The firm represents employees in a wide variety of wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, and wage cases. Below is a representative sampling:
At trial, an Alameda Superior Court jury awarded substantial damages to our client, a Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) employee who suffered illegal retaliation for reporting waste and misuse of government funds. Tolchin v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al., Case No. C-833314-4.
In Diaz v. County of Kern, Kern Superior Court Case No. 1500-CV-265776, we sued a county medical center after our client, the Chief Financial Officer, was wrongfully terminated as the result of his complaints that the CEO was engaged in financial improprieties. The case settled before trial.
In Fung v. VVVC, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 09-495059, we represented an accountant who was demoted after he complained that the defendant was committing fraud in public contracts. The case settled before trial.
In Siudzinski v. PG&E, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-09-487576, we represented an employee who was demoted after he complained that the company’s practices were putting low income customers at risk of brain damage and other injury from carbon monoxide poisoning. The case settled and plaintiff was able to retire early.
In Glick v. Stationary Engineers Local 39, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 318531, we sued for age discrimination on behalf of a union executive. The case settled before trial.
In Aubry v. Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation, we arbitrated a case on behalf of a longtime teacher who was forced to resign due to age discrimination. After obtaining evidence of age discrimination against other teachers, the case settled favorably.
In Peonsin v. California State University, Solano Superior Court Case No. FCS034322, we represented a long-time employee who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a younger, less qualified candidate because the decisionmaker was concerned about plaintiff retiring soon and because the younger candidate was "more energetic." The case settled before trial, and plaintiff was able to retire early.
In Manion v. Barclays Global Investors, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-02-405583, we represented an employee in a case of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The case settled at mediation after her supervisor was forced to admit he had destroyed evidence.
In Cube v. Regents of the University of California, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC 09 485484, we represented an employee whose serious medical condition was exacerbated by the defendant’s failure to accommodate. As a result of the disability discrimination, plaintiff was rendered unable to work permanently. The case was settled during litigation.
In Glenn v. UHS of Delaware, Inc., Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG11579191, we represented a teacher's assistant who was terminated for "job abandonment" while she was on medical leave. The case settled after we discovered documents showing the employer was actually aware of plaintiff being on medical leave.
In Ling, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, United States District Court Case No. 2001-035654, we represented representatives in a class action for race discrimination at the Lawrence Livermore Lab. The case settled after class certification.
We represented victims of national origin discrimination in Taylor, et al v. Canal Plus Technologies, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-03-CV-000675. The case settled after statistics proved that it was virtually impossible that discrimination was not involved in the lay-off.
We represented a pharmaceutical sales representative in Ngo v. Bristol Myers Squibb, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 107CV099700, in a case of race discrimination and retaliation. The client had some of the best sales numbers nationwide, and yet was counseled for "poor communications skills"–code words for a strong accent. When he objected to the discrimination, he was fired. The case settled before trial.
In Scott Company v. City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. CV 787323, we sued the City to enjoin further discrimination in public contracting. The case was settled and the City changed its bid process.
In De Souza v. Regents of the University of California, United States District Court Case No. CV-09-2726, we sued the university affirmative action office on behalf of an employee for race discrimination and retaliation for the employee’s complaints about discrimination. The case settled before trial and the employee now works in a different department with higher pay.
In Loretta Lee v. Google, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 18CV323651, we filed a lawsuit alleging that Ms. Lee was the victim of sex harassment, including inappropriate sexual behavior and lewd remarks, in Google's male-dominated "bro-culture".
We represented the victim of pregnancy discrimination in Smith v. CU Funding Group, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG 04176367. The case settled after the discovery of incriminating emails from her supervisor.
We represented victims of sex discrimination in Nguyen v. BTR Capital Management, San Francisco Case No. 03-421699. The case settled after witnesses corroborated discriminatory statements by management.
In Harden v. Alameda County Medical Center, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG10504139, we represented a nurse who was harassed on the basis of her perceived sexual orientation. The employer eventually terminated the harasser, the case settled before trial, and plaintiff continued to work for the hospital.
In Mathen v. Cisco Systems, we represent a former Cisco worker and a potential class of workers who were classified as independent contractors but (we allege) should have been classified as employees and entitled to overtime and other employee benefits.
In Drolet, et al. v. Williams, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 413025, we sued on behalf of employees of an internet start-up for failure to pay wages. The case settled without the need for class certification with payment in full to the employees.
In Kuhlmann v. Pechiney Plastic Packaging, United States District Court Case No. C-02-02065, we sued on behalf of commission salesmen for failure to pay wages due. The case settled at mediation.
In Wahid and Saavedra v. Nations, Alameda Superior Court Nos. RG 05246866 and RG 08421015,we represented restaurant managers who had been misclassified as exempt and denied overtime as well as rest and meal breaks and thereby achieved a substantial settlement. We won the case at trial.
In Kauffman, et al. v. Bank of America, United States District Court Case No. CV 09-04114 we represent personal bankers throughout California who were forced to work overtime in order to meet sales quotas but were not allowed to record the overtime and were not paid for it. The case was coordinated as part of a multi-district litigation in the District of Kansas, where we continue to pursue class claims on behalf of nonexempt Bank of America employees across the United States.
In Engle, et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis, United States District Court Case No. 3:10-CV-04141, we represent pharmaceutical sales people across California who were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay wrongfully.
In Neu-Helms, et al. v. UHS Delaware, Inc., Alameda Superior Court No. RGO 8425516, we represented a group of special education assistants who were compelled to waive their right to a lunch break allegedly by the nature of their work. We successfully moved to certify the class and obtained a settlement that was 100 cents on the dollar for class members' meal break claims.
In Palm v. Sur la Table, Inc. we represent retail employees who were denied rest breaks at the statutorily-mandated minimum rate of 10 minutes for every four hours, or a major fraction of four hours. The case is ongoing, and plaintiff will attempt to certify the case for class treatment in the near future.