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

Wells Fargo Bank Sued for Gender Discrimination, Retaliation, Refusal to Pay Commissions

Home Mortgage Consultant Sues Wells Fargo for Gender Discrimination, Retaliation and Refusal to Pay Commissions

LOS ANGELES, August 12, 2020 – A former Home Mortgage Consultant has filed a lawsuit alleging sex/gender discrimination, Equal Pay Act violations, and unlawful retaliation against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and related entities and has asserted that the company has refused to pay her the commission wages she has earned. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV30296). The filing was announced today by the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Plaintiff Raena Krestovnikov alleges that she was not being provided the same level of benefits and compensation that was being given to her male colleagues. She further alleges that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about the disparity and discrimination to her supervisors, including Senior Vice President of Sales Marty Widergren, and for notifying them that she was going to retain counsel.

It is illegal to discriminate against an employee based on her gender, and it’s certainly illegal to fire an employee for raising those concerns to her employer

The lawsuit further alleges that, in retaliation for Ms. Krestovnikov’s complaints of sexist discrimination, Wells Fargo reacted swiftly and punitively. According to the suit, Mr. Widergren, angered by her complaints, harbored a retaliatory animus and refused to meet with her to discuss work matters. Within a few months of her most recent complaints, she was fired.

After she was fired, the suit alleges, Wells Fargo refused to pay Ms. Krestovnikov commissions she had earned and, instead, assigned those accounts to male employees, who unfairly profited from Ms. Krestovnikov’s work.

“It is illegal to discriminate against an employee based on her gender, and it’s certainly illegal to fire an employee for raising those concerns to her employer,” said Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP. Helmer added, “Retaining counsel is a fundamental right in California and the United States, and the law in California prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee for asserting that important right.”

DOCUMENTS:

 

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2021-12-09T11:06:01-08:00August 12th, 2020|discrimination, Front Page News, gender discrimination, retaliation|Comments Off on Wells Fargo Bank Sued for Gender Discrimination, Retaliation, Refusal to Pay Commissions

#MeToo Legal Update

Andrew H. Friedman To Provide #MeToo Legal Update To JAMS

April 3, 2019Andrew H. Friedman (of Helmer Friedman LLP) and Laura Shelby (of Seyfarth Shaw) will provide a legal update to the mediators and arbitrators of JAMS regarding the #MeToo inspired legislation that took effect in California on January 1, 2019. Mr. Friedman and Ms. Shelby will also offer their thoughts about how those new laws will affect mediation and arbitration. They will also discuss new arbitration and wage and hour cases.

2019-04-03T10:19:01-08:00April 3rd, 2019|Andrew Friedman, employment law, retaliation, sexual harassment|Comments Off on #MeToo Legal Update

The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015

Andrew H. Friedman Authors Article on the Most Notable Employment Cases of 2015

Helmer Friedman LLP is pleased to congratulate founding partner Andrew H. Friedman on his latest law review article — The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015, Cal. Lab. & Emp. L. R. Vol. 30, No. 1 (2016).  In this article, Mr. Friedman opines on the the employment cases decided in 2015 which he believes are the most notable and/or of the most utility for the everyday employment practioner.  The article can be viewed here.

2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00January 26th, 2016|employment law publications, law review articles, retaliation|Comments Off on The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015

CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees

June 24, 2015 –The former Chief Financial Officer of SolarMax Technology, Inc. – a renewable energy conglomerate located in Riverside, CA – has filed a lawsuit against the company and several of its directors and executive management team, including CEO David Hsu, Executive Vice President Ching Liu, and CFO Simon Yuan. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC585952). Among other things, plaintiff Michael McCaffrey alleges that he was fired for exposing fraud and financial improprieties in connection with approximately $60 million in capital SolarMax has raised from foreign nationals through the federal EB-5 Immigration and Visa Program (colloquially known as the “Visa for Sale” program). The EB-5 program provides wealthy foreign nationals (and their immediate families) with a two-year fast track to permanent U.S. residency in return for investing $1,000,000 or, in some cases, $500,000 in domestic businesses. The filing was announced today by Gregory D. Helmer, of the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. McCaffrey discovered that SolarMax, by engaging in a series of Enron-like “round trip” transactions with sham middleman entities, reported approximately $50,000,000 in phantom revenue on its 2011 and 2012 audited financial statements. In an effort to create a false impression of stronger financial performance and, thus, to attract investment capital, the suit alleges that SolarMax disseminated these artificially inflated figures to EB-5 investors (mostly in Taiwan and China) and others. Mr. McCaffrey also alleges that the inflated revenue figures were presented to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) – part of U.S. Homeland Security – which regulates the EB-5 program.

“Most people do not realize that there is a program by which foreign citizens can literally purchase Green Cards if they have enough money and invest it in a qualifying business,” said Mr. Helmer. The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The lawsuit further alleges that Mr. McCaffrey exposed a series of other unlawful activities at SolarMax, including efforts to defraud the Social Security Administration by placing non-employee friends and relatives on the company’s payroll for the sole purpose of permitting them to earn Social Security credits. He further alleges that there existed a pattern of favoritism for the many employees of Chinese descent, and that he – and other employees who were not of Chinese descent – were subjected to unfair treatment and discrimination.

Commenting on the lawsuit, Mr. Helmer said, “Mr. McCaffrey, in his role as the CFO, was simply trying to ensure that SolarMax complied with the same set of rules and operated on the same playing field as all other law-abiding companies. Instead, he was fired after discovering a pattern of improprieties and trying to protect himself – and the company – by insisting that they be discontinued.”

For more information, please contact Gregory D. Helmer or Courtney Abrams at (310) 396-7714.

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Complaint

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Press Release

2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00June 24th, 2015|fraud, Front Page News, national origin discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees

$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

Former Youth Coaches Accuse Chivas USA of Discrimination

Greg Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, discusses discrimination lawsuit filed against Chivas USA on NBC News.

(more…)

2018-04-12T13:45:59-08:00May 29th, 2013|Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Former Youth Coaches Accuse Chivas USA of Discrimination
Go to Top