Discrimination News
Pulitzer Prize Winner Files Discrimination Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles Times is used to reporting on lawsuits, but now it faces a California discrimination lawsuit of its own, filed by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. Jeffrey Gottlieb filed the lawsuit, alleging age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
Gottlieb was hired in March 1997 as an assistant city editor and through his years at Los Angeles Times worked as a staff writer, assistant city editor, and senior writer. Court documents note that Gottlieb and his writing partner - Ruben Vives - co-wrote many stories, including work on corruption in the City of Bell that resulted in them winning Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, a George Polk Award, and a variety of other awards.
Although he won the George Polk award, Gottlieb argues his bosses didn't tell him or Vives about the award, with them finding out by accident, and despite receiving money for other awards, that award money was not fully distributed even two years after it was won. Gottlieb complained to the publisher about the money not being distributed, and complained about illegal activity in relation to the prize money not being disbursed, speaking about the incident in the Washington Post.
Despite winning the Pulitzer Prize, Gottlieb alleges he was not assigned any further investigative reporting duties and was instead sent to Orange County, where his career had initially started, while two other reporters were given the title of investigative reporter.
In August 2014, Gottlieb was told he would be the backup obituaries reporter and then given a choice of covering a variety of topics he considered decent for a new reporter, but not a veteran. In 2015, he had surgery for prostate cancer and was on disability leave for almost eight weeks. Upon his return from leave, he was told he could write obituaries, at which point Gottlieb quit his job.
"Plaintiff felt forced to resign due to his intolerable working conditions, effectively constructively terminating his employment with defendants," court documents state. Shortly after, however, the Times reportedly had a buyout and targeted older reporters with the buyout. Furthermore, Gottlieb alleges, the paper generally hired younger employees and gave better jobs and benefits to employees under the age of 40.
"During plaintiff's employment with defendants, defendants intentionally engaged in age discrimination by discharging employees over the age of 40 with greater frequency than other employees," the lawsuit states. Gottlieb's suit is filed against the Los Angeles Times and editor and publisher Davan Maharaj.
The newspaper has called the allegations "completely without merit."
The lawsuit is Gottlieb v. Los Angeles Times, et al. case number BC630018, in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Famed San Francisco 49ers Announcer Sues for Age Discrimination
San Francisco, CA: He had been performing his job faithfully for 30 years, in so doing becoming a football institution in San Francisco. Bob Sarlatte, the stadium announcer for the San Francisco 49ers, on the job since 1984, and for a generation of football fans his was the only voice fans heard inside the stadium when they attended a 49ers game. Today, Sarlatte is suing for California age discrimination.
Everything changed for Sarlatte in 2014, when the team was planning a move to a new facility and allegedly decided that Sarlatte would not be making the move with the team and the remainder of the organization.
The reason?
According to the Daily Post of Palo Alto (5/19/16), Sarlatte alleges he was told by the team that the 49ers were moving in a “different direction” with the location transfer to the new stadium, and when pressed, the manager is alleged to have told Sarlatte that the position of field announcer was being eliminated.
Sarlatte’s California discrimination lawsuit alleges that upon moving to the new facility, the San Francisco 49ers immediately hired a younger announcer for the position of in-stadium (or field) announcer, which hadn’t been eliminated after all.
The plaintiff’s California labor lawsuit alleges that Sarlatte is the victim of age discrimination. The actor, comedian and public speaker had been performing in the capacity of field announcer with the football team for 30 years, from 1984 until 2014, when his employment was terminated at the age of 66.
Just prior to his termination, Sarlatte appeared as a guest on Late Night with David Letterman, where the host talked about Sarlatte’s 30-year run with the team. Sarlatte had been a frequent guest on the Letterman show as a performer in his own right.
While planning the move to its new facility in Santa Clara, the team, according to Sarlatte’s California discrimination lawsuit, “engaged in a pattern and practice of eliminating its older workers, while attempting to rebrand the team as a younger, technology-driven organization.
“In order to make room for the younger technology workers, [49ers CEO Jed York] engaged in a campaign to terminate the older, senior employees within the 49ers organization,” the lawsuit alleges.
