Business & Office News
Demanda de acoso en California contra las industrias Goodwill
Oakland, California: Una demanda de acoso en California ha sido presentada contra las industrias Goodwill y una afiliada, alegando que las dos organizaciones permitieron que el personal de conserjería femenino fuera acosado sexualmente. La demanda fue presentada por cinco empleados y la Comisión de Igualdad de Oportunidades de Empleo (EEOC) en la Corte de Distrito de California para el Distrito Norte de California, esta demanda reclama violaciones de la Ley de Derechos Civiles y la Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades.
Según documentos judiciales, Goodwill Industries y Calidad Industries sometieron a las empleadas a acoso sexual, tomaron represalias contra supervisores que apoyaban las quejas de acoso por parte de los empleados, sometieron a empleados discapacitados a términos y condiciones de empleo diferentes y forzaron a un supervisor a jubilarse debido a condiciones de empleo opresivas.
Las mujeres trabajaban como conserjes nocturnos en el Edificio Federal de Oakland. Estas afirman que su supervisor "participó en repetidas ofensivas verbales sexualmente explicitas y actos físicos indebidos hacia sus subordinadas femeninas". Incluido en estos supuestos actos, el supervisor sujetando sus genitales de manera sugestiva mientras estaba en presencia de las empleadas, haciendo comentarios indeseados y sexualmente cargados a las mujeres, y realizando un contacto inapropiado e inoportuno.
Las mujeres alegan que se quejaron repetidamente de las acciones de su supervisor, pero los acusados no tomaron medidas para detener el acoso o proteger a los empleados de un ambiente de trabajo hostil. El hostigamiento se inició alrededor de 2009 y continuó hasta 2012, cuando el acceso del supervisor al Edificio Federal de Oakland fue revocado por la Administración de Servicios Generales de los Estados Unidos como resultado de las quejas de acoso.
A pesar de esta acción de la Administración de Servicios Generales, los acusados trasladaron al supervisor a otro lugar y no lo disciplinaron por su presunto trato a las mujeres.
La demanda también alega que dos supervisores se opusieron al acoso sexual y proporcionaron evidencia o testimonio en apoyo de las demandas de los empleados y luego se tomaron represalias en su contra. Una supervisora, Lisa Short, fue presuntamente reprendida y disciplinada después de asistir en una investigación de acoso sexual. Entre las consecuencias que enfrentó fue ser transferida al turno de la noche.
"Desde abril del 2012 hasta a octubre del 2012, los demandados tomaron represalias contra Short a tal grado que se creó un ambiente tan abusivo y opresivo que ella no tuvo más remedio que renunciar", dice la demanda. Otro supervisor, Doward Washington, habría sido advertido de no participar en una investigación de acoso.
Cuando participó en la investigación, fue sometido a críticas injustas en su trabajo, incluyendo ser reprendido por no realizar tareas que no formaban parte de su descripción de trabajo.
Los trabajadores que demandan por hostigamiento fueron empleados a través del programa de trabajo del afiliado Goodwill Calidad que ayuda a las personas que tienen deficiencias físicas, mentales o psicológicas severas a encontrar trabajo y ser financieramente independientes.
La demanda es EEOC v. Goodwill Industries del Gran Área de la Bahía Este, caso no. 3: 16 - 9093.
Federal FMLA Bill Tries for a Second Time, Mirrors California FMLA
Los Angeles, CA: Federal legislation that hopes to mirror rights for family and medical leave currently observed by California and one other state, has been proposed by Democratic lawmakers in the Congress. The Family and Medical Leave Act was introduced previously, but was not successful in passing through Congress and thus never made it to the desk of then-President Barak Obama in 2013, when the Bill was first proposed. This time, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), and 113 co-sponsors reintroduced the House Bill, while Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) reintroduced its companion legislation in the US Senate.
The proposed law would allow for workers to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for a pregnancy, for the birth or adoption of a child, to recover from a serious illness, or to care for a seriously ill family member.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act, as it currently stands, allows qualified workers to take time off as required for medical issues. However, federal FMLA leave is unpaid. The hope is that the new, updated version of the FMLA, if passed, would align the federal program with similar programs in New Jersey and California. Specifically, the Family and Medical Leave Act in the state of California – together with the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) – provide a portion of an employee’s monthly salary up to a certain cap.
There are also proposed changes that would abolish certain restrictions, such as the minimum of 12 months of tenure with an employer, for whom an employee would have worked 1,250 hours or more in the previous year in order to qualify for CFRA and FMLA benefits.
Meanwhile, a plaintiff fighting a FMLA lawsuit in California alleges her employer breached the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as the California Family Rights Act, when the defendant allegedly failed to extend accommodations with regard to workload following a surgical procedure.
According to court documents Plaintiff Marthina Taylor was employed by Northern Inyo Hospital as a baker. Court heard that Taylor took medical leave from her position in May, 2014 for her surgery. Upon her return to the job site in September of that year, Taylor requested that her workload be lightened during her convalescence, but asserts no changes were made, in spite of her rights under CFRA.
The plaintiff again consulted with her physician on October 22 of that year after she re-injured herself while on the job. Court documents suggest the plaintiff was again cleared to work by her physician with specific restrictions, including a 10-pound weight limit and a requirement to rest every 45 minutes.
The CFRA plaintiff asserts she met with her direct superior together with the COO of the hospital a week later “to discuss her restrictions and what could be changed to accommodate her restrictions,” Court documents stated.
The plaintiff asserts that at 10:30 in the morning on her first day back, she informed her supervisors “that the changes implemented were set up to fail and were not do-able in the time allotment provided,” and “asked if other employees could help/assist in completing some of these job duties, so [Plaintiff] could concentrate on all of her baking duties.”
Taylor contends that the hospital COO informed her that he “would have to confer with higher up management to make this call.” Ten minutes later, according to court documents, Plaintiff “was told that Northern Inyo Hospital could not make accommodations to meet [her] restrictions.”
The plaintiff also alleges pre-existing issues with her immediate supervisor prior to her surgical procedure, which may have served to complicate their working relationship going forward.
The case is Marthina Taylor v. Northern Inyo Hospital, et al., Case No. 1:2015-cv-001607 – LJO – JLT, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Trump Crackdown on Illegal Immigrants Puts California at Odds with the Feds
Sacramento, CA: While the undocumented worker would feel understandably vulnerable in the face of the most recent crackdown by the Trump Administration on undocumented immigrants, California’s undocumented workers can at least take heart in the existence of various state statutes and laws that protect workers, including updates to laws that came into effect the same month as President Trump was sworn in. Undocumented workers also make up an important part of the state economy overall, translating into a vested interest on the part of the State in the undocumented worker.
The rhetoric lobbed out during both the race for the Republican nomination, and the eventual Presidential campaign, had already put the State of California at odds with the incoming Administration’s policies. The most recent announcement that Trump seeks to round up as many as 11 million illegal immigrants and undocumented workers across the US – without criminal records and in some cases just for parking infractions – needlessly threatens both the undocumented worker in the State, and the economy of California overall.
It is still too early to tell if the State of California would ever consider calling up its undocumented worker lawyer and filing an undocumented worker lawsuit against the Feds in an effort to protect the state economy, but it remains a compelling thought.
Earlier this month the Los Angeles Times (02/06/17) put the value of undocumented workers into perspective: in sum, ten percent of the California economy is supported by undocumented workers and comprises one-tenth of the state labor force, according to statistics compiled by the University of Southern California (USC).
Agriculture, construction and the hospitality industries would be hit particularly hard were the Trump ban on immigrants and undocumented workers achieve full press: nearly half of the agriculture employment sector in the state – 45 percent – is comprised of undocumented workers. Data collected by the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration noted that 21 percent of construction workers in the state are undocumented.
The LA Times noted that the restaurant industry would be hit particularly hard, in that restaurants are already grappling with a labor shortage. New immigration policies at the federal level would make things even tighter – although it remains to be seen what effect federal policy would have on state policy.
There is little question, by virtue of pre-existing as well as updated laws and statutes protecting the undocumented worker, that California values its undocumented residents and is fully aware of both their value to the state economy, and the hit to economic output were those undocumented workers suddenly to go away: economic output in the state could be reduced, at minimum, by nine percent.
Meanwhile, some state laws and statutes protecting undocumented workers in California have either been updated, augmented or implemented as of January 1 of this year. Amongst those provisions are Senate Bill 1001, which includes a provision under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act for a $10,000 penalty for E-Verify violations on the part of any employer who discriminates against drivers licenses issued to undocumented workers – or requests more, or different documents than are required under federal law. Employers are also prohibited from demanding to see a worker’s US Passport.
Also taking effect this year is Senate Bill 10 Health Care Coverage: Immigration Status, an amendment that would allow undocumented immigrants and deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) recipients, the right and freedom to purchase a health plan through Covered California.
Not only does the state of California value its undocumented workers, the state also wants them to stay healthy – and educated: SB-1139, known by some as the ‘Medical Dreamers Opportunity Act,’ would prohibit a student without lawful immigrant status from being denied admission to a school of his, or her choice based upon citizenship or immigration status.
Any undocumented worker who alleges any discrimination, unfair practice or violation can, under Senate Bill 1001: Employment Unfair Practices file a complaint – with their undocumented worker lawyer in tow – through California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.
The message from California to the Trump Administration remains the same: undocumented workers in the state are valued, and are integral to the state economy.
Former ESPN Commentator Sues for Wrongful Termination
Los Angeles, CA: A former sports commentator with ESPN known for his knowledge of tennis launched a wrongful termination lawsuit in a California court against his former employer the day before Valentine’s Day this year. At issue is an on-air comment Doug Adler is alleged to have uttered during coverage of the 2017 Australian Open and, in particular use of a word the plaintiff asserts he did not use.
Rather, Adler asserts he used a word with a completely different spelling – and holding a different meaning – but happens to sound similar to the word Adler is accused of uttering.
According to court documents, Adler was covering a tennis match between Venus Williams and Stefanie Voegele. Williams is known for her aggressive style of play and Adler – a former tennis player himself – attempted to describe and capture that aggression. A transcript of the footage is alleged to reveal Adler’s quote: “: "[Voegele] misses her first serve and Venus is all over her. You see Venus move in, and put the guerrilla effect on ... charging her."
In defending his comments, Adler noted the word ‘guerrilla’ has been used previously in tennis circles to describe aggressive play, and the plaintiff asserts that is the word he used in the context of his remarks. However, ‘guerrilla’ sounds similar to ‘gorilla’ when spoken. Many observers, it has been reported, assumed Adler had used the word ‘gorilla’ and had uttered a racial slur against Williams.
The day following the match, according to court documents associated with the wrongful termination lawsuit, Adler was forced to undertake an on-air apology.
Two days after the match, Adler alleges he was terminated from a job he held since 2008. Adler alleges wrongful termination, noting in his lawsuit that ‘guerrilla tennis’ is a term which has been used previously in at least two previous instances. One example cited is a television ad produced on behalf of Nike in the 1990s featuring former tennis pros Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi entitled ‘Guerrilla Tennis,’ where the two were shown participating in impromptu tennis matches in the streets of New York City.
“Obviously, plaintiff saw that commercial many times and the phrase became widely used by those who actually understood tennis vernacular and followed the sport closely,” the lawsuit claims. Adler is a former All-American tennis player with the University of Southern California.
“Plaintiff is now known as ‘racist,’ the person who called Venus Williams ‘a gorilla,’ and who is now persona-non-grata in all professional tennis circles. For something he never said,” his wrongful termination lawsuit states.
Defendants named in the wrongful termination lawsuit include ESPN Productions Inc., senior vice president of production Mark Gross and vice president of production Jamie Reynolds. Adler alleges wrongful termination, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Damages were not specified.
The California wrongful termination lawsuit is Doug Adler v. ESPN Productions Inc. et al., Case No. BC650526, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
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.
Los trabajadores indocumentados de California tienen un aliado: el Estado
Davis, CA: A pocas semanas de la inauguración del presidente electo Donald J. Trump, el destino de los trabajadores indocumentados en California sigue siendo incierto si el Sr. Trump decide cumplir sus promesas de campaña y las convierte en políticas reales una vez se instale en la Oficina Oval. La reciente postura del Sr. Trump sobre la instalación de una planta de fabricación en México por Ford Motor Co. resultó en la cancelación de dicha construcción cuando Trump insinuó fuertemente que Ford enfrentaría impuestos masivos por traer carros construidos en México a través de la frontera hacia Estados Unidos.
Los trabajadores indocumentados en los Estados Unidos han soportado la mayor parte de la posición pro-estadounidense de Trump. Esto es especialmente preocupante para California, dado el gran número de trabajadores indocumentados en el estado y la importancia que tienen para la economía de California. California ya ha emitido declaraciones apoyando a sus trabajadores indocumentados, y su valor para la salud financiera del estado. Sin embargo, la Administración Trump sigue siendo una amenaza inminente si las promesas de campaña se llevan a cabo.
Dicho esto, Kevin R. Johnson, decano de la Universidad de California, Davis School of Law y Mabie-Apallas Profesor de Derecho de Interés Público y Estudios Chicanos, escribiendo en The Sacramento Bee (27/11/16) afirmó que una deportación masiva de trabajadores indocumentados está llena de obstáculos legales.
Con respecto a la promesa de la campaña del presidente electo Trump de capturar y deportar de dos a tres millones de inmigrantes indocumentados, centrándose en los delincuentes, existe alguna duda de si ese esfuerzo se limitará a los culpables de crímenes mayores o abarcará a cualquier indocumentado detenido incluso por una infracción menor.
La revista Sacramento Bee hizo referencia a la investigación que sugiere que los inmigrantes indocumentados son, de hecho, más respetuosos de la ley en general que sus homólogos nacidos en Estados Unidos.
Las incursiones en el lugar de trabajo, similares a un esfuerzo realizado durante la administración de George W. Bush en 2008, podrían ser etiquetadas con reclamos de violaciones de derechos civiles contra trabajadores. Eso es lo que sucedió cuando la fábrica de Agriprocessors Inc. ubicada en Postville, Iowa, fue allanada y cerca de 400 trabajadores inmigrantes fueron arrestados.
También se ha hablado, de acuerdo con The Bee, de promulgar una legislación que requiera que todos los empleadores hagan uso de la base de datos de E-Verify, un esfuerzo federal para la verificación de empleados que es estrictamente voluntario. Ha habido propuestas del equipo de transición de Trump para que el uso de E-Verify se haga obligatorio. La base de datos, según diversas fuentes, es propensa a errores. Ha habido algunos casos en los que los trabajadores han sido despedidos por su empleador, a pesar de que legalmente tienen derecho a trabajar en los EE.UU.
Finalmente, Kevin R. Johnson afirma, en los comentarios que aparecen en The Bee, que cualquier final al llamado proceso de detención "catch-and-release" podría resultar en demandas de trabajadores indocumentados en California. En la actualidad, los trabajadores detenidos por falta de documentación son elegibles para la liberación mediante la colocación de bonos. Poner fin a la práctica de la "vinculación hacia fuera" podría atrapar a un trabajador indocumentado de California en un bucle legal, y dejarlo en una custodia que podría durar incluso años, dado el enorme retraso de casos actualmente experimentados por los tribunales de inmigración.
Tal práctica podría aumentar la probabilidad de demandas de trabajadores indocumentados, cuyas resoluciones podrían tomar años.
dos por sus contribuciones a la economía del estado.
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.
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:
