Cal State University Sued for Gender Discrimination

Lawsuit Accuses California State University, President Tomás Morales, and Dean Jake Zhu of Equal Pay Act Violations, Gender Discrimination, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Other Illegal Behavior

Courtney Abrams, PC & Helmer Friedman LLP Represent Current California State University Employees Accusing CSU Of Illegal Employment Practices

March 14, 2023 (Los Angeles, California) – On this 2023 Equal Pay Day, Courtney Abrams of Courtney Abrams, PC & Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP announced today the filing of a lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of the California State University (“CSU”), the President of CSU’s San Bernardino campus, Tomás Morales, and the Dean of the Palm Desert Campus of CSU, San Bernardino, Jake Zhu.

The lawsuit, Clare Weber & Anissa Rogers v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (the State of California acting in its higher education capacity); Tomás Morales, an individual; and Jake Zhu, an individual (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV05549), alleges that CSU has a well-known pattern and practice of violating California’s Equal Pay Act and otherwise engaging in gender discrimination against and harassing its female employees.

The lawsuit further alleges that CSU resorts to an entrenched practice of silencing its victims if they complain, including forcing them to resign by threatening their careers with ruin (like Plaintiff Anissa Rogers), or, if they refuse, simply firing them (like Plaintiff Clare Weber).

Unfortunately, women’s individual stories have often included the reality that their contributions have been undervalued, underpaid, and overlooked. Pay discrimination is a stark example of that reality […] When a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same work […] it not only affects her weekly paycheck but also her long-term economic security.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Weber, who was the then-Vice Provost at CSU’s San Bernardino campus, complained to Defendant CSU and President Tomás Morales that female Vice Provosts, including herself, were being paid less than their male counterparts. The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Weber specifically protested gender discrimination, including complaining that (1) she had learned that she was not making the same amount of money as her male counterparts in the CSU system and (2) she was one of the lowest-paid despite her large portfolio of assignments. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Weber requested a raise to address the disparity in pay between her and her male colleagues. Indeed, as the EEOC recognized today, allegations like Dr. Weber’s are all too common:

“Unfortunately, women’s individual stories have often included the reality that their contributions have been undervalued, underpaid, and overlooked. Pay discrimination is a stark example of that reality . . . When a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same work . . . it not only affects her weekly paycheck, but also her long-term economic security.”

See “A Message from EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows for 2023 Equal Pay Day and Women’s History Month,”.

The lawsuit likewise alleges that Dr. Rogers, who was the then-Associate Dean at the Palm Desert Campus at CSU, San Bernardino, complained to Dean Jake Zhu that male employees were permitted to harass female employees and that Defendant CSU “needed to do better to disrupt sexism.” According to the lawsuit, Defendant Zhu, who had subjected Dr. Rogers and other female employees to a barrage of sex harassment, instructed Dr. Rogers to just “train the men.”

male employees were permitted to harass female employees, and Defendant CSU ‘needed to do better to disrupt sexism.’

The lawsuit alleges that, thereafter, in identical conversations with both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers, current Provost of CSU, San Bernardino, Rafik Mohamed, directed both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers to lie to their colleagues and students and say they were “resigning.” According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mohamed was abundantly clear with both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers: If you do not resign, you will be fired.

The lawsuit also alleges that multiple current and former employees have corroborated the conduct alleged to be illegal, including one current executive as attesting:

“President Morales is so deeply hostile to and regularly discriminates against female employees who work for him, there is a culture of fear at California State University. And unfortunately, President Morales has a well-known practice of forcing female employees to “resign” or “retire” if they disagree with him or complain. He quickly turns on female employees who report workplace concerns to him and engages in what I can only call a “campaign” to discredit them and remove the female employees.”(Emphasis added)

According to the lawsuit, CSU Chancellor Jolene Koester has been known to have “coached” female employees about how best to endure well-documented sex harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by high-ranking male employees (while doing nothing to stop it).

President Morales is so deeply hostile to and regularly discriminates against female employees who work for him that there is a culture of fear at California State University. And unfortunately, President Morales has a well-known practice of forcing female employees to “resign” or “retire” if they disagree with him or complain. He quickly turns on female employees who report workplace concerns to him and engages in what I can only call a “campaign” to discredit them and remove the female employees.

The lawsuit alleges that after Dr. Weber was fired, Defendant CSU offered multiple conflicting explanations for her firing – none of which were true.

The lawsuit filed by Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers follows on the heels of a May 2022 study released by the California State University Employees Union finding that the current pay structure within CSU has resulted in white women being paid roughly five percent less than white men, men of color making about three percent less, and women of color having a nearly seven percent disparity in pay when compared to white men. See CSUEU Salary Study.

Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers are represented by Courtney Abrams, PC, and Helmer Friedman, LLP, California law firms that represent employees and other individuals seeking to vindicate their rights.

Speaking about the lawsuit, Courtney Abrams stated, “California law is clear: it is illegal for employers to subject female employees to inferior and hostile working conditions and pay them less than their male counterparts.”

Andrew H. Friedman likewise stated: “California law is abundantly clear that an employer – not even the State of California – may retaliate against an employee because she complains about gender discrimination and harassment.”

Current and former employees of California State University who wish to report their work experiences or learn more about the lawsuit should complete a case evaluation form and/or visit https://courtneyabramslaw.com/csu-sued-for-gender-discrimination-and-sex-harassment.

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact Courtney Abrams (at 310-490-1547 or courtney@courtneyabramslaw.com) or Andrew H. Friedman (at 310-396-7714 x. 106 or afriedman@helmerfriedman.com).

Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Dr. Weber or Dr. Rogers, please contact Mr. Friedman and/or Ms. Abrams.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2023-06-21T09:30:56-08:00March 14th, 2023|Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, gender discrimination, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, retaliation, sexual harassment|Comments Off on Cal State University Sued for Gender Discrimination

Mott MacDonald Sued for Discrimination

Lawsuit Accuses Mott MacDonald Family of Companies of Age, Disability, Race & National Origin Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, and Other Unlawful Behavior

 

Helmer Friedman LLP Represents Former Mott MacDonald Employee Accusing the Mott MacDonald Family of Companies of Illegal Employment Practices

October 26, 2021 (Los Angeles, California)Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, announced today the filing of a lawsuit against the Mott MacDonald Family of companies – Mott MacDonald Holdings, Inc., Mott MacDonald Group, Inc., and Mott MacDonald, Inc.

California law is clear: it is illegal for employers to fire, demote or otherwise retaliate against an employee because of that employee’s age, race or national origin or because that employee complains about unlawful activity.

The lawsuit, Abbas Sizar v. Mott MacDonald Holdings, Inc., Mott MacDonald Group, Inc., and Mott MacDonald, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV39343), alleges that the Mott MacDonald defendants, in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code, discriminated against, harassed, and retaliated against Mr. Sizar, among other claims. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Mott MacDonald defendants fired Mr. Sizar and other non-white and older employees and replaced them with younger less experienced, and less qualified white males.

Speaking about the lawsuit, Mr. Sizar’s attorney, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, stated, “California law is clear: it is illegal for employers to fire, demote or otherwise retaliate against an employee because of that employee’s age, race or national origin or because that employee complains about unlawful activity.”

If you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Mr. Sizar or wish to know more about the lawsuit, please contact Andrew H. Friedman (at 310-396-7714 x. 106 or afriedman@helmerfriedman.com).

Helmer Friedman LLP, a Beverly Hills, California-based law firm, is dedicated to assisting people with a wide array of legal problems. The law firm was founded in order to provide its clients (people; not corporations) with the type of world-class legal representation frequently offered by large corporate law firms to large corporations in a more personalized and less formal environment.

Helmer Friedman LLP is a leader in providing clients with legal representation across a wide spectrum of practice areas, including all aspects of employment law, consumer fraud and protection, product liability, false advertising, catastrophic personal injury, and wrongful death, civil rights violations, antitrust, privacy violations, nursing home neglect, and elder abuse, housing violations, defamation, medical malpractice, sexual harassment by doctors and other types of professionals, entertainment and sports representation.

DOCUMENTS:

2023-05-15T12:45:16-08:00October 26th, 2021|Case Update, employment law, Front Page News|Comments Off on Mott MacDonald Sued for Discrimination

Helmer Friedman LLP Files Lawsuit On Behalf of Cancer Survivor Suing Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care for Disability Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination

November 21, 2019 – Today, Helmer Friedman LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of a former Pharmacist for Torrance, California-based Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care alleging that the Company engaged in disability harassment and discrimination. A copy of the lawsuit — Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV41854 – can be view here.

Among other things, plaintiff Dr. John L. Bowie alleges that, following a humiliating and degrading campaign of retaliation and harassment, he was fired for being a disabled stage IV cancer survivor. Dr. Bowie, a Pharmacist with over twenty years of practice treating and saving patients’ lives, alleges that the company and some of its employees relentlessly bullied and harassed him after learning that he was a survivor of colon cancer with digestive disabilities. In order to embarrass Dr. Bowie for his medical condition, some of his coworkers allegedly told him he had a “foul odor” and that he “stank,” placed advertisements for adult diapers on his desk, filled his office with the overpowering scent of air freshener, and giggled and smirked at his distress. The lawsuit further alleges that after Dr. Bowie was repeatedly and rudely confronted by Human Resources representatives with the false accusation that his digestive disability and colon cancer made him smell, the Company escalated their harassment to a truly shocking level, demanding that he begin to wear an adult diaper to work. According to the lawsuit, when Dr. Bowie, feeling bullied and in fear for his job, complied with this ridiculous and degrading request, a representative for Human Resources then forced him to show her his diaper by pulling down his pants for her and lifting it out of his waistband. Dr. Bowie alleges that he was emotionally devastated by his treatment at the hands of his coworkers.

Dr. Bowie’s Complaint For Damages alleges that he repeatedly asked the company to provide him a reasonable accommodation for his disability and to address the severe harassment he was experiencing. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, rather than taking remedial action or accommodating him, the company abruptly fired him just days after his most recent request for accommodation and help.

The lawsuit also alleges that Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care fired Dr. Bowie because he made complaints to the company that it was not complying with various guidelines to ensure the safety and efficacy of the prescription drugs that it was compounding and that the company was sending out prescriptions for large
amounts of IV diphenhydramine.

Commenting about the lawsuit, Andrew H. Friedman, founding partner of Helmer Friedman LLP, stated: “California employers need to be aware that the law of this state requires them to take reasonable steps to accommodate employees with disabilities and medical conditions so that they have the same access to employment as anyone else.”

Helmer Friedman LLP is seeking witnesses who may be aware of the manner in which Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care treated Dr. Bowie and/or other employees with disabilities.

Documents:

Complaint for DamagesHelmer Friedman LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of a former Pharmacist for Torrance, California-based Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care alleging that the Company engaged in disability harassment and discrimination.

Press ReleaseCancer Survivor Suing Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care for Disability Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination.

Media Coverage:

2019-11-26T09:11:54-08:00November 21st, 2019|Case Update, Front Page News|Comments Off on Helmer Friedman LLP Files Lawsuit On Behalf of Cancer Survivor Suing Pharmaco, Inc. and Premier Infusion Care for Disability Harassment, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination

Helmer Friedman LLP defeats Landlord’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

This morning, Helmer Friedman LLP defeated a landlord’s motion to dismiss a familial status discrimination lawsuit (Pitts v. Financial Management Co. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC644978).  In the underlying lawsuit, a Los Angeles area couple, Karen Pitts and Michael Pitts, sued their landlord (defendants Actress Frieda Rentie and Financial Management Company) alleging after Ms. Rentie learned that Karen Pitts was pregnant and she and her husband Michael were expecting their second child, Ms. Rentie gave them a “60 day notice to quit”, which terminated their lease. In response, the defendants filed a motion – called an anti-SLAPP motion – pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 to dismiss the Pitts’ lawsuit contending that it was frivolous litigation and that it arose from defendant’s “60 day notice to quit” which was an exercise of their right to petition the government. The Pitts, represented by Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, argued that the Pitts’ FEHA discrimination lawsuit arose from the landlord’s allegedly discriminatory eviction and not any protected activity. At the hearing on defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the Honorable Judge Ernest M. Hiroshige (Department 54 of the Los Angeles Superior Court) denied the motion filed in response to the plaintiffs’ FEHA discrimination lawsuit. In his decision, Judge Hiroshige agreed with the arguments made by Mr. Friedman: “Defendant Frieda Rentie, individually and dba Financial Management Company, moves to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425. 16). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ action arises out of service of the 60-day notice to quit- a necessary prerequisite to filing an unlawful detainer actions- and thus falls under the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court disagrees . . .  Plaintiffs’ are not challenging the eviction procedure but the eviction decision itself. Thus, while service of the 60-day notice is arguably a protected activity, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not arise from this activity and thus is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.”    You can read Defendants’ motion here, the Pitts’ opposition here, and the Court’s decision here.

2023-08-29T10:09:29-08:00May 16th, 2017|Case Update, discrimination|Comments Off on Helmer Friedman LLP defeats Landlord’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

Ninth Circuit Rules In Favor of Helmer Friedman LLP

This afternoon, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Helmer Friedman LLP’s clients Crystal Monique Lightfoot and Beverly Hollis-Arrington (Case No. 10-56068).

Following the victory of Helmer Friedman LLP in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2017 on behalf of Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington, Fannie Mae filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit to, in effect, disregard the Supreme Court’s decision, and, instead, to affirm the District Court’s dismissal of their case.  After extensive briefing, the Ninth Circuit denied Fannie Mae’s Motion. Instead, the Ninth Circuit granted the relief that Helmer Friedman LLP had requested and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate its prior judgment in favor of Fannie Mae and then remand the case back to California State Court.

“As with the Supreme Court’s decision, this decision from the Ninth Circuit is also complete vindication for our clients who have argued for years that their lawsuit against Fannie Mae should be heard in the California state courts and not in federal court,” commented Andrew H. Friedman of Beverly Hills-based Helmer Friedman LLP.

A copy of Fannie Mae’s Motion can be found here.

Helmer Friedman LLP’s Opposition to Fannie Mae’s Motion can be found here.

Fannie’s Mae’s Reply can be found here.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision can be found here.

2018-08-23T15:57:49-08:00March 20th, 2017|Case Update, Front Page News|Comments Off on Ninth Circuit Rules In Favor of Helmer Friedman LLP

Helmer Friedman LLP Takes Case To Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Greg Helmer, Andrew Friedman, Beverly Hollis-Arrington take on Fannie Mae.

Washington, D.C. – Helmer Friedman LLP Takes Case To Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman outside the U.S. Supreme Court with their client, Beverly Hollis-Arrington — one of the most courageous people we know. Fannie Mae foreclosed on her home in 2002 but she stood up and took them all the way to the Supreme Court (with a little help from Helmer Friedman LLP).

2018-08-17T09:24:57-08:00November 8th, 2016|Case Update|Comments Off on Helmer Friedman LLP Takes Case To Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition Certiorari

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition For Certiorari Filed By Helmer Friedman LLP

Helmer Friedman LLP is very pleased to announce that this morning the Supreme Court granted our petition for certiorari in Crystal Monique Lightfoot, et al. v.  Fannie Mae, Cendant Mortgage Corporation, dba PHH Mortgage, et al.  Case No. 10-56068.  According to the Supreme Court, approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed each Term and the Court grants and hears oral argument in merely 80 of those cases – about 1%.  Given the slim chance that any petition for certiorari will be granted, founding Helmer Friedman LLP partners, Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman, exclaimed: “We were thrilled a month ago when the U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Court recommending that our petition be granted. This morning, we are beyond ecstatic.”

At issue in the Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae  case is whether individual homeowners who have been wrongly or fraudulently foreclosed upon by Fannie Mae have the right to sue the mortgage giant in the state courts.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) and, since 1968, a publicly traded company. Its brother organization is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”), better known as Freddie Mac. With the advent of the 2008 housing crisis and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the verge of collapse, the U.S. government was forced to “bail out” the firms in September 2008. Accordingly, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship and fired the firms’ chief executive officers and boards of directors. On Oct 21, 2010 FHFA estimates revealed that the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will likely cost taxpayers $224–360 billion in total, with over $150 billion already provided.

In the Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae  case, two Californians (Crystal Lightfoot and Beverly Hollis-Arrington) involved in a mortgage dispute sued Fannie Mae in California State court. Fannie Mae then removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Fannie Mae’s sole basis of removal was under a belief that its congressionally created charter conferred automatic federal jurisdiction. That statute says Fannie Mae has authority “to sue and be sued, and to complain and defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a) (emphasis added). After removal, Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington immediately sought remand from the District Court to California State court arguing Fannie Mae’s charter did not confer automatic federal question jurisdiction. The District Court denied the application to remand. Eventually, Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Hollis-Arrington appealed the district court’s denial of remand decision to the Ninth Circuit.  Initially, the Ninth Circuit affirmed District Court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to remand on the basis that the District Court had removal jurisdiction over state claims filed to circumvent the res judicata impact of a federal judgment. Notably, however, Fannie Mae did not remove the case on that basis. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit, sua sponte, withdrew its decision and ordered the parties to submit briefing on the issue of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of Fannie Mae’s federal charter. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit held that Fannie Mae’s federal charter conferred original jurisdiction in the federal courts.  A brief chronology of the proceedings before the U.S. Supreme Court follow:

San Francisco Daily Journal - High Court Article.
2018-08-23T15:48:24-08:00June 28th, 2016|Case Update, Front Page News|Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition Certiorari

$5.7 Million Jury Verdict for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

May 1, 2015 –

Court of Appeal Affirm’s Ted Mathew’s $5.7 Million Jury Verdict For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Today, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court ruling and reinstated a $5.7 Million jury verdict that Charles “Ted” Mathews obtained on behalf  Dr. Michael W. Fitzgibbons.  Commenting about this victory, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, said “Ted’s victory today exemplifies why we wanted him to join our law firm. We think that Ted is one of the premier trial attorneys on the West Coast and we could not be happier that he is working with us.”

Mr. Mathews’ client, Dr.  Fitzgibbons, sued his former employer, Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (“IHHI”), for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the conduct of IHHI’s chief executive officer (“CEO”).  At trial, the jury impliedly found that IHHI’s CEO carried out his threat to “humble” Dr. Fitzgibbons by having him arrested after arranging for a loaded handgun to be planted in his car. The jury also impliedly found the CEO caused Dr. Fitzgibbons’s daughter to be in a serious auto accident after one of her tires was slashed. The CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons to punish him for his outspoken opposition to IHHI’s acquisition of the hospital where Dr. Fitzgibbons had just completed a term as chief of staff, and also Dr. Fitzgibbons’s success in an earlier lawsuit that resulted in a $150,000 attorneys fee award against IHHI.  Accordingly, the jury found in favor of Dr. Fitzgibbons and awarded him $5.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against IHHI.

Following the trial, the trial court granted IHHI’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because it found IHHI was not vicariously liable for its CEO’s misconduct under the respondeat superior doctrine. According to the trial court, the CEO acted outside the scope of his employment because he held a personal grudge against Fitzgibbons and therefore his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated the jury’s verdict because foreseeability of the CEO’s conduct is not the exclusive test for determining the employer’s vicarious liability for an employee’s torts. An employee also acts within the scope of employment when his or her tort is engendered by or arises from a dispute that relates to the employer’s business. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s implied finding the CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons based on a dispute relating to IHHI’s acquisition and operation of the hospital, and the trial court’s finding the CEO acted out of a personal grudge impermissibly supplants the jury’s determination on the weight and credibility of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal decision can be found here.

2018-04-12T13:45:55-08:00May 1st, 2015|Case Update, employment law, Front Page News, retaliation|Comments Off on $5.7 Million Jury Verdict for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Helmer Friedman LLP, announced today that the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has held that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. In this lawsuit, Los Angeles-based Helmer  Friedman LLP and Washington, D.C-based co-counsel Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, represent Cecelia Carter with respect to her claims of wrongful termination, race discrimination and retaliation. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. 30-2013-00647896-CU-WT-CJC (Orange County Sup. Ct., filed May 3, 2013). According to the Complaint, Ms. Carter reported her concern that several Fannie Mae REO Foreclosure Specialists in the Irvine, California office had allegedly solicited illegal kickbacks from brokers in exchange for assigning Fannie Mae REO listings to those brokers. Shortly after, Fannie Mae initiated an investigation into Ms. Carter’s performance and then, on May 4, 2011, terminated her without explanation. On March 26, 2013, a federal grand jury charged Armando Granillo, one of the REO Foreclosure Specialists from the Irvine office, with three counts of “honest services” wire fraud for allegedly soliciting kickbacks from a real estate broker in Tucson, Arizona, in exchange for providing him with foreclosed properties to sell on behalf of Fannie Mae. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Granillo was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for his role in the kickback scheme. For more information about Mr. Granillo’s conviction, see http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-fannie-kickbacks-sentencing-20140804-story.html

After Ms. Carter filed her Complaint, Fannie Mae moved to compel arbitration. The Superior Court denied Fannie Mae’s motion, holding that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that Ms. Carter and Fannie Mae entered into an arbitration agreement. The Superior Court found that, although the Offer Letter referenced the arbitration policy, Fannie Mae did not include the arbitration agreement with its Offer Letter and did not tell her where to find it; Fannie Mae then revoked the Offer letter; and Fannie Mae’s subsequent offer of employment did not contain or reference an arbitration provision. Fannie Mae appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on other grounds, holding that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was inherently one-sided in that it exempted the types of claims likely to be filed by Fannie Mae, but included the types of claims likely to be filed by the employee. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. G049112, 2014 WL 4212622 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 26, 2014). The arbitration agreement covered “all” claims an employee might make involving a legally protected right relating directly or indirectly to the employee’s employment, but exempted “any claim made in connection with workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation benefits, or under any of Fannie Mae’s employee welfare benefits, ERISA, or pension plans, or to any claim of unfair competition, disclosure of trade secrets, or breach of trust or fiduciary duty.” During oral argument, Fannie Mae’s counsel emphasized the aspects of the agreement it claimed were beneficial to the employee. However, the Court of Appeal held that “

[i]t makes no difference that, arguably, the dispute resolution policy isn’t entirely one-sided” and found that the allegedly positive aspects of the agreement do not “save the agreement as a whole when it contains other provisions that have been clearly held to be unconscionable in the case law.”

“We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal rejected Fannie Mae’s attempt to force Ms. Carter into arbitration,” commented Ms. Loveless. “For years, employers have attempted to destroy one of our Country’s greatest institution – the jury trial – by forcing employees and consumers into secret tribunals that favor large corporations over individuals. The founders of our Country enshrined the right to a jury trial in our Constitution and corporations should not be allowed to take that right away.” The Court of Appeal’s decision may also significantly affect the ability of other Fannie Mae employees to bring their claims in court, rather than be forced into arbitration.

For a PDF copy of the Court of Appeal decision, click here.

For additional information or to report unlawful conduct on the part of Fannie Mae, contact:

Andrew H. Friedman

2022-06-08T10:23:02-08:00September 3rd, 2014|Andrew Friedman, Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Poisoned Pet Food Lawsuit

Contaminated Pet Food – Helmer Friedman LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit

March 27, 2007, Los Angeles, California – Helmer Friedman LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Menu Foods, Nutro Products, Inc., and PETCO – the manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of the pet food allegedly linked to the deaths and severe kidney problems of pets who consumed the food.

Poisoned pet food class action lawsuit filed Helmer Friedman LLP.
 
 

 

June 2007 Update
In addition to our class action lawsuit (Grady, et al v. Menu Foods et al), approximately 120 other class action lawsuits have been filed around the Country as a result of the contaminated pet food. On May 31, 2007, a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) hearing took place in Las Vegas, Nevada to determine what form these lawsuits should take (e.g., whether they should be consolidated into one large lawsuit) and, if so, in what court they should proceed. We had asked the MDL panel of judges to consolidate all of these related lawsuits into a single action in federal court in Los Angeles, California.

On June 19, 2007, the MDL panel issued its order transferring our case and all related pet food cases to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey.  Although we would have preferred that these actions be consolidated in California, the MDL panel of judges decided to transfer the case to New Jersey federal court for pre-trial proceedings. Nonetheless, our law firm will continue to prosecute this action on behalf of all persons whose pets either died or became ill from ingesting contaminated pet food.

May 2008 Update
On May 30, 2008, Judge Noel L. Hillman of the United States District Court for the District Court for the District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement of claims relating to contaminated pet food. The Court appointed the firm of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP to be the Claims Administrator for the class wide settlement.

The Claims Administrator set up a website that contains information regarding the claims procedures, including, the Notice to Class Members, the Claim Form, the preliminary settlement agreement and the Court’s order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The website also contains an extensive FAQ section. Please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com

Anyone who wishes to opt out of the class wide settlement is required to provide the Claims Administrator with written notice to be received by the Claims Administrator by August 15, 2008. For information about “opting out” please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com

Further, anyone who wishes to object to the proposed settlement must file an objection with the court by September 12, 2008 and serve copies of the objection on the appropriate parties. The procedure for filing objections is set forth in the Court’s May 30, 2008 order and is contained at www.petfoodsettlement.com

December 2008 Update
On November 18, 2008, after a full-day Final Approval Hearing, Judge Hillman issued an Order and 65-page Opinion approving a $24 million settlement with Menu Foods and denying all objections to the Settlement. The settlement covers expenses associated with pet deaths and illnesses, including veterinary costs, time missed from work to care for sick animals, replacement pets, burial expenses and property damaged by sick animals. The settlement does NOT reimburse pet owners for their own pain and suffering caused by injuries to their pets. Pet owners who did not save all their pet food receipts or veterinary bills can still request up to $900 for undocumented claims.

Appeals have since been filed by two separate objectors contesting final approval of the Settlement, and these appeals will postpone the payment of claims. No payments may be made on eligible claims until all appeals are resolved. It is uncertain how long these appeals will take to resolve, and the timing of resolving the appeals is not within the control of the parties or their counsel.

If you have already sent in your Claim Form and would like to confirm that the Claims Administrator has received it, please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/ and contact the Claims Administrator. In the blank box labeled “Message,” state the following: “Please confirm the receipt of my claim and send me my claim number.”

The law firm of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP has been selected by the Court as Settlement Administrator, and as such they are responsible for mailing out notices about the settlement to known class member and processing all the settlement claim forms for this litigation. The notice and forms they may send you in the mail are the same as those found on the website.

December 2011 Update
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the $24-million class-action suit settlement and concluded that the deal is “fair, reasonable and adequate” except for one minor issue. In re Pet Food Products Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333, 336 (3d Cir. 2010).

2018-04-12T13:46:01-08:00May 30th, 2008|Case Update, class actions|Comments Off on Poisoned Pet Food Lawsuit
Go to Top