearly $19 million in unpaid wages and other damages from defendant T-Mobile.
The lead plaintiff in the proposed class action is identified as Jesse Black, a field technician who alleges missed meal breaks and rest periods, as well as unpaid overtime.
However one of the most compelling aspects of Black’s wage and hour lawsuit is a company-wide policy alleged to have been observed by T-Mobile of requiring technicians to participate in an “on call” rotation for a week at a time, around the clock. For that, technicians were paid a flat rate of $22.47 per day, as well as full hourly pay for any hours they spent responding to a service call as needed.
The problem, Black indicated in his complaint through his wage and hour lawyer, is that a technician’s free time during those weeks on standby was severely restricted, given that technicians were required to drop everything and respond to a service call at a moment’s notice. In effect, the technician was at his employer’s beck and call around the clock for a week at a time and paid a daily, flat-rate stipend of $22.47. Black holds that such an arrangement effectively pushed the technicians affected into an off-the-clock work situation, with the daily flat rate effectively pushing the technicians below the minimum wage threshold considering the number of hours – totaling 168 per week – that technicians were on call.
The aforementioned off-the-clock work for which plaintiff Black alleges technicians were not paid, conversely impacted computation for overtime pay according to provisions entrenched in California law.
Black is primarily hoping to represent any hourly-paid field technician or ‘functional equivalent’ who worked for T-Mobile in the State of California within the past four years. He seeks $18.2 million in unpaid wages with regard to alleged off-the-clock work, wages that fell below the minimum standard and unpaid overtime wages. He also seeks nearly $1 million above that figure representing missed meal and rest periods.
Black filed his California wage and hour lawsuit January 31 in state court in California. T-Mobile has since moved to have the lawsuit removed to federal court but would keep the lawsuit in California, according to court documents.
The wage and hour lawsuit is Black v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-04151, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Proposed New State Legislation to Further Protect the Undocumented Worker
Sacramento, CA:As the Trump Administration continues to target immigrants, a State bill recently introduced in the California legislature is aimed at further strengthening the rights of the undocumented worker, in a state that values their contribution to the local economy.
That Bill is AB 450, otherwise known as the Immigration Worker Protection Act. The Bill is designed not so much to limit the reach of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but rather to further strengthen protections for both the undocumented worker and their employers.
If, and when AB 450 passes the updated protections will be useful for any undocumented worker feeling the heat of intimidation. For anyone considering an undocumented worker lawsuit, the forthcoming protections can only deepen the resolve of the would-be plaintiff.
California has a lot at stake here, given the impact the undocumented worker has on the State economy. According to New America Media (07/13/17) one, in ten of all workers in the State are undocumented. The snapshot is even more compelling when things are broken down by industry. For example, the undocumented worker translates to 21 percent of the total workforce in the construction industry.
In agriculture, it’s almost half – at 45 percent. In total, nearly 2.6 million undocumented immigrants make their homes in the State. Were those undocumented workers to suddenly disappear, the impact on the economy of the State of California would be compelling at the least, and devastating at its worst. Who would queue up to work in the fields picking the harvest, were almost half of the workers in the agriculture industry to suddenly vanish into thin air?
Little wonder the State is embracing, rather than attacking the undocumented worker with additional protections through proposed legislation.
As noted above, the State does not have authority over ICE, which is federally-regulated. However, the State retains certain rights on its own soil – especially if worksites employing undocumented workers are on private property.
Under AB 450 (if it becomes law in the State of California), employers would be required to ask for a warrant before they allow immigration enforcement agents onto the worksite. They would not be able to hand over any private information about workers, such as social security numbers, without a subpoena.
In addition, said Grisel Ruiz, staff attorney of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) in comments appearing in New America Media, “[President Trump] does not have the resources to go after and deport all 11 some-odd million undocumented people, plus, in the US,” she said. “The likelihood of him picking up the random person, especially who’s never had contact with ICE, is actually quite low.” And even if they do get picked up by ICE, she said, “Many people will have a chance to fight their case.”
Every resident of the US, regardless of immigration status, enjoys protections under Constitutional Rights – such as the right to remain silent, to not allow agents into their home or work without a warrant signed by a judge, and to not sign anything before talking to an undocumented worker lawyer.
“We might not, in the State of California, be able to tell ICE what to do,” said Michael Young, legislative advocate with the California Labor Federation which, together with SEIU California, sponsored AB 450. “We can’t regulate federal immigration law. But we can regulate employer behavior. We can say that employers have an obligation to protect their workers and they have to take certain actions to make sure those rights are protected.”
AB 450 is still active and next moves to the State Senate Appropriations Committee. That’s expected to happen late next month…
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:
