loader
Page is loading...

Resource

COVID-19 Related Workplace Litigation Tracker

Wage and Hour Group Editors: Kathleen Anderson, Scott Witlin, Peter Wozniak, Mark Wallin
Contributing Authors: Norma Zeitler, Caroline Dickey, Carolina Flores, Anthony Glenn, Taylor Hunter, Alex Petrik, Sana Swe

The Barnes & Thornburg Wage and Hour Practice Group continues to monitor workplace litigation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are watching COVID-related workplace litigation in courts across the country, alleging violations of a wide variety of state and federal employment laws and regulations, and we are analyzing trends in the cases filed to hopefully help business prepare for potential pitfalls. We hope you find the catalog of cases helpful, and will continue to provide weekly updates as new cases are filed.

Index

Cases are grouped by type of litigation. You may use these links to jump to a section.

Breach of Contract

June 25, 2020
Gillule v. Manhattan Woods Enterprises, LLC, et al. (Rockland County, New York)
The plaintiff alleges that he entered into an employment contract with the defendants to act as the club manager at a private golf club. He alleges that under the contract, he could only be terminated for cause. He claims that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the company suspended business operations and stopped paying his salary. He claims that the company failed to give proper notice of the suspension of operations under New York’s WARN Act. He further alleges that when the company began lifting the suspension on business operations, the company refused to permit him to return to work and later ceased paying for his group health insurance. He claims that he was terminated without cause in violation of his employment contract. He brings causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and failure to provide proper notice under New York’s WARN Act. 

June 24, 2020
Flagg, et al. v. Hubbard Radio Seattle, LLC (King County, Washington)
The plaintiff, who is known as Jubal Fresh, alleges that he is one of the most popular radio personalities in Seattle. He claims that he entered into an employment contract with the defendant under which he would perform on the defendant’s radio show. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant sent him a letter in January 2020 stating that the company had grounds to immediately terminate his employment for cause as a result of his “inappropriate, unprofessional, offensive, and insubordinate conduct,” including certain posts by the plaintiff on Facebook and YouTube. The plaintiff alleges that despite the letter, the company continued to request his services for several months, including having the plaintiff shoot promotional videos. The plaintiff claims that in April 2020, the company sent an email to his agent providing formal notice that it was terminating the employment contract with the plaintiff for cause. The plaintiff claims that he requested that the company provide details concerning the “cause” for the termination, but that it has failed to do so, because no cause exists. He claims that the termination for cause is a pretext for terminating the contract because of decreased advertising revenues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the plaintiff alleges that the company sent a letter to his counsel attempting to enforce the non-compete provisions in the employment contract despite the fact that the company terminated the contract. He brings causes of action for breach of contract and injunctive and declaratory relief.

June 12, 2020
Kalsey v. Dialsource, Inc., et al. (Sacramento County, California)
The plaintiff worked as the head of product for a software company. The plaintiff alleges that he entered into an employment contract with the defendant employer for a term of one year and a guaranteed salary of $250,000. The plaintiff alleges that in March 2020, the company began experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and as a result, informed him that he was being terminated. He claims that the company offered to pay him a severance of $20,000, but that this sum would not cover what he was owed under his employment contract. The plaintiff alleges that he later received a letter from the company’s counsel, who informed him that he was being terminated for cause, and therefore the salary guarantee in the employment contract did not apply. The plaintiff brings causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and waiting time penalties.

Constitutional Rights

June 3, 2020 
Dr. Quintella Bounds v. Country Club Hills School District 160, et al. (Northern District of Illinois)
The plaintiff, a “tenured educator licensed to serve students with special needs,” claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Illinois law. The plaintiff served as director of student services from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020, under a contract. The plaintiff claims that the school board voted to rehire her through June 2021, and that she received notification of that decision on March 25, 2020. Per the plaintiff, however, on that same day she “became violently ill … and was admitted to the emergency room where she was diagnosed as suffering from the COVID 19 virus and placed in quarantine for 14-days.” The plaintiff reports that, from that point, the defendants forced her to “continue her job duties even though they knew she was in quarantine and struggling to survive” and that she was informed on April 2, 2020, that her position was being posted and her job would terminate on June 30, 2020, because she did not sign or accept the contract that was sent to her on March 25, 2020. The plaintiff claims that the school board posted her position on April 2, 2020, without ever giving her an explanation or an opportunity to address the matter. According to the plaintiff, the board “willfully and deliberately disregarded [her] constitutional rights when it rescinded her employment agreement without notice or an opportunity to be heard, either before or after rescinding the agreement.” The plaintiff also makes a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, stating that, on March 16, 2020, she notified her superior that “she was at high risk for contracting the COVID-19 virus because of her age and she suffered from an underlying condition.” 

May 29, 2020
Doe v. Pasadena Independent School District (Southern District of Texas)
In this class action on behalf of certain hourly employees of a school district, the plaintiffs allege that the school district’s attempt to recoup additional monies paid for on-site work to employees during the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a taking without just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, is a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and is a breach of contract. The plaintiffs allege that around the time that a county order went into effect requiring individuals to stay home unless performing essential services, the school district emailed the plaintiffs regarding which jobs were considered essential and which jobs were not. The school district’s email also stated that each hourly employee would be paid a “salary” of 40 hours per week at the employee’s regular hourly rate, and “one and a half times their regular hourly rate for any time they spent working on-site performing jobs deemed essential.” The plaintiffs were deemed essential, and were required to work on-site, and were paid the additional amount for their on-site work. After approximately one month, the school district emailed the plaintiffs, stating that there had been “a major clerical error” that “caused hourly employees to receive overpayments of premium/call out pay for time worked on-site during the [county order],” and that the employer “was required to take all necessary action to correct these overpayments immediately.” The plaintiffs allege that the employer wrongfully attempted to recoup the onsite pay plaintiffs received when the defendant realized that it was not “going to be receiving as much in FEMA and/or other relief program funds as it anticipated,” and that there was going to a budget shortfall.

April 23, 2020
Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association, Inc. v. City of New York (Queens County Supreme Court)
Complaint filed on behalf of approximately 10,000 corrections officers alleging that their right to preserve their bodily integrity under the New York Constitution has been violated by the Department of Corrections’ practices of: (1) requiring corrections officers to work additional overtime shifts without adequate rest as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) not requiring a negative COVID-19 test to return to work. 

Constructive Termination

July 23, 2020
Stine v. Zwerling Broadcasting System, Ltd. (Santa Cruz County, California)
The plaintiff alleges that he was constructively discharged in violation of California public policy, and that he was retaliated against for asserting his rights under California law to be classified as an employee. The plaintiff, a co-host of a radio show, claims that he repeatedly requested to be classified as an employee rather than an independent contractor. The plaintiff claims that he asked his supervisor about AB-5, the California law regarding who should be classified as employees. His supervisor allegedly first told him that AB-5 did not apply to the defendant employer “because that is the way [the owner] wants it.” When the plaintiff brought up the issue of classification as an employee again, his supervisor purportedly responded that, due the COVID-19 pandemic, AB-5 cannot be enforced, and that the California legislature was trying to repeal the statute. The plaintiff alleges that his supervisor also said, “if this causes you such anguish, you should quit.” After a discussion with the owner about the issue which did not result in an agreement over the plaintiff’s employment status, the plaintiff resigned from his position because he found “the workplace environment to be intolerable.” As such, the plaintiff claims “he was constructively terminated because he pointed out that as an employee he was entitled to [certain] benefits and [the employer] refused to provide them.”

June 29, 2020
Lightfoot v. Lucca Freezer & Cold Storage, Inc., et al. (Gloucester County, New Jersey) 
The plaintiff, an employee in accounts receivable, alleges that she was retaliated against for complaining about the defendants’ “utter distain for employee health and safety in the workplace” in the wake of COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges she was retaliated against for raising safety concerns about another employee coughing at work, and for requesting an accommodation to work remotely to care for her school-aged children. The plaintiff alleges that in retaliation for her complaint and request for an accommodation, the defendants manufactured performance issues, overloaded her with job responsibilities, and set unattainable goals for her. Thus, the plaintiff claims that the defendants thereby “took retaliatory action against Plaintiff, by and through her constructive termination,” in violation of New Jersey law. 

June 23, 2020
Elizabeth Donohew v. America's Insurance Associates Inc. dba Moody Agency, et al. (Middle District of Florida)
The plaintiff, an employee for a CPA firm, claims that she was denied expanded FMLA leave she was entitled to under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), and thereafter constructively discharged when her employer forced her to take an unpaid, unprotected leave to care for her daughter whose school was closed due to COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that when her daughter’s school closed as a result of the pandemic, she requested to work remotely, as other employees without school-age children had been allowed to work from home. The employer allegedly denied the plaintiff’s request and instead advised her to “drop her daughter at the YMCA for $95.00 per week.” The plaintiff claims she then requested to use her accrued paid time off to care for her daughter, and that this request was also denied. The plaintiff claims she was then placed on an unpaid leave, forcing her to resign.

June 17, 2020
Tobey v. Landmark of DesPlaines Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC (Cook County, Illinois)
The plaintiff was the assistant director of nursing at a long-term care facility. She alleges that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant allowed outside visitors inside the facility, even though the defendant was aware that this endangered the patients. She also claims that the defendant made personnel who were exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 report for work, risking the health of the personnel and the patients. Further, the plaintiff claims that the defendant forced her to work longer shifts than were legally permissible, including making her work for 24 hours in a row without sleep. Additionally, she claims that the defendant imposed unreasonable duties on her that were outside of her job description. The plaintiff alleges that as a result of these actions by the defendant, she was forced to resign and was thus constructively discharged.

Failure-to-Pay Claims 

July 18, 2020
McPhee v. Nations Client Resolution, LLC (Southern District of Florida)
The plaintiff, who identifies herself as “an exceptional employee” with “no significant history of performance, attendance, or disciplinary issues,” alleges that she was terminated in violation of the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)). The plaintiff alleges that after she requested leave to care for her grandfather, who had tested positive for COVID-19, her employment was terminated. The plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against for requesting the leave, and that the defendant failed to pay her eighty hours of paid leave under the EPSLA. The plaintiff alleges that the temporal proximity of the request and the termination of her employment create a presumption of the defendant’s retaliation “for attempting to exercise her rights under the [EPSLA].”  

July 17, 2020
Spence, et al. v. State of New York (Albany County, New York)
The plaintiffs, state employees of the New York Department of Labor, allege that they were denied appropriate overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law.  The plaintiffs allege that “the spread of coronavirus throughout New York and the United States led to the massive increase in claims for benefits and [unemployment insurance] by individuals and business owners facing unemployment and economic strain.”  As such, the plaintiffs claim that during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, “various New York State Executive Branch agencies (including, but not limited to, the [New York Department of Labor]) began offering overtime compensation opportunities to their employees … to assist the DOL with the massive increase in claims for benefits and Unemployment Insurance.”  The complaint alleges that employees were required to work at least 15 hours of overtime beginning in May, and 7.5 hours of overtime per week in July.  The plaintiffs claim that their overtime rate was improperly “computed using a lower rate than their regular hourly rate,” in violation of the FLSA and New York law.

July 9, 2020 
Mackie v. Coconut Joe’s IOP LLC, et al. (District of South Carolina)
The plaintiff, a former server, alleges his termination violated the FFCRA. In addition, he brings a putative FLSA collective action, claiming that the defendants violated the law’s minimum wage provisions. Pre-COVID 19, the plaintiff was a server at the defendants’ restaurant, which temporarily closed on March 18, 2020. When the restaurant re-opened on May 4, the plaintiff was told to work as a fry cook. The plaintiff claims that he is missing his paycheck (and his portion of a “tip pool”) for the period of May 4 to May 10. The plaintiff alleges that the restaurant did not follow rules for structuring a tip pool that would let it pay less than minimum wage to tipped employees. He claims that the restaurant required tipped employees to share their tips with kitchen employees in violation of the FLSA. The plaintiff, for himself and others, requests collection action certification, reinstatement, retained tips, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorney fees. The plaintiff also says that on May 12 he “started have difficulty breathing.” Management told him to get back to work. The plaintiff reported he could not catch his breath and thought he could have COVID-19. He told a manager that he was going to see a doctor and was not quitting, and then left work. A manager allegedly texted the plaintiff to say that employer interpreted his action as a resignation because he left without permission. On May 13, the plaintiff texted the employer a picture of a doctor’s note showing the diagnosis of a “panic attack.” The plaintiff claims that he engaged in “protected activity under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision when he left work to seek a medical diagnosis because he was experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.” The plaintiff requests compensatory and emotion damages related to his allegedly retaliatory discharge.

June 25, 2020
Entrekin, et al. v. City of Shreveport, et al. (Caddo Parish, Louisiana)
In this class action filed on behalf of all police officers for the City of Shreveport, the complaint alleges that the defendant employer failed to provide compensatory time off owed to the officers. The complaint alleges that in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Shreveport City Hall “was officially closed to the public and therefore officially closed.” The complaint also claims that a police department general order dictates that employees reporting for duty at a time when City Hall is closed are to receive compensatory time off. However, the complaint alleges that the police chief “erroneously stated . . . that the pandemic did not meet the prescribed criteria of [the order] and officers would not receive premium pay for their required services at this time.” The complaint also alleges that certain officers received compensatory time off, but others did not. The complaint seeks compensatory relief for the time off not yet awarded, and an order declaring that officers are entitled to compensatory time off pertaining to work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

June 22, 2020
Tavarez v. Executive Airlink, Inc. (Palm Beach County, Florida)
The plaintiff, an airline pilot who was employed by the defendant pursuant to an employment agreement, filed a four-count complaint against his former employer. The plaintiff alleged that he was terminated in violation of the Florida private whistleblower statute, and that the defendant violated the Florida Minimum Wage Law, failed to pay him wages even though it was put on notice of such failure, and breached his employment agreement. The plaintiff alleges that on three occasions, he was instructed by the defendant to fly airplanes with an inoperative standby horizon, in violation of federal regulations. The plaintiff alleges that on each occasion, he emailed the defendant to inquire whether the defendant was in compliance with federal regulations but received no response. After the defendant first failed to pay him the wages required by his employment contract, the defendant then terminated his employment, citing COVID-19 and the economic impact on the defendant. According to the plaintiff, this was impermissible under the terms of his employment agreement. 

June 19, 2020
Doe, et al. v. North Pacific Seafoods, Inc., et al. (San Francisco County, California)
The plaintiff, a seasonal worker, alleges a putative class action complaint against the defendant employer, a seafood processor, claiming various violations of the California Labor Code as well as false imprisonment of the putative class members. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant arranged for her and other seasonal workers to travel to Los Angeles, from around Southern California and several states in Mexico, to fill out employment paperwork and to be tested for COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that while in Los Angeles, she and the putative class were kept in close proximity while filing out employment paperwork, in violation of social distancing guidelines mandated by the city. Further, the plaintiff claims that she and the putative class members were confined to their hotel rooms against their will while awaiting the results of the COVID-19 test, and, after several individuals tested positive, the putative class members were further confined against their will for another 11 days. The plaintiff alleges that she was not paid during this time, that she was only given two meals per day, and that she was prevented from leaving her hotel room for the duration. Based upon these allegations, the plaintiff claims that the defendant not only violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay her any wages during this confinement, but that she was prevented from obtaining other work as a result of the defendant employer’s tortious conduct of falsely imprisoning her and the putative class. The plaintiff seeks wages for the entire time of confinement, including overtime, as well as damages for emotional distress arising out of the alleged false imprisonment.

June 17, 2020
James Richard v. Ambulnz Health, LLC and Ambulnz TN, LLC (County of Kings, New York)
The plaintiff, a resident of Tennessee, brought a wage and hour class action on behalf of a putative class of EMTs and paramedics who were deployed to New York City to work on COVID-19 Strike Teams. The plaintiff alleges that he was promised he would be paid seven days a week, 24 hours a day during his employment. The plaintiff also claims that he and the class actually were employed 24 hours per day, because when their shifts were over, they had to take the employers’ transportation to the hotel, could not leave the hotel when not working, and were required to carry controlled substances at all times, rendering him on-duty all day long – but the plaintiff alleges that they were not paid for all of their work. Finally, the plaintiff claims that the defendant had security guards at the hotel, enforcing its rule against leaving the hotel. The plaintiff brings claims for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread hours under New York law, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide wage notices and failure to pay weekly wages. 

June 16, 2020
Rodriguez v. Allen Distribution LP (Eastern District of California)
The plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action under the FLSA and California law alleging that he and members of a putative class are victims of pay increases that the defendant instituted to induce employees to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleges that he and the other employees were promised an additional $1 per hour for straight time, plus $2 per hour for all hours worked beyond eight in any day or 40 in any week, and an additional $2 an hour for any hour worked beyond 12 in any workday. The plaintiff alleges that these payments amount to shift differentials and that the defendant did not properly calculate the regular rate of pay reflecting these increases. The plaintiff asserts claims for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay sick pay, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses and an unfair competition claim. 

June 15, 2020
Smith, et al. v. Local Cantina, LLC, et al. (Southern District of Ohio)
The plaintiff brings a class action lawsuit on behalf of all servers and bartenders at nine restaurants operated by the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that prior to May 2020, the defendants paid their tipped workers the minimum wage minus the maximum allowable tip credit. The plaintiff alleges that since May 2020, the defendants have retained 100 percent of the credit card tips received by tipped workers and have forced the tipped workers to share cash tips with other employees who are ineligible to participate in the tip pool. Further, the plaintiff alleges that since May 2020, the defendants have paid the tipped workers a set amount every week. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have required the tipped workers to work more than forty hours per week, but have not paid the tipped workers overtime for these additional hours. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants’ new pay policy is designed to maximize the amount of money that may be treated as forgivable under a Paycheck Protection Program loan the defendants received due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleges that under the new policy, the tipped workers receive more money in the form of wages but are deprived of their tips, which are retained by the defendants, and that the defendants seek to compensate the employees using one hundred percent forgivable PPP loan money. The plaintiff brings claims for failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Constitution, failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA and the Ohio Constitution, untimely payment of wages under Ohio law, and unjust enrichment.

June 2, 2020
Sparks et al. v. Janet Mills, Governor of the State of Maine, et al. (District of Maine)
The plaintiff brings this class action for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of incarcerated prisoners employed in the community under a work release program. The plaintiff alleges that in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the work release program “was brought to a halt in an effort to reduce non-essential contact between incarcerated individuals and the outside world and to reduce the possibility of COVID-19 spreading through Maine’s prisons.” The complaint alleges that prison officials encouraged the prisoners to seek unemployment benefits, and that 53 of them “were ultimately deemed eligible for unemployment benefits, including the standard state benefit and the federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (‘PUA’) payment.” Despite the attorney general’s determination that the prisoners were entitled to unemployment compensation, the governor “found the distribution of unemployment benefits ‘appalling and to be bad public policy,’” and that “unemployment funds should be reserved for Mainers ‘struggling to pay for basic necessities.’” The complaint alleges that the prisoners’ unemployment payments have ceased, and that the Department of Corrections and its commissioner “have seized funds from the bank and phone accounts of Work Release Program participants in an effort to recoup the unemployment benefits those individuals received.” The complaint raises claims for violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and seeks a declaration that the cessation of unemployment payments and seizure of funds are unconstitutional, and an injunction compelling the return of the funds and the resumption of unemployment payments.

May 26, 2020
Lange v. 24-Hour Medical Staffing Services LLC (Orange County, California)
The plaintiff, a “traveling nurse,” filed a class action complaint against the defendant employer, a medical staffing company, asserting sundry violations of the California Labor Code as well as claims for unfair competition and unlawful business practices. The complaint alleges that the defendant violated the California Business and Professions Code not only by violating the California wage and hour law, but also by failing to provide protective equipment necessary for a safe workplace in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleges that although she worked directly with COVID-19 patients, the defendant employer did not provide her with appropriate PPE. The plaintiff alleges that after she complained, the defendant employer did not renew her contract. While the factual allegations consist largely of general COVID-19 facts and statistics, the claims alleged are primarily California wage and hour violations, including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay wages owed at termination. 

May 19, 2020 
Sean Almeida v. Heated Details, Inc., Adrianna Lower Stephenson, Thomas Stephenson, and Chris Mika (State of Washington Superior Court)
The plaintiff pleads the defendants’ “willful refusal to pay him his wages and other compensation due under Washington and wage theft law” and his “wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.” Early in his employment, the plaintiff reportedly “was required to purchase certain products in order to perform the duties Heated Details required him to perform,” but was denied reimbursement then and on a continual basis. The plaintiff claims that the defendants “routinely failed to provide Plaintiff with a paystub or other basic payroll information,” and repeatedly failed to timely pay him wages owed, citing “cash-flow problems.” The plaintiff claims that, in mid-March 2020, he was notified that the defendants would not timely pay compensation owed, and that he should “seek unemployment benefits as per Washington State’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak.” The plaintiff reportedly took the position that the alleged wage nonpayment “preceded the outbreak and that applying for unemployment based on COVID-19 did not seem appropriate.” The plaintiff claims that in a conversation with his employer’s owner she indicated that she did not know when wages allegedly due would be paid, and that she did not commit to reimbursing him for allegedly due “unreimbursed business expenses.” According to the plaintiff, the defendants then threatened him with litigation when he sought unemployment benefits related to a COVID-19 layoff and closure. The plaintiff seeks allegedly due wages, exemplary damages, attorney fees, and other damages.

May 13, 2020
Kenneth England, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. United Airlines Inc. (Northern District of Illinois)
In this putative class-based contract action, the plaintiff, a shift manager at the company’s hub at Chicago O’Hare International Airport, claims that in exchange for federal paycheck protection funds, the airline agreed “it would not require any employee to take a temporary suspension or unpaid leave for any reason, it would not reduce the pay rate of any employee earning a salary or wages, and it would not reduce the benefits of any employee, until September 30, 2020.” Per plaintiff, two weeks after signing the agreement to receive PPP funds, the airline advised management and administration employees that they need to take 20 unpaid days off under the airline’s Unpaid Time Off Program, between May 16, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2020. The plaintiff asserts that the airline communicated via electronic mail that the CARES Act assistance “only covers a part of [the airline’s] payroll costs.” The plaintiff seeks compensatory and other damages for himself and the putative class, costs, interest, and attorney and expert fees.

May 7, 2020
Evans, et al. v. Dart, et al. (Northern District of Illinois)
Plaintiffs, correctional officers working for Cook County, Illinois, assert a hybrid class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA). Plaintiffs allege that the county failed to pay them regular or overtime wages for the time they spent at the beginning and end of their shifts sanitizing themselves, their uniforms, and their personal protective equipment, all of which was required in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs allege that these activities, which were uncompensated, took approximately 20-30 minutes each shift. 

May 5, 2020
McGhee v. Postmates Inc. (San Francisco County, California)
Corbin v. DoorDash, Inc.
(San Francisco County, California)
Class action complaints brought by the same attorneys on behalf of all gig economy workers working for defendants in the state of California, alleging that defendant violated California AB 5 by misclassifying gig economy workers as independent contractors. The complaints allege that the plaintiffs and putative class members were therefore denied, among other things, reimbursement for expenses (including masks and hand sanitizer), and denied payment for all time worked (including time spent procuring masks and hand sanitizer). These virtually identical class action complaints allege in great detail the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the nature of California’s response, as well as the safety guidelines issued by the state and federal agencies. The complaints go on to allege that the defendants failed to protect these gig economy workers by failing to mandate safe practices in light of COVID-19. As a result, in addition to wage and hour California class action claims derived from defendants’ response to COVID-19, each complaint also asserts class claims for public nuisance. 

April 24, 2020
Ferrante v. Ratner Companies (Broward County Circuit Court) (See related case, Olsen v. Ratner Companies dba Hair Cuttery, et al.)
Class action complaint alleging that hair salons ceased operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the closing occurred during a pay period. The plaintiffs allege that they were not paid for hours already worked during the pay period prior to the salons closing. 

April 23, 2020
Mabry v. Texas South Operating Company Inc. and Michael J Maye (Harris County District Court)
Plaintiff alleges a variety of claims under the Texas Labor Code and Texas common law related to failure to pay for work performed prior to being laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff claims she is owed approximately $70,000 for work done prior to her layoff.

April 21, 2020
Hand v. Carolina Scales, Inc. (Lexington County, South Carolina)
Plaintiff alleges that her employer failed to pay regular, overtime, and sick time wages owed to her under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)). Plaintiff asserts that her employer refused to allow her to return to work because she was infected with what her doctors believe is COVID-19, and she cannot obtain a test demonstrating that she is no longer infected. As a result, she states that she has been constructively terminated and is owed back wages for overtime previously worked, as well as for the time she was required to self-quarantine. 

April 16, 2020
Carcamo v. CMC Contractors, LLC (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court)
Plaintiff alleges that he has not been given termination pay to which he is entitled under an employment contract. Plaintiff alleges that he was first told he was being terminated “due to limited work during the [COVID-19 pandemic],” but that his employer later claimed he had been terminated for cause. Plaintiff alleges that the employer provided false reasons for his termination, and that the reasons given to not meet the employment contract’s definition of “cause.”

April 7, 2020
Olsen v. Ratner Companies dba Hair Cuttery, et al. (District of New Jersey)
Class action complaint alleging that hair salons ceased operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the closing occurred during a pay period. The plaintiffs allege that they were not paid for hours already worked during the pay period prior to the salons closing. 

Family and Medical Leave Act

July 28, 2020
Martinez v. Aspen Dental Management, Inc. (Middle District of Florida)
The plaintiff, an office manager, filed a four-count complaint alleging that the defendant interfered with her rights under the FMLA and the Expanded FMLA, and that it terminated her employment for exercising her rights. The plaintiff alleges that after she lost her access to childcare services due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she asked to work from home on May 26, 2020. According to the plaintiff, her children also became ill at that time and were tested for COVID-19, which required the plaintiff to be absent from work for three consecutive days. The plaintiff’s request to work from home was denied, and the plaintiff alleges that she was told by her supervisor that if she could not report to work due to her childcare obligations, she would no longer have a job. The plaintiff complained to HR, but alleges that she was ordered to return to work, which she did on June 2. Upon her return, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant issued her a final written warning. When the plaintiff objected to the written warning, she was fired. The plaintiff claims that if the defendant believed that she was ineligible for FMLA-qualifying leave, it was required to provide her with a designation notice, letting her know (within five business days after it had sufficient information to decide if her leave was FMLA-qualifying) whether her FMLA leave was approved. The plaintiff claims the defendant failed to do so, and instead interfered with her rights and retaliated against her, even though the defendant knew, or should have known, that she was exercising her rights under the FMLA. 

Staples-Reynolds v. Gills Gibson, Inc. (Middle District of Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff, who has asthma, got tested for COVID-19 after his roommate’s co-worker tested positive for COVID-19. During his testing appointment, the plaintiff’s medical provider instructed him to self-quarantine for two weeks. The plaintiff, who worked in food service, notified the defendant of the quarantine order. According to the plaintiff, the defendant’s general manager responded, “You are faking it. If you take time off, you will be fired.” When the plaintiff explained that he was going to follow his healthcare provider’s advice, the defendant terminated his employment immediately. The next day, the plaintiff submitted a note from the healthcare provider confirming she had (i) tested him for COVID-19 because of possible exposure to the virus and (ii) instructed him to self-quarantine for two weeks. According to the plaintiff, the defendant took no action in response to receiving the healthcare provider’s note. The plaintiff brings claims under the FMLA (as amended by the FFCRA) and the EFMLEA. The plaintiff asserts, among other things, that the defendant refused to grant him medical leave for a qualifying event (a self-quarantine directive), failed to provide him with FFCRA-mandated paid sick leave, and unlawfully discharged him. 

July 23, 2020
Clark v. Lexington Family Dental Care, PA (Lexington County, South Carolina)
The plaintiff was a dental assistant for a dental care company. She alleges that she has two children who were unable to attend daycare due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She further alleges that she stopped working in the dental office on March 29, 2020, due to the pandemic, and that she received an email on April 16 stating that staff would not return until May 4. However, the plaintiff claims that on April 19, she received an email from the owner stating that the company had been approved for a PPP loan, the terms of which required staff to return to work the following day. The plaintiff claims that she called the owner and told her that she could not come in on 24 hours’ notice because she could not arrange childcare that quickly. The plaintiff alleges that the owner told her she understood. However, the plaintiff claims that the next day, the owner called her and said that if she did not return the following day, the company would consider it to be a resignation and the owner would make sure the plaintiff did not receive unemployment. The plaintiff claims she told the owner that she was not resigning but needed a chance to arrange childcare. The plaintiff alleges that the owner texted her and stated that they needed a certain number of people on the payroll for the PPP loan, so if the plaintiff did not come in, they would replace her. The plaintiff claims that she then received a text message from the owner stating that based upon her childcare issues, they were replacing her. The plaintiff brings a cause of action for FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, violation of the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA), defamation, and promissory estoppel.

Sprague v. Ed’s Precision Manufacturing, LLC (Southern District of Texas)
The plaintiff alleges that he was terminated for taking EMFLEA leave. The plaintiff claims that he requested time off to care for his children, who were unable to attend school due to a COVID-19 related closure. He alleges that his employer rejected the request, and “expressed a negative attitude about [the plaintiff] making such a request.” The plaintiff’s wife emailed the plaintiff’s employer explaining that he was “entitled to leave to help care for their young children.” As a result, the plaintiff alleges that the employer “relented, but was obviously frustrated by the request.” The plaintiff was permitted to receive time off each week to care for his children “for a short period of time.” The plaintiff claims that he was subsequently terminated for allegedly leaving work an hour early, but asserts that the real reason he was terminated was for exercising his rights under the EMFLEA. The plaintiff seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, interest, and attorney fees.

July 17, 2020
Beatty v. Hamilton Operator LLC, et al. (Mercer County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a dietary aide/cook for a nursing home, brings claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Law, the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA), and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA). The plaintiff alleges that he began experiencing a fever in excess of 102 degrees. The defendants advised the plaintiff that he should stay home and contact his primary care doctor. A day after the plaintiff was notified regarding his negative COVID-19 test result, the plaintiff shared the result with the defendants. The defendants informed the plaintiff that they were terminating the plaintiff’s employment because it “took too long” to obtain the COVID-19 test result. The plaintiff alleges that his taking leave constituted “protected conduct” under the ESLL, EFMLEA, and the EPSLA, and  the plaintiff further alleges that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for discriminating against him “for the perception of disability” under New Jersey law. 

July 13, 2020
Rivas v. Phillips Precision Medicraft (District of New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a finisher for a medical device manufacturer, alleges that the defendant interfered with his rights under the FMLA. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant denied his request to take leave in order to care for his school-aged daughter, whose school had been closed due to COVID-19, and that he was furloughed instead. The plaintiff was told that he did not need to take FMLA leave because the defendant “would place any employee who could not work due to COVID-19 on furlough.” The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff would be furloughed effective March 31, 2020. On April 16, the defendant asked the plaintiff whether he was able to return to work, but the plaintiff informed the defendant that his daughter’s preschool was still closed. The defendant told the plaintiff that “if he could not return to work, [d]efendant would fire him.” After requesting leave, the plaintiff sent the defendant the FFCRA poster outlining employees’ rights. The plaintiff again inquired about his right to take FFCRA-protected leave, but was told that he was not entitled to leave because his “position was eliminated” prior to the FFCRA’s expansion of the FMLA. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant retaliated against him by firing him for “requesting and/or taking FFCRA-qualifying leave.” 

July 8, 2020
Lopez v. Refocus Eye Health of PA, P.C. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff began experiencing symptoms consistent with COVID-19 on May 14, 2020. She called and informed her employer that she would be unable to work that day, due to her symptoms. That same day, she visited her doctor, who scheduled a COVID-19 test for her on May 19 and ordered her to self-quarantine at least until her test results came back. The plaintiff promptly informed the defendant that she had been ordered to self-quarantine until her test results came back. The plaintiff’s test results came in on May 26, and showed that she did not have COVID-19. However, the plaintiff continued to experience symptoms, and her doctor, fearing a false negative test, ordered another test and ordered the plaintiff to continue to self-quarantine until the second test’s results were determined. The plaintiff’s second COVID-19 test was delayed several times, and was not scheduled until June 16. However, the defendant told the plaintiff that she would be terminated if she did not return to work by June 15. The plaintiff claims she was unable to return to work on June 15 due to her alleged continuing symptoms, and her inability to be tested for COVID-19 a second time prior to that date. The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The plaintiff sued the defendant for FMLA interference for demanding that she return to work prior to the end of her alleged protected leave. Additionally, the plaintiff brings a claim under the FFCRA for the defendant’s alleged failure to provide her with paid leave while she was away from work experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.

Wilson v. KMH Dining Group
(Northern District of Georgia)
The plaintiff, a general manager, alleges violations of the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA) and Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA). The plaintiff claims that he began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and was told by his doctor to quarantine and not to report to work. The plaintiff alleges that when he told his supervisor his doctor recommended that he self-quarantine, the plaintiff’s supervisor stated that “it sounds fishy” and asked if the plaintiff felt or looked sick. Two days later, the plaintiff was terminated, and was told that the company would hire someone “who wanted to work.” The plaintiff alleges that “[i]n terminating [the plaintiff’s] employment, denying him paid leave, and failing to restore him to his position, [the employer] interfered with [the plaintiff’s] rights protected under” the EFMLEA and EPSLA.

July 6, 2020
Haisley v. Grant-Blackford Mental Health Inc. (Grant County, Indiana)
The plaintiff alleges that her employer refused to provide her with leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.  She claims that in April 2020, she requested to telework so that she could care for her child whose school was closed due to COVID-19. The plaintiff claims that her employer denied her request to work remotely. The plaintiff alleges that she was subsequently terminated because “she was unable to work because she was caring for her child whose school or place of care was closed…due to COVID-19 related reasons.” The plaintiff seeks: her lost wages, liquidated damages, reinstatement to her position, and costs and attorney’s fees.

June 25, 2020
Southern v. Madison County Nursing Home, et al. (Hinds County, Mississippi) 
The plaintiff, a bookkeeper for a public nursing home, claims that the defendants interfered with her rights under the FMLA. The plaintiff claims that she had difficulty securing childcare after daycare and school closures due to COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that she was denied her request to work from home, so she took time off from work to care for her children. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants unlawfully interfered with her “employment agreement by terminating her just days before the FFCRA went into place.” The plaintiff claims that her employment was terminated due to her need for FMLA leave, and that the purported reason for terminating her – lack of Excel skills – was a pretext.

June 19, 2020
Brown v. Township of Irvington (District of New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a clerk-typist in the township’s tax department, alleges that he was denied two weeks of paid emergency sick leave he was entitled to under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The plaintiff alleges that the township’s tax department was considered “essential,” and was permitted to continue to operate following New Jersey’s statewide stay-at-home order. The plaintiff alleges that employees in the tax department were exposed to COVID-19 and the disease began to spread among those in the tax department. As a result, the plaintiff alleges that he began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and sought treatment from his family physician, who recommended that the plaintiff receive treatment for COVID-19 and be excused from work. The plaintiff subsequently provided his employer with the doctor’s note excusing him from work, and requested two weeks paid medical leave under the FFCRA. The plaintiff alleges that he was told that he was not entitled to additional medical leave, because the employer already provided paid sick leave and vacation. When the plaintiff inquired again about taking medical leave under FFCRA, the defendant’s business administrator stated that the township did not need to provide paid FFCRA leave because it had more than 500 employees. The plaintiff responded by emailing the business administrator with information that the 500 employee exception did not apply to public employers, like the township, and requested his paid FFCRA leave. The plaintiff never received a response to his email requesting medical leave.

June 18, 2020
Lopez v. Fieldale Farms Corp. (Northern District of Georgia)
The plaintiff, a maintenance worker, filed a two-count complaint alleging that the defendant interfered with his rights under the FMLA by terminating him and failing to provide him FMLA leave. The plaintiff alleges that after he was diagnosed with COVID-19, he informed the defendant that he needed to miss work for two weeks. When the two weeks were up, the plaintiff told the defendant that he was experiencing respiratory issues and that he was told by his doctors that he should act as if the virus was still active. The plaintiff did not return to work at that time. Subsequently, the plaintiff returned to work and the defendant terminated him. 

Bowden v. Brinly-Hardy Company, Inc. (Western District of Kentucky)
The plaintiff was discharged while on a leave of absence for a potential COVID-19 diagnosis and self-isolation order. She sued her employer for violating the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff asserts that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, her employer implemented certain measures, including having some employees work remotely, and that she agreed to work from home because she has asthma and is high risk. The plaintiff then developed symptoms consistent with having COVID-19 and visited a physician. A week later, the plaintiff’s employer notified her that she could no longer work remotely and would need to return to the office. Two days later, the plaintiff’s symptoms worsened, and an ER physician advised that she might have COVID-19 and must self-isolate. The plaintiff notified her employer of her possible diagnosis, and her employer approved leave under the FFCRA, commencing April 9, 2020. When she began her leave, the plaintiff contacted her primary care physician, who advised her to self-isolate for seven days before visiting his office, and a week later, ordered a COVID-19 test (scheduled for April 22) and instructed the plaintiff to self-isolate for another week. The plaintiff notified her employer of the self-isolation order and upcoming COVID-19 test. In response, the employer provided the plaintiff with short term disability paperwork. Sometime during the week of April 22, the plaintiff told her employer she would return to work when her fever dissipated. A week later, the employer terminated plaintiff’s employment on the ground that her skills did not match the employer’s long-term needs. The plaintiff asserts that, in violation of the FFCRA, her employer’s true motivation was her COVID-19 symptoms and physician-directed self-isolation orders. Among other theories, the plaintiff also asserts that her employer violated the FMLA by not informing her of her FMLA rights. 

June 16, 2020
Barcalow v. Wellspring Lutheran Services (Eastern District of Michigan) 
The plaintiff, a senior living center employee, alleges FMLA interference and retaliation. She alleges she was terminated after using her approved FMLA leave following a positive COVID-19 test. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant terminated her employment “because she failed to come into work while she was on continuous FMLA leave.” She claims that her employment was terminated due to her COVID-19 diagnosis and in retaliation for using FMLA leave, and that the purported reason for the termination of her employment was a pretext.

June 15, 2020
Wells v. Haynes Ambulance of Alabama, Inc. (Middle District of Alabama) 
The plaintiff, a flight paramedic, brings his claims under the FMLA and the Expanded Family Medical Leave Act (EFMLA). The plaintiff claims that he was terminated for asking about the possibility of taking EFMLA to care for his children due to the school closures amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff claims he was told that the reason for his termination was that his questions about taking leave “‘ruffled feathers at the top’ and caused ‘animosity’ between employees and defendant’s management . . .” According to the plaintiff, the defendant terminated him in an effort to dissuade others from exercising their right to leave under the FMLA and the EFMLA. 

June 9, 2020
Kelley Nuttall v. Progressive Parma Care Center, LLC (Northern District of Ohio)
The plaintiff, an activity director, claims that her employer interfered with her rights under the FMLA. The plaintiff alleges that she began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms after being exposed to a patient who tested positive for COVID-19. She made an appointment with her physician, who diagnosed her with COVID-19 and recommended that she refrain from working until she recovered, requiring her to “miss at least 10 consecutive days of work.” After the plaintiff contacted her employer to inform them of the diagnosis and need for leave, and requested FMLA leave paperwork, she alleges that she received a text message from the executive director, effectively terminating her. The text message stated: “I understand that some leaders are going to step up and some leaders are going to step back. Wish you well.”

June 3, 2020
Thornberry v. Powell County Detention Center (Powell County, Kentucky)
The plaintiff, a substance abuse counselor for a detention center, alleges violations of the FMLA, FMLA retaliation, and wrongful discharge in violation of the Kentucky Whistleblower Act. The plaintiff alleges that she was instructed to stay home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but was instructed that she was expected to return to work on March 30, 2020. Prior to returning to work, the plaintiff alleges that she expressed concern to her supervisor “about whether sufficient measures had been implemented to prevent the spread of the disease within the Detention Center, indicating that she had been told by Detention Center personnel not to wear Personal Protective Equipment for fear of causing a panic within the Detention Center.” On March 31, 2020, the plaintiff communicated that “she was not coming in to work because she was not feeling well and running a fever and wanted to consult with her doctor,” and that “absent some reassurance from the Detention Center that sufficient measures were in place to limit the spread of COVID-19, she would not feel comfortable coming to work and ‘risk people [she] love[s] or [her]self dying.’” The plaintiff also alleges that she informed her employer that as a result of school and caretaker closures, she needed to care for her children and dependent brother-in-law. The plaintiff alleges she was fired “within hours of her refusal to return to work without proper safety measures in place,” and that she was fired for reporting violations of CDC recommendations to her supervisor. 

Winters v. Stone Transport Holding, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Michigan)
The plaintiff worked as a breakdown coordinator for a trucking company, and his job consisted of answering phone calls from drivers who were experiencing issues on the road. The plaintiff claims that when he told his employer he was experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, his employer told him that he could not return to work until he was tested and provided a doctor’s note clearing him to return. The plaintiff alleges that he had trouble obtaining a test, and that when he did, he was told that it would take several days before he received the results. The plaintiff alleges that he was terminated before his test results were issued and was told to “go ‘have a nice life.’” The plaintiff alleges that despite being fully able to perform his responsibilities from home and doing so while he was absent from the office, he was terminated because the defendants were “angry with the amount of time it took for the VA Hospital to return the results.” The plaintiff brings claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

May 27, 2020
John Doe v. Dee Packaging Solutions, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff, a printing press operator with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”), alleges that the defendants terminated his employment after he made multiple attempts to contact the defendants’ human resources department and direct supervisor regarding his intention “to seek a medical diagnosis confirming [the plaintiff] should self-quarantine at home for his own protection on account of [the plaintiff’s] HIV-positive status.” The plaintiff’s supervisor sent the plaintiff a text message reading: “The company has remained open. Not reporting to work as you have done is abandoning your job. HR will be sending you the necessary paperwork.” The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to offer the plaintiff FMLA leave, that he was not allowed to use his accrued paid time off, and that he was not offered an accommodation. He claims that he was treated less favorably on the basis of his sexual orientation, and retaliated against because “he suffered from a condition that placed him at higher risk for serious or fatal consequences from COVID-19.” 

May 14, 2020
Rocco Benedetto v. Action Rentals of FLL, LLC, et al. (Southern District of Florida)
The plaintiff alleges FMLA interference and retaliation.  The plaintiff alleges that he “suffers from anatomic asplenia and functioning immunosuppression,” and that he reported to his employer that he was thus “at least ten (10) times more vulnerable than the average individual to contract” COVID-19. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff had a 103.4 degree fever, and provided his employer medical documentation advising him to quarantine for three to 14 days. The plaintiff asserts that two days after he sought to take medical leave, he was terminated. Plaintiff claims that the temporal proximity of his request and his termination creates the presumption that his employer retaliated against him for seeking to exercise his FMLA rights. 

May 8, 2020
Hockersmith v. Elmcroft by Eclipse Senior Living (Western District of Kentucky)
The plaintiff, a former area human resources director, alleges FMLA interference and retaliation claims, as well as disability discrimination under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff alleges that when she became sick with flu-like symptoms while conducting a sexual harassment investigation for defendant in mid-February 2020, her supervisor refused to allow her to take a sick day, instead demanding that she complete the investigation. After her symptoms worsened to include serious coughing and breathing issues, the plaintiff was advised by her doctor on March 13, 2020 to self-quarantine for seven days, which she did. Following a check-in call with her supervisor, during which the plaintiff coughed continuously, the plaintiff alleges her supervisor placed her on leave and locked her out of the company’s systems. The plaintiff says she then went back to her doctor on March 24, 2020, and notwithstanding the lack of available tests, her “doctor admitted that she most likely had COVID-19” and advised her to extend her self-quarantine period to 14 days. The plaintiff says she then requested FMLA leave, and that her supervisor did not respond to her request. After the plaintiff completed her period of self-quarantine, and attempted to return to work, the plaintiff was still unable to access any work-related programs. Later that day, the plaintiff says her supervisor terminated her employment, telling her (for the first time) that her performance was unsatisfactory.   

May 1, 2020
Angela M. Connor v. Professional Medical Billing, Inc. (Northern District of Indiana) 
Plaintiff seeks “damages under FMLA/FFCRA,” as well as “declaratory and injunctive relief.” Plaintiff alleges that her daughter’s school and daycare closed as a result of COVID-19 and that Plaintiff was forced to stay home with her child, whom Plaintiff also claims had serious health conditions. Plaintiff alleges that she notified her employer of the need for leave under FMLA/FFCRA, but did not receive the requested approval for paid leave. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that she was asked to explain why she could not perform her billing duties remotely. According to Plaintiff, she could not “both work and watch her child at home.”

April 9, 2020
Ennin v. EFC Trade, Inc. (Southern District of Ohio)
Plaintiff alleges FMLA retaliation and interference. Plaintiff, a financial aid officer, was informed that she was being furloughed in connection with COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that she was actually furloughed in retaliation for taking FMLA leave, and that the defendant interfered with her right to reinstatement by failing to reinstate her to her same or a substantially similar position upon her return from FMLA-protected leave.

Misclassification

May 29, 2020
Osvatics v. Lyft, Inc. (District Court of the District of Columbia)
In a class action on behalf of Lyft drivers working in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, the plaintiff, a Lyft driver, alleges that Lyft violated the D.C. Accrue Safe and Sick Leave Act (ASSLA) by failing to provide drivers with paid sick leave. The ASSLA requires employers to allow their employees to accrue a certain amount of paid time off. The plaintiff alleges Lyft has improperly classified her and other drivers as independent contractors, preventing them from accruing needed paid time off under the ASSLA. Further, the plaintiff alleges that given the COVID-19 pandemic, paid sick time is “