Category: workplace violations

Posted on

Wage Theft $912,594 Recovered: Understanding Your Rights and Protections

Race discrimination, retaliation, workplace violation lawyers of Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

As we navigate the complex world of labor laws, it is essential to understand the rights and protections that safeguard workers against wage theft. Whether it be through crafty tip pools or employers illegally retaining tips from credit card purchases, workers must be aware of their rights to receive the overtime pay to which they are entitled.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is one such piece of legislation that works to uphold these rights. A recent case involving a Londonderry brewery and restaurant, Pipe Dream Brewing LLC, highlights the need for workers to be aware of these protections. The establishment was found to have violated the FLSA by retaining tips paid via credit card transactions and denying overtime wages to exempt employees.

These infractions resulted in the recovery of $912,594 for 44 employees. This sum included back wages, withheld tips, and liquidated damages. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, which facilitated the recovery, also assessed $5,148 in civil money penalties for the tip-related violations.

“No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left.”

The law is explicit—managers, supervisors, and employers are strictly forbidden from participating in tip pools or pocketing any portion of employees’ tips for any reason. These protections ensure that workers can fully realize the wages they have lawfully earned.

Federal and State laws, such as California Labor Code Section 351, offer robust protection against wage theft. This code explicitly prohibits employers and their agents, including supervisors and managerial personnel, from sharing in or retaining any portion of a gratuity intended for employees. The law clearly states that gratuities are the sole property of the employees to whom they are given:
“No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left.”

This case clearly illustrates the costly consequences for employers who attempt to circumvent these laws. It emphasizes the importance of employees understanding their rights and the mechanisms in place to protect them. The Wage and Hour Division offers resources like the Workers Owed Wages online search tool to assist those in claiming back wages, should they believe they are owed.

As employees, it is crucial to stay informed about the specific laws that protect us from wage theft, tip pooling, and other unscrupulous practices. The Fair Labor Standards Act safeguards serve as a robust shield, ensuring that workers get the pay they have worked hard for and duly deserve.

Posted on

Tesla Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Tesla must pay $137 million to a Black employee who sued for racial discrimination.

Amid numerous allegations of race and sex discrimination, Tesla, the electric vehicle innovator, has recently settled a significant lawsuit. The suit, brought forth by Tyonna Turner, a former employee at Tesla’s flagship assembly plant in Fremont, California, charged the company with sexual harassment and retaliation.

The resolution of Turner’s 2023 lawsuit emerged when U.S. District Judge William Orrick dismissed the case after the parties reached a settlement. The specific terms of the settlement remain undisclosed.

Turner’s lawsuit is part of a broader issue; Tesla is facing several claims of neglecting rampant harassment against Black and female employees at the Fremont site, indicating a troubling trend in the company’s culture.

During her tenure, Turner reported nearly 100 instances of harassment, including stalking by a male coworker. Despite reporting these incidents, she alleges her concerns were disregarded, culminating in her dismissal in September 2022, which she contends was retaliation for her complaints.

In a decision in August of the preceding year, Judge Orrick denied Tesla’s motion to move the case to private arbitration, referring to a 2022 landmark federal law that prohibits mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment and assault cases.

Tesla Encounters Additional Discrimination Allegations

Turner’s ordeal is reflected in six other ongoing lawsuits against Tesla in California state court, all centered on similar accusations of sexual and racial discrimination. Beyond individual complaints, Tesla is battling accusations of entrenched racial discrimination at its Fremont plant. These include actions from a U.S. anti-discrimination agency, a lawsuit by its California counterpart, and a collective action representing 6,000 Black workers, citing racial slurs, graffiti, assignment to less favorable tasks, and retaliation for filing complaints. These cases illuminate systemic workplace issues, emphasizing the urgent need to foster supportive, diverse, and inclusive work environments.

Despite Tesla’s rebuttal of any wrongdoing, the steady stream of lawsuits, especially those concerning racial discrimination, signals a pressing need for Tesla to undertake comprehensive reforms to address these ingrained issues.

Tesla professes a zero-tolerance policy towards discrimination, stating it has terminated employees for racist conduct. Yet, the continuous allegations highlight the importance of transparent, proactive measures in addressing discrimination claims.

For companies worldwide, Tesla’s legal struggles serve as a compelling reminder of the significance of nurturing a culture that values diversity, equity, and inclusivity. The mandate is clear for all organizations: enforce robust anti-discrimination policies, cultivate an environment where these policies are actively upheld, and ensure employees can express concerns without fear of retaliation. This involves regular audits, training sessions, and forums for ongoing discussion on these vital matters. Organizations can avoid similar legal entanglements and cultivate a diverse, motivated, and innovative workforce. This moment should serve as a wake-up call, urging businesses to review their policies, listen to their workforce, and commit to building a workplace where everyone, regardless of background, is valued and respected.

If you have experienced workplace sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, it’s imperative to contact an experienced employment law attorney without delay. These professionals possess the expertise necessary to assess your situation critically, offer informed advice, and guide you through the complexities of legal recourse available. Taking prompt action is not only about seeking justice for oneself but also contributes to the broader effort of holding organizations accountable for their workplace culture and practices. An attorney can help safeguard your rights and ensure that your voice is heard, marking a step towards fostering a more equitable and respectful working environment for all.

Posted on

Whistleblower Case Against City of Florence Moves Forward: Judge Denies Dismissal

Sex discrimination is not only illegal, but it has been proven to negatively affect public safety.

Is your city safe? The question might seem straightforward, but for the people of Florence, the answer might be more complex than it seems. Sex discrimination is not only illegal but it has been proven to negatively affect public safety. Sarah Glenn, a city employee, alleges that the City of Florence has been systematically violating state and federal civil rights laws, even retaliating for exercising her First Amendment rights.

Glenn’s allegations include being treated less favorably than her male counterparts, being assigned menial tasks, and expressing genuine safety concerns that were ignored. The city attempted to dismiss Glenn’s First Amendment claim, arguing that her disclosures were not of public concern and could disrupt the workplace. However, a statement from US District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer suggests otherwise. He denied this motion, emphasizing that Glenn’s claims can’t simply be bulldozed as personal grievances.

The City is now seeking a summary judgment to resolve the First Amendment claim in their favor and is hoping to avoid a trial. However, it’s worth noting that this isn’t the first litigation against the City of Florence, as there’ve been multiple lawsuits, including allegations of misconduct by the former city manager.

This case reveals the dark side of sex discrimination. It obstructs justice, inhibits the free flow of information, and potentially risks public safety. It’s time to recognize these issues. Stand with Sarah Glenn. Stand up for equal rights and public safety.

Posted on

AB 257: Council to Regulate Working Conditions for Fast Food Workers

Burger King

AB 257: Council to regulate working conditions for fast food workers; on hold pending litigation and, potentially, a referendum

With AB 257, the Legislature will establish a new and powerful Fast-Food Council, the first of its kind in the State. Sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) and inspired by its “Fight for $15 and a Union” movement, the Council will be empowered to regulate wages, hours, and working conditions of California’s fast-food employees, a population of workers historically subjected to hazardous working conditions and shamefully low wages.

The Fast-Food Council will be made up of 10 members, appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Rules Committee, and will dictate working conditions for employees of chains with at least 100 outlets nationwide. The Council is expected to raise fast food worker wage rates as high as $22 an hour.

Unsurprisingly, the Chamber of Commerce has made destroying the bill a priority. As this article was going to print, a judge temporarily blocked the State from implementing the law as the result of a lawsuit filed by a coalition of giant corporate chain restaurants, which is seeking a referendum on the November 2024 ballot in a bid to overturn the law. “If and when the referendum challenging AB 257 qualifies for the ballot, the law will be put on hold,” said Katrina Hagen, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.

None of this corporate chicanery would be possible but for the Supreme Court’s obsequious decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations). Of course, while the Founders were well aware of the existence of various types of business enterprises (joint-stock companies, corporations such as the East India Company, which was incorporated in 1600, and the like), the Founders did not provide for any corporate rights in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Rather, the Founders understood that, to the extent that corporations had any type of personhood, it was a legal fiction limited to a courtroom. But we digress.

Posted on

$26K to Settle Allegations of Retaliation, Interference with Federal Investigation of Pay Practices

Federal laws protect employees from discrimination, employer retaliation.

New Hampshire chimney services contractor pays $26K to settle allegations of retaliation and interference with a federal investigation of pay practices.

Federal law prohibits employers from punishing workers who exercise their legal rights.

MANCHESTER, NH – A Manchester chimney services contractor has paid a total of $26,163 to three workers to resolve allegations that the employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s anti-retaliation provisions enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.

The U.S. Department of Labor takes allegations of employee retaliation very seriously. Federal law protects workers’ ability to exercise their rights freely without fear of reprisals,” explained Wage and Hour Division District Director Steven McKinney in Manchester, New Hampshire. “These rights include the ability to contact the department and other agencies about the employer’s pay practices and to speak openly with investigators and other department officials during an investigation.

Division investigators found Ceaser Chimney Service Inc. fired an employee in June 2021 after they contacted the New Hampshire Department of Labor to inquire about their rights under the labor laws. During its investigation, the employer also unlawfully questioned two other employees regarding their communications with the Wage and Hour Division. Anti-retaliation provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibit employers from discharging an employee or discriminating against an employee who engages in protected activity, including filing a complaint, participating in an investigation, or even simply asking questions about their wages.

Per the settlement agreement, Ceaser Chimney Inc. has done the following:

  • Paid the terminated employee a total of $21,163, which includes $2,463 in back pay for the time they were unemployed after the termination, $8,700 in front pay, and $10,000 in punitive damages.
  • Paid the other employees punitive damages totaling $5,000, or $2,500 each.
  • Agreed not to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because they filed a complaint, testified, or participated in any Fair Labor Standards Act investigation or proceeding or has asserted any right guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  • Agreed to provide all current and future employees with a written statement of their Fair Labor Standards Act rights for a five-year period.

The division will continue to enforce these protections vigorously and make it clear – as Ceaser Chimney Inc. has learned – that retaliation against workers has costly consequences. The Wage and Hour Division encourages workers and employers in northern New England to contact the Manchester District Office to learn more about their respective rights and responsibilities under federal law,” added McKinney.

Learn more about how the Wage and Hour Division protects workers against retaliation.

The FLSA requires that most employees in the U.S. be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at not less than time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Learn more about the Wage and Hour Division, including a search tool if you think you may be owed back wages collected by the division. Employers and workers can call the division confidentially with questions regardless of their immigration status. The department can speak with callers confidentially in more than 200 languages through the agency’s toll-free helpline at 866-4US-WAGE (487-9243).

Posted on

Worker Terminated after Reporting Injury, Employeer Ordered to Pay $225K

Oct. 15, 2014

Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC ordered to pay more than $225K to worker terminated after reporting injury at Kansas City, Kansas, rail yard

KANSAS CITY, Kan. – Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC wrongfully terminated an employee in Kansas City after he reported an injury to his left shoulder, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The company has been found in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act*, and OSHA ordered the company to pay the apprentice electrician $225,385 in back wages and damages, remove disciplinary information from the employee’s personnel record and provide whistleblower rights information to all its employees.

“The resolution of this case will restore the employee’s dignity and ability to support his family,” said Marcia P. Drumm, OSHA’s acting regional administrator in Kansas City, Missouri. “It is illegal to discipline an employee for reporting workplace injuries and illnesses. Whistleblower protections play an important role in keeping workplaces safe because they protect people from choosing between their health and disciplinary action.”

OSHA’s investigation upheld the allegation that the railroad company terminated the employee following an injury that required the employee to be transported to an emergency room and medically restricted from returning to work. The company’s investigation into the injury, reported on Aug. 27, 2013, concluded that the employee had been dishonest on his employment record about former, minor workplace injuries unrelated to the left shoulder. These conclusions led the company to terminate the employee on Nov. 18, 2013.

OSHA found this termination to be retaliation for reporting the injury and in direct violation of the FRSA. BNSF has been ordered to pay $50,000 in compensatory damages, $150,000 in punitive damages, more than $22,305 in back wages and interest and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Any of the parties in this case can file an appeal with the department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the FRSA and 21 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, worker safety, public transportation agency, railroad, maritime and securities laws.

Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government. Employees who believe that they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor to request an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights, including fact sheets, is available at http://www.whistleblowers.gov.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Posted on

Whistleblower Case: First Federal Supreme Court Broad Reaching

Robert MacLean, a former air marshal, was fired because of his federal whistleblower actions. (Courtesy of House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform)

Robert MacLean didn’t realize that by trying to protect America’s flying public, his employer — his government — would treat him almost like a traitor.

Soon, the Supreme Court will have a chance to decide if MacLean, a whistleblower and former air marshal, was treated justly, or at least legally. It is the first case the high court will hear directly concerning a federal whistleblower.

The implications of the case go well beyond MacLean. If he loses, Uncle Sam will have greater power to bully whistleblowers. Fewer federal employees might be willing to disclose waste, fraud, abuse and dumb decisions.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Nov. 4. The Obama administration is appealing a lower court decision that MacLean’s disclosures were covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act. If the justices rule against MacLean, federal agencies could have broad power to weaken that law by using the government’s power to make secret more information than Congress intended.

Here is MacLean’s story:
In July 2003, air marshals, including MacLean, were summoned for mandatory training to prevent suicidal airline hijacking plots by al-Qaeda. Days later, the Transportation Security Administration sent an unsecured, unclassified text message to air marshals informing them that all long-distance assignments requiring an overnight stay would be canceled.

Knowing that could hamper efforts to thwart hijackers, MacLean said he complained about this shortsighted, money-saving plan to an agency supervisor and to the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general’s office. MacLean also leaked information to MSNBC, which he admitted to during a leak investigation two years later. He was placed on administrative leave in September 2005 and fired in April 2006.

This is the incredible part: It wasn’t until August 2006 that the government retroactively labeled as sensitive the information MacLean was fired for leaking — three years after the text message was sent.

The question before the court: Was MacLean’s disclosure “specifically prohibited by law?”

DHS and the Justice Department say it was
.
But noteworthy to MacLean’s defense is thata key bipartisan group of members of Congress say his disclosures are, or at least should have been, protected from agency reprisal by the whistleblower law.

They should know
.
The administration argues that “by law” includes statutes and “substantive regulations that have the force and effect of law.”

The lower court’s decision “is wrong, dangerous, and warrants reversal,” say the government’s lawyers. The earlier ruling “imperils public safety,” they added, “by dramatically reducing the effectiveness of Congress’s scheme for keeping sensitive security information from falling into the wrong hands.”

But members of Congress who were instrumental in passing the legislation say that’s not so. In fact, “Congress deliberately crafted” legislation “to exclude agency rules and regulations,” says a brief filed by Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.) and Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass).

“If agencies could decide which disclosures receive whistleblower protections, they would inevitably abuse that power,” the members said. “The result would be to deter whistleblowers and restrict the flow of information to Congress.”

Sadly, the message here is that agency officials can’t always be trusted to do the right thing. When employees expose bad policies, too often the reaction of their bosses is to cover managerial behinds. Whistleblowers should be congratulated, praised for serving the public. Instead, many are harassed, punished and pushed from government service.

“After all,” said a brief filed by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, “whistleblower protection laws exist because government officials do not always act in the nation’s best interests.”

Agencies can be creative in their reprisals, even belatedly declaring information sensitive, as TSA did, in order to better take revenge against whistleblowers.

“[I]n fear that such retroactive designations are possible, whistleblowers may refrain from alerting the public to dangers that could have been averted or mitigated,” said the brief by OSC, which works to protect whistleblowers. This is the first Supreme Court friend-of-the-court brief filed by OSC.

This wariness of the way agency managers treat whistleblowers is shared by the Republicans and Democrats who filed the congressional brief.

“Time and time again,” they said, “agencies have found ways to suppress inconvenient information.” An administration victory over MacLean, the elected officials warned, “will deter untold numbers of whistleblowers.”

If that happens, it’s not only MacLean who will lose. The American people will, too.

By Joe Davidson October 9, 2014

Posted on

Employment Lawyer Discusses Bad Bosses

Posted on

Sexual Harassment Investigations

The most important anti-harassment policy is always prevention.  One of the best ways of handling sexual harassment is having a clearly written policy stating that sexual harassment is not tolerated.  This policy should clearly assure complainants would not be treated negatively for making a claim of harassment. An anti-harassment policy is not effective without such assurance.  A good practice is to have a telephone number that employees can call anonymously with questions and concerns about sexual harassment. Once an allegation is made and it is evident that an investigation is necessary the fact-finding investigation should be launched immediately.  

According to The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and as the Supreme Court stated, “Title VII is designed to encourage the creation of anti-harassment policies and effective grievance mechanisms.”  While the Court noted that this “is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law,” failure to do so will make it difficult for an employer to prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment.  Anti-harassment policies and procedures should be provided to each employee, preferably during the initial training and post the written anti-harassment policy in central locations such as break rooms and locker rooms and redistribute it regularly.  The policy should contain a clear explanation of unacceptable conduct, assurance that complaints will not be followed by retaliation and a suggested means of filing a complaint.  It should include a statement of confidentiality and assurance of an impartial investigation and immediate corrective action along with time frames for filing charges of unlawful harassment with the EEOC or state fair employment agency.  Anti-harassment policies should include all forms of harassment: whether based on age, sex, race, religion, national origin, disability and include harassment by anyone including supervisors, co-workers and non-employees. 

Harassment complaint procedures should be designed to encourage victims opposed to discouraging victims of harassment with invasive reporting procedures.  A procedure that appears too complicated and full of obstacles can discourage reports. Employees should be encouraged to report harassment early, before it becomes severe and disruptive to their work environment.  Effective complaint processes establish accessible contacts outside the chain of command for the initial complaint. Employees should understand that while the employer will make every attempt to protect confidentiality, certain information must be shared to conduct a proper investigation.  Even if the employee requests no action, an employer has a responsibility to investigate allegations or be held liable. 

While each case will vary tailor complainant interview questions accordingly, very basics questions should include: who, what, where, when and how:

  • Who committed the alleged harassment?  What happened exactly?  When and how often did it occur?  Where did the harassment take place?  How did it affect the complainant?
  • Did the alleged harassment affect your job in anyway?
  • Are there witnesses?  Is there anyone with relevant information?  Did you tell anyone that you were harassed?  Did anyone see you immediately following the alleged harassment?
  • Do you know of anyone else harassed by the same person?  If so, did they report the incident?
  • Is there any physical evidence, notes, or documentation regarding the incident or incidents?
  • How would you like the situation resolved?

     
Once the complainant is interviewed, the EEOC offers a guideline of questions to ask the alleged harasser:

  • What is your response to the allegations?
  • If the harasser denies the allegations, ask why the complainant might lie and if there is anyone that may have relevant information?
  • Is there any physical evidence, notes, or documentation regarding the incident or incidents?

You should also interview any third parties that may have relevant information.  The following questions are useful as a guideline for interviewing witnesses or third parties:

  • What did you see or hear?  When did this occur?  Describe the alleged harasser?s behavior toward the complainant and toward others in the workplace.
  • What did the complainant tell you and when did he/she tell you?
  • Do you have other relevant information or do you know of anyone else that would have relevant information.

 Once an allegation is made, and all parties have been interviewed the interviewer will need to weigh each parties credibility to reach a determination.  During this process measures should be taken to prevent all contact between the harasser and complainant.  The complainant however should not be transferred involuntarily.  Upon reaching a decision the parties should be informed of the determination.  For more information visit the Helmer Friedman LLP sexual harassment, employment violation leaders at http://www.helmerfriedman.com.

Helmer Friedman LLP is a registered client of Internet Market Consulting Website Repair, Design, Marketing www.InternetMarketConsulting.com.

Copyright 2009 Internet Market Consulting. All Rights Reserved. Publication rights granted so long as article and byline are reprinted intact, with all links made live.

Posted on

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Owner of Popular Los Angeles Restaurants Sushi Roku Katana and Boa

Former employee of Los Angeles based Innovative Dining Group, Inc. (“IDG”) filed a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Laura Holycross the Company’s former Director of Catering and Special Events; alleges that she was wrongfully terminated after she complained that IDG was engaged in illegal and fraudulent conduct including: (1) charging several of its clients for non-existent services and products; (2) hiring undocumented workers so that it could pay them less than it would have to pay individuals authorized to work in the United States and that it paid its workers “under the table” so that it did not have to pay federal, state, and local taxes; (3) refusing to allow its workers to take the meal and rest periods to which they were entitled under California law; (4) instructing its employees, including Ms. Holycross, to falsify and forge legal documents and information that was to be provided to its clients, their lawyers, their security companies, and various police departments; and (5) instructing its employees not to book events that would include African-American and Persian guests.

Commenting about her lawsuit, Ms. Holycross’ attorney, Andrew H. Friedman of Venice-based Helmer Friedman, LLP said “California law clearly prohibits employers, and certainly their highest level officials, from firing an employee for complaining about illegal conduct. We look forward to vigorously representing our client and obtaining the remedies to which she is entitled under the law.”

For additional information contact:
Gregory D. Helmer
Andrew H. Friedman
Helmer Friedman LLP (310) 396-7714 www.helmerfriedman.com