It should be noted that two other long-standing employees of the team were also let go prior to the move to the new facility. In January 2015, the two plaintiffs filed California age discrimination lawsuits in federal court in San Francisco. Those two lawsuits ended in a settlement this past October.
The Sarlatte lawsuit claims violations of the US Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California public policy. Sarlatte is seeking back wages, an additional punitive financial award, and reinstatement to the job of field announcer with the San Francisco 49ers.
California Amends Employment Discrimination Regulations
Sacramento, CA: As of April 1, 2016, California has amended its Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations to include new requirements for employers. These new requirements involve discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the workplace, and cover all employers who regularly employ five or more individuals. Employers who violate the regulations could face California employee lawsuits.
Under the amended California employment regulations, employers are required to establish a written discrimination, harassment and retaliation prevention policy. That policy must include a list of all protected categories covered under the Act, a description of the company’s complaint process, and a statement prohibiting retaliation against employees who report complaints or participate in an investigation. The complaints process must be designed to ensure complaints are kept confidential where possible, dealt with in a timely manner, impartially investigated, accurately documented, offered appropriate response options, and closed in a timely manner.
The amended regulations also define key terms as they relate to gender discrimination. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, employers cannot discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of gender, gender identity or gender expression. The amendments set out definitions of gender expression, gender identity, sex, sex stereotype and transgender.
Under the amended law, discrimination, harassment and retaliation protections now extend to unpaid interns and anyone else who is serving in a program that provides unpaid work or industry experience, such as apprentices. Furthermore, unpaid workers must be given reasonable accommodation for religious observances.
Sexual harassment prevention has also been updated. Employers who are required to provide sexual harassment training every two years to certain employees must now document the training and keep that documentation for a minimum of two years. Employers must also keep copies of written training materials and written questions and answers. Training must include information about the negative effects of workplace harassment and elements of abusive conduct.
“The training should specifically discuss the elements of ‘abusive conduct,’ including conduct undertaken with malice that a reasonable person would find hostile or offensive and that is not related to an employer’s legitimate business interests,” the amendments state. “Examples of abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, epithets, verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”
Where employers have violated any California discrimination or harassment law, employees may be eligible to file a lawsuit against their employer.
Yahoo Faces California Discrimination Lawsuit
San Jose, CA: Yahoo faces a California discrimination lawsuit filed by a man who alleges his firing violates California employment laws. The lawsuit, which was filed February 1, 2016, alleges the plaintiff was fired because he is male. It also alleges violations of the WARN Act and seeks various damages and back pay.
According to court documents, Gregory Anderson became a Yahoo employee working as the Managing Editor, Autos, in November 2010, which included accepting an Offer Letter and signing an Employee Confidentiality and Assignment of Inventions Agreement. On June 11, 2012, Anderson was promoted to Editorial Director of Yahoo’s Autos, Homes, Shopping, Small Business, and Travel sections. He was also offered a retention package reserved for people considered “key employees,” which Anderson took as a sign he would not be terminated without cause.
In May 2014, Anderson was chosen to attend a journalism fellowship at the University of Michigan as a representative of Yahoo. The leave for the fellowship required signatures of Anderson’s bosses, who signed off on the leave and gave Anderson consent to attend the fellowship if Anderson agreed in writing to continue his employment with Yahoo at the end of his fellowship.
Then, on November 10, 2014, while Anderson was still on leave for the fellowship, he was fired from his position. The lawsuit alleges Anderson was told by his boss that his firing was the result of data from Yahoo’s Quarterly Performance Review (QPR) procedure, which reportedly put him in the lowest five percent of Yahoo employees. At the same time Anderson was terminated, around 600 other employees were also fired based on their numbers from the QPR procedure.
“[Anderson] requested documentation of these numbers and copies of his peer reviews to rule out some mistake, but was denied any information concerning the metrics upon which his termination was supposedly based,” the lawsuit alleges.
The QPR, according to the lawsuit, involves managers rating their employees on a scale of 0.0 to 5.0. But as a second step, higher-level management was able to modify employee scores, even though they may not have had contact with the employees whose scores they were reviewing and without being required to report why they were making changes.
The lawsuit alleges that “The employees were never told their actual numeric ranking or how it had been determined, but were only informed of their Bucket ranking or that they were being terminated because of that ranking. The QPR Process therefore permitted and encouraged discrimination based on gender and any other personal bias held by management."
Additionally, Anderson alleges Yahoo’s policy was that employees who were on approved leave were not subject to the QPR process while on their leave.
Based on comments made by higher-ups at Yahoo, Anderson argues his termination was the result of intentional discrimination.
Yahoo issued a statement to Business Insider (2/1/16) about the lawsuit noting that its review process was developed “to allow employees at all levels of the company to receive meaningful, regular, and actionable feedback from others.”
The lawsuit is Anderson v. Yahoo! Inc., case number 5:16-cv-00527, in US District Court, Northern District of California San Jose Division.
California Fair Pay Act About to Take Effect
Sacramento, CA: On January 1, 2016, California’s Fair Pay Act, SB 358 (Jackson), will take effect. The bill will give more grounds for employees to challenge pay discrimination. In addition to addressing wage disparity, the bill is designed to prevent employers from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay.
California Employee Discrimination Suit Nets $4.75 Million Award
Sacramento, CA: A California employee discrimination lawsuit has resulted in a multimillion-dollar award for the plaintiff, who alleged her job termination was the result of age and gender discrimination. The plaintiff, Barbara Anderton, filed the lawsuit against Bass Underwriters in 2013 and according to the Sacramento Bee (10/15/15), recently received a $4.75 million award.
In 2013, Anderton was 61 years old and reportedly one of the highest earners at Bass Underwriters, where she worked for almost 15 years. She alleged in her lawsuit that she was fired and replaced by a younger male employee. Bass responded to the allegations saying Anderton quit her job because of a family dispute - her brother is an executive vice president at Bass Underwriters.
But a jury agreed with Anderton, and found Bass Underwriters not only discriminated against Anderton, but also harassed her and retaliated against her because she is female and 61 years old. The jury then awarded her $2.75 million in punitive damages and $2 million in compensatory damages.
A study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (and cited by BloombergBusiness [10/26/15]) suggests that age discrimination is still a widespread problem in the United States, especially for older women. The study involved three researchers sending fictional resumes for a variety of jobs, with the ages of the “workers” changed. Researchers found that the rate of callbacks was higher for younger job applicants than older ones, and the highest level of discrimination was reportedly seen in older women.
Age discrimination is illegal under state and federal laws. Employers are prohibited from making employment decisions on the basis of a person’s age or gender. But that doesn’t always stop employers from taking discriminatory actions. In such cases, employees can file an employment discrimination lawsuit against their employer.
According to court documents, that’s what Maria Sicola did when she filed a $40 million age and gender discrimination lawsuit. That lawsuit was filed in New York, but Sicola worked in the company’s California office and alleges she was fired one day before her 60th birthday and replaced with a younger male colleague. Sicola had reportedly worked for her employer for around 35 years.
Additionally, Sicola’s lawsuit alleges she was harassed by a male colleague but her employer failed to take action on her complaints, and was denied promotions and pay raises because she is a woman. In the lawsuit, Sicola alleges her employers repeatedly promoted less qualified male employees while not supporting Sicola.
Sicola’s lawsuit is Maria Sicola v. Cushman & Wakefield Inc., in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (no case number currently available).
Longtime Chef Claims Harassment in California Discrimination Lawsuit
The plaintiff in the California discrimination labor lawsuit is Enrique Marquez. He claims to have worked at Benihana in Torrance for some years - from about 1990 until March 27 of this year, or about 25 years - when various alleged affronts to California labor law caused him to quit.
Marquez maintains that in addition to requiring its chefs to provide their own knives for food preparation without reimbursement of same, the plaintiff claims he was denied meal breaks during an eight-hour shift, and forced to work off-the-clock without the necessary provision for overtime.
“Throughout his employment with defendants, plaintiff performed work for defendants and was not paid for some or all hours worked,” the complaint says. “Not only was plaintiff not paid for these additional hours he worked, but with respect to those occasions he was instructed to purchase food products from off-site markets, defendants did not reimburse plaintiff for the mileage he incurred using his personal vehicle traveling to perform the work of defendant,” in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Labor Code.
There is also a labor law discrimination aspect of his case as well.
The plaintiff asserts that during the latter years of his tenure with his place of employ, he was harassed and bullied by co-workers based on his “actual and/or perceived national origin.” At various times Marquez was perceived as living and working in the US as an illegal immigrant.
The discrimination lawsuit asserts that his employer did nothing to help quell what the plaintiff asserts as a hostile work environment. On those occasions when Marquez complained to his superiors about discrimination and harassment, he was told to stop worrying about it, or so it is alleged. “Plaintiff was severely affected and suffered significant emotional distress as a result of the hostile work environment created by his co-worker,” the complaint says.
“In fact, in response to one complaint, defendants dismissed plaintiff by simply telling him he should not worry about, or ignore, the harassment because his immigration status was secure,” the complaint says. “Despite his multiple complaints, defendants did nothing to address plaintiff’s complaints or address the increasingly troubling hostile work environment.”
The plaintiff is seeking unpaid wages and overtime wages, with prejudgment interest, plus costs and attorneys’ fees. The California discrimination lawsuit is Enrique Marquez, et al. v. Benihana National Corp., et al, Case No. BC59043Q in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.
Silicon Valley Sexual Discrimination
Since Ms. Pao filed a sex-discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins in 2012, she has received much support in the tech community, telling The Wall Street Journal (April 6, 2015) that “you can’t just hide” from the problem of workplace sexism and that Silicon Valley must continue to work on the issues brought up in her loss.
On March 27, jurors in Superior Court in San Francisco found that the venture capital company did not discriminate against Ms. Pao, who was asking for $16 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. Despite her losing the case, legal experts predict more sexual discrimination lawsuits.
Ms. Pao, currently the interim chief at the social media news site Reddit, told the Los Angeles Times that many women she didn’t know shared their own experiences with sexual discrimination, many of whom had never shared their stories with anyone else.
When it comes to gender inequality, the TV series Mad Men could be scripted in present day Silicon Valley. (Last night’s episode saw female characters Joan and Peggy endure sexual harassment at work by men behaving very badly.)
Facebook lawsuit
A former Facebook manager accused the company of discrimination, harassment and retaliation because she is a woman and of Taiwanese descent. Lawless & Lawless, the same law firm that represented Ms. Pao, brought the charges against Facebook after Chia Hong was terminated. The Los Angeles Times said the lawsuit claims Facebook officials asked Hong “why she did not stay home and take care of her children,” and regularly ignored or belittled her professional opinions at meetings where she was one of few women. According to Hong, she was replaced by a man who was less qualified and less experienced.
Twitter lawsuit
In the discrimination lawsuit against Twitter, former engineer Tina Huang makes the same claims that Ms. Pao made about Kleiner, i.e., the promotion process is unclear and is biased in favor of men. Both Facebook and Twitter said they are committed to a supportive and diverse workplace.
Statistics show otherwise. In a fall 2013 report, the US Census found that “women’s representation in computer occupations has declined since the 1990s,” with women filling just 22 percent of software developer jobs. Venture capital numbers are even lower: according to a study from Babson College, the share of women partners in venture capital firms declined to 6 percent in 2014, from 10 percent in 1999.
Lessons learned
Deborah Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University, said the Pao case “sends a powerful signal to Silicon Valley in general and the venture capital industry in particular...Defendants who win in court sometimes lose in the world outside it.”
And the International New York Times (April 1, 2015) pointed out that, after Kleiner Perkins emails were read during testimony, be careful what you write. Apparently sexist e-mails abruptly stopped circulating with the much-publicized lawsuit and another venture capital firm said they will have a human resources employee with explicit policies. Lastly, the New York Times reported that a third venture capitalist was “rethinking whether he had turned away female entrepreneurs too quickly in the past.”
All Eyes on Pao v. Kleiner et al in California Labor Lawsuit
A California labor lawsuit that has been grabbing headlines of late surrounds a former employee of a top venture capital firm. According to a summary published in The New York Times Magazine (2/25/15), Ellen Pao alleges that her former employer, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, allowed for discrimination following the end of a relationship with a co-worker.
According to the California labor code lawsuit, Pao alleges that she was pressured into having an affair with a married colleague at the firm. After breaking off the relationship, the plaintiff claims discrimination and retaliation that affected her career. Specifically, Pao suggests that colleagues excluded her from important meetings and e-mail discussions on issues important to her work performance.
The bigger issue that has onlookers and industry watchers buzzing is the suggestion by Pao that the company maintains and allows for an atmosphere of male entitlement, to the detriment of female partners.
The defendant shot back that Pao, in its view, lacked “the ability to lead others, build consensus and be a team player,” attributes the defendant claims are needed for success in the venture capital sector. The defendant also claimed that Pao received bad performance reviews.
Pao alleges her performance was adversely affected by the atmosphere of male entitlement and discrimination, which remains an affront to California and labor law.
Anonymous respondents speaking with The New York Times Magazine suggested that the workplace atmosphere is 100 percent different for men than women, with women complaining that “you can’t take for granted you’ll be taken seriously,” said one. Studies suggest that women make up just 19 percent of angel investors and 6 percent of partners at venture capital firms. This is down from 10 percent in 1999.
California labor employment law carries various tenets, statutes and regulations designed to shield workers of either gender from unwanted or unfair discrimination.
Pao is currently the interim chief executive of Reddit.
The case is Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers LLC, Case No. A136090, In the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five.
California Labor Law Protection for Discrimination and Retaliation?
Many people are afraid to file a complaint. Perhaps they will be singled out for something at a later date, even if it isn’t their fault. Perhaps they will be passed over for a promotion. And maybe they will get so worn down and so stressed out that the only option is to quit.
Juan has been working just over a year in shipping and receiving for a large warehouse. He also trains employees. Juan was hired through a temp agency a few months before the new General Manager was hired.
“My first year anniversary came up and I did the mandatory drug test along with other applicants - the same tests that the new GM had to do,” says Juan. “The difference between us is that he passed the background checks and tests and I failed, according to our branch manager. That was really weird because just before I started with this company I applied as a County Sheriff and passed everything except for a physical test. So why can I pass the County test but not pass the test for this company?”
Juan believes it is because he is Hispanic. The new GM is African American and so is the boss. Juan says that Hispanic employees are constantly harassed and belittled.
“My wife is scheduled to have a caesarean section next month so I applied for one-day leave,” Juan says. “I asked our department head and he said okay, just make sure the branch manager and warehouse manager know. When I told Harvey, the warehouse manager, he screamed at me because I ‘went over his head.’ We have an open-door policy so I have no idea why he got so upset, except to single me out.
“The next day I inadvertently got an e-mail from the branch manager that was supposed to be sent to Harvey. It said ‘Juan needs to clear the c-section with the temp agency and we need to approve or replace the employee since he is a temp.’
“But the agency already knows what is going on and they approved my day off. Now I am afraid they are going to try to find some excuse to fire me. This is so stressful and I have a baby on the way.”
Juan saved the e-mail. And he told his contact at the temp agency that he was being discriminated against. She was shocked and disgusted with the e-mail and asked Juan why she wasn’t told sooner. “I told her that I am afraid of retaliation, just like the other Hispanic employees here,” Juan explains. “I told her that only one person out of three sent here from the temp agency last month was hired - he is Harvey’s friend.
“This company is run like a frat house: If you don’t belong to Harvey’s church or know him personally, he will treat you like you are nothing. From what I heard this has happened to many employees over the years but they too are afraid of retaliation. I was told that some people did complain but he made things difficult for them, such as assign lousy hours or a shift he knows will be difficult to juggle with their personal life, just to show that he is the boss.”
Juan is hopeful that an attorney experienced with the California labor law can advise him whether or not to proceed with a California labor lawsuit. He is too afraid to call the Retaliation Complaint Unit.
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:
