Business & Office News
California Plaintiffs Alleging Wrongful Termination Not Isolated Incidents
Los Angeles, CA: Two wrongful termination lawsuits recently filed in New Jersey have a kinship with earlier legal troubles faced by banking giant Wells Fargo in California over accusations the financial juggernaut forced its bank employees to create in excess of two million bogus credit card and deposit accounts in the names of existing clients without authorization.
The allegations led to a $185 million settlement with the City Attorney’s Office of Los Angeles, together with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
In December Wells Fargo was hit with a proposed class action lawsuit in federal court in California brought by current and former employees of the bank who allege retaliation for refusing to participate in the alleged scam (Kevin Hogan v. Wells Fargo Bank & Company, Case No. 4:16-cv-07360, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California).
The New Jersey wrongful termination lawsuits allege similar retaliation to that alleged by the California plaintiffs. According to court documents, New Jersey plaintiffs Gayle Piper and Darlene Day each filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Wells Fargo after they reported what their lawsuits characterize as “troubling practices” involving the establishment of allegedly bogus accounts opened in the names of bank clients without their consent.
Both women enjoyed long tenures in the banking industry, and both became employees of Wells Fargo when the latter acquired Wachovia Bank, for which both plaintiffs worked.
The two plaintiffs were employed at different Wells Fargo branches in New Jersey but both allege similar claims. Their respective bank managers would compel them, it is alleged, to open savings accounts for bank clients to whom the plaintiffs were not acquainted, or for customers who had only requested checking accounts, rather than the savings accounts the plaintiffs were compelled to open.
When the two plaintiffs refused to engage in such activity and reported the incidents to upper management, they allege retaliation by Wells Fargo. Piper, in court documents, claims she reported the alleged misconduct to her supervisor, the district manager, a Wells Fargo investigator and the company's ethics hotline. Day made similar overtures in an effort to compel Wells Fargo to stop the practices.
Shortly after Piper reported her findings, she was issued three written warnings and then let go from her job. Day was also issued three warnings, with the third warnings making it clear “that her termination was imminent.” Day, in her wrongful termination lawsuit, indicates she retired from her position shortly after receiving the third warning letter from Wells Fargo.
Piper had 40 years of service in the banking sector: Day, 25. Their stories are similar to those filing lawsuits with their wrongful termination lawyer in California.
The New Jersey cases are Gayle Piper v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al. and Darlene Day v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., Case Nos. L-3516-17 and L-3517-17, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Middlesex.
Google Characterizes DOL Compliance Request as Beyond Its Mandate
Mountain View, CA: Metaphors flew late last month during a California administrative compliance lawsuit hearing over an alleged refusal on the part of tech giant Google Inc. (Google) to comply with a mandated requirement by the US Department of Labor (DOL) to hand over documents and data with regard to a pay equity spot check.
The DOL regularly conducts reviews for compliance targeting corporations and entities that supply goods and services to the US Government. The DOL, during its investigation, found the potential for pay inequities between genders (favoring men) and had ordered Google to comply with a requirement mandated under the law to turn over various documents and data that would speak to Google’s record and practices surrounding pay equity.
At the hearing on May 26, attorney Ian Eliasoph who represented the DOL suggested the defendant had incorrectly characterized the DOL request for information as being too costly, when in reality the tech giant – a multi-billion dollar corporation – could handle the associated costs as easily as a dry sponge absorbing a drop of water.
The DOL had requested full documentation, and Google is reported to have complied by releasing some documentation, but lacking the breadth and depth of documents and data the DOL sought. Having extended to Google a deadline for compliance – and having that deadline expire by several months without compliance with the DOL’s request – an instant lawsuit was launched this past January in an effort to force Google to comply.
The DOL seeks additional employment records for the year ending December 31, 2014 together with the names and contact information of some 21,000 employees registered with the Google organization.
An April, 2017 hearing heard that the DOL had found, in their initial investigations, what was described at the hearing by DOL Pacific Regional Director Janette Wipper as systematic compensation disparities against women.
That was in April. At the hearing conducted May 26, 2017 legal counsel for Google implored presiding Administrative Law Judge Steven B. Berlin to reject Wipper’s earlier testimony. Google argued further that the financial health and capabilities of the tech giant were not at issue, and that the DOL request, in the defendant’s view was overly broad and burdensome and would chew up an unreasonable period of time required to collect and, where necessary redact protected data and documentation located across multiple databases and platforms.
Google characterizes the DOL’s request for documents in pursuit of compliance as an abuse of its discretion and mandate.
Labor compliance is a broad term that speaks to the importance of employers adhering to state and federal statutes, and guidance designed to uphold and ensure fairness for employees and their employee rights. Workers who feel they have been disadvantaged at the hand of employers will often pursue a response with an employees rights lawyer.
The instant compliance lawsuit the DOL has launched against Google is not over allegations of pay inequities, but rather an effort to force Google to release all requested documents and data in order to facilitate and complete its investigation with regard to suspected pay inequities towards women.
The case is In the Matter of Office Federal Contract Compliance Programs, US Department of Labor v. Google Inc., Case No. 2017-OFC-0004, before the US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges.
Plaintiff Wrongfully Accused of Racism Files California Harassment Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA: A former cycling instructor has launched a California harassment and wrongful dismissal lawsuit against her former employer and a former colleague at the facility, as well as the parent company of SoulCycle, Equinox Holdings. The plaintiff asserts her former colleague – who is an African American – wrongfully branded the plaintiff as a racist and a Donald Trump supporter, neither of which are true according to Lindsay Buckley, who is white and filed her harassment lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Co-defendant Angela Davis is accused of orchestrating a campaign of harassment in order to have Buckley ousted from the facility, or so it is alleged.
According to court documents, the trouble began when Buckley delivered motivational remarks to one of her indoor cycling classes in the days following the election of Donald Trump last November. During her talk, Buckley admitted she implored her charges to find “something great in their lives,” without making reference to Trump.
That remark got back to Davis, who allegedly understood Buckley’s remarks to be pro-Trump and concluded – wrongfully, according to the plaintiff – that Buckley was a racist. The plaintiff’s complaint asserts that Davis set out on a campaign to sully her reputation and have her fired.
“Days after the presidential election, Davis, who is African American, started making comments about Ms. Buckley to others, including one of her coworkers, falsely implying that she was a racist Trump supporter because she was a blonde, Caucasian woman from Orange County who used the word ‘great’ in class,” the harassment lawsuit said.
Lodging a complaint with managers only served to inflame the situation even further, the California harassment lawsuit goes on. “Davis continued her false allegations of racism and, in retaliation for plaintiff’s racial harassment complaint against her, she mounted a racially motivated smear campaign to get rid of plaintiff,” the lawsuit said.
Things began to come to a head in January when Buckley was accused – falsely, the plaintiff says – of using a racial epithet during one of her classes. Upon investigation, supervisors at the SoulCycle facility determined Buckley had not been found to have uttered the slur and also determined it would have been out of character for her to have done so.
“Davis apparently did not like the company’s response; upon information and belief, Davis actively solicited customers, friends and coworkers to falsely accuse plaintiff of making racially offensive comments in class (and being a racist), including asking at least one customers to lie to the company about what plaintiff said in class,” the complaint said.
Buckley was eventually suspended from her position in January for a period of five days, in part for playing ‘urban’ music in class that allegedly contained racial epithets and explicit lyrics. Buckley counters that her accuser had been known to do the very same thing without reproach.
Buckley was eventually fired from her job. She was also pregnant at the time, asserting she informed management of her condition in the days leading up to her termination. The plaintiff asserts violations of the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law of California, as well as claims for harassment, retaliation and defamation, among other claims in the harassment lawsuit she is bringing with her harassment lawyer.
The harassment case is Lindsay Buckley v. SoulCycle Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The case number was not available.
California Employer Cited Following Death of Employee
Weed, CA: A forklift trainee who had been on the job four months with Crystal Geyser Roxane (CGR) in Weed, California and suffered fatal injuries when the forklift he was operating at the job site tipped over, had passed all requisite safety and evaluation tests. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health(OSHA) nonetheless issued four citations against CGR following the death of the young trainee.
According to the Mt. Shasta Herald (05/10/17)) the victim was a temporary employee provided to CGR by Personnel Preference, a temp firm. Nathan Hubbard had been a trainee on the forklift for a period of four months, before “taking over the position as a qualified forklift operator,” according to a statement issued by CGR as part of its submission to OSHA.
On the day of the accident Hubbard had been operating the forklift when the mast of the machine struck the bottom of an overhead catwalk while the forklift was in motion, and the forklift began to tip. Hubbard – who had not been wearing the required seatbelt at the time – instinctively jumped clear of the forklift only to suffer crushing injuries when the forklift toppled on top of him. Hubbard did not survive.
It is not clear if the family of Hubbard has filed an OSHA lawsuit. However, Cal/OSHA is reported to have issued citations to CGR for violations of California labor code. Two citations classified as serious, according to the report, state that the forks were not carried as low as possible, and the forklift was not kept under “positive control” at all times.
In other words, the mast of the forklift – which is adjustable by the operator – had been too high for the forklift to be in motion, making the unit dangerously top-heavy. Striking the catwalk immediately above the moving forklift was the catalyst that led to the accident.
Two other violations cited by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) were more general in nature. One violation pertained to the California labor code which states an operator shall not “place any part of their bodies outside the running lines of an industrial truck or between mast uprights or other part of the truck where shear or crushing hazards exist.”
The other violation centered on the failure of Hubbard to use the restraint system provided as part of the forklift operator’s position. The California labor code states that where a manufacturer of heavy equipment provides an operator restraint – a seatbelt – in the operator’s compartment, the operator is required to wear the seatbelt and the employer should ensure the operator does so.
Hubbard was not wearing the restraint at the time of the accident, and attempted to jump clear of forklift as it tipped over. OSHA and California labor codes require the operator to be strapped in, and stay within the operator compartment in the event a piece of heavy equipment is up-ended for any reason.
CGR, according to the Herald report, appealed the OSHA citations. “The Company firmly believes that it took all steps a reasonable and responsible employer would take in the like circumstances, before the violation occurred, to anticipate and prevent the violation and took effective actions to eliminate employee exposure pursuant to Labor Code Section 6432(c).
“In an effort to mitigate the inherent risk of operating a forklift, the Company has established OSHA compliant procedures that are communicated to all individuals through extensive training relevant to preventing employee exposure to risk” and they ensure that employees have learned “all pertinent information via field session evaluations for operator proficiency and a written exam.”
Hubbard, according to documentation submitted to Cal/OSHA, had undertaken forklift safety and operation evaluation testing, had passed those tests, and had otherwise met all requirements.
The Bureau of Investigations is currently looking into the case, given that there was a fatality involved. Until then the case in on hold. CGR, which indicated it had taken steps to improve its compliance, appealed all four of the OSHA citations, which would result in combined penalties of $33,100 if convicted.
DOL Still Searching Google for Documents Over Compliance
Mountain View, CA: An administrative lawsuit over allegations of pay disparity and gender discrimination against women involving the California-based Google Inc. (Google) translates to a feud between the search engine juggernaut and the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (DOL, OFCCP).
Google has allegedly been dragging its feet in the required provision of data and evidence as requested by the DOL and the OFCCP. Google counters that recent statements to the media by a member of the federal agency’s legal counsel suggest the federal agencies have all they need.
According to Court documents, the trouble began in September, 2015 when Google, which maintains headquarters at Mountain View in the Golden State, was randomly selected by the DOL and OFCCP for a compliance evaluation. Enterprises providing services to government under contract are required to abide by a robust basket of rules and regulations, in order to remain in compliance as a federal contractor. Federal agencies routinely conduct random checks to ensure compliance, with formal requests for documentation as standard practice.
