The Feds Sue California over State Immigration Laws

Los Angeles, CA: It is a well-known fact that the State of California is, and has remained progressive with regard to standing up for the rights of it undocumented workers. And with good reason: immigrants, including those who don’t necessarily have their papers account for 10 percent of the State’s workforce. Removing the undocumented worker from the equation would have a dramatic and negative impact on the California economy. The State’s defense of the undocumented worker, however, puts California in the crosshairs of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), which is now suing the State of California over its immigration policies.

According to Court documents the DOJ was in a California federal court earlier this month asking a judge to invalidate three California laws protecting the undocumented worker, based on the DOJ’s view that such laws are getting in the way of federal enforcement of US immigration laws inherent with the Trump Administration.

Immigrants and undocumented workers, in general, face discrimination and harassment to a greater degree than indigenous Americans – with undocumented workers threatened with job loss and deportation, amongst other forms of harassment. In California, undocumented workers are encouraged to fight back with an undocumented worker lawsuit, if necessary – in tandem with State statutes that shield undocumented workers from unnecessary abuse through wrongful termination, or otherwise.

The US Fed v. the State of California on undocumented workers

Three California statutes in particular have infuriated the DOJ, which appeared before a US District Court Judge on March 6 in an attempt to have them quashed.

The Immigrant Worker Protection Act regulates the way private employers in California can respond to federal efforts to investigate workplace immigration law compliance, and prohibits private employers from voluntarily permitting immigration enforcement agents on any nonpublic workplaces unless that agent has a warrant.

AB 103 subjects local detention facilities to twice-yearly inspections by California’s Office of the Attorney General. Finally, the California Values Act (SB 54) prohibits state and local law enforcement officials other than people who work in correctional facilities from providing information about release dates, or other information such as home addresses of detainees.

The three statutes in question were signed into law in California within the last nine months. The feds argue that State lawmakers shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent federal statutes and thereby, preventing enforcement efforts.

“The provisions of state law at issue have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California,” the Justice Department said. “The Supremacy Clause does not allow California to obstruct the United States’ ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution. Accordingly, the provisions at issue here are invalid.”

California pledges to continue policies of fairness to immigrants

The Governor of California, Jerry Brown – long a champion of the undocumented worker – appeared amused by the federal effort and posted a tweet reminiscent of the Twitter musings of the President. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued his own statement, promising to uphold all laws.

“No matter what happens in Washington, California will stay the course and enforce all our laws and protect all our people. That’s how we keep our communities safe.”

California’s position with regard to this federal lawsuit gives pause for optimism to the undocumented worker, who will retain the freedom to fight needless abuse and harassment with the help of an undocumented worker lawyer, if necessary.

The federal lawsuit is US v the State of California et al., Case No. 2:18-at-00264, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

California Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Resort in Napa Valley

Napa Valley, CA: A wrongful termination lawsuit brought against a California resort is turning into a case of "he said, she said" in the early stages: the plaintiff suggesting he was fired from his job, while a public relations firm representing the defendant maintains the plaintiff resigned from his job voluntarily after attempts to renegotiate his terms of employment proved unsuccessful.

According to the Napa Valley Register (01/31/18), the plaintiff in the wrongful termination lawsuit is identified as Daniel Philbin (Dan). The plaintiff was employed as the Director of Facilities for Carneros Resort and Spa, located in the Napa Valley. In his capacity as Director of Facilities the plaintiff made various attempts, according to his wrongful termination lawyer, to ensure his employer complied with standards required by the American with Disabilities Act, as well as accurate reporting of water usage and the procurement of proper permits as required.

The plaintiff says he was fired out of retaliation

Philbin holds that in response to his overtures, Carneros let him go as a form of retaliation.

But that's not what Carneros says, according to the Register report.

A PR firm advocating on behalf of Carneros released a statement, suggesting that "the water issues alluded to in Dan's complaint long pre-date the current ownership. In fact, it was the new owners who brought the issues to the County's attention when they acquired the property in 2014. Since then, ownership has worked diligently and cooperatively with the County to resolve them, and think they are very close to a solution."

In sum, Carneros holds that Philbin's California wrongful termination lawsuit is without merit and is being driven by a personal agenda maintained by the plaintiff.

The defendant's advocate also held that Carneros addressed all concerns with regard to ADA issues once they were brought to the employer's attention.

Philbin's lawsuit however, disagrees with that statement. As a result in a change of ownership in 2013 much of the property has been renovated. In 2014, according to the lawsuit, the resort refused to install ramps between the deck and patio spaces, and also failed to install lifts at hot tubs and pools that would otherwise allow guests with disabilities to use those facilities.

While Carneros secured the necessary permit for the drilling of a new well in 2015, associated permits for subsequent electrical and water connections were not obtained, or so it is alleged. The plaintiff maintained there were other examples of work for which proper permits were not arranged, in spite of the plaintiff's personal overtures in his role as Director of Facilities that Carneros was duly required to obtain them.

Philbin claims he installed a new, more accurate water meter for the facility in 2013, prior to the ownership change. Three years later, the plaintiff noted an error in documents pertaining to water consumption submitted to the requisite municipality.

The plaintiff maintains all of his overtures fell on deaf ears. The lawsuit maintains that Philbin soon found himself shut out from important meetings, and things soon became convoluted after that, according to the wrongful termination lawsuit.

The defendants say the plaintiff tendered his resignation

The plaintiff had previously suggested that he focus exclusively on the resort's water issues given the importance of that portfolio, and hand the remainder of his duties to a colleague. After that proposal was rejected by the owners, Philbin was informed some weeks later that an outside vendor was being hired to manage the resort's water issues, while the plaintiff was offered the opportunity to remain with Carneros for a flat rate paid monthly.

Following a terse meeting with his immediate supervisor, identified as the CEO of minority owner Flynn Properties, the plaintiff mulled things over for about a week before accepting the flat-rate offer from his employer. Instead, according to the lawsuit, Philbin received notice that his resignation had been accepted, even though he had not issued his resignation, or so it is alleged in the wrongful termination lawsuit.

Philbin is requesting a trial by jury and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Register notes a case management conference is slated for early June.

The Carneros Resort and Spa was formerly known as the Carneros Inn. The facility is currently owned by GF Carneros Holdings, LLC, GEM Realty Capital, Inc. and Flynn Properties, Inc.

There was no specific case information available at press time. The California wrongful termination lawsuit was filed in Napa County Superior Court in December 2017.

Former Employee of NBCUniversal Media Alleges Wrongful Termination

Los Angeles, CA: A California wrongful termination lawsuit that also has overtones of sexual harassment and an inappropriate workplace environment was launched in September against NBCUniversal by a former employee of the media company.

Law360 has the lawsuit as De Marco v. NBCUniversal Media LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-07692. The plaintiff originally filed her lawsuit in California State Court, however last month the defendant had the case removed to US District Court for the Central District of California.

The plaintiff in the wrongful termination lawsuit is Gina De Marco. According to the Hollywood Reporter (11/02/17), De Marco was employed as a senior digital fulfillment specialist with a subsidiary of NBCUniversal, identified as NBCUniversal Media. She was employed by the firm, according to the lawsuit, between 2016 and August of 2017 until she was terminated from her position without just cause, or so the plaintiff asserts.

It is also suggested that the plaintiff worked from home due to what was referenced as “work restrictions,” although the particular restrictions were not specified.

De Marco’s wrongful termination lawsuit is rooted in alleged unprofessional conduct on the part of De Marco’s direct supervisor, who is alleged to have created a hostile work environment for De Marco. Various statements are attributed to the supervisor; statements and comments which De Marco asserts were inappropriate and lent themselves to a hostile work environment.

It is unclear if such comments were made on NBCUniversal premises, or directed to De Marco at her home workspace via email or other electronic means. The Hollywood Reporter noted that De Marco raised her concerns with the human resources department of NBCUniversal, but asserts there was no adequate investigation undertaken, nor was De Marco assigned a different direct supervisor.

Her lawsuit asserts De Marco, in June of this year, suffered “mental and/or physical disabilities” resulting from alleged harassment that proved to limit her personal and professional activities.

In her wrongful termination lawsuit, De Marco notes that she was briefly placed on paid sick leave before she was terminated from her position.

“On or about August 9, 2017, defendant NBCUniversal…wrongfully terminated plaintiff De Marco’s employment as a result of: her complaints about [her direct supervisor]; her complaints about the post-complaint harassment and retaliation that she was subjected; and due to her disabilities and need for accommodation including, but not limited to, leave,” De Marco claims in her lawsuit.

De Marco also asserted that her termination resulted from De Marco having her employment moved from her home to a “non-remote” position, although the plaintiff argues that she had no opportunity to accept the office-based position offered to her.
 
The defendant released the following statement: “NBCUniversal has a longstanding commitment to safeguard equal employment opportunities and to providing a safe working environment in which everyone is treated with respect and dignity.”

Plaintiff Alleging Wrongful Termination, Discrimination Agrees to Arbitration

Los Angeles, CA: A former player representative with a sports agency who brought a wrongful termination lawsuit against her former employer has agreed to participate in arbitration instead after the defendant introduced a motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Joyce Li, in Court documents, said she would not oppose arbitration, and the motion was granted (Joyce Li v. Independent Sports & Entertainment LLC, Case No. BC660219, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles).

Li had filed a lawsuit citing wrongful termination against her former employer, Independent Sports & Entertainment LLC (ISE), an agency that represents professional athletes. Hired in 2013, Li alleges she was performing similar work as her male counterparts, but did not enjoy equal pay or other advantages of her position as director of operations for the basketball division of ISE.

Unlike her male counterparts, the plaintiff asserts, Li was denied any opportunity to participate in fee splits or bonuses associated with the NBA (National Basketball Association) contracts negotiated by the agency. “The basketball division continued to generate significant income for the company because of the NBA clients, several of whom LI personally managed, essentially performing the same work as many other male agents in the division,” Li stated in her wrongful termination lawsuit.

Li noted that she had acted as agent for, and managed other NBA players before joining ISE and undertook ‘agent’ duties at ISE but was denied the job title of ‘agent,’ and comparable remuneration to that of her male colleagues.

Li also asserts she was subject to gender discrimination. In her claim, Li noted that she drew heat for violation of a purported dress code by wearing mid-thigh-length shorts in the work environment, while her male counterparts were not reprimanded for wearing shorts, T-shirts and other casual wear in the office.

Her tenure with ISE came to an end in December, 2016 when Li was told she was no longer needed, as she lacked any direct clients of her own.

Li had originally sought a jury trial when she filed her wrongful termination lawsuit in May. However, ISE said in a July filing with the Court that Li had signed an arbitration agreement when she was hired, and thus petitioned the Court to compel arbitration.

Earlier this month, Li informed the Court she would not oppose arbitration. The defendants petition to compel arbitration was formally granted by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Teresa A. Beaudet September 21.

In a related matter, the Toni J. Jaramilla law firm announced it intends to initiate a separate, representative action under California’s Private Attorney General Act against the agency on behalf of all of female employees of ISE, alleging pay discrimination based on gender.

Jaramilla represents Li in her wrongful termination lawsuit.

“I believe it’s a rampant problem in the sports agency industry and particularly at ISE,” Jaramilla said during a phone interview with Law360 (09/21/17). “Women are not given the title of agents and that allows them to pay them less than men.”

Proposition 209 was initiated as an amendment to the California Constitution in 1996 that prohibits public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity. As such, Proposition 209 would not cover Li as ISE is a private firm. However, there is recourse for Li under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of gender for employers with a staff compliment of at least 15.

Do You Have a Wrongful Termination Case in California?

Sacramento, CA: For those unaware, or having forgotten the basic tenets of employment within the State of California, it is useful to know that California is a so-called ‘at-will’ state. The employee works for his or her employer by virtue of their own free will, and can also resign from their position at any time, without advance notice. Employers, in turn, can fire an employee on the spot without warning. This can sometimes trigger a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The employer in California – for those not conversant with California employment laws, or requiring a refresher – benefits from the same advantages of immediacy as the employee. In California, the same ‘at-will’ statutes that allow an employee to up and quit without giving the standard two weeks’ notice, also allows an employer to terminate an employee at any time and for any reason without warning or due process.

In other words, the employee could come into work and simply be told they’re being let go – without warning. “You’re fired.” Just like that. Yes, there needs to be a reason and that information should be duly shared with the terminated employee. But almost anything goes, here. A perpetually rumpled employee could be fired for not knowing how to iron their shirts properly. Admittedly, that’s somewhat of an exaggeration, and combined with other potential examples of undue harassment, the employee may have a case for wrongful termination.

Be that as it may, it is quite possible to succeed in the State of California with a wrongful termination lawsuit. It’s important, however to be aware of the criteria that qualifies for a wrongful termination case, given the ‘at-will’ status of the State.

The most compelling reason to contact a wrongful termination lawyer is if an employee is fired for what is known as a ‘protected characteristic’ under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), amongst other employment laws that offer protections.
Those protected characteristics include age, race, gender, national origin, disability, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and religion.

The fired employee may also have a wrongful termination claim for experiencing harassment on the job, or failure on the part of the employer to undertake the job termination according to guidelines originating with existing workplace protocol or guidance in an existing employee handbook.

Were an employer to terminate an employee unwilling to participate in an illegal act on behalf of the employer, the fired employee likely has a case for wrongful termination – as does the employee who is coerced to resign due to intolerable working conditions about which the employer was aware.

It is also against the law for an employer to fire an employee for participating in a workplace discrimination investigation.

The take-away message here is that it’s both easier for the employee to leave a job, and easier for the employer to terminate an employee given California’s status as an at-will State.

That said, there are fewer defendable reasons for justified job termination in California than other states with a longer, more involved list – so it’s a bit easier to discern whether, or not an employee has been terminated wrongfully.

If you feel that you have lost your job in California unjustly, it’s advisable to consult a wrongful termination lawyer to ensure you have a case, and that it is handled properly.

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.

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.

Wrongful Termination Plaintiff Suffers Heart Attack

Los Angeles, CA: There is yet another development in the story surrounding a California litigant having brought a wrongful termination lawsuit. Former tennis commentator Doug Adler, who had served as a tennis analyst and commentator for ESPN before he was fired, has suffered a heart attack he blames on the stress associated with the legal dispute in which he is embroiled with his former employer.

Adler – based in California – had been working the Australian Open on January 18 of this year when he dispensed a comment relating to the aggressive and combative play of tennis sensation Venus Williams. Adler came under fire for observing that Williams was putting “the guerilla effect” on her opponent, and maintains in his wrongful termination lawsuit that ‘guerilla’ is a term that has been used previously to describe aggressive play.

However, viewers and listeners heard ‘gorilla’ in a classic example of two words spelled differently and holding very different meanings, yet sounding remarkably similar when spoken. Given that Williams is African-American, viewers accused Adler of uttering a racial slur. Rather than back their analyst, ESPN mandated an on-air apology from Adler the following day. However the criticism kept coming – and two days after the controversial utterance, Adler was fired.

The former All-American got himself a wrongful termination lawyer, and sued.

Last month, the New York Post carried a report from Fox News (03/02/17) that Adler had suffered a heart attack due, the plaintiff claims, to stress associated with his job termination and the continuing backlash over a comment he allegedly did not make. ESPN, rather than defending their analyst over the comment, terminated his employment instead.

“By the way ESPN chose to handle this non-issue, they effectively branded me, my character and my reputation for the rest of my life,” Adler told Fox News in February.

Adler “has lost future opportunities in the sporting and business worlds because no one will hire a ‘racist,’” the lawsuit said. “He has suffered serious emotional distress and harm because he has been falsely accused of being the worst thing imaginable, and something he clearly isn’t and never has been, all over the use of the word ‘guerilla', a word that is commonly used in tennis.”

It is not known if his subsequent heart attack, which came after his wrongful termination lawsuit was filed, will figure into the litigation and if so, how. According to Fox News, Adler is claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and economic hardship. The suit also names ESPN Senior Vice President Mark Gross and Vice President Jamie Reynolds. It seeks unspecified damages.

Would those damages now include medical costs? Time will tell.

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.

‘Guerrilla’ Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Heads Back to State Court

Los Angeles, CA: An update now on the California wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former ESPN tennis commentator allegedly fired from his position with the network over the use of a word plaintiff Doug Adler claims he never used.

Adler – a tennis expert, former All-American player and a commentator on behalf of ESPN for numerous tennis events – was covering the 2017 Australian Open and was describing the aggressive style of play exhibited by competitor Venus Williams. Adler claims he used the word ‘guerrilla,’ a term Adler says has been used previously to describe aggressive tennis.

Viewers, however, heard ‘gorilla’ and assumed Adler was using a demeaning term to lash out at Williams, who is African American. ESPN received a number of complaints and negative backlash. Adler was fired. He alleges wrongful termination, and claims the network was not sympathetic given the reality the two words – spelled differently and meaning two different things – sound exactly the same when spoken.

Adler filed his wrongful termination lawsuit in state court in California in February. Earlier this month, on March 16 the lawsuit was moved to federal court on grounds that Adler and the defendants hailed from two different states, thus giving the federal district court jurisdiction to hear the case. ESPN Productions Inc., the defendant, also held an assumption that damages sought by the plaintiff would exceed the $75,000 ceiling observed by the state court for amounts-in-controversy.

However, US District Court Judge Percy Anderson didn’t feel there was sufficient grounds in the defendant’s statement that co-defendant Mark Gross and Jamie Reynolds – two vice-presidents of ESPN – resided in Connecticut “upon information and belief” of ESPN. The network is also based on Connecticut.

According to Judge Anderson, “upon information and belief” was an insufficient statement to qualify, for the purposes of the Court and the litigation at hand that Gross and Reynolds did, indeed reside in New England.

“The notice of removal’s allegations, alleged on information and belief, are insufficient to establish the citizenship,” the ruling states, adding that a party should be able to allege “affirmatively” the citizenship of the relevant parties.

Given that diversity jurisdiction could not be invoked, the wrongful termination lawsuit goes back to state court in California.

Adler has not specified amounts for damages and recovery he seeks within his California wrongful termination lawsuit. ESPN, for its part worked up a figure of at least $148,000 based on a calculation estimating lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages and legal fees.

The wrongful termination lawyer representing Adler noted in a statement that one cannot place a value on one’s reputation – since destroyed, the lawsuit claims – when an employer imposes a false label of ‘racist’ followed by termination of employment over an “innocuous comment,” the statement said.

While covering the match and describing Williams’ aggressive play, Adler stated, “She misses her first serve and Venus is all over her. You see Venus move in, and put the guerrilla effect on...charging [opponent Stefanie Voegele].”

Adler maintains he said ‘guerrilla.’ Viewers, however, heard ‘gorilla’ and assumed Adler was uttering a racial slur against the accomplished tennis star. The plaintiff was made to apologize on-air the next day, only to be fired one day after that.

Compliance Lawsuit Settlement Sent Back to the Drawing Board

Los Angeles, CA: A proposed settlement worth $2.2 million that would have put an end to a compliance lawsuit against Google Inc. has been scuppered after a judge in a California court struck down the settlement. US District Judge Lucy Koh indicated in her ruling that the benefits to the class derived from the settlement were “difficult to understand.”

Plaintiff Daniel Matera launched the putative class action lawsuit against Google in September of 2015 with regard to allegations that Gmail, an entity of Google, violated the Wiretap Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act through the interception of emails in an effort to create user profiles for the purposes of targeted advertising.

The lawsuit proposed not to represent individuals who were actual users and clients of Gmail, but rather those individuals who did not maintain Gmail accounts and were not users of Gmail, but communicated with Gmail users and were at risk of being targeting for advertising by association.

In addition to suing for damages, the compliance lawsuit sought to have Gmail brought into compliance with the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, as well as the Wiretap Act.

The compliance lawsuit settlement, according to court documents, would have encumbered Google to cease and desist the processing of incoming email content for advertising purposes up to a certain plateau, and by the same token refrain from undertaking similar scanning and monitoring of outgoing mail.

However, it appeared that the only benefit to class members would be the changes to Gmail processing and bringing the processes into compliance with the various privacy acts. Meanwhile the $2.2 million, it appears, would go to class counsel.

Judge Koh found the agreement “very vague” and unclear “at best” with regard to what was specifically expected of Google, and the changes that would ensue for the benefit of class members. The judge also opined the language in the agreement was “difficult to understand” and failed to afford any insight into the compliance changes Google would have to undertake, and whether or not the defendant would be afforded the right to continue scanning some content for “dual purposes.”

“In sum, based on the parties’ current filings, the court cannot conclude that the settlement is ‘fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable,’” Judge Koh wrote.

The case is Daniel Matera v. Google Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-04062, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.