Wrongful Termination News
California Wrongful Dismissal Lawsuit in “Stark” Contrast
Los Angeles, CA: A California wrongful dismissal lawsuit alleging wrongful termination by a former executive with the Tri-City Medical Center is intertwined amidst a host of allegations involving violations to Stark Law. The latter, which is defined as a limitation on certain physician referrals, has cost the Tri-City Medical Center in excess of $3 million to resolve violations.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) had been investigating various alleged violations involving agreements for physician compensation and other arrangements viewed as excessive, unbalanced and “appeared not to be commercially reasonable, or for fair market value,” according to a DOJ statement. In announcing the resolution agreement with the DOJ, Tri-City Medical Center noted the management team that was in place when the aforementioned arrangements were procured and put together is no longer at the helm.
One member of that executive team, former chief compliance officer Steven D. Stein, is continuing with a California wrongful dismissal lawsuit that began as a complaint filed in 2012 with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The original complaint asserted numerous allegations, including “retaliation for asserting, or refusing to condone or not report, continuing violations of the Stark Law.”
It appears that Stein may have blown the whistle on the violations to Stark Law, which were numerous at the time - over and above some 92 arrangements with other physicians that failed to qualify for exceptions from Stark Law. Written agreements were found to have expired, were lacking signatures or were missing altogether.
That complaint escalated into a California wrongful termination lawsuit against Tri-City Medical Center, a 400-bed hospital located near San Diego. The lawsuit makes no reference to Stark Law or whistleblowing relative to the issue.
In a statement issued when the settlement with the DOJ was announced, Tri-City said that “The hospital executives that oversaw the contracting are no longer affiliated with Tri-City Medical Center,” the statement said.
“It is unfortunate to have inherited this longstanding legal issue, but we are pleased to have brought it to a successful conclusion,” the statement added.
Amongst the former Tri-City executives to have had the alleged Stark Law violations occur on their watch was former CEO Larry Anderson. He is no longer with the hospital.
There was no reference to any other California wrongful dismissal lawsuit other than that of Stein. The total value of the settlement agreement between Tri-City and the DOJ was reported as $3.3 million.
The California wrongful dismissal lawsuit is Stein v. Tri-City Healthcare District et al, No. 3:2012cv02524 in US District Court, Southern District of California.
Animal Welfare Complaints Result in Wrongful Termination Lawsuit
Vallejo, CA: Concerns about animal welfare at a Six Flags park in California have reportedly resulted in a wrongful termination lawsuit against the theme park operator. Michael and Holley Muraco filed the California wrongful termination lawsuit because they say they were retaliated against for reporting Six Flags for poor animal care.
According to court documents (found online at NBC News), Michael Muraco had been the Director of Animal Care for Six Flags since 2007. At the time he was hired, Michael reportedly told his supervisors that upgrades were required to address animal care, including poor water quality and public safety. Among his concerns were that dangerous animals could escape enclosures and dolphins were at risk for respiratory illness. Meanwhile, Holley Muraco is a Zoological Reproduction Physiologist, who signed a five-year contract with Six Flags in 2012 to assist with reproduction of animals.
Michael claims that despite his repeated warnings and complaints, steps were not taken to address his concerns until matters became serious, such as when an elephant was caught climbing over an enclosure.
“Michael Muraco complained, inter alia, that dolphins were addicted to unnecessary drugs, that marine mammals were not being fed proper diets, and that the Park was not putting enough salt in the salt water,” court documents allege. “The failure to address these problems was extremely detrimental to the health and welfare of the animals at Six Flags.”
Holley Muraco, meanwhile, reported issues that she felt caused an “abnormally high mortality rate for baby animals,” including dolphin water that was not properly temperature controlled, dolphins being given daily steroids to mask chronic illnesses and abusive dolphin training techniques. An investigation by the USDA following the deaths of two baby dolphins concluded the Muracos were correct in their concerns, and cited Six Flags for some of its infractions.
Ultimately, Michael and Holley Muraco were terminated from their positions and were reportedly told they were terminated because they endangered animals at Six Flags. In their lawsuit, Michael and Holley Muraco allege they were retaliated against for reporting legal violations at Six Flags.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Workplace Health and Safety Act, and public policy. Furthermore, both Michael and Holley allege defamation on the part of various Six Flags employees. Six Flags issued a news release in which the company said the lawsuit is without merit.
California Looks to Abolish Forced Arbitration
Arbitration agreements - whether with employees or customers - force a claimant to go through an arbitration process to settle any complaints. In some cases, arbitration can be preferable to a lawsuit. Among the benefits of undergoing arbitration are that arbitration tends to be a quicker and less expensive process than a lawsuit.
Arbitration itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but if the worker signs an agreement to undergo an arbitration process designed and paid for by the employer, the employee has no recourse if the arbitrator - who might be paid for by the employer - finds in favor of the employer. Further, employees might be denied jobs if they refuse to agree to the arbitration.
In other words, some employers might force employees to take part in a complaints system that could be biased in favor of the employer.
Bill AB-465 was recently passed by the California Senate, in a bid to curb this sort of situation. Ultimately, Bill AB-465 - titled “Contracts against public policy” and drafted by Roger Hernandez - would make it illegal for employers to force employees to sign these arbitration agreements.
“This bill would prohibit any person from requiring another person, as a condition of employment, to agree to the waiver of any legal right, penalty, forum, or procedure for any employment law violations,” the preamble to the bill reads. “The bill would prohibit a person from threatening, retaliating against, or discriminating against another person based on a refusal to agree to such waiver, and would provide that any such waiver required from an employee or potential employee as a condition of employment or continued employment is unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable.”
Under the bill, any person who waived his or her rights would have to do so voluntarily. Further, the person or organization hoping to enforce such a waiver would have to prove that the waiver was given knowingly and voluntarily. Employees would be able to waive their rights as a condition of employment only if those employees had legal counsel to negotiate the terms of the arbitration agreement.
If AB-465 passes, it would affect agreements dated on or after January 1, 2016.
Arbitration Agreement “Unconscionable” in California Wrongful Termination Case
According to court documents, plaintiff Julie A. Carlson worked as the office manager for Home Team Pest Defense Inc. in Antioch, California. After five months on the job in 2013, Carlson was fired.
Carlson sued Home Team in 2014 alleging wrongful termination, harassment, breach of an employment agreement and other claims. Home Team, for its part, moved to compel the case to arbitration. That’s because Carlson had signed - allegedly under duress - an arbitration agreement at the time of her hiring.
The plaintiff had objected to signing the arbitration agreement, given that in her view it was too broad. However, her prospective employer applied a “take-it-or-leave-it” stance to the agreement, requiring that Carlson duly sign the agreement or else the offer of employment would be withdrawn.
The trial court denied Home Team’s application to compel arbitration in the case based on the signed agreement. The appellate panel upheld the lower court’s findings in the California wrongful termination case.
“Carlson was required to sign the agreement without time for reflection, and despite her objections to signing it after being told that a copy of the dispute resolution policy was not available to her for review,” the First Appellate District wrote in the 24-page published opinion. “We agree with the trial court that a high degree of procedural unconscionability accompanied the signing of the agreement in this case.”
The agreement was also one-sided, the appellate court noted. While the plaintiff would have been denied all access to the courts for any of her non-statutory claims, the agreement exempted the defendant from having to arbitrate its most likely claims against Carlson. In other words, the defendant wielded all the power and opportunity for redress against the plaintiff, leaving the plaintiff at the short end of an unbalanced playing field.
“We conclude that the trial court’s findings that the agreement was one-sided, objectively unreasonable, and lacked mutuality was supported by substantial evidence,” the opinion states.
The arbitration issues now settled, the California wrongful termination case can move forward. The case is Julie A. Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense Inc. et al., Case No A142219, in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District.
Former Employees Sue California Radio Station for Wrongful Termination
The pair claims they were fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle on alleged fraud at the station, together with allegations the station had been employing illegal immigrants.
The defendants in the California labor lawsuit, Grupo Radio Centro LA LCC, deny the charges.
Plaintiffs are Sean O’Neill and Rosa Ambriz, the former vice president/general manager and office manager respectively. O’Neill had come to the radio station - the call letters were not disclosed - in January 2014 after having signed a four-year contract. He was terminated in August of last year, seven months into his contract. Ambriz was laid off from her position at the time O’Neill was fired.
The pair accuses Grupo of wrongful termination under the California labor code after they spoke out against alleged Nielsen ratings fraud and so-called “payola” and “plugola” - forms of payment and incentives to broadcast and/or promote products illicitly. There were also allegations the station had hired some employees and independent contractors that were not legally authorized to work in the US.
According to their California and labor law action, “[Grupo] took retaliatory and adverse actions against plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, subjecting plaintiffs to ongoing hostility in the work environment, subjecting plaintiffs to intolerable working conditions…and wrongfully terminating [the plaintiffs],” the complaint says.
Grupo, through its legal representatives, countered that O’Neill was fired due to missed sales goals, as well as allegations that he harassed employees and underperformed.
The four-count suit alleges violations of California Labor Code, breach of contract, wrongful termination and defamation, and seeks damages, interest and costs. O’Neill is attached to all four counts, whereas Ambriz is associated specifically with wrongful termination and violations under the California labor code.
A co-defendant in the case has been identified as Ricardo Sanchez, who is alleged to have written a memo dated July 8, 2014 to O’Neill that included “demeaning and defamatory remarks,” or so it is alleged. The e-mail is alleged to have accused O’Neill of creating low morale among sales staff, and accusing O’Neill’s department of showing poor sales performance. The e-mail also said that clients felt uncomfortable negotiating with O’Neill, and Sanchez accused O’Neill of “destroying” the station, or so it is alleged.
The case is Sean O Neill et al v. Grupo Radio Centro LA LLC et al, case number 2:15-cv-06116, in the US District Court for the Central District of California.
Manager Who Was Injured While Stopping Robbery at Rite Aid Recovers $3.7 million
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury ruled in the case of Robert Leggins against Rite Aid Corporation, which had employed Leggins since 1985.
After more than 20 years of exemplary performance, Leggins was injured in 2007 while attempting to stop a robbery at his store. The injury required several surgeries and a number of medical leaves and made it difficult for Leggins to lift, push or pull heavy objects. He still performed these tasks but with pain.
Escalating and repeated harassment
In his complaint, Leggins charged that in the years following his injury he endured escalating and repeated harassment and discrimination based on his disability. For example, he was subjected repeatedly to racial slurs like “I can get your old black ass fired” by his supervisors, managers, and directors, who also engaged in intentional actions that resulted in Leggins being treated less favorably after he returned to work from his neck surgery.
His lawyer, Carney Shegerian of Shegerian & Associates, Inc., in Santa Monica, detailed the series of increasingly discriminatory actions, including the fact that his direct supervisor harassed and discriminated against him and often maliciously forced him to perform physically challenging tasks when he was in pain.
He explained to the court how he endured racial slurs from co-workers, was told, “I can get your old black ass fired” and was ignored and further criticized and harassed when he complained to supervisors of these and other derogatory statements.
Fired on pretext
Ultimately, in 2013, after enduring years of steady harassment and discriminatory behavior and having multiple requests to be transferred to a different store rejected and ignored, Leggins was suspended for closing his store at 5:30 p.m. on New Year’s Day, despite the fact that he had received permission from his manager to close early.
A month later, Rite Aid terminated Leggins after 27 years of employment.
Shegerian and Leggins explained to the court how Leggins’ disability, and complaints of harassment and discrimination, and need for medical leaves were substantial motivating reasons for the termination.
As a direct result of the wrongful termination and discriminatory and harassing behavior of his former employers, Leggins suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish.
Employers on notice
The jury ruled unanimously in favor of Leggins on all counts, including wrongful termination, disability discrimination, retaliation for making complaints of harassment and discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination, among other claims.
With the help of Shegerian & Associates, Leggins will now receive compensation for his suffering. The breakdown of the money that will be awarded includes $213,213 for past economic loss; $1,055,915 for future economic loss; $1,500,000 for past non-economic loss; $1,000,000 for future non-economic loss; and $5,000,000 in punitive damages, for a grand total of $8,769,128.
“Hopefully this verdict and the justice served in Mr. Leggins’ case will put all employers on notice that they simply cannot discriminate against employees for any reason - not based on race, on age, because of disabilities - not for any reason,” said Shegerian.
Two Very Different California Labor Code Lawsuits
The case is Wilemon v. Intercontinental Exchange Inc., Case No. GCG-15-544667, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco.
According to court records, Wilemon served as a managing director of NYSE Euronext from 2009 through 2014, and was often sought out by media such as Fox News and Al Jazeera to comment on behalf of the NYSE. According to court records, in February of 2014 Wilemon was contacted by a producer associated with the satirical program, The Daily Show, and was asked if he would be interested in presenting his views on the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Wilemon, according to the California labor lawsuit, agreed to participate - although he specified he would not be representing the views of the NYSE or, for that matter, Fox News. He did agree, however, to be identified as a “Fox Business Guest Commentator,” and was aware of The Daily Show’s capacity to edit several hours of footage into what became a seven-minute satirical segment.
Even though Wilemon did not represent the views of his employer, NYSE’s parent company Intercontinental Exchange Inc. was not happy with the outcome and terminated Wilemon’s employment in violation of the California labor code, or so Wilemon alleges in his California labor lawsuit.
“Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment due to defendants’ own antipathy for the political message of The Daily Show, which is widely regarded as an influential progressive political platform and defendants’ assumption that their financial industry clients shared defendants’ said antipathy,” the suit says. Wilemon seeks damages not less than $150,000.
That’s how the cookie crumbles
Meanwhile, in an unrelated California labor employment law case, the Office of the California Labor Commissioner has cited a Vista-based wholesaler for numerous violations to California and labor law, including allegations of wage theft.
According to a news release (3/20/15) from Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su, Cookies con Amore denied various employees overtime pay, rest periods and meal breaks. Su also alleged that Cookies con Amore forced some of the 73 workers affected to sign a statement agreeing to the practices that amounted to wage theft violations.
It is alleged that between October 2013 and December of last year employees were made to work 10 hours a day or longer, but paid straight time without any provision for overtime pay, in an alleged violation of California labor employment law. Within that time, it is alleged that employees were given only a single, 30-minute break.
It is alleged that some workers were mandated to sign a written consent, agreeing to working conditions and circumstances that the Office of the Labor Commissioner held as substandard. If they did not agree to sign the waiver, it is alleged that employees were told to seek employment elsewhere.
“California workers deserve to be paid fairly and fully for their labor, and employers who deny them their wages and benefits will be held accountable,” said Christine Baker, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). The Labor Commissioner’s Office, also known as the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), is a division within DIR.
“We appreciate the brave workers who cooperated with our investigation and the California Rural Legal Assistance, a critical partner to us in helping workers come forward and report such violations,” Su added.
Cookies con Amore supplies gourmet cookies to Whole Foods, gourmet grocery stores and food outlets.
With regard to the foregoing violations to California state labor laws, Cookies con Amore was assessed $120,665 including $51,444 in overtime wages, and $69,221 in rest and meal time periods, which will be paid to the affected workers, and an additional $63,800 in civil penalties.
California Labor Attorney: Pregnancy Discrimination Not Rare
According to Broslavsky, his client was an employee at a Walgreens in Hollywood when she became pregnant. The client worked at the Upmarket Café, performing customer service duties, making sandwiches and smoothies, and cleaning up.
A few months after this incident, Broslavsky’s client became pregnant. Initially, Broslavsky says, she was afraid to tell her boss, concerned that the previous termination had been because of her coworker’s pregnancy. Eventually, however, she had to disclose her pregnancy. When she was around six months pregnant, she was allegedly taken into the Loss Prevention Officer’s office and accused of taking drugs.
“They wanted her to sign a statement that she took drugs but she refused, saying she did not use drugs and especially had not done so while she was pregnant,” Broslavsky says. “Even though she refused to sign the statement, she offered to take a drug test but they said no to the test. They continued to try to convince her to sign the statement and she continued to refuse, so they sent her home, suspended her and told her she’d be investigated.”
According to Broslavsky, a week after her suspension, his client phoned her employers and was told she was still under investigation. She then went back to the store and was allegedly told she was fired for creating a hostile work environment. She very quickly found a lawyer and filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination against her employers. Broslavsky says that the lawsuit is still in the early stages and he has witnesses who will testify his client was fired for being pregnant.
Unfortunately, Broslavsky also says pregnancy discrimination complaints are not rare. In fact, he’s working on other cases alleging pregnancy discrimination. One positive is that if there is some evidence someone was fired for pregnancy, the burden is on the employer to prove there was another reason for the firing.
It is important for employees to remember that just because they work in an at-will state, that does not mean their employer can fire them for discriminatory reasons. In such cases, lawsuits can be filed against employers alleging the termination violates employment laws.
Broslavsky’s client is seeking damages for lost income, wages and emotional distress. Given the circumstances of her case, she is not seeking reinstatement to her job.
Age Discrimination Grounds for California Labor Lawsuit
Even though California is an “at will” state (meaning that you can be fired at any time, for any reason, unless that reason is illegal), under California and federal employment laws employers cannot fire someone for age discrimination if the person is at least 40 years old.
Suzy says that her supervisor started asking her a few years ago when she was going to retire, even though everyone told her that she was the best organizer the union had. “I was an external organizer, I knocked on doors to get people to join the SEIU local 521 union,” she says. “The union comprises 2.5 million members nationwide and here in the valley about 80,000 members. I recruited service employees, from social and mental health workers to child care providers to janitors.”
Suzy was involved in a car crash at work and was diagnosed with whiplash, but after just a week off she was told in an e-mail from her supervisor that if she didn’t return to work by a certain date she would be terminated.
“Unbelievably I got into another car crash just a few weeks after returning to work. I was driving but I wasn’t at fault either time and that is on the record. This time I asked for PTSD treatment because I was afraid to drive. To make a long story short, Workers Compensation sent me to their doctor who said I was ready to go back to work, against my doctor’s orders.
“I wasn’t expecting at all to be fired. I just got a letter that said my position was terminated and I had to move my belongings from my desk or they would do it for me. And they said my health insurance was soon to be terminated; all I could do was sign up for COBRA, which would cost me $3,000 per month. I still have to figure out how to get my pension.”
Suzy believes she was fired because of her age and her medical bills. On top of her Workers Compensation claim for back and neck injuries and now PTSD, she is also diabetic: combine that with her age and Suzy believes her union now considered her a liability rather than an asset.
“What organizers do is very hard work and I typically worked 60-80 hours per week; I was paid salary and never got paid California overtime, nor was I expecting to get compensated because I signed a contract. I expect my union to follow their contract and the California labor code - they should know better. I heard that I was replaced by someone in her 30s and that is a sure sign of age discrimination.”
After Suzy found out that she was replaced by someone more than 30 years younger, her next step was to file a California Labor Lawsuit. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, age discrimination charges have soared since 2008, up to 25,000 more complaints a year.
Age discrimination claims have been referred to as “a vampire lawsuit - an emotional energy eater.” But filing a wrongful termination suit can hold former employers liable for their illegal behavior and get the compensation you deserve.
Recently a former maintenance worker (over 55 years of age) filed a California wrongful termination suit. He suffered an injury at work - where he had been employed for 25 years - and his doctor restricted his lifting to less than 50 pounds. The company was OK with that but a few years later his hours were cut. In his lawsuit, the employee said he was fired based on his age and disabilities. He claims that age discrimination was the only reason he was terminated from his job. The company, on the other hand, denies any wrongdoing. The man is asking for damages for lost wages, punitive damages, cost of the suit damages, attorney’s fees and other unspecified damages.
In February 2014, a 66-year-old man was awarded $26 million by a Los Angeles jury that determined he was discriminated against and harassed based upon his age by his supervising managers at Staples. Bobby Dean Nickel was 64 when Staples fired him, despite receiving excellent job reviews for nine years. In his lawsuit Nickel claimed that his mangers wanted to discharge older, higher paid employees, and that he was the butt of jokes at staff meetings, often called an “old coot” and “old goat.”
Nickel stuck to his guns and refused to resign. The situation worsened: false accusations and more harassment came from his manager and co-workers, and he was suspended for taking a 68 cent bell pepper from the company cafeteria, according to the lawsuit. And a receptionist told Nickel she was ordered by management to provide a false statement about his conduct but she refused to do so. Nickel’s lawyer, Carney Shegerian, said, “This verdict and the justice served will hopefully put employers on notice that they cannot discriminate against employees based on age.”
Suzy is looking forward to her day in court…
Bullying Has to Stop
If not for Craig being pro-active, he wouldn’t be able to collect unemployment insurance. His boss, the owner of the trucking company, accused Craig of misconduct and fired him. Initially Unemployment Insurance denied his claim but he went before an impartial unemployment Administration Law judge who sided with him.
“That was one notch in my favor and I was able to collect backpay, but I still haven’t been paid for the week I worked, and even more important, this guy shouldn’t get away with his bullying,” says Craig. “I only worked one week for him and it was probably the worst week of my life.
“I had a delivery to make in Colorado but his truck kept breaking down before I even left. I called him a number of times but he refused to help. I called him several times again to provide tire chains when I encountered snow and ice, but he refused. Clearly it was now up to me to get the truck safe and legal for the road - I am a professional driver and I know what safety measures need to be in place. I bought chains for the truck but he didn’t reimburse me. One notch in his favor.”
When his boss became intimidating and profane over the phone, Craig called the federal Department of Transportation but he could only leave a message. (Someone returned his call - a few days ago - but Craig has yet to follow through.) “I don’t know if he singled me out, I wasn’t there long enough to know anyone besides the mechanic, and I got along fine with him,” adds Craig.
When Craig arrived in Colorado, the truck broke down, again. He called the owner, but instead of helping, he blasted Craig, saying it was his fault. Craig managed to get the truck repaired, again on his dime. “I was late getting to my delivery destination because of this and the traffic was really bad so I missed the pickup,” Craig explains. “Then things got weird. I got a call from my girlfriend. The boss had called her and said I had stolen the truck. I immediately called 911 and they reassured me that the truck had not been stolen. A few days after he fired me for being late, I got a call from a total stranger, saying he was going to cuff me for stealing the truck.
“I believe my constitutional rights were violated because he bullied and threatened me. Since this incident happened, I have been researching bullying in the workplace. I looked into federal and California labor laws and discovered a bullying advocate movement. I just want to work, I am not looking for money and I don’t want to be on unemployment. But I do want this guy to stop bullying. The workers of America don’t deserve to be treated this way.”
Unfortunately, the State of California has no law in place to prohibit bullying - a form of harassment - in the workplace. It is legal to harass an employee or co-worker until the job becomes unbearable and the worker becomes ill. Bullied workers often wind up with post-traumatic stress disorder and worse; occupational stress can lead to physical illness such as anxiety, high blood pressure and coronary heart disease.
Other states are leading the fight against bullying, so people like Craig are hopeful that California won’t be far behind. For instance, the National Association of Government Employees Local 282 in Massachusetts has been one of the first unions in the country to include an anti-bullying clause in collective bargaining agreements.
Also leading the charge is Gary Namie, a social psychologist who co-founded the Workplace Bullying Institute in 1997. He says the economic downturn has made bullying even worse and argues that passage of the laws would give employers more incentive to crack down on bad behavior in the workplace.
In the meantime, Craig might attend a rally with the California Healthy Workplace Advocates, who say “We are here because Bullying Breaks Hearts.” Their mission is to “Raise Public Awareness and Compel our State to Correct and Prevent Abusive Work Environment Through Legislation.”
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:
