Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Three female employees who work at a UPS hub in Oakland filed a complaint in California federal court on Wednesday. The complaint claims that female staff are routinely given dead-end jobs, leading to lower pay and fewer opportunities for progression within the company than their male colleagues. The complaint also says that such issues are compounded for older female workers at the company. UPS does not have effective procedures in place for filing complaints or enforcing anti-discrimination policies, the complaint says. It alleges that UPS ignores the disparities between its male and female workers.
The plaintiffs, who are all in their 40s and 50s, say they have been denied opportunities to progress and are not afforded the benefits of seniority that are granted to male workers at the company. They also say that they have faced harassment for taking medical leave.
UPS is accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal Equal Pay Act, and comparable California laws, with the plaintiffs representing a nationwide class of female UPS employees who have been at the company since November 2017. They seek at least $250 million in actual, compensatory and punitive damages.
On Wednesday, lawyers for Walmart asked US District Judge Maxine Chesney to dismiss Greenpeace’s renewed complaint, arguing that the environmental group has again failed to demonstrate that it has suffered any harm from the retailer’s alleged deception.
The lawsuit comes as part of a series of cases claiming single-use plastic products are marketed as recyclable when, in reality, they are not due to the limited capacity of recycling facilities in the US.
Greenpeace first sued Walmart over its allegedly deceptive labelling back in December. In September, Bentonville Walmart convinced Judge Chesney to abandon its complaint for lack of standing. However, Chesney said that Greenpeace could amend its claim, which the environmental charity chose to do last month.
In a press release, Walmart said that Greenpeace was “trying to get a second bite at the apple by rewording its allegations.”
By using and modifying open-source software and not making its source code publicly available, Vizio breached two public licenses, says the complaint filed Tuesday by SFC in Orange County, California.
SFC is an advocate for developers of open-source software projects. In a statement, it said, "the first legal case that focuses on the rights of individual consumers" as beneficiaries to the licenses. The nonprofit’s sponsors include Red Hat, Mozilla, and Google.
SFC’s complaint alleges that Vizio used software that is covered by two General Public License agreements. The software was allegedly used in its SmartCast platform for streaming content from services such as Google’s Chromecast to its TVs. However, the SFC claims Vizio did not make its source code publicly available. Under the licenses, the software is supposed to be both publicly accessible and modifiable.
SFC said, "At their heart is a simple bargain. Recipients of the licensed software are entitled to use, examine, modify, adapt, and improve the software however they see fit. In exchange, the recipients must allow their licensees" to do the same.
However, in its complaint, the SFC argues Vizio has “taken full advantage of the rights granted by these agreements but refuses to let others enjoy the same rights.”
The SFC has asked the court for an order requiring Vizio to share the code.
The SEC claims that, between 2017 and 2019, SHE Beverages Co raised over $15 million from more than 2,000 investors in unregistered stock sales by falsely touting its business plans and showcasing its success. The SEC says that the company overstated revenue, made deceptive claims that it had received takeover bids of up to $500 million, and spent just 2% of investor proceeds on beverage inventory instead of the 30% it had promised.
The SEC also claims that CEO Lupe Rose, CFO Sonja Shelby, and COO Katherine Dirden misappropriated approximately $7.5 million from investors. This figure includes $1.2 million spent at casinos and other sums to purchase vehicles and luxury goods.
The SEC’s suit seeks civil fines, the recoupment of ill-gotten gains, and director and officer bans on the individual defendants. SHE Beverage’s lawyer, Jonathan Bletzacker, said the SEC’s complaint has been reviewed and that they look forward to correcting the record and proving that the allegations against the company are inaccurate.
Although the concept of shared real property interests can be traced back to medieval Germany, and perhaps even to ancient Rome, statutory authority for sharing real property ownership did not exist in the United States until the 1800s, and it was not until the early 1960s that the first condominium statutes were passed. In California, the California Condominium Act was adopted in 1963 and later was renamed the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act.
Although there are other types of common interest developments (such as stock cooperatives, planned developments and community apartments), condominiums differ from the others in that the separate interest portion of a condominium can be in a building, a portion of a building, in the underlying land, or the airspace above, or any separately described three-dimensional parcel containing either air, earth, water, a building, or any combination of the foregoing. It is essential that the title to a portion of the property be held by the holders of separate interests as tenants-in-common. Unlike other common interest developments, the creation of a condominium requires both a recorded parcel map or subdivision map and a recorded condominium plan. These two documents may be combined into a single document, or the condominium plan can be a standalone document, separate from the recorded subdivision or parcel map.
In planning for the development of any multi-family residential project, it is important to determine whether the project is intended to be forever a rental project, a for-sale condominium project from the beginning, or, as has become the “norm” recently in many jurisdictions, it is to be created as a condominium project with the intent of renting the units for the foreseeable future, but retaining the option to be able to sell them at any time in the future. When first planning the development of a condominium project, it is important to review the local city or county ordinances to see if the conversion of a rental project into a for-sale project is regulated. Many cities have adopted condominium conversion ordinances which make it extremely difficult for a rental apartment project that was not initially approved as a condominium to be converted into a for-sale condominium project.
It was not until the early 1960s that the first condominium statutes were passed.
Every state has some sort of statutory provisions governing the creation and the offering for sale of condominiums. So does every city or county. In some cases, zoning ordinances may preclude the creation of condominiums within certain designated zones. Federal agencies such as FannieMae, FreddieMac and FHA have regulations which impose standards that must be met by any condominium project in which the unit owners are seeking governmental assisted loans.
In addition to the map and the condominium plan, a Declaration of CC&Rs (sometimes referred to as a Condominium Enabling Declaration) is required. State laws require such Declarations to be in a certain form and to include certain provisions. Such laws regulate and restrict provisions to be included in such Declarations. All states have laws regulating the offering of condominiums for sale to the public by the original developer of the condominiums, or by anyone who owns and is offering more than a certain number of condominiums for sale at any point in time.
In those jurisdictions where the creation and the sale of condominiums is heavily regulated, a team effort is required to successfully develop a project. The key members of the team will be the surveyor or engineer who will be creating the map and the condominium plan; the land use lawyer who will be assisting in obtaining the entitlements for the local jurisdiction and from the state regulatory agency; and the title company or independent professional who will be acting as the liaison between the developer and the state regulatory agency responsible for reviewing the project documentation and, eventually, approving the project for sale to the public.
[ymal]
In the case of condominiums being offered for sale interstate, the developer must be aware of and comply with the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.
John Hanna, Partner
Address: 525 University Avenue, Suite 600, Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: 650-321-5700
Fax: 650-321-5639
Email: jhanna@hanvan.com
Website: hanvan.com
John Hanna is one of the leading land use lawyers in California. He has represented clients and obtained entitlements for over 3,000 projects. He has also been selected in Best Lawyers, Who’s Who in America, San Francisco’s Best Lawyers, and Silicon Valley’s Best Lawyers.
Hanna & Van Atta is one of the most experienced law firms in California in real estate matters, and the premier law firm in matters pertaining to common interest development in the State of California. The firm is located in Palo Alto and represents commercial and residential developers, land users, and the commercial real estate and home building industries throughout California. Hanna & Van Atta’s three partners offer over 100 years of combined experience as lawyers who have specialised in all aspects of legal representation in the fields of real estate law.
Generally speaking, whistleblowing is the act of disclosing an improper act to someone who has the ability to do something about it. In the parlance of whistleblower statutes, complaining is referred to as “engaging in a protected activity”, which essentially means an employee has observed a specific type of activity (usually an illegal or improper act or failure to comply with the law) and then complained about it. In most employment whistleblower cases, employees are typically required to show retaliation in the form of an “adverse employment action”, which means they have been demoted, fired, or suffered some tangible loss.
There are numerous federal and state statutes providing whistleblower protection to individuals and employees. Most of these statutes apply to very specific industries or practices. For example, at the federal level, individuals who complain of bank, wire or mail fraud at a publicly traded company might seek protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, while employees who complain about fraud against the government might turn to the False Claims Act. California itself has approximately fourteen whistleblower statutes, and most cover specific areas of commerce. Whistleblower laws cover the airline, environmental, financial, health insurance, nuclear and public transportation industries.
Whistleblower statutes can be difficult to navigate. The Federal government has attempted to simplify the enforcement of some federal whistleblower statutes by giving enforcement power to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), which enforces more than twenty whistleblower statutes alone. However, each statute has its own set of reporting procedures and remedies. Some statutes create a private right of action, allowing the complainant to file a lawsuit, while others merely offer administrative remedies not particularly designed to make a Plaintiff whole.
[ymal]
In California there are two sources of protection that offer broad protection regardless of the industry and practice. Equally important, both allow employees to seek a full range of damages in court.
The first is California’s Labor Code Section 1102.5. This statute protects employees who have disclosed violations of federal, state, or local statutes or regulations. There are three provisions in this statute that make it powerful. First, employees do not have to complain to a governmental agency; they can complain to someone at their job who has the authority to address the conduct in question. Second, employees do not have to prove that a violation of the law actually occurred; so long as the employee had a reasonable belief that there was a violation, protection is provided. Finally, employees are protected not just for complaining, but for refusing to participate in illegal conduct.
The second source of protection is California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). FEHA is a particularly robust statute that, among other things, prohibits discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Although this statute is not typically considered a “whistleblower” statute, it acts like one. It prohibits retaliation for complaining of harassment or discrimination and/or for refusing to participate in harassment or discrimination. Importantly, it provides employees with the right to pursue economic and non-economic damages in court, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
As of January 2021, California Labor Code Section 1102.5 was amended to allow a court to award attorneys’ fees to prevailing employees. The intent behind this amendment was to encourage whistleblowers to come forward. This amendment is particularly significant, given that this statute is by far the most-used whistleblower law in the state.
Retaliation comes in many forms. Some employees are demoted, while others are transferred, forced to quit, or are set up and then fired. Each act is designed to cover up, discredit, or silence the employee. Regardless of the outcome, however, almost every adverse employment action starts the same way; with shunning. Communication becomes unusually formal. The complaining employee is excluded from meetings. Access to information is taken away. Responsibilities are given to others. Shunning can be devastating and, by the time the employee has been fired, anxiety and emotional distress have already affected their lives. Shunning is a lonely, human experience that every juror understands.
As of January 2021, California Labor Code Section 1102.5 was amended to allow a court to award attorneys’ fees to prevailing employees.
Remedies under the various whistleblower statutes vary widely. Most will offer backpay and reinstatement. Others offer rewards. However, not all whistleblower statutes offer an employee an opportunity to seek monetary damages in court, and the road to relief is equally varied. Complaints can be adjudicated administratively, in federal court, or in state court. When multiple statutes apply, an employee may be faced with a tradeoff; do they give up certain remedies in exchange for a better forum or a more relaxed procedure?
Fortunately, employers that violate California Labor Code section 1102.5 may be ordered to reinstate whistleblowers with backpay and benefits (Labor Code section 98.6(b)), pay the employee’s actual damages (Labor Code section 1105), and/or pay a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation (Labor Code section 1102.5(f), 98.6(b)(3)). As of January 2021, employees may also seek attorneys’ fees if they have brought a successful action under that statute. Similar relief is available under FEHA.
Yes, but in a complex way. Many companies have learned that it is good business to have a complaint hotline in their glossy employee handbook. It makes the company look good. In reality, no company likes to have its operation interrupted by a whistleblower, and I suspect many are happy not to know about violations or non-compliance with the law.
What is changing is how jurors perceive whistleblowers. On one hand, we have become willing to identify inappropriate conduct in the workplace and talk about it. On the other hand, we have become polarised. Terms like “cancel culture”, “microaggression”, “Karen” and “snowflake” have made it into our lexicon, and attorneys have to consider the possibility of whistleblower fatigue. Will a plaintiff be viewed as being overly sensitive? A good attorney will spend time on the employer’s conduct -- the lengths the employer took to cover up the complaint or set the employee up for termination.
While there has been some fine-tuning over the years to address whistleblowing protection in California, what is still unknown is how whistleblowing statutes will change based upon COVID-19 related precautions. Will California adopt specific whistleblowing statutes protecting employees who complain about PPE shortages, non-compliance with social distancing, or mask requirements? Will employees protesting vaccine requirements at work find protection as whistleblowers?
A good attorney will spend time on the employer’s conduct -- the lengths the employer took to cover up the complaint or set the employee up for termination.
We frequently receive calls from employees who suspect that they are being set up for termination because they have said something or refused to do something they felt was not right. I tell my clients that one of the hardest things to do is to be clear and assertive with human resources. While doing so may forever change their comfortable work environment, it takes some of the control away from unscrupulous actors who might be looking to paint a false picture of the employee’s performance, conduct, or behaviour. Doing so also helps employees maintain credibility down the road.
I know we have done a good job when our clients are happy with the result and feel that they made a difference. I know we have made an impression when our opposing counsel starts referring cases to my firm.
Fight back, and when you do, fight hard.
James Urbanic, Founder
Address: 6080 Center Drive, 6th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045-9205
Telephone: 310-216-0900
Fax: 310-216-0900
Email: jurbanic@urbaniclaw.com
I am James Urbanic. I am the principal attorney with Urbanic & Associates, a litigation firm located in Los Angeles. We are trial attorneys. Although we focus on representing employees who have suffered from retaliation, discrimination, or harassment, we take on cases we believe in. I have successfully obtained a number of large verdicts on behalf of my clients, and in each of those cases I saw something in my client that made me want to help them tell their story to a jury. Opposing counsel often ask me, “How do you decide which cases you want to take all the way to trial?” My answer is pretty simple: I want to take every one of our cases to trial.
Texas-based Data Engine Technologies LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research, first sued Mountain View California-based Google in 2014, claiming that its Google Sheets spreadsheet programme infringed patents related to using notebook-style tabs to arrange and display information in three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.
However, under the patents’ definition, Google Sheet does not count as a “three-dimensional spreadsheet”, wrote US Circuit Judge Kara Stoll for a unanimous three-judge panel. The judges also rejected Data Engine Technologies LLC’s argument for an interpretation of a “three-dimensional spreadsheet” that differed from what it raised when it was defending the patents’ validity.
Previously, the Federal Circuit had found that the patents at issue were valid in 2018. This reversed a 2016 decision to invalidate the patents at Google’s request as the claims were directed to abstract ideas.
On Friday, US District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr certified a class of investors who purchased shares in Lyft’s IPO. The judge rejected the company’s argument that individual inquiries were required to demonstrate whether investors were aware of the issues before buying in.
Investor Rick Keiner’s lawsuit criticises Lyft, its officers, and directors for failing to disclose what he calls a “pervasive” problem of sexual assaults by drivers as well as brake issues with its bike-share fleet. Keiner argues that Lyft omitted the information as it attempted to position itself as a more socially responsible company than rival Uber. In an attempt to convince the judge to reject class status, Lyft highlighted its interviews with some investors who said they had been aware of the company’s issues before buying in.
However, the judge said the interviews only demonstrated a general awareness of the issues and did not defeat the plaintiff’s claims.
A 2020 lawsuit against a McDonald’s franchise based in Oakland, California claimed that managers of the fast-food restaurant had given employees coffee filters and dog diapers in place of proper face masks. The franchise has agreed to improve its safety precautions to protect employees from covid-19 to settle the lawsuit.
In the settlement, the Oakland franchise said it would provide employees with proper masks and gloves, paid sick leave, would maintain social distancing, and would regularly disinfect surfaces and require any employee with covid-19 symptoms to stay at home. On top of these measures, the franchise will also establish a worker safety committee which will require the franchise’s owner and managers to meet with employees each month to discuss how they can continue to maintain a safe workplace. Fight for $15 and the Union involved in the lawsuit said that the worker safety committee would be the first of its kind.
However, the Oakland franchise denied any wrongdoing and it remains unclear as to whether the settlement included a financial element. In a statement, Michael Smith, the Oakland franchise’s operator, said that the restaurant had started to implement the measures detailed in the settlement over a year ago. He went on to say that the franchise will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that the sites remain as safe as possible.
On Wednesday, amid a surge of covid-19 cases in the country, McDonald’s said it will require all US office workers to be vaccinated.
The claim argued that Zoom violated its users’ privacy rights by sharing personal data with Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn, and allowing hackers to disrupt Zoom meetings in a practice known as “Zoombombing”. In the proposed class action, Zoom’s customers would either be eligible for a $25 refund or a 15% refund on their subscriptions to the video conferencing platform, depending on which sum is larger. The preliminary settlement, which was filed on Saturday afternoon, is still to be approved by US District Judge Lucy Koh in California.
Zoom has agreed to improve its security measures, which will include alerting users when other meeting participants use third-party apps. Zoom will also offer specialised training to employees on privacy and data handling. However, in agreeing to settle, the video conferencing platform has denied any wrongdoing, stating that the privacy and security of its users is a top priority for the company.
As demand for video calls increased during the coronavirus pandemic, Zoom has seen profits of around $1.3 billion from Zoom Meetings subscriptions from class members. However, the plaintiffs’ lawyers suggested that a settlement of $85 million was acceptable given the litigation risks. On top of this figure, they will also seek a maximum of $21.25 million for legal fees.