The feds had given Google until the first of June, 2016 to comply. Google, according to Court records associated with the discrimination lawsuit not only missed the deadline, but communicated with the DOL on June 17 of last year that it would be refusing to provide the requested documents.
Thus the DOL turned to the Courts, filing an administrative lawsuit against Google in an attempt to force Google to comply, on December 29 of last year. In announcing the lawsuit this past January, the DOL stressed that the release of requested documents is a mandatory aspect of the random selection process for compliance review under the law.
A hearing, conducted on April 7 of this year, served to inflate the rhetoric even further. At the hearing, according to Court records, DOL Pacific Region Regional Director Janette Wipper reportedly said in comments to the Court that the DOL found systematic compensation disparities against women. Google denied the allegation, indicating it conducted regular and thorough analyses of pay equities and had found no gender-based pay gap within their organization.
Wipper’s comments were reported in The Guardian, which reached out to Regional solicitor for the DOL, Janet Herold, for additional comment. The Guardian subsequently reported Herold’s statement that the OFCCP had “received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters,” at Mountain View.
Herold added that the ongoing analysis on the part of the government, “at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.”
Google, which had moved to have the administrative lawsuit thrown out, pointed to the comments made at the hearing and subsequent comments given to the media, and suggested the agencies had all the information they needed to proceed with a compliance review, thus no further information was needed, and the lawsuit was meritless.
However, in a recent ruling Administrative Law Judge Steven B. Berlin disagreed.
“Google asserts that OFCCP wants to use the broad investigative authority it is accorded in compliance reviews to circumvent the more constrained access to Google’s information it will get in formal discovery,” Judge Berlin opined.
He added that while it may have been misguided to make statements to the media while an ongoing administrative court case was active – and admonishing those individuals for doing so – he nonetheless found no ethical infraction involved, thus any efforts to push back against the federal agency’s entitlement for additional information, was without merit.
The case is In the Matter of Office Federal Contract Compliance Programs, US Department of Labor v. Google Inc., Case No. 2017-OFC-0004, before the US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges.
California Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Targets SpaceX
Los Angeles, CA: A former technician for one of California’s highest-profile employers is characterizing Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) as a company maintaining a culture that allows for falsification of test results, or so it is alleged. The plaintiff, in his wrongful termination lawsuit, holds that his refusal to falsify documents and his attempts to report the practice to his superiors eventually got him fired.
Attorneys for SpaceX, however, characterized plaintiff Jason Blasdell in opening statements as a disgruntled former employee who only came forward with allegations of falsification following his termination in April, 2014. Defendants also noted that Blasdell had been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder while working at SpaceX and was taking medication that might have impacted his behavior.
Lawyers for the defense in Blasdell’s wrongful termination lawsuit claimed that some of the plaintiff’s colleagues were afraid for their safety amidst what was described as increasing tensions in association with Blasdell's demeanor.
SpaceX is the private, futuristic aeronautics enterprise based in California that continues to experiment with reusable rocket boosters. The principle of SpaceX Elon Musk, also runs Tesla, the enterprise that markets high-end and futuristic electric vehicles.
Blasdell, while employed at SpaceX, was tasked with testing various components involved with the avionic systems of the Falcon 9 rocket. Court documents suggest that he initially received positive performance reviews.
However, that all changed when he became aware of an alleged culture that reflected pressure from superiors to deviate from test protocols, falsify the results and sign off on an improper test result.
“I told [Human Resources Manager Carla Suarez] that in the avionics test lab managers had been pressuring us, pressuring me, to falsify test documents. And that management is trying to point to me as being the problem instead of acknowledging and discussing actual falsification of documents as being the real problem,” Blasdell told jurors. “I told Carla because of that it was important that I speak to Elon Musk personally because managers were blocking my feedback on this.”
The plaintiff’s concern also centered on a contract SpaceX had entered into with NASA. Technicians had been told, according to Blasdell, to carefully document their testing.
It was not made clear in trial reports if the alleged falsification of test results was confined to work on the Falcon 9, or potentially permeated all work being done at SpaceX, including contract work.
Blasdell testified his supervisors would chastise him for refusing to sign off on test results that were suspect, suggesting that Blasdell’s colleagues didn’t have a problem with it.
“It wasn’t because I was incapable or lacked knowledge or experience in performing the test. It was…I was adhering to company rules as difficult as it was,” Blasdell said. “I knew I’d get negative attention for it. I tried to convey to them, I’m not the problem. We have a bigger problem.”
Blasdell is described as a former US Marine with extensive training in aviation electronics. When it became apparent that test results were not passing muster – or so it is alleged in the plaintiff’s wrongful termination lawsuit – Blasdell went to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell with his concerns after a meeting with an upper manager resulted in a request for Blasdell to keep it quiet.
It is alleged that Shotwell urged Blasdell not to go to Musk with his concerns. Blasdell claims that he did anyway, citing a fear of retaliation for complaining about the deviation from testing protocols, and the alleged falsification of test results.
In the end, Blasdell was labelled a troublemaker. He worked at SpaceX from November, 2010 until his allegedly wrongful termination in April, 2014.
During testimony, Blasdell’s wrongful termination lawyer asked the plaintiff if he felt that by falsifying test results he was violating the law.
Blasdell answered, “Absolutely.”
His California wrongful termination lawsuit is Jason Blasdell v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. BC615112, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Former Television Executive Files Lawsuit, Alleges FMLA Violations et al
Los Angeles, CA: A former executive with Black Entertainment Television (BET) in Los Angeles has filed an 18-count wrongful dismissal lawsuit against BET and parent company Viacom Inc. Amongst the allegations are charges of discrimination, gender bias and violations against the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The FMLA is a broad federal statute that combines with the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to provide rights and protections for qualifying employees in the event of a health crisis, family illness or related emergency. Amongst the provisions is childbirth, the need to take time off to care for a sick, elderly or incapacitated family member, or a health crisis directly affecting the employee. FMLA and CFRA provide up to 12 work weeks of job-protected leave with benefits, and without retaliation for those employees who qualify.
Zola Mashariki alleges in her FMLA lawsuit that she qualified for leave during treatment for breast cancer – but was ousted from her position with the network without just cause, or so it is alleged.
According to court documents Mashariki was hired to head up the original programming division for BET following a long tenure with Fox Searchlight Pictures. Her move to BET was fueled in part by the BET brand, which spoke to the plaintiff as a woman of color, and the BET programming platform upon which Mashariki could further strengthen a visual representation of African Americans on the media landscape.
However, once on board at BET Mashariki alleges she found a hostile work environment towards women. The Harvard graduate who also earned a degree from Dartmouth College alleges the existence of a boys’ club at BET and Viacom that resulted in the routine deprivation of opportunities for job and career advancement, together with intimidation and exploitation.
In particular, according to her FMLA lawsuit, Mashariki singles out the former President of Programming for BET, Stephen Hill – whom Mashariki specifically names in her lawsuit. Mashariki alleges Hill was combative, treated the plaintiff in a demeaning fashion and took credit for her ideas, amongst other allegations.
When she complained to senior executives about the alleged demeanor and behavior on the part of the individual to whom she directly reported, Mashariki alleges BET and Viacom began to retaliate against her through various avenues, including but not limited to denying the plaintiff additional staff support, and opening an investigation into her management style with the human resources department.
In November, 2016 – a month before her diagnosis of breast cancer – Mashariki lodged a formal complaint with Viacom with regard to discrimination and retaliation. According to court documents, Viacom responded by withholding bonus pay and intensifying surveillance into her work, in addition to other alleged forms of retaliation.
In December, Mashariki was given a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer, and went on medical leave for treatment in February of this year. Under FMLA, qualifying employees are guaranteed up 12 weeks of leave with benefits within a rolling 12-month window, without retaliation or discrimination. The CFRA in California carries similar rights and freedoms. Mashariki’s diagnosis of breast cancer, and the need for treatment would have qualified her under FMLA.
The plaintiff’s situation worsened while on leave, when Mashariki was diagnosed with a more advanced form of breast cancer. The subsequent diagnosis required more advanced treatment, and an extension of her leave from BET.
According to Mashariki’s 18-count FMLA lawsuit, various parties within BET worsened her situation while she was on medical leave by denying the plaintiff access to her emails and internal systems, together with the spreading of false rumors, or so it is alleged. Mashariki’s lawsuit alleges that BET and Viacom attempted to terminate her employment on February 28. After Mashariki challenged that decision to terminate, the defendants withdrew.
However, court records show she was fired April 11 of this year, not long after Stephen Hill left the employ of BET. Hill’s departure was announced March 29. At the same time, BET and Viacom announced that Mashariki, too would be leaving their employ – an announcement Mashariki had not approved, consented to or had prior knowledge of. The public announcement, the plaintiff alleges, created a firestorm in the media that resulted in a stream of speculation and innuendo that included, but was not limited to rumors of poor performance – accusations to which Mashariki could not respond due to her absence through employer-approved FMLA and CFRA medical leave, her ongoing treatment, and recovery from recent surgery.
Mashariki, in her 18-count lawsuit alleged she was terminated for lodging complaints about the work environment and discrimination, and her need to take medical leave, which Mashariki alleges is a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Viacom and BET maintain the allegations are unfounded. The case is Zola Mashariki v. Viacom Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03366, in the US District Court for the Central District of California.
California Wage & Hour Lawsuit Against MLB in Rain Delay
Oakland, CA: As the major league baseball season continues to roll along, a wage & hour lawsuit against Major League Baseball brought by minor leaguers over rates of pay and other issues continues to traverse a rocky path akin to the bases loaded in the 9th, with nobody out in a tie game and you’re the team pitching…
Earlier in the proposed class action lawsuit US Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero had denied the plaintiffs’ efforts to secure class action status, suggesting that there were flaws in the plaintiffs’ submission, and that there was insufficient continuity of activity amongst all the proposed class members to warrant status as a class, due to the degree of difficulties involved. The plaintiffs came back with changes to their wage & hour lawsuit, removing claims associated with off-site winter conditioning, amongst other alterations.
Plaintiffs also narrowed the class to include only minor league players in the state of California, making it a California wage and hour lawsuit. Plaintiffs scored a small victory in March, when Judge Spero reversed an earlier decision and agreed to certify the plaintiffs’ claims as a class action, as well as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
But now everything is in limbo again, as Major League Baseball has appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, with Judge Spero giving the defendants pause to facilitate their appeal.
The proposed class action lawsuit is itself now on pause – call it an extended rain delay – until the appellate panel of the Ninth Circuit has the opportunity to hear the appeal.
It could be a long delay, according to court records and those conversant with the case load of the Ninth Circuit: “Given the state of the Ninth Circuit’s docket,” writes Nathaniel Grow, professor of legal studies at the University of Georgia, “if the circuit court doesn’t expedite the appeal, it could easily take a year and a half or longer just to get an appellate ruling on the class certification issue,” he said. “So instead of looking at a possible trial later this year, you’re probably into 2019, maybe even 2020 before this goes to trial.”
The wage and hour lawsuit was originally filed early in 2014, with minor league ball players claiming, through their wage and hour lawyer, unpaid overtime and wages that did not meet minimum wage standards, or so it has been alleged. Some players assert they collected as little as $1,100 per month in spite of working 200 hours in an average month, or 50 hours in a week.
At issue is a uniform player contract observed by teams in the minor leagues – and plaintiffs assert this has been going on for some time now: the wage and hour class action seeks to represent players having played under the uniform contract dating back to 2010.
Some 2,200 minor league players had opted into the wage and hour lawsuit before it was decertified in 2016. When plaintiffs narrowed their focus, Judge Spero reversed his earlier decision and in March of this year gave the green light to the California wage and hour class and collective action.
But now Major League Baseball – the defendant in the case – wants to appeal and Judge Spero maintains the defendants have the right to do that.
“The court concludes that these questions involve controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion because of the dearth of relevant case law and tension in the relevant legal standards,” the judge said. “Because these questions have crucial implications for whether a collective may be certified in this action, the court concludes that an immediate appeal from its March 7, 2017, order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
Major League Baseball and its clubs could suffer ‘significant harm’ depending upon which way the Ninth Circuit rules – and that’s if the Ninth Circuit agrees to hear the appeal at all.
“Should the Ninth Circuit reverse this court’s [order], defendants will suffer substantial harm if this action is not stayed pending appeal as they will have devoted very substantial time and resources on the litigation, particularly with respect to the completion of discovery, dispositive motions and trial preparation on class claims,” the judge said.
For now, the plaintiffs wait in a rain delay…
The case is Aaron Senne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00608, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Former Personal Chef to Rap Star Sues for Harassment
Los Angeles, CA: The one-time personal chef for rap performer Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs has filed a California harassment lawsuit against her former employer, alleging sexual harassment as well as accusations that she was overworked and underpaid while in Mr. Comb’s employ.
The plaintiff in the harassment lawsuit is Cindy Rueda, who served as personal chef for Combs and worked at his home in Los Angeles beginning in January, 2015. In court documents, Rueda asserts she initially began working weekends from 9am until midnight or 2am at a flat rate of $150 per day. The following September, the plaintiff’s status was changed to full time. Her hours, according to the complaint, were 9am until midnight or 2:30am as a full-time employee.
Rueda claims she was classified as exempt from qualification for overtime. Documents did not spell out whether, or not her rate of pay changed when the plaintiff was moved from part-time, to full-time status in the employ of Mr. Combs.
Harassment charges included exposure to “inappropriate conduct and harassing confrontations” with Combs and his associates while on duty. On one occasion, the plaintiff asserts she was required to serve a post-coital meal to Combs and his house guests. At the time, Rueda asserts her employer asked her if she “was attracted to him or liked his naked body.”
On another occasion, according to allegations of sexual harassment made in Rueda’s harassment lawsuit, a male houseguest of Combs’ approached the plaintiff and asked her “to look at, and admire his genitals after [the guest] had engaged in sexual activity with another house guest,” or so the harassment lawsuit alleges.
Meanwhile, the pay dispute continued. In October and December of 2015 Rueda was required to travel with Combs and his entourage for eight days, and 14 days respectively with regular pay. There was no overtime pay offered or paid, Rueda alleges. The plaintiff asserts she complained to Combs’ estate director following the first round of travel in October, but received no response. Upon bringing the issue up a second time following the December trip, Rueda was allegedly told to track her hours. Although Rueda was granted vacation time, there was no overtime pay forthcoming. Rueda asserts she complained to the estate director a total of three times, without any satisfactory conclusion.
In the end, Rueda claims she was terminated without cause based on a false accusation of theft, or so the harassment lawsuit asserts.
A representative of Mr. Combs has called the harassment lawsuit a “frivolous lawsuit by a disgruntled ex-employee who was fired for cause.”
The harassment lawsuit includes more than a dozen claims against Combs and associated companies, including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, defamation and denial of overtime despite often working more than 12 hours in a day. The plaintiff seeks compensation for pain and suffering, lost earnings, unpaid overtime, double time, missed meal and rest periods, and unspecified damages.
The harassment lawsuit is Cindy Rueda v. CE Opco LLC et el., Case No. BC660653, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.
The Value of the Undocumented Worker in California Can’t Be Overstated
Los Angeles, CA: The rhetoric against the undocumented worker has, for now been toned down in the wake of other issues taking more immediate precedence in the Trump White House, while support for the undocumented worker continues to roll through California and the positive impact undocumented immigrants have on the state economy.
Still, there are those who buy into President Donald Trump’s claim that immigrants are taking jobs away from US-born workers, and that undocumented workers have it easy.
Those conversant with the economy in the state of California, and how hard it often is to attract US-born residents to lower-paying jobs in the state, vehemently disagree with the naysayers who want all undocumented workers deported.
Ellen Brokaw runs a ranch in Ventura County. She told Pubic Radio International (PRI 03/06/17) that her dependence on immigrant labor to get in her crops – and the challenges she would face were undocumented labor to suddenly vanish – is mirrored across the agriculture sector of Ventura County. “There’s no way that we can take care of and pick our crops without immigrant labor,” she told PRI. Brokaw’s ranch – like others – encompasses hundreds of acres of trees that yield crops of avocados, oranges and lemons. Workers are required to climb ladders, pick the fruit by hand and transport the fruit in sacks, 80 pounds when completely full, on foot to collection bins.
Brokaw has tried to hire US-born workers, advertising widely according to rules built into a guest worker program. But Americans don’t seem to want the work. “It’s hard work, and it’s not very well-paid,” Brokaw told PRI. “Starting pay is $12 to $13 an hour. Sometimes some people apply but almost never, do any of them stay.”
Advocates of the undocumented worker cite this simple observation as the reason why the undocumented worker should be embraced, not abandoned: they accept lower-paying jobs most Americans don’t want, such as toiling in the fields, cleaning hotel rooms or serving as nannies.
Were the undocumented worker to suddenly disappear tomorrow, who would undertake those jobs? In Ventura County, for example as many as 36,000 field workers toil to bring in the citrus, avocado and strawberry crop at peak harvest season – and that’s in Ventura County alone. The Ventura County Farm Bureau told PRI that 95 percent of those workers are immigrants.
That snapshot is mirrored across the agriculture sector in the state. When all sectors are taken into context, said California state controller Betty Yee, immigrant labor is worth $180 billion alone to the state of California. While that figure is roughly ten percent of the entire gross domestic product of California – at $2.448 trillion the largest single economy of all the states in the US – it remains a vitally important aspect to the overall health and vitality of the state.
Critics suggest – and some studies have borne this out – that the prevalence of undocumented workers translates to downward pressure on wages for low-skilled workers. However, other economic studies do not support that conclusion and overall, reports PRI, economists generally agree that immigration as a whole benefits the US economy.
That’s especially true in California.
Beyond the value the undocumented worker has on the state economy, there remain signs that undocumented workers are often mistreated. Reports of unpaid wages, long hours, and poor working conditions continue to dot the legal landscape in spite of California’s progressive stance when it comes to fairness, and rights for the undocumented worker.
It’s the reason why an undocumented worker lawsuit can be of significant value not only for a plaintiff who has been treated unfairly, but also as an example to employers who are purveyors of unfairness and ill-treatment. The undocumented worker conversant with his or her value to the state economy – and the labor laws of the state – will not shy away from contacting an undocumented worker lawyer in order to pursue justice not only on his or her own behalf, but also in the interest of others.
One undocumented worker from South Korea who came into the US in 2014 on a student visa and overstayed, now works in a nightclub in Los Angeles and makes a very good wage in cash under the table – about $5,000 per month. And yet, at the same time the man is embroiled in a dispute with a former employer who underpaid him for years. The undocumented worker has been threatened with deportation – his former boss vows to report him to immigration – if he continues his pursuit of the wages which are his due.
“I’m undocumented, I don’t have papers. I don’t have a Social Security number, I don’t have a green card, so it becomes kind of natural for employers to take advantage of me,” the undocumented worker told PRI. “I just have to take it.”
But he doesn’t. An undocumented worker lawyer, conversant with employee rights in California and a state sensitive to the needs of its economy and sympathetic to the plight of the undocumented worker, can champion his case through an undocumented worker lawsuit.
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:
