Cases

Employment Discrimination Cases

Former employee of a Bay Area school district alleges pregnancy discrimination.

This case alleges that a Bay Area school district fired their employee after learning she was pregnant and the employee alleges that the school district discriminated against her based on sex and pregnancy, retaliated against her for complaining, failed to prevent and remedy discrimination, and wrongfully terminated her employment.

Former employees allege that hotel discriminated against them. 

This case alleges that employees of a U.S.-based hospitality company submitted a complaint to HR regarding mistreatment by management and subsequently experienced further adverse treatment. The case alleges discrimination based on disability and sex, sexual harassment, failure to accommodate disabilities and engage in the interactive process, retaliation, interference with rights under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and wrongful termination of our clients. 

Former agriculture worker alleges she was discriminated against by farm. 

This case alleges that a Northern California-based almond farming operation discriminated against our client based on sex, retaliated against her after she reported sexual harassment and requested a transfer, and wrongfully terminated her employment. 

Employee alleges she was harassed and discriminated against by prominent San Francisco private school.  

This case alleges that a private San Francisco school subjected our client to harassment and discrimination based on national origin and religion, failed to prevent discrimination and harassment, retaliated against our client, and committed assault. The case also includes wage and hour claims arising from the client’s alleged misclassification as an exempt employee, including meal and rest period violations, failure to pay wages at least twice monthly, failure to maintain accurate time records, and failure to provide compliant wage statements.

Former employee of a furniture company alleges harassment and discrimination based on sex. 

This case alleges that a U.S.-based furniture retail chain subjected our client to harassment and discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment by the employee training her for a newly promoted role and being paid less than male coworkers with the same job responsibilities, failed to prevent discrimination and harassment, engaged in negligent hiring, retention, and/or supervision, and violated the Equal Pay Act.

Yah v. Peet’s Coffee, Inc., et al. 

This is an individual harassment and discrimination against Peet’s Coffee, Inc. and a former store manager. Plaintiff alleges that the store manager, her supervisor, made harassing and offensive comments to her on the basis of her national origin, sex, and pregnancy. Plaintiff also alleges that Peet’s failed to prevent and remedy the harassment and discrimination by, among other things, not conducting an adequate investigation; failing to provide a reasonable accommodation of Plaintiff’s pregnancy-related disability; and retaliating against Plaintiff for opposing harassment and discrimination.

Vargas v. Hudson Vineyards, LLC

This is an individual harassment and discrimination case against Hudson Vineyards and one of its employees.  Plaintiff alleges that her co-worker sexually harassed her by making inappropriate comments, gestures, and unwelcome physical contact. Plaintiff also alleges that Hudson Vineyards failed to prevent and remedy the harassment and discrimination. In particular, Hudson Vineyards failed to conduct an adequate investigation of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff also alleges that she was not called back to work the following season in retaliation for reporting the harassment.

Manzo, et al. v Pedroncelli Mobile Bottling, Inc., et al.

This is a harassment and discrimination case against Pedroncelli Mobile Bottling and its chief executive officer. Plaintiffs worked as a team, and they allege that the company discriminated against one of the Plaintiffs by failing to accommodate his disability and that the other Plaintiff was discriminated against because of his association with the disabled Plaintiff. Plaintiffs allege they were wrongfully terminated. Plaintiffs also allege wage and hour violations, including failure to provide compliant meal and rest breaks.

Valenzuela, et al. v. AS Convenience, et al. 

This case alleges that AS Convenience & Energy discriminated against and harassed Ms. Orantes on the basis of her sex and age, discriminated against Ms. Valenzuela on the basis of her sex, and retaliated against all Plaintiffs for opposing that conduct, and that Salkhi Petroleum, an alleged joint employer and/or integrated enterprise with AS Convenience & Energy, further retaliated against Ms. Valenzuela Escobedo.

Thakur v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al.

This case alleges that Syneos Health discriminated against and harassed Ms. Thakur on the basis of her mental and pregnancy-related disabilities, interfered with her protected medical and pregnancy disability leave, failed to accommodate her disabilities and engage in the interactive process, retaliated against her for exercising her protected rights, and constructively terminated her employment.