Articles Posted in California Employment Law

Published on:

Where is the dividing line between an efficient money-making model and a pyramid scheme? That’s the question that may be answered in a new lawsuit filed against clothing company LuLaRoe.

Pyramid-Scheme-122597965-300x225LuLaRoe began operations in 2012. They have 80,000 “distributors,” most of whom are millennial moms. With more than $1 billion in sales in 2016, the company is on track to double that number in 2017. Their product consists of brightly colored leggings, shirts and dresses.

Unlike traditional retailers, LuLaRoe does not sell its products in brick-and-mortar stores. Instead, they rely upon distributors or consultants who buy the products and then hope to turn a profit when those products are sold to consumers.

Getting started as a consultant isn’t cheap. A basic package of approximately 70 leggings in adult sizes, 10 leggings in “tween” sizes and 25 dresses costs $2,074. Budding entrepreneurs could opt for a larger package containing more than 500 pieces for $9,058.25.

Three consultants from Sacramento County say they were “doomed from the start.” In their lawsuit, they claim that LuLaRoe bombarded them with demands to “buy more/sell more.” Using aggressive pressure tactics, consultants were encouraged to have at least $20,000 worth of merchandise on hand. Even if existing inventory wasn’t moving, the distributors were continually exhorted to purchase more.

The consultants say in their complaint that the company used unfair and sometimes outrageous ploys to get them to buy more inventory. LuLaRoe representatives allegedly counseled distributors to take out loans and use credit cards to purchase more product. One consultant said that she was told to sell her breast milk to raise money for buying more LuLaRoe product to sell.

In addition to accusing LuLaRoe’s principals of running a pyramid scheme, the lawsuit argues that the company violates the federal RICO act. The consultants also say that bonuses promised by the company for recruiting new distributors and buying more merchandise never materialized.

Working with a qualified business attorney helps entrepreneurs to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. With legal advice, LuLaRoe may have been able to focus on profits without allegedly running afoul of the law.

Feel free to contact me, Richard Oppenheim with your related legal questions. I may be reached at 818-461-8500 or by using the “Contact Us” box in the right column.

Published on:

Three women who used to work at Google have filed suit against their former employer. Their complaint states that the company systematically discriminates against female employees by failing to pay them the same rate that is given to men doing the same jobs.

Gender-Discrimination-105366239-001The plaintiffs include Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease and Kelli Wisuri, and they make the argument that their lawsuit should become a class action on behalf of other female current and former employees. Ellis says that despite having four years of professional experience as a software engineer, Google hired her as a Level 3 employee in 2010. That level was considered entry level, and was designed for recent college graduates. A few weeks later, a male engineer with similar experience was hired at Level 4. This garnered him a larger salary and put him in line for extra bonuses and raises. Ellis further claims that other male employees were brought in at Level 4 even though they had less or comparable experience when compared with hers.

Ellis goes on to claim that Google hired her as a front-end engineer even though her experience was as a back-end engineer. In Google’s hierarchy, it is the back-end engineers who are the most esteemed and higher paid. Ellis says that she and other female engineers were prevented from entering similar positions. The two other plaintiffs share similar accusations.

A spokesperson for Google says that the company disputes “the central allegations” of the case, pointing out that a worker’s level and their promotion track follow a rigorous process that is meant to preclude the danger of gender bias.

However, a study by the Labor Department which recently concluded an audit of the company’s pay practices disputes this. The audit points to “systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire work force.” Google has not been charged with wrongdoing relating to these allegations.

This latest case is yet another reminder of how critical it is for companies to review their hiring, promotion and wage practices with a business attorney. Running afoul of employment laws is always bad for the bottom line.

Published on:

Most company executives are aware of the FMLA benefits due to expectant mothers who work at their firm. Perhaps they even provide those mothers with extra benefits, like a few weeks of paid leave just before or after the birth. While mothers certainly appreciate these benefits, it pays to be aware that new fathers may want and even be entitled to similar benefits. Failing to provide gender-neutral parental leave benefits may provide employees with the basis for a lawsuit.

EEOC_cooltext396845518This is the situation in which cosmetics company Estée Lauder finds itself. The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against the company because it does not offer equal parental care leave to male and female employees. A pregnant female worker is eligible for as many as six weeks of paid leave and a flexible back-to-work benefit that may include shortened hours and the ability to work from home. Male employees receive just two weeks of paid leave and have no option to take advantage of the flexible back-to-work benefit.

The EEOC’s complaint says that the policy violates the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under these laws and others, the federal government requires that companies provide equal benefits and pay for the same work. This additionally means that these federal laws are gender neutral. In other words, both men and women are entitled to equal protection.

This is the second such lawsuit to be filed in recent memory. A J.P. Morgan Chase fraud investigator sued his employer because he was not offered the same parental-leave benefits as a female employee would receive. This earlier suit is still pending.

Employers are not legally required to provide paid parental leave for female or male workers. However, they are required to abide by federal laws like the FMLA that protect workers who want to take time to bond with their newborn child. Offering additional, paid-leave benefits for new parents can be a valuable perk that will attract outstanding talent to your firm. Nonetheless, it is critical to ensure that these benefits are offered on a gender-neutral basis to avoid lawsuits.

Published on:

Recently, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or DFEH, issued a revised “Workplace Harassment Guide for California Employers.” This essential publication should form the basis of every organization’s anti-harassment and retaliation policies. With the guidance of a qualified California employment attorney, most companies will be able to protect themselves from violating the guidelines described in the publication.

https://www.californiabusinesslitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/283/2016/05/boy.girl_.-equality.jpgThe Guide is particularly useful to employers because it clearly describes the necessary elements of any anti-harassment program in California. Employers are recommended to develop a written policy that is given to all employees and is discussed at least once a year if not more often at company meetings. The Guide also offers counsel on how crucial it is for members of management to model appropriate behavior and responses to harassment complaints. Training for managers and supervisors similarly is recommended, as well as education for personnel who will be charged with handling complaints.

One of the most important tenets espoused by the publication is the need for a proper reporting system, and a means of ensuring that every report is treated as a high-priority item. This makes it possible for the employer to determine whether or not a full, formal investigation is required. One of the new Guide’s more useful sections educates managers and supervisors about how to investigate a claim. A prompt, thorough and impartial investigation is frequently able to head off more serious problems like harassment and retaliation lawsuits.

DFEH’s revised Guide is essential reading for every employer in California. Its plain language and good coverage of relevant points make it the perfect resource for an anti-harassment and retaliation policy. A skilled California employment lawyer can help any company owner or executive put the finishing polish on the organization’s program. Too many companies make the mistake of not creating a written policy until it is too late.

Executives who want to improve the chances that their company will not become embroiled in costly, time-consuming litigation will want to discuss the Guide and how it can be used to craft an anti-harassment program specifically for their company with a qualified attorney.

The guide is only 9 pages long. If after reading it you have any employment law questions, feel free to contact me, Richard Oppenheim. I may be reached at 818-461-8500 or by using the “Contact Us” box in the right column.

Published on:

A robust network can help to open the door to new professional opportunities. Increasingly, professional networks are being created and maintained in a virtual environment. While it is becoming more common for colleagues and former co-workers to connect to each other via social media, it is vital for employers and employees to understand how various employment agreements that they are a party to may affect their interactions.

Scales-of-Justice-Digital-94824052-001This concept is at the heart of a recent case in Illinois. A branch manager for Bankers Life & Casualty Co. named Gelineau left his employment to accept a position with a competitor called American Senior Benefits, LLC. After Gelineau began working with his new employer, he sent LinkedIn invitations to three of his former co-workers at the Warwick, Rhode Island office of Bankers Life. The trouble is that Gelineau had signed a non-solicitation agreement with his former employer. As is common with these agreements, Gelineau had promised not to solicit other Bankers Life employees to seek employment with other companies.

Bankers Life sued American Senior because they believed that Gelineau had violated his non-solicitation agreement. However, the court did not agree. The judge ruled that the LinkedIn emails were “generic” and “did not contain any discussion of Bankers Life.” Moreover, the email did not contain a “solicitation to leave their place of employment.” Instead, the email was merely intended to provide an opportunity for the former co-workers to keep their professional network as robust as possible.

According to the court, if Gelineau had included some kind of hint or suggestion that the Bankers Life employees should leave their current place of employment in favor of American Senior, then the outcome may have been different. Bankers Life was concerned that a listing of open positions at American Senior was included in Gelineau’s LinkedIn home page. Nonetheless, the court did not feel that Gelineau could be held responsible for what visitors to his LinkedIn page did once they were there.

Non-solicitation agreements are standard in many industries. With the changing communication landscape, it’s important to recognize what these agreements do and do not cover.

Published on:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced a lawsuit against Big 5, which is one of the largest sports retailers in the U.S. A black employee named Robert Sanders is suing his employer over ongoing racial harassment. Sanders charges that upper management in the company failed to act even after he repeatedly reported the abuse. This story is a reminder to all employers about the necessity of investigating every harassment complaint with the utmost speed.

Retaliation-32004699-001Robert Sanders was the only black employee at Big 5’s store on Whidbey Island, Washington. As a part of the management training program, he expected to have an opportunity to learn new skills that would help him to embark on a new career. What he claims to have found instead was a racially charged atmosphere that had his coworkers referring to him with slurs like “King Kong,” “boy” and “spook.” Another trainee allegedly said that Sanders had the “face of a janitor.”

Sanders took his story to Big 5’s upper management, but he says that they did nothing to investigate his claims. Tensions reportedly grew worse in the manager training program. Sanders took multiple leaves as he tried to cope with the stress. An assistant manager allegedly told him, “We will hang you, we will seriously lynch you if you call in again this week.”

Sanders says that the behavior didn’t stop, nor did upper management offer to help in any way even after repeated reports. Eventually, Sanders took his complaint to the EEOC, which offered to act on his behalf. The EEOC pointed out to Big 5 that the behavior Sanders had been subjected to was illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Furthermore, Sanders says that his employer retaliated against him, denying him breaks, unreasonably increasing his workload and disciplining him for things he did not do.

Big 5 and the EEOC failed to come to an agreement at the negotiation stage, which led to the filing of the lawsuit. This example demonstrates once again why employers must take swift and immediate action to investigate all harassment claims.

Published on:

Luxury retailer Burberry has agreed to a $2.54 million settlement with employees. The workers include retail store and warehouse employees in New York. Their class action lawsuit claimed that they were forced to put in extra hours without pay. This expensive lesson serves as a reminder to all employers that they need to be aware of wage and hour laws and related practices.

Timeclock-45269690-001Burberry employees filed the lawsuit in December 2015 after they say that they were routinely forced to work off the clock. Sometimes, the duties were performed before or after shifts, with employees filling out necessary paperwork or cleaning the store. On other occasions, employees were told that they would need to work through their lunch hour. Holiday seasons were particularly bad. Sales associates involved in the lawsuit claim that they frequently worked three to six extra hours a day without being paid for their time.

Like many similar cases, legal experts familiar with this lawsuit note that they do not believe that executive management at Burberry was directing lower level management to violate wage and hour laws. Instead, they believe that the lower level managers were simply trying to cover the needs of the organization without fully understanding the consequences of their actions or that they were violating the law.

Burberry has now agreed to a settlement that should put approximately $2,500 into the pockets of the 643 workers who were involved in the lawsuit. The $2,500 per worker is after attorneys’ fees and costs. For a big-name, luxury brand like Burberry, $2.54 million isn’t necessarily a devastating amount of money to have to redirect for a lawsuit settlement. Lawyers for the company likely made a wise decision when they agreed to a settlement that kept them outside of the courtroom where the outcome may have been a great deal more expensive, especially with court costs and attorney fees. Still, it would have been better if the situation had not occurred in the first place.

It is vital for companies to work closely with employment law attorneys who are looking out for their best interests. This is the most reliable method for avoiding wage and hour lawsuits.

Published on:

 When an employer is sued by an employee, it’s natural to want to end the proceedings quickly. However, it is not legal for an employer to take any retaliatory action against a worker, especially one that is suing them. As a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrates, it also may be illegal for an attorney acting on behalf of the employer to retaliate.

Retaliation-32004699-001José Arias was an undocumented alien who had been working for Angelo Dairy for a decade in 2006 when he filed a wage lawsuit. Arias alleged that he had not been paid for overtime hours and that he had not received mandatory rest and meal periods. The dairy retained lawyer Anthony Raimondo to represent them in the lawsuit. Raimondo began working on due diligence, looking into Arias’ past as well as examining other pertinent facts.

A few weeks before the trial was scheduled to begin, Arias had an appointment for a deposition. What he didn’t know was that Raimondo had gotten in touch with Immigration and Custom Enforcement, or ICE, which led the lawyer to the discovery that Arias had no legal status in the U.S. Further, Raimondo had arranged for Arias to be taken into ICE custody at the deposition. Arias learned of the plan and promptly settled the litigation.

Then, the next phase began. Arias filed suit against Raimondo for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the majority of the provisions in this law apply only to direct employers, the retaliation portions apply to employers and those who are empowered to act on their behalf. An initial court decision on the lawsuit sided with Raimondo, but Arias appealed the decision. The appeals court sided with him.

Most reputable employment lawyers are unlikely to recommend that their clients try to have an employee deported or otherwise take an adverse action against them. To do so only opens the employer up to more legal trouble, and the same is true for the lawyer who takes a direct, punitive action toward an employee. It is far better to let the courts decide.

Feel free to contact me, Richard Oppenheim with employment law questions. I may be reached at 818-461-8500 or by using the “Contact Us” box in the right column.

Published on:

Years of highly contested, and well-publicized, litigation have made employers aware of the dangers of discriminating against workers based on gender, sexual orientation, race and religion. It’s not unusual for company executives to work with an employment attorney when they are developing or revamping their practices. Unfortunately, age discrimination tends to be overlooked.

Age-Discrimination-132214651-e1500063954245This oversight is coming to the forefront with litigation filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege that their former employer, AT&T, systematically shed older workers in an effort to gain a workforce that has more advanced technological skills. The complaint relies largely on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, a 1967 law that protects applicants and employees who are 40 or older. Essentially, the law makes it illegal for companies to make hiring, firing, promotion and compensation decisions based solely on age.

Plaintiffs argue that AT&T relied on age-based stereotypes to purge older workers. The process involved notifying the older workers that they had been placed on “surplus” status. They had a set amount of time within which they must be accepted into an alternative position within the company. However, the plaintiffs say that the selection process for those alternative positions was biased against the older employees who had been categorized as surplus. When they were unable to find another position, the workers were laid off.

Some of these employees say that they received a severance check, and that they were told by AT&T that they would be unable to sue the company under anti-discrimination laws if they took the money. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that’s not necessarily the case, especially if the notice given to employees did not contain certain stipulated language.

The former employees cite a company blog post that described AT&T’s “Workplace 2020” program, which admitted that age-based stereotypes are being weighed in employment decisions. According to plaintiff descriptions of the blog post, older workers are the employees of yesterday while younger workers are considered more desirable.

This litigation serves as a timely reminder for all employers to be mindful of their employment practices with respect to older workers.

Published on:

A former Amazon employee is suing his erstwhile employer over not being paid overtime. In the lawsuit, he asserts that Amazon misclassified him as a salaried manager that was not entitled to overtime. However, the worker says that the duties he performed were those of a manual laborer who should have been eligible for overtime. This case is a useful reminder for all employers to review their classification and compensation packages to ensure that they don’t encounter a similar issue.

clock-overtime-110616811-001Michael Ortiz was hired as a shift supervisor at Amazon warehouses in California. His official title was “Level-4 Manager,” a position that was supposed to cover mainly supervisory duties. Amazon’s policy defines this type of job as a salaried position that is not eligible for overtime. Entry-level “associates” whose main responsibility is moving packages, are hourly workers who can be paid overtime, and that is the work that Ortiz contends he was doing.

In the complaint filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court, Ortiz says that he spent his days loading and sorting boxes or clearing up jams on conveyor belts. Similarly, he asserts that he frequently worked days that were longer than eight hours and in excess of 40 hours per week. Only a minimum of his time was spent in supervisory or managerial duties, Ortiz contends.

According to the complaint, there may be thousands of other people who are current or former Amazon employees who may have experienced a similar situation. At the heart of the story is a central question: Did Amazon knowingly misclassify workers in an attempt to avoid paying overtime? If so, then they may find themselves on the hook for multiple thousands, if not millions, of dollars in back wages.

This lawsuit is still in its early stages, and Amazon has said that they will not comment on pending legal matters. It’s fairly safe to assume that both sides of this issue are going to dig in their heels, so a long fight is all but assured. Reviewing company classification and compensation plans with an employment lawyer is advisable for avoiding a similar situation.