310-396-7714|info@HelmerFriedman.com
FacebookYouTubeBlue Sky LinkedInInstagramMastodonRedditTumblrSubstack Notes

Discrimination is the unfair treatment of a person or group based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc., or the ability to see the difference between things or people.

CSU’s Decision To Award Former CSU Campus President

Andrew H. Friedman Quoted In Multiple Publications Regarding CSU’s Decision To Award Former CSU Campus President Accused Of Harassment A New University Job And A $343,920 Annual Salary

Los Angeles – On July 22, 2026, the California State University system announced that it would pay $343,920 in compensation to the outgoing president of Cal State San Bernardino – who was named in a discrimination and harassment civil suit that CSU settled for $12 Million – as part of his one-year transition assignment.

Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, one of the three attorneys (including lead trial counsel David de Rubertis and Courtney Abrams) working on the Weber/Rogers lawsuit for which CSU paid $12 Million to settle, was quoted in multiple publications about CSU’s unfortunate announcement, including:

2026-07-28T10:05:37-08:00July 28th, 2026|gender discrimination, sexual harassment|Comments Off on CSU’s Decision To Award Former CSU Campus President
Read More

CSU to Pay $12 Million to Settle Gender Harassment and Retaliation Cases

The settlement is believed to be one of the largest employment discrimination settlements against the nation’s largest public university system.

CSU $12 Million Settlement gender harassment, discrimination.

LOS ANGELES, May 12, 2026 — California State University will pay $12 million to resolve gender harassment and retaliation claims brought by Helmer Friedman LLP on behalf of two former high-level administrators at Cal State San Bernardino. The settlement follows a landmark $6 million Los Angeles jury verdict in October 2025 that found CSU liable for retaliating against and harassing Dr. Anissa Rogers and failing to prevent that harassment. The settlement is believed to be the largest publicly reported employment discrimination settlement against the CSU system, the nation’s largest four-year public university system.

The litigation unfolded against the backdrop of broader public scrutiny involving CSU’s handling of workplace harassment complaints across multiple campuses. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued throughout the proceedings that the evidence reflected longstanding structural issues within the university system.

“Meaningful accountability only happens when organizations are willing to confront these problems directly.”

The settlement, which was recently finalized, resolves claims brought by Dr. Clare Weber, the former Vice Provost of Academic Affairs at CSU San Bernardino, and Dr. Anissa Rogers, the former Associate Dean at CSU’s Palm Desert campus. A Los Angeles jury previously awarded Rogers $6 million after finding CSU retaliated against her, subjected her to gender harassment, and failed to prevent that harassment in violation of California law.

Weber’s related claims were to be set for a second trial but ultimately resolved as part of the broader settlement agreement.

Lead trial counsel David J. deRubertis of The deRubertis Law Firm APC said the settlement marks the conclusion of years of litigation exposing systemic failures within the nation’s largest public university system.

“From the beginning, these cases were about accountability,” said deRubertis. “Dr. Weber and D. Rogers took enormous professional and personal risks in challenging conduct they believed was unlawful. The result sends a strong message about the importance of protecting employees who speak up about harassment against retaliation.”

“These cases highlighted the real human cost of retaliation in academic institutions,” added Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP. “Meaningful accountability only happens when organizations are willing to confront these problems directly.”

The lawsuits alleged that CSU leadership, including President Tomas Morales and other senior campus administrators, presided over a hostile environment for women, where complaints regarding gender inequity, harassment, and retaliation were ignored or punished. According to the plaintiffs, Weber was fired shortly after formally raising concerns regarding unequal pay between male and female administrators. At the same time, Rogers alleged she was forced out after reporting harassment and retaliation to high-level executives at the CSU and to HR. Weber is set to retire from CSU after more than 25 years of service within the university system.

“This resolution reflects the courage of two women who refused to stay silent and were punished, including being forced out of their jobs, for doing so.”

Trial testimony underscored those failures. CSU San Bernardino’s Provost, Rafik Mohamed, admitted at trial that when faculty brought him allegations of gender harassment by a senior dean, he viewed the complaints as “low-grade bias” and did not report them to Human Resources or Title IX — despite conceding he was a mandated reporter required to do so.

The second trial, which had been expected to feature testimony from several of the same senior CSU officials who testified on behalf of CSU in the Rogers trial, was resolved prior to a trial date being set.

The plaintiffs were represented by Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, Courtney Abrams of Courtney Abrams, PC, and David J. deRubertis of The deRubertis Law Firm APC.

“This resolution reflects the courage of two women who refused to stay silent and were punished, including being forced out of their jobs, for doing so,” said Abrams. “CSU’s own Provost admitted at trial that he viewed faculty complaints of gender harassment as ‘low-grade bias’ and bypassed Human Resources. That wasn’t a misunderstanding — it was a choice. CSU spent years protecting harassers instead of the women they harmed, and $12 million is the price tag on that cover-up.”

The cases are Weber and Rogers v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STCV05549.

Read more at https://www.helmerfriedman.com/calstate-university-sued-for-gender-discrimination/.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE – CSU $12 MILLION SETTLEMENT:

2026-05-26T10:53:09-08:00May 15th, 2026|Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, retaliation, Settlement, sexual harassment, wrongful termination|Comments Off on CSU to Pay $12 Million to Settle Gender Harassment and Retaliation Cases
Read More

Elevance Health Sued for Disability Discrimination

Health Insurance Giant Anthem/Elevance Fires Veteran Nurse of 17 Years Who Suffers from Debilitating Nerve Disease — After Repeatedly Refusing Her Accommodation Requests and Punishing Her for Making Them

Helmer Friedman LLP & The Carr Law Group Represent Former Elevance Health, Inc. Employee Priscilla Kamoi Accusing Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, Inc. of Illegal Employment Practices

March 16, 2026 (Los Angeles, California) – Priscilla Kamoi, a licensed Registered Nurse and a 17-year veteran of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. She alleges that the healthcare giant discriminated against her based on her disability and medical condition, refused to provide reasonable accommodations, retaliated against her for requesting those accommodations, and ultimately terminated her employment. The defendants named in the lawsuit include Elevance Health, Inc., Blue Cross of California, and other related entities, as well as several individual supervisors. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 26STCV08319). The lawsuit was announced today by the Los Angeles law firms of Helmer Friedman LLP and The Carr Law Group.

According to the complaint, Ms. Kamoi began her employment with the defendants (then known as “Wellpoint”) in August 2008 as a case management nurse in Woodland Hills, California. Throughout her 17 years with the company, her performance was exemplary—she received regular salary increases, annual bonuses, and consistently strong performance evaluations.

The law is clear: an employer cannot penalize a disabled employee for being disabled, nor can it refuse to provide simple accommodations—like a little extra time—and then use the employee’s resulting ‘performance deficiency’ as a pretext for dismissal. That is precisely what the law against disability discrimination seeks to prevent.

In her complaint, Ms. Kamoi alleges that beginning in late 2018, she developed a debilitating condition known as severe trigeminal neuralgia, which caused excruciating, electric-shock-like pain radiating into her head and face, as well as difficulties with speaking, chewing, swallowing, and sleeping. In a January 2023 email to her supervisors, she included photographs of herself during a pain episode, describing the ordeal as so severe that she could not eat dinner until after 11:00 p.m., when the pain finally subsided.

There is a cruel irony in a major health insurance company—one that profits from the healthcare system—showing such little regard for the health and dignity of a nurse who has dedicated 17 years to caring for its members.

The complaint outlines a relentless cycle spanning nearly three years: the defendants imposed stringent new hourly productivity quotas on Ms. Kamoi, then disciplined her when her disability prevented her from meeting those quotas. They subsequently refused her repeated requests for reasonable accommodations and then disciplined her again. According to the complaint, when Ms. Kamoi disclosed her limitations to a supervisor, she was told, “Then get another job.” After her physician submitted a formal accommodation request in May 2024—asking only for necessary breaks and additional time to complete assignments during pain episodes—the defendants denied the request within two weeks.

Ms. Kamoi alleges a pattern of escalating retaliation: productivity standards were increased again in January 2025; her performance was monitored on a stringent weekly basis, while other nurses were reviewed monthly; and on May 22, 2025, she was summoned to a meeting and fired. The complaint also states that Ms. Kamoi, as a Kenyan-born Black woman, experienced discrimination based on her race and national origin.

Current and former employees of Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Cross of California, or Elevance Health, Inc. who wish to report their work experiences or learn more about the lawsuit should complete a case evaluation form.

Commenting on California law, Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP stated, “The law is clear: an employer cannot penalize a disabled employee for being disabled, nor can it refuse to provide simple accommodations—like a little extra time—and then use the employee’s resulting ‘performance deficiency’ as a pretext for dismissal. That is precisely what the law against disability discrimination seeks to prevent.” James Carr added, “There is a cruel irony in a major health insurance company—one that profits from the healthcare system—showing such little regard for the health and dignity of a nurse who has dedicated 17 years to caring for its members.”

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP at (310-396-7714 or ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com) or James Carr of The Carr Law Group at (310-919-8057 or james@carrlawgrp.com).

Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Ms. Kamoi, please contact Mr. Helmer and/or Mr. Carr.

 

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE

2026-03-18T08:26:58-08:00March 16th, 2026|Case Update, disability discrimination, employment law, Failure to Pay Wages, Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, national origin discrimination, race discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations, retaliation, wage theft, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Elevance Health Sued for Disability Discrimination
Read More

$6,000,000 Jury Award in CSU Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Dr. Anissa Rogers Awarded $6 Million in CSU Gender Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Lawsuit

Andrew H. Friedman, Anissa Rogers after $6 Million jury verdict in gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation lawsuit against CSU. In a precedent setting victory against California State University, Andrew H. Friedman and Courtney Abrams, in partnership with renowned lead trial attorney David M. deRubertis, obtained a $6 Million jury verdict on behalf of a former California State University, San Bernardino Associate Dean Anissa Rogers in a lawsuit entitled 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).
Dr. Rogers alleged in her lawsuit that, despite repeated reports by her and other employees (including both men and women) to multiple CSU officials that Defendant Jake Zhu (Dean of CSU, San Bernardino’s Palm Desert campus) was harassing and discriminating against female employees on account of their gender, CSU took no action whatsoever to remedy the situation. Instead, CSU constructively fired Dr. Rogers from her Associate Dean position.

The jury’s $6 million award is entirely for noneconomic damages, including compensation for emotional distress and the personal toll suffered by Dr. Rogers on account of workplace gender discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Dr. Rogers’ claims highlighted how the nation’s largest public university system, employing more than 56,000 people across 23 campuses, failed to enforce its own anti-harassment policies despite repeated internal warnings and public scandals.

“This case exposed what women inside Cal State have been saying for years: the mistreatment of women within the Cal State system is not just a series of one-off incidents; the problem is systemic and structural,” said Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman, LLP who represented Dr. Rogers. This verdict should serve as a loud message to CSU to clean up its act and take complaints of employment violations seriously,” Friedman added. “Cal State can no longer ignore the systemic twin problems of gender-based mistreatment and retaliation that is endemic. The jury saw the importance of holding this institution to account, and we’re very appreciative of that.”

Dr. Rogers’ lead trial lawyer, David M. deRubertis of The deRubertis Law Firm APC, argued the gender-based mistreatment of Dr. Rogers was an inevitable result after CSU San Bernardino ignored a 2015 “climate survey” that suggested a culture of fear, intimidation, gender-based mistreatment and bullying at Cal State San Bernardino and recommended adoption of an anti-bullying policy and an audit of HR practices and policies. At trial, CSU San Bernardino President Tomas Morales admitted that neither recommendation was implemented.

Courtney Abrams of Courtney Abrams, PC, who also represented Dr. Rogers, announced Monday following a multiweek trial overseen by LA County Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter, that the jury verdict “represents a resounding rejection of CSU’s long-running denials of gender bias within its ranks. Dr. Rogers stood up not only for herself, but also the other women who have been subjected to gender-based double-standards within the Cal State system.”

Together, Friedman, Abrams, and deRubertis also represent Clare Weber, the former Vice Provost of Academic Affairs of CSU San Bernardino whose claims of gender pay equity, harassment based on gender and retaliation are expected to go to trial next year.

Read more at https://www.helmerfriedman.com/calstate-university-sued-for-gender-discrimination/

2026-05-19T08:07:03-08:00October 21st, 2025|Case Update, Front Page News, gender discrimination, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Jury Award|Comments Off on $6,000,000 Jury Award in CSU Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Read More

Disability Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Anthem Blue Cross

19-Year Veteran Employee of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health Alleges that Healthcare Companies Fired Him During His Painful Recovery from Life-Threatening Heart Bypass Surgery

June 27, 2024 (BEVERLY HILLS, California) – Mr. Luis Ortiz, a long-term employee in the underwriting department of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was discriminated against and harassed based on his medical condition and disability when the company fired him during his difficult recovery from open-heart surgery. Elevance Health, Inc., Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Blue Cross of California, the Elevance Health Companies of California, and several other related entities are named as defendants. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV15952). The Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP announced the filing today.

Plaintiff Luis Ortiz, a California resident, alleges that on February 17, 2022, after having undergone a coronary angiogram, he was immediately admitted to the hospital and underwent triple bypass surgery. His post-surgery recovery, he alleges, was difficult and rife with complications, including debilitating pain in his chest and back and radiating throughout his entire body.

It is illegal to discriminate against employees who are recovering from surgery, and it is disappointing to see these allegations arise in the healthcare industry – the very industry that people rely on for their health and well-being.

Mr. Ortiz alleges that he dutifully kept his employers updated and consistently submitted medical authorization to support his leave of absence. In August 2022, his doctors authorized an extension of his leave for six months. But, in an email of October 7, 2022, he was told by his supervisor, Ms. Millet-Riley, that his leave was unapproved. According to the complaint, she threatened that he would be terminated for “abandoning his job” if he did not contact her within three business days. Mr. Ortiz alleges that he contacted her immediately on the same day and told her that he was not abandoning his job and intended to return to work as soon as his doctors authorized him to do so. Nonetheless, on October 10, 2022, the complaint asserts that the defendants fired Mr. Ortiz for “job abandonment,” an explanation that Mr. Ortiz contends is a pretext for discrimination and unlawful conduct.

Mr. Ortiz further alleges that, after being fired, he applied for a vacant position in underwriting with Anthem Blue Cross of California (for which he was eminently qualified) but was denied that position. Mr. Ortiz alleges that such conduct was discriminatory and retaliatory. Commenting on California law, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP said, “It is illegal to discriminate against employees who are recovering from surgery, and it is disappointing to see these allegations arise in the healthcare industry – the very industry that people rely on for their health and well-being.”

For more information, contact Gregory D Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, (310) 396-7714 x102, ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2025-11-05T11:27:15-08:00June 27th, 2024|Case Update, disability discrimination, Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Disability Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Anthem Blue Cross
Read More

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 – WEBER-ROGERS CASE FILING:

MEDIA COVERAGE – ROGERS $6 MILLION VERDICT:

MEDIA COVERAGE – CSU $12 MILLION SETTLEMENT:

2026-05-20T14:10:55-08:00March 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
Read More

Civility and Gender Bias in the Practice of Law

Andrew H. Friedman Speaks on Workplace Perspective About Civility and Gender Bias in the Practice of Law

 
Civility Gender Bias in Practice of Law.
Andrew H. Friedman was recently interviewed on Workplace Perspective by Teresa McQueen of Saffire Legal about civility and gender bias in the practice of law. You can hear the interview by clicking on https://saffirelegal.com/podcast/episode-46-civility-and-gender-bias-in-the-practice-of-law-andrew-friedman/ or https://media.blubrry.com/workplace_perspective/content.blubrry.com/workplace_perspective/Workplace-092320-Friedman-Introverts-CORRECT.mp3

2021-01-04T07:51:23-08:00January 4th, 2021|Andrew Friedman, gender discrimination, speaking engagements|Comments Off on Civility and Gender Bias in the Practice of Law
Read More

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
Read More

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 the 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 the 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.

2024-05-31T07:17:49-08:00May 16th, 2017|Case Update, discrimination|Comments Off on Helmer Friedman LLP defeats Landlord’s Anti-SLAPP Motion
Read More

Courtney Abrams – Lawsuit Against Trader Joe’s for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

KFI Radio interview about Helmer Friedman’s lawsuit against Trader Joe’s for sexual orientation discrimination.

2019-11-26T08:53:15-08:00September 21st, 2016|employment law, sexual orientation discrimination|Comments Off on Courtney Abrams – Lawsuit Against Trader Joe’s for Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Read More
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top