California Employment Lawyers Blog

Our Riverside employment attorneys have been following a recent California employment lawsuit against The Finish Line, after a former store manager reportedly secretly recorded female employees in a restroom with a hidden camera, as well as customers in a dressing room.

According to the Indianapolis Star, the athletic gear and shoe store is facing lawsuits in both California and Indiana, for failing to properly supervise David L. Meyer, who had been working as a manager in California for a few years, and installed a hidden video recorder in the store restroom.

Five female employees working in Milpitas, California reportedly filed an employment lawsuit in Northern California federal court, against Meyer and the Finish Line, accusing him of secretly recording them with a hidden camera in the bathroom and also dressing room--used by both employees and store customers between December of 2009 and April of 2010.

Meyer admitted in one of the federal employment lawsuits that he installed the recording device in the bathroom secretly, recording the personal and intimate moments of females in the restroom, to catch a person who repeatedly flushed items down the toilet that allegedly caused frequent plumbing problems.

Continue reading " Finish Line Female Employees Sue Over Hidden Camera in Bathroom" »

According to a recent article in the Hollywood Reporter that our Riverside, California employment lawyers have been following, Julie Taymor, an Academy Award nominated director has filed a lawsuit against the producers of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, for violating her rights by using her directing work in the production without proper compensation.

Taymor who was the original director of the Spider-Man musical, the most expensive theater production in Broadway history, was released from her role as director of the musical due to artistic differences, earlier this year. The show was plagued with difficulties from the start with high-profile performer injuries and poor reviews early on--but has gone on to be a box office success, showing to packed crowds since its November 2010 debut.

Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark is a musical with rock lyrics and music written by Bono and The Edge from U2, and the book written by Glen Berger, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa and Taymor. The musical has set the record for being the most expensive production on Broadway, costing a reported $75 million to produce, with a long preview period of performances before the show officially opened. The preview period was reportedly necessary in order to work out the safety issues involving flying stunts that left many cast members with injuries, as well as issues with the story.

After Taymor left the production in March 2011, she reportedly filed an arbitration claim against the Spider-Man musical producers, claiming that she was owed over $500,000 in royalties for her role as the show's original director. Earlier this month, the arbitration hearing was held, and the outcome has not yet been released.

Continue reading "Broadway Director Sues 'Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark' Producers for Compensation" »

Legendary Los Angeles Lakers superstar Shaquille O'Neal has filed an employment lawsuit this month against a former information technology employee, for invasion of privacy and allegedly selling his personal emails on the open market--and therefore damaging his reputation.

According to the lawsuit, that our Santa Ana employment lawyers have been following, O'Neal hired Shawn Darling in 2007 and paid him around $150 per hour as an Information Technology specialist, to set up his audio and computer systems, keep his electronic communications, and to create and register a personal domain name for the former NBA player. O'Neal claims that he hired the man unaware of the fact that he had been convicted of a bank fraud felony.

While performing his tasks, Darling reportedly requested and got all of O'Neal's passwords, which he allegedly used outside of his job, in order to access Shaq's personal emails. Darling is being accused of selling O'Neal's personal information to other people as well as Internet sites, which then published articles that reportedly damaged Shaq's reputation.

In August of 2010, according to the Hollywood Reporter, Darling's attorney threatened O'Neal, with the continued use of the electronic email communications if he didn't fork over $12 million--to which Shaq reportedly refused. Darling then filed a lawsuit against O'Neal, accusing him of being the computer hacker--by hacking into voicemails, trying to frame Darling for a criminal offense, and trying to erase digital evidence of affairs.

Continue reading "Former NBA Superstar Shaq Sues Former Employee Over Stolen Emails" »

In a recent Hollywood employment lawsuit development that our Irvine, California labor and employment attorneys have been watching, cast members from the legendary television show "Happy Days" have suffered a reported setback in their current $10 million lawsuit against CBS/Paramount over merchandising revenue from the comedy sitcom.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the cast sued CBS in April of this year, claiming that they were never paid for years of home video releases and licensed show merchandising that used their images and voices --during the run of the series, that lasted from 1974 until 1984 and has continued to run for years in television syndication. They are accusing CBS/Paramount of bad business practices and breach of contract.

The lawsuit claims that although they all received different salaries, they had the same contracts in regard to merchandising--each actor was to receive a percentage of the net proceeds if images of them were used in a group, after the studio took its handling fee, which was a reported 50% off the top.

The employment lawsuit reportedly began after an actor from the show saw their images on a casino's slot machines. The same actor had also noticed that starting in 2004, the show had been repackaged into four different DVD box sets with pictures of the cast on the boxes and inside the DVD material. The lawsuit is accusing CBS/Paramount of continuing to market the brand to merchandisers, selling everything from t-shirts to coffee mugs with cast pictures, with never intending to pay them for merchandise with their images.

Continue reading "'Happy Days' Television Stars Sue CBS/Paramount for $10 Million" »

In a recent Los Angeles, California employment lawyers blog, our attorneys discussed the Los Angeles employment lawsuit filed by television and movie star Charlie Sheen against Warner Brothers Studio and Chuck Lorre, the Executive Producer of the popular television series Two and a Half Men, that featured Sheen as a central character until this spring.

According to news reports from last week, Sheen and Warner Brothers are finalizing the multimillion-dollar settlement that will end the very public battle that has continued over the past few months--after Sheen hurled public insults against Lorre for being fired from the show, leading to the cancellation of Two and a Half Men for the rest of the season.

Warner Brothers stated that Sheen's contract was terminated after health issues led to his inability to perform his duties as a performer for the show. He was reportedly fired in March for his failure to report to set and perform due to drug usage, for trashing a hotel room, and for his public statements against Chuck Lorre.

Sheen sued Warner Brothers and Lorre in March of this year, claiming that his television contract termination came from Lorre in order to serve Lorre's self-interest and ego--and accused Lorre of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, retaliation and other employment charges. The lawsuit asked for $100 million in punitive damages.

Continue reading "Hollywood Star Charlie Sheen and Warner Brothers Settle Multimillion Dollar Lawsuit" »

Our Newport Beach, California employment lawyer blog recently discussed the long-running legal battle between California-based Mattel Inc., the world's largest toymaker, and MGA Entertainment, a small company responsible for making the line of Bratz dolls who was accused by Mattel in 2005 of stealing a key Mattel employee and intellectual property.

In a 2008 decision, MGA was reportedly ordered to pay Mattel $100 million, but a federal appeals court threw out the ruling out last year, stating that Mattel had not proven the copyright infringement claims.

The case became more complex when MGA then accused Mattel of misappropriating trade secrets about the Bratz doll line, and in April of this year, Mattel was found guilty of stealing trade secrets by a federal jury, wherein MGA Entertainment was awarded $88.5 million in damages, with the chance of receiving more monetary damage awards.

According to the Los Angeles Times, earlier this month, a federal judge demanded that Mattel compensate MGA Entertainment over $309 million in monetary damages and other costs and fees in the ongoing legal argument over the Bratz doll line. Mattel's request for a new trial was also rejected.

The decision, made by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, awarded MGA $85 million in punitive damages, reducing the jury's original $88.5 million award in April due to a mathematical error. The judge also awarded MGA $2.5 million in lawyer's costs and fees for its claims of trade secret theft against Mattel. MGA's chief executive, Isaac Larian, was also awarded $137.4 million in attorneys' fees and costs for having to defend his company against Mattel's original claims of copyright infringement, contractual relations and other copyright allegations--bringing the total award for MGA to $309.9 million.

Continue reading "Mattel Ordered by Judge to Pay $310 Million in Bratz vs. Barbie Legal Battle" »

In a recent lawsuit that our Orange County, California labor and employment attorneys have been watching, two employees from Walt Disney Co. have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, claiming that the employee identification cards that they are forced to use expose them to the a lack of privacy, and a threat of identity theft.

The ID cards issued to Walt Disney employees are reportedly encoded with bar codes containing Social Security numbers that according to the lawsuit, violate California law. The Disney workers claim that the employee card codes can be read by most mobile phones, which puts employees at risk for identity theft.

The lawsuit reportedly hopes to include over 21,000 current and former employees at the Disneyland resort in Orange County that were issued these identification cards since 2007, but the employment lawsuit could also extend to more California Disney employees that could number in the thousands.

The employees reportedly use the ID cards for every identification-related feature, including gaining access to restricted employee areas and clocking in and out of work. The cards also must be presented to any security staff if requested. The Social Security issue was reportedly discovered after a security officer at Disney realized that any bar code scanner could read the bar codes containing individual Social Security numbers.

According to the Identity Theft Resource Center in San Diego, California law clearly states that it is illegal for employers to print Social Security numbers on individual identification cards, but the law isn't clear about bar codes that have social security numbers embedded in them. The plaintiffs claim that the use of the card violates privacy guaranteed by the California state Constitution, because employees have a reasonable expectation of employment privacy, and have the right to not to disclose any of their personal information.

Continue reading "Disney Workers File Lawsuit Over Employee Privacy--Identity Theft Risk" »

Our Oceanside labor and employment lawyers have been watching a recent California employment lawsuit development, where San Francisco Chef Angelo Mueller, also known as Angelo Mueller Degenhardt, was accused by Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney, of being a con artist and running a fraudulent cooking school operation called "Academie de Cuisine"--where he allegedly took the tuition of students and exploited them by making them work as free labor for his catered events, with the lingering promise of future employment with the company.

The lawsuit accuses Mueller of using local nonprofits to refer culinary students to his academy, enticing the students with the promise of quickly gaining entry-level qualifications required to work in the food service and hospitality industry. Mueller reportedly charged culinary students up to $3600 in tuition for a three-month culinary program that was supposed to include additional three month externship at one of the academy venues, where students would receive fairly paid wages.

But according to Herrera's office, the students, many of who were Chinese immigrants, started complaining that they were required to manage and cater academy-related events without proper compensation, and were forced to sign agreements retroactively stating that they would not receive certificates of completion without completing the unpaid externship.

Mueller has reportedly been convicted of multiple counts of federal mail and securities fraud, and spent time in Utah prison after violating his probation terms, where he was only released last year. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to stop the operation of the academy, full payment of all withheld wages to the students who worked to cater the academy's events, and civil penalties for each violation.

Continue reading "Chef Accused of Fraud by Tricking Culinary Students into Working for Free" »

In recent Santa Ana, California employment news that our attorneys been following, California-based Mattel Inc., the largest toymaker in the world, has been defeated in their seven-year legal battle against MGA Entertainment--the small California company, whose line of Bratz dolls led to a Mattel lawsuit claiming that MGA stole away a prominent Mattel employee, key doll designs, and intellectual property.

Mattel reportedly filed the lawsuit in 2005, when MGA's Bratz dolls were becoming extraordinarily popular, featuring flashy dolls with outfits that were edgy and chic--creating formidable competition with Mattel's Barbie franchise.

In 2008, MGA was ordered by the federal court to pay Mattel $100 million, but the ruling was thrown out by a federal appeals court last year. MGA subsequently claimed that Mattel gained wrongful access to toy fairs with fake passes in order to steal trade secrets about the Bratz dolls, and then concealed the evidence of such actions. MGA also accused Mattel of costing the small company hundreds of millions of dollars over the past seven years of litigation.

Last week, the federal jury found Mattel guilty of misappropriating trade secrets from the small company and awarded MGA $88.5 million in monetary damages, with the possibility that more damages might still be awarded to the company. The jury found that Mattel doesn't own the idea of Bratz dolls, and that the doll sketches made by MGA were not stolen from Mattel. Mattel is expected to appeal the case.

Continue reading "Bratz Dolls vs. Barbie, Mattel Loses Last Round" »

This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear what has been called the largest class-action sex discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history, and one of the most important employment lawsuits in decades--brought by female employees against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for allegedly neglecting to pay women as much as men, and providing them with fewer opportunities for promotions.

As our attorneys discussed in a recent California employment lawyers blog, the decade-long discrimination lawsuit was originally filed in 2001 by Wal-Mart greeter, Betty Dukes, along with five other former and current Wal-Mart employees alleging sex-discrimination in the workplace based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The women reportedly filed for class certification in 2003, asking the judge to allow the case to go to trial on behalf of all women who had worked for the retail giant in the United States at any time from December of 1998--a group that is considered to include over 1.5 million former and current female Wal-mart employees.

In June of 2004, a U.S. District judge reportedly ruled that the gender discrimination lawsuit could proceed as a nationwide class-action, including women who worked at over 3,400 Wal-marts across the country. The trial was separated into two trials--one trial for the court to decide if Wal-mart was guilty of blatant sex discrimination, and another trial to decide remedies, such as back pay, damages, and injunctive relief that would require changes in company policy in regard to compensation and promotions.

In April of 2010, a San Francisco, California U.S. court of appeals upheld the judge's conclusion to handle the case as a single group rather than requiring individual lawsuit litigation. Wal-mart appealed to the Supreme Court in August of 2010, arguing that the claims involving former and current workers were too different in regard to issues and interests to process as a class-action lawsuit--urging the Supreme Court to reject the class-action status. The Supreme Court announced in December of last year, that it will decide if the class-action certification violated federal court rules for such lawsuits, employment laws, or the Constitution.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Wal-mart Sex-Bias Discrimination Lawsuit " »

Our California employment lawyers blog recently discussed the problem of employment misclassification in the workplace--where workers are often misclassified and robbed of employee benefits like overtime, minimum wage and meal periods when employers violate state and federal wage and hour laws.

In a related investigation led by the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, that our Santa Ana employment lawyers have been following, the department's Administrative Review Board has recently ordered the Long Island City construction contractor, Pythagoras General Contracting Corporation to pay over $769,000 in back wages to nearly 80 workers for engaging in employee misclassification.

According to the DOL's Wage and Hour Division investigation, Pythagoras was found to have violated benefit and wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) while working on the New York City Housing Authority project at Vladeck Houses--a project that receives partial funding from the U.S. Government.

Due to the misclassification of its employees under the Davis-Bacon Act, Pythagoras reportedly failed to compensate workers at the prevailing wage rate for the skilled labor that was actually performed, and also consistently failed to compensate some employees for all of the hours worked on the project. Pythagoras and the company's president Stanley Petsagourakis are also reportedly banned from working on future contracts that receive federal funding for three years, after Pythagoras' willful underpayment of employee wages and failure to compensate employees for all hours worked.

Continue reading "Workers on Federally Funded NYC Housing Project Receive $792K in Back Pay for Employee Misclassification" »

Our Fullerton, California employment attorneys have been closely watching the U.S. Supreme Court's decision announced this week in the anti-retaliation lawsuit, Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.--a decision that proves to be a huge victory for workers across the country.

According to the original lawsuit, employee Kevin Kasten sued his employer, Sant-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which provides employment rules on minimum wage, overtime pay and maximum hours and prohibits employers from firing employees out of retaliation, for filing a complaint.

Kasten claimed in his retaliation lawsuit that he was discharged from the company after he complained orally about the company's practice of placing timeclocks in an area that kept workers from receiving credit and compensation for the time spend donning and doffing--or taking on and off their protective work gear, as well as walking to work areas. According to the Supreme Court decision, Saint-Gobain was found to have violated the FLSA's wage and hour requirements for the timeclock placement.

The highest court's decision also agreed with the U.S. Department of Labor--that an employee who complains in an oral manner about not receiving payment for all hours worked, as opposed to a complaining in a written manner, is protected from retaliation. This decision will also protect workers who complain orally under a variety of other whistleblower statutes administered by the Department of Labor.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Supports Workers in Wage and Hour Decision " »

In a recent California class action wage and hour lawsuit that our Riverside employment attorneys have been following, Verizon is being sued by a Verizon FIOS field manager, who accuses the company of employee misclassification--for allegedly refusing to pay the field managers overtime, and demanding that employees work through rest and meal periods, in an alleged effort to cut company costs.

According to the complaint, Ulysses Aburto claims that he and other field managers were told that they were salaried employees, and exempt from California overtime and other laws.

Aburto states that although he and the class of employees were field managers, they lacked the exempt requirements under California law as they did not have duties that were managerial, nor did they have authority--and should have been classified as non-exempt employees.

As our attorneys discussed in a recent Carson employment lawyer blog entry, under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California law, job titles do not determine exemptions--an employee's exemption status depends on the specific job responsibilities. Under the FLSA, administrative exemptions cover employees whose primary duties include performing office or non-manual work that is directly related to the management with the primary responsibility of exercising discretion and independent judgment with respect to specific matters regarding the company's business.

Continue reading "California Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Verizon for Employee Misclassification" »

Our San Bernardino County employment attorneys continue to be alarmed by the ongoing trend of employee misclassification in low-wage industries--a topic we frequently discuss in our employment blogs, where employees are often misclassified as "exempt" so employers can cut costs by evading their responsibilities to honor overtime and minimum wage laws, employee rest breaks and meal periods, tax responsibilities, and other employee benefits, along with observing other state and federal employment laws and regulations.

In related news, the U.S. Department of Labor has recently gone after a group of restaurants in the Boston area, which reportedly engaged in employee misclassification. According to the DOL, 1760 Society Inc., who does business as various Sherborn restaurants as well as the D'Ann Restaurant, moved many employees to the payroll of a staffing agency, Operations Management Group (OMG), where the employees received less compensation than legally required.

The DOL investigation found that the restaurant would set the employees' hourly rate, reporting the number of hours that each employee would work to OMG--but instead of paying overtime, which the employees previously received on the restaurant payroll, they were paid only for "straight time" by OMG for all hours worked, including any overtime hours. The workers' tax deductions were also not withheld.

According to Nancy Leppink, the DOL Wage and Hour Division's acting administrator, the department wants to send a message to employers across the country that they cannot shirk their legal responsibilities and duties by engaging in employee misclassification and using staffing agencies or labor contractors.

Continue reading "DOL Recovers $219K After Restaurant Cheats Workers with Employee Misclassification " »

In recent California discrimination news, that our Santa Ana employment attorneys have been closely watching, fifty-two California Filipino hospital workers have sued their employer this week, Delano Regional Medical Center, claiming that they were targeted by the hospital and discriminated against based on their national origin.

According to the lawsuit, the group of medical staff and nurses filed a complaint accusing the medical center of forcing them to stop speaking Tagalog, along with other Filipino languages, while they worked at the hospital. The hospital workers claim that they are being targeted, as they were the only ethnic group banned from speaking their language. According to the workers, Hindi and Spanish-speaking workers were allowed to continue speaking in their native languages.

The plaintiffs are reportedly also seeking to join the national origin discrimination complaint filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August of this year, accusing the hospital of enforcing a rule that employees can only speak English.

The Filipino employees were allegedly told in August 2006 that they could no longer speak Tagalog, and that if necessary, they would be strictly monitored by surveillance cameras to enforce the new rule. The workers claim that since this rule was introduced they have experienced a hostile work environment, with daily reminders that they must only speak English, even on rest breaks. In the EEOC lawsuit, the hospital has been accused of singling out the Filipino workers for reprimanding, and for encouraging other staff members to report them for speaking in Tagalog--creating a hostile tension between Filipino and non-Filipino employees. This alleged national origin harassment and discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Continue reading "Filipino Workers Sue California Hospital for Discrimination and Harassment over English-only Rule" »