Former Youth Coaches Accuse Chivas USA of Discrimination
Greg Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, discusses discrimination lawsuit filed against Chivas USA on NBC News.
Coaches Sue Chivas USA Professional Soccer Organization
Coaches Sue Major Soccer League
May 29, 2013 – Coaches Sue Chivas USA Professional Soccer Organization, Allege Discrimination Against Non-Latinos. Two former members of the coaching staff of Chivas USA have filed a lawsuit against the Major League Soccer organization, saying they were fired “because they were neither Mexican nor Latino.” The filing was announced today by Gregory D. Helmer, of the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman, LLP, who represents the two coaches. Daniel Calichman and Theothoros Chronopoulos, both of whom were former professional soccer players and members of the U.S. National Team before being hired by Chivas USA, are suing in Los Angeles Superior Court. The men, described in the complaint as “Caucasian, non-Latino Americans,” allege discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination by Chivas USA based on national origin, ethnicity and race.
Helmer Friedman LLP file a gender discrimination and harassment lawsuit against CSC
April 18, 2012 – Today, a former employee of Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) filed a gender discrimination and harassment lawsuit against CSC. The Complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC482993), alleges that CSC, a multi-billion dollar company that provides information technology and business services to companies throughout the world, routinely paid women less than men and denied them higher-paying and more prestigious positions. According to the Complaint, CSC has a practice of retaliating against women who complain by demoting or removing them from their positions, withholding their pay, and/or firing them.
Unfortunately, the glass ceiling really does exist at many companies. Hopefully, lawsuits like this one will shatter that ceiling and enable women to reach the same levels in corporate America occupied by men.
The plaintiff, Anne Roeser, was a high-level executive at CSC who, according to the Complaint, was subjected to pervasive gender discrimination and harassment by some of the Company’s Indian male executives who did not want to work with women and who openly stated that women should stay at home, take care of their husbands and raise their children. These Indian male executives, the Complaint alleges, were openly hostile to women, they made sexist and derogatory remarks about women (calling them “girl,” “blonde,” and “white woman”), and they demeaned the jobs held by women (saying, for example, that one high-level female executive’s job was merely to take clients out to lunch and go shopping with them), they refused to communicate with women about substantive work-related issues, and they behaved toward women in an aggressive, condescending and intimidating manner.
According to the Complaint, when Ms. Roeser complained about the gender discrimination and harassment and the illegal conduct in which some of these executives were involved, she was demoted, denied earned wages, otherwise retaliated against, and told to stop complaining. When she continued to complain, she was fired. The Complaint alleges that, among other illegal conduct, Ms. Roeser complained that the Company’s off-shore Indian employees engaged in over 6,000 instances of illegally accessing the private health and financial information of the patients of one of the Company’s largest health care clients in violation of HIPAA, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the privacy rights of these patients.
Commenting about these allegations, Ms. Roeser’s attorney, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman, LLP, said, “Unfortunately, the glass ceiling really does exist at many companies. Hopefully, lawsuits like this one will shatter that ceiling and enable women to reach the same levels in corporate America occupied by men.”
Ms. Roeser’s other attorney, Michael D. Seplow of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris, Hoffman & Harrison, LLP, commented, “At a time when our nation is debating the role of women in the workplace and the issue of gender equality, Ms. Roeser’s lawsuit addresses the challenges faced by women employees, including the biases and stereotypes that exist in many companies.”
For a PDF copy of Ms. Roeser’s Complaint, click here
For additional information or to report unlawful conduct on the part of CSC, contact:
Andrew H. Friedman (afriedman@helmerfriedman.com)
Helmer * Friedman, LLP, (310) 396-7714
(www.helmerfriedman.com)
Michael D. Seplow (mseplow@gmail.com)
Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman & Harrison, LLP (310) 396-0731
Wage & Hour Lawsuit Against Tatitlek & US Marine Corps
The United States District Court for the Central District of California has given its final approval to the class action settlement in this case. Class member settlement checks will be issued on January 27, 2012.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California has preliminarily approved a class action settlement in this case. The official website regarding the settlement is http://www.tssisettlement.com/. The Court has entered an Order certifying this lawsuit as a class and defined the Settlement Class as individuals who performed services as role players, foreign language specialists, civilians on the battlefield and the like (whatever the job title), whether as independent contractors or professionals, exempt or non-exempt employees, at the US Marine Corps Base at Twentynine Palms, California, or at any other site pursuant to contract between Tatitlek Support Services, Inc. and the United States Marine Corps between November 6, 2004 and January 24, 2011. The deadline to file a Claim is June 22, 2011. You may file a claim by at the official website regarding the settlement is http://www.tssisettlement.com/ Below are some answers to frequently ask questions.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
- What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges that Tatitlek Support Services, Inc. (“TSSI”) initially improperly classified individuals as independent contractors and thereafter as salaried exempt employees (instead of non-exempt hourly employees) and, accordingly, failed to pay them overtime in violation of Federal and California law and otherwise failed to comply with California’s wage and hour laws applicable to non-exempt hourly employees. Plaintiffs further allege that TSSI breached oral employment contracts with individuals. TSSI denies any and all of the allegations made by Plaintiffs in the Litigation. - Why did I receive this Notice?
There is now pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a class action and TSSI’s employment records indicate that you are a member of the Settlement Class. - What is the description of the Class?
All persons who performed services as role players, foreign language specialists, civilians on the battlefield and the like, whatever the job title, whether as independent contractors or professionals, exempt or non-exempt employees, at the United States Marine Corps base located at Twentynine Palms, California or at any other site pursuant to contract between Tatitlek Support Services, Inc. (“TSSI”) and the United States Marine Corps between November 6, 2004 and January 24, 2011. - What are my options?
You can file a claim and receive a Settlement Award. You can dispute the employment information in the claim form. You can exclude yourself from the Settlement and Class. You will be excluded from the Settlement Class, will not receive a settlement award, and will not be bound by the settlement. You can do nothing. If you do nothing, you will be bound by the settlement agreement and you will not receive any money from the Settlement Fund. You can object to the Settlement. - What are the settlement benefits for Class Members?
The Settlement Fund is in the amount of Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($2,400,000.00). After other expenses are deducted from the fund, the Net Settlement Fund is estimated to be $1,635,000.00. The distribution will occur on a pro-rata basis based on the number of days worked by each Settlement Class member. - How do I file a Claim?
You may complete, sign, and return the Claim Form that was enclosed in the Notice packet mailed to you by the filing deadline of June 22, 2011. Alternatively, you may use the official website regarding the settlement — http://www.tssisettlement.com/ to file a claim, by following the instructions after selecting the File Claim tab in the upper right hand menu. - What if I disagree with the either the Number of Days Worked or the Last Day Worked?
If you dispute the Number of Days Worked or Last Day Worked, you must provide documentation (such as pay stubs) showing the different number of days you worked. - What if I want to exclude myself from this Class Action?
To be excluded, you must timely deliver a written request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than June 22, 2011. Such request must refer to John Joseph Saint John, Julio Cesar Flores, Antonio Aguilar v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc., Tatitlek/Force Preparedness Training Services, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. ED CV08-01909 JZ (RZx), provide the name, address, telephone number and last four digits of the social security number of the person requesting exclusion, and clearly state that such person requests exclusion from the Settlement Class. If you request exclusion, you will be responsible for handling your own case (to the extent the statute of limitations does not bar the prosecution of your claims in a new lawsuit) and/or securing your own legal representation. - What if I want to file an Objection with the Court?
You may object to this settlement by delivering a written statement objecting to the settlement to the Claims Administrator at the address noted above, and attorneys for both no later than September 30, 2011. Such objection must refer to John Joseph Saint John, Julio Cesar Flores, Antonio Aguilar v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc., Tatitlek/Force Preparedness Training Services, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. ED CV08-01909 JZ (RZx), provide the name, address, telephone number and last four digits of the social security number of the person objecting, and clearly state why you object to the settlement and whether you intend to appear at the Final Settlement Approval Hearing. You may not object to this settlement if you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. You must still submit a Claim Form if you wish to participate in the settlement, even if you object. - Who are the attorneys representing the Class?
HELMER • FRIEDMAN, LLP
723 Ocean Front Walk
Culver City, California 90291
Telephone: (310) 396-7714
Facsimile: (310) 396-9215
E-Mail: info@helmerfriedman.com
www.helmerfriedman.com
THE COWAN LAW FIRM
Jeffrey W. Cowan (S.B. # 157474)
1541 Ocean Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 394-1420
Facsimile: (310) 394-1430
E-Mail: jeffrey@cowan-law.com
www.cowan-law.com
- Who are the attorneys representing the Defendant?
BROWN GITT LAW GROUP, LLP
Thomas P. Brown IV and Sherry B. Shavit
300 North Lake Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
Telephone: (626) 229-1919
Facsimile: (626) 229-1917
E-mail: sshavit@browngitt.com - When and where is the Final Approval Hearing?
A Final Settlement Approval Hearing is scheduled at the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, located at 312 N Spring St #G8, Los Angeles, CA 90012-2095, on October 21 2011, at 10:30 a.m.
Two Former Patients Allege that Their HMO referred to Doctor Despite Knowing of Alleged Propensity.
June 8, 2011 – Today, two former patients of physician who performs breast examinations filed a lawsuit against the physician and his clinic, alleging that he engaged in inappropriate, unprofessional and offensive conduct during breast examinations. The patients also asserted claims against their HMO, alleging that the HMO referred them to the doctor despite knowing that he had a pattern, practice and/or history of engaging in such conduct. Among other things, they allege that the HMO had received complaints from other female patients and that HMO knew, or should have known, that the doctor had been sanctioned by the Medical Board of the State of California for engaging in unprofessional conduct during a breast examination.
U.S. Remodelers Class Action
U.S. District Court preliminarily approves $1.5 million class action settlement. To see a copy of the Court’s Notice of Class Action Settlement, Claim Form and Procedures, Exclusion Procedures, and Final Approval of Settlement Hearing, click here. If you are a current or former Sales Associate or Manager of U.S. Remodelers, Inc. (U.S. Home Services) and/or U.S. Home Systems, Inc. who was employed in California at any time between the dates of July 3, 2003 and August 24, 2009, you are a member of the class and should have received a copy of the Court’s Notice.
If you have not received this document, please contact the Claims Administrator as soon as possible to request copy of this document and the Claim Form:
U.S. Remodelers Litigation
c/o CPT Group, Inc.
16630 Aston Street
Irvine, California 92606
Toll free number: (888) 844-3063
In order to make a claim and potentially receive a settlement award, you must must complete and return the Claim Form you should have received, which must be post-marked no later than November 7, 2009. If you fail to complete and return the Claim Form within the foregoing time, you will be barred from participating in the settlement. To see a copy of the Claim Form, click here.
March 20, 2008 – Counsel for plaintiffs seeking witnesses and evidence in lawsuit against U.S. Remodelers. Click here to fill out Questionnaire (pdf) or (Word).
The law firm of Helmer • Friedman LLP represents plaintiffs in a potential class action lawsuit against U.S. Remodelers, Inc. and its parent corporation, U.S. Home Systems, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to recover: (1) deductions that were unlawfully taken from the commissions earned by California Sales Associates from July 3, 2003, to the present time; and (2) reimbursements for expenses incurred by California Sales Associates during the same time period.
The lawsuit alleges that U.S. Remodelers unlawfully required that its California Sales Associates “insure” the company against business losses and alleged “overhead” expenses by deducting two types of losses and expenses from the employees’ earned commissions. First, the lawsuit alleges that U.S. Remodelers deducted a co-called “administration” or “permit” fee (typically in the amount of $250.00) from salespersons’ commissions. Second, the lawsuit alleges that U.S. Remodelers deducted amounts from each California Sales Associate’s commission when they under-measured the customer’s kitchen or other area to be re-faced or made other mistakes.
The lawsuit also alleges that U.S. Remodelers failed to reimburse its California Sales Associates for the expenses they incurred in the course of performing their job duties and responsibilities including, among other expenses, the following:
- Home Depot Uniforms – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased shirts and other items of clothing with The Home Depot name or logo for which they have not been reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
- Home Depot Business Cards – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased business cards with The Home Depot name or logo for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
- Home Depot Thank You Note Cards – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased Thank You Note Cards with The Home Depot name or logo for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
- Fax Machine and Laser/Ink Jet Cartridges – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased a fax machine and/or laser/ink jet cartridges for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
- Copy Machine/Ink Cartridges and/or Copying Costs – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased a copy machine and/or spent money to make copies of documents for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
- Computer and Internet Connection – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased a computer and maintained an internet connection for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
- Cell Phone and Cellular Service – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased a cell phone for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
- Overnight Delivery Service Costs – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates incurred costs and expenses using overnight delivery services such as FedEx for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
- Pens, Paper, Envelopes, and Other Office Supplies – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased pens, paper, envelopes, and other offices supplies for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
U.S. Remodelers has denied liability in this matter. Currently, the parties are still in the process of investigating the allegations made in this lawsuit. As part of our investigation, we hope to obtain information from as many potential class members as possible. Toward that purpose, we have prepared a questionnaire that can provide us with information about the allegations made in the lawsuit.
Click here to fill out Questionnaire (pdf) or (Word).
By filling out this questionnaire and returning it you can provide vital information to us that will help obtain a favorable settlement in this matter or support our motion for class certification if the case does not settle.
If you would like to obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your rights, or if you have questions about the Questionnaire, please call attorney Greg Helmer at 310-396-7714. August 17, 2007 – Counsel for U.S. Remodelers, Landegger Baron & Lavenant, remove the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. For a copy of the Notice of Removal, Learn More… August 3, 2007 – Helmer Friedman LLP files a First Amended Complaint For Damages and Injunctive Relief. For a copy of the First Amended Complaint For Damages and Injunctive. Learn More…
July 3, 2007 – Helmer Friedman LLP files a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court against U.S. Remodelers, Inc. and U.S. Home Systems, Inc. arising from their alleged unlawful wage and hour practice of requiring that their employees “insure” the companies against business losses and alleged “overhead” expenses by deducting such losses and expenses from their employees’ earned commissions. The class action lawsuit also alleges that the companies unlawfully forced their employees to incur various business expenses including purchasing various goods bearing The Home Depot insignia and logo from The Home Depot but refused to reimburse their employees for such expenditures.
This is an Attorney Solicitation from Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman, LLP. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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.
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).
Speech to Address Email, Voicemail & Snailmail: Privacy Issues in the New Workplace
Privacy Issues in the Workplace: Email, Voicemail & Snailmail
On January 27, 2006, Andrew H. Friedman will speak at the California State Bar Association’s Section Education Institute on Email, Voicemail, and Snailmail: Privacy Issues in the New Workplace. The speech will address recent technological advances that have made it relatively easy for employers to monitor (e.g., “spy on”) their employees’ electronic communications in the workplace – employers can monitor employees’ computer keystrokes, review instant messages sent and received by employees, keep track of the internet web sites visited by employees, calculate how much time employees spend “playing” on the internet, access voice-mail messages left for employees, monitor employee telephone conversations, and read instant messages and e-mails that are sent and received by employees at work.
The speech will take place at Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel in Santa Monica, California and will take place 9:45 a.m. until 11:45 a.m.
Lawsuit Against Hospital for Violating Fair Employment Rights Class Action Certification Denial Reversed by Appellate Court
PRESS RELEASE May 31, 2005
Job Applicants Required to Divulge Reproductive Dysfunctions, Infertility, Pregnancy, Venereal Disease, Still Born Births, and Miscarriages in Order to Get a Job.
The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal recently reversed the trials courts’ denial of class action certification in the case of Grace Fontana v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange, (Superior Court Case No. 03CC02559), arising out of the Hospital’s policy and practice of requiring each and every job applicant to reveal personal and intimate details about their private lives in order to receive employment.
After offering employment to job applicants, the Hospital required individuals to answer questions such as whether the applicant had ever had:
- venereal disease;
- taken birth control pills;
- problems with infertility;
- children with birth defects;
- stillborn children;
- fetuses/unborn children with birth defects;
- miscarriages;
- problems with pregnancies;
- problems with menstrual periods;
- problems with urination;
- seen a counselor, psychiatrist or psychologist and
- cancer of any kind.”
The Appellate Court ruled: “Recognizing plaintiff’s theory that many questions … are not related to any job at the hospital, and there is no business necessity to ask these questions, it is somewhat difficult to understand why a class cannot be certified, at least for the purpose of establishing whether or not there is class wide liability entitling the class to injunctive relief.”
Ms. Fontana’s attorney, Gregory D. Helmer, of HELMER · FRIEDMAN LLP, stated: "For years, the hospital forced thousands of applicants to answer these horribly invasive questions in order to get a job. Now, these individuals may have an efficient way to correct the harm that has been done to them."
Commenting on the decision, Ms. Fontana’s attorney, V. James DeSimone of SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP stated: “This is an important victory. This decision vindicates the right to a class action for California workers when an employer violates California’s Fair and Employment and Housing Act. The Appeal’s Court was
correctly persuaded by the excellent oral advocacy by attorney Michael Morrison.”