Retaliation

Vanguard Properties Faces Prosecution by National Labor Relations Board and Civil Lawsuit for Allegedly Firing Employee Over Leading “Mutiny” Against Unpaid Overtime and Sexual Harassment

March 12, 2020 –The National Labor Relations Board has issued a complaint against San Francisco-based Vanguard Properties, a luxury real estate company, for terminating its Social Media Specialist because she discussed working conditions at the company with co-workers. The NLRB complaint also alleges that Vanguard told employees that they were prohibited from talking about terms and conditions of employment and threatened to terminate employees because of union and/or protected concerted activities.

Today, the employee, Melissa Ramos, filed a separate lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court alleging wrongful termination based on the California law that prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for speaking openly with each other about problems in the workplace. The complaint [Melissa Ramos v. Vanguard Properties], describes a work environment where Ms. Ramos was expected to work long hours without overtime or breaks and where she was subjected to a barrage of sexual and racial harassment.

The complaint filed by Ms. Ramos alleges that the company did not take steps to stop harassment even after it learned that a male employee showed Ms. Ramos nude pictures of himself on his phone and sent her inappropriate text messages. Ms. Ramos, who is bi-racial and wears her hair in natural curls, also alleged that another employee repeatedly asked to touch her hair and at one point grabbed it and pulled her head back. This case comes in the wake of Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signing into law a bill putting into place legal protections for people who wear natural hairstyles.

On July 17, 2019, according to the complaint, two company directors and a manager called Ms. Ramos into a meeting where they accused her of trying to lead a “mutiny,” questioned her aggressively to identify the employees with whom she had discussed working conditions, demanded she provide a copy of the memo they had been drafting, and threatened her with termination if she continued collaborating with her co-workers to address working conditions.

“Employees have an absolute right under California law and federal law to talk to each other about working conditions and to work together to try to address problems in the workplace. Good employers actually welcome feedback from their employees. We are going to court to prove that firing someone for speaking up won’t fly. Not in San Francisco.” said Sharon Vinick of Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP, the law firm representing Ms. Ramos.

Ms. Ramos was shocked by the real estate company’s decision to terminate. “When some of my co-workers told me they were afraid that management would retaliate, I worried. But, I knew nothing would change unless we spoke up. And I hoped that if we spoke with one voice, management would listen. Instead they did the worst they could to me,” said Ramos, who once worked as a union organizer. She went on to add, “I am hoping the NLRB and the courts will teach Vanguard Properties that employers have to abide by the law.”

Ms. Ramos is represented by Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP, an Oakland law firm devoted to representing employees in workplace disputes. For further information regarding the lawsuit, visit www.levyvinick.com or call Sharon Vinick at 510-318-7700.

A copy of the lawsuit is also available upon request.

Former On-Air Reporter Sues KCBS, Alleges Station Terminated Her for Reporting Sexual Harassment

February 25, 2020 – Long-time reporter Sheryl Raines, whose on-air traffic coverage for the station spanned nearly three decades, is suing KCBS Radio, which is owned by Entercom Communications Corp. Raines alleges the San Francisco radio station terminated her in retaliation for repeatedly reporting that a male radio engineer was sexually harassing women working in the newsroom. The complaint [Sheryl Raines v. Entercom Communications Corp.] which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court earlier today, alleges that KCBS told Ms. Raines that she was being terminated because the station wanted a “different sound,” but then replaced her with another woman “whose on-air voice is startlingly similar to that of Ms. Raines.”

“Anyone who has driven in Bay Area traffic trusts Sheryl’s voice. In this case, she used her voice to speak up for women in her workplace. We intend to prove that instead of listening and taking action to stop the harassment, KCBS fired the messenger and protected the harasser. That’s against the law,” said Sharon Vinick of Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP, one of law firms representing Ms. Raines.

Ms. Raines, who began working for KCBS as an on-air traffic reporter in 1993, says she was devastated by the termination. “I devoted my whole career working for KCBS and I loved the work and bringing the news to our listeners every day. Then the newsroom turned into hostile territory for women and I tried to get management to do something. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that I would get fired for making these reports,” Raines explained.

Ms. Raines is represented by Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP and the Law Offices of Jeannette A. Vaccaro, two law firms devoted to representing employees in workplace disputes. For further information regarding the lawsuit, visit www.levyvinick.com or www.jvlaw.com or call Sharon Vinick at 510-318-7700.

A copy of the lawsuit is available below.

Sheryl Raines v. Entercom Communications Corp.

Mother Jones Magazine Features LVBH’s Brave #MeToo Client

During the era of #MeToo, more women are bravely stepping forward about the sexual harassment they have experienced. The Mother Jones article “She Said, He Sued: MeToo Accusers Face Defamation Suits,” focuses on LVBH client Pamela Lopez and brings needed attention to the increasing tactic of accused perpetrators launching defamation lawsuits to continue to silence their accusers.

Ms. Lopez reported sexual assault allegations against now former California State Assemblymember Matthew Dababneh. Following Ms. Lopez speaking out, many other women came forward with their own accounts of harassment or assault by Dababneh and the California Assembly conducted a full investigation that ultimately found Ms. Lopez credible and supported affirmed her complaint.

After the legislature found against him, Dababneh filed the defamation lawsuit against Ms. Lopez. LVBH partner Jean Hyams and associate Hilary Hammell represent Ms. Lopez in the lawsuit.

Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP represents women and other victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault who are courageously speaking out, as well as those who seek justice and compensation for the harm caused by perpetrators.

Federal Judge Backs Whistleblower, Blasts CA Prisons on Care of Mentally Ill Inmates

For almost thirty years, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has been under court-ordered supervision of mental health services provided to over 30,000 inmates. According to a secret whistleblower report compiled by Dr. Michael Golding, the state prison system’s chief psychiatrist, the state was providing inaccurate and misleading data to the federal court and to lawyers representing the inmates. Dr. Golding, who is represented by Wendy Musell, alleges that he has been subject to retaliation since delivering a 161-page secret report to an official overseeing medical care inside the prisons. United States District Court Judge Kimberly Mueller conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding the report and found that Dr. Golding was “credible” and “his observations and conclusions overall are well-founded. . . .” According to Ms. Musell, Dr. Goldring felt that the importance of the issues compelled him to come forward, “despite the risk for his own career.”

LVBH Wins $325,000 Jury Verdict Against Lawrence Berkeley Labs

On May 24, 2019, LVBH won a $325,000 jury verdict in Alameda County Superior Court against the UC Regents and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on behalf of Kathy Eidson, a long-time employee of the Lab. Ms. Eidson began working at the Lab in 2001 as an electrician. In 2006, she fell off a ladder and suffered an injury, requiring extensive recovery. After she returned to work with some work restrictions, including that she could not work from a ladder.

In February 2011, she was moved into a new position, with a new title and raise. A few months later, Ms. Eidson discovered that all the other employees in her department who were doing the same work had been given a different title (technical supervisor) and were paid more. All of Ms. Eidson’s colleagues were men. Finding this disparity, she began to complain about the failure to properly classify and promote her.

At trial, the jury heard evidence that at the end of 2011, Ms. Eidson got a new boss, who began making disparaging comments about women in the trades. Over the next two years, he repeatedly made comments about her skills and perceptions among her colleagues about her, and then began stripping her of supervisory duties. In January 2014, Ms. Eidson filed a formal complaint for discrimination, and failure to pay her commensurate with her male colleagues. In response to the complaint, the Lab hired a former HR employee of the Lab as an “outside investigator.” Although he did not reach any conclusion about the discrimination allegations, he found that Ms. Eidson was credible, that there appeared to be a problem with her pay and classification, and that her Boss had rated her performance worse than her male comparators. The investigator also reported that when he interviewed the boss, the boss made comments about her that reflected gender-stereotyping.

The Lab did not take any further action with respect to the complaint. However, because the Lab claimed that Ms. Eidson’s relationship with her boss was “broken,” the Lab pushed her to move to another department. Ms. Eidson twice rejected the suggestion. Then, the Lab unilaterally reassigned her, claiming that the restrictions issued to Ms. Eidson following her work injury in 2006 prevented her from continuing in her position. Although the written restrictions said only she could not work off ladders (and Ms. Eidson had been doing the job for years), the Lab took the position that she could not climb on ladders and required that she transfer into another department doing documentation. So, she was forced to move.

After a three week trial in Alameda County Superior Court, Ms. Eidson prevailed before the jury on her claims for disability discrimination, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination, and was awarded $325,000.

$3 Million Jury Award against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams won a jury trial in Alameda County on behalf of a licensed RN, who had been employed by The Permanent Medical Group and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals for almost 20 years at the time of her termination. The nurse received excellent performance reviews, including one two months before she announced her need for leave. Her supervisors started writing her up almost immediately after she requested a medical leave, placed her on a performance improvement plan after her return from leave, and ultimately terminated her. The jury trial lasted six weeks and resulted in an jury verdict awarding over $3,000,000 in damages. For more information about this case, Metzner v. The Permanente Medical Group, et al., follow this link to the press release.

$1.2 Million Jury Verdict after BART Failed to Prevent Harassment and Retaliation

A BART employee who had complained about racial harassment by a co-worker and systemic race discrimination brought suit against his employer. Years after the case was originally filed, partners Darci Burrell and Jean Hyams were brought on to take the case to trial. With only a few months to prepare, Darci and Jean worked feverishly to muster the evidence and prepare the legal arguments that would help prove that BART should be held responsible for the retaliation and harassment suffered by its employee. The jury found in his favor on all counts, in a clear vindication of the mechanic’s rights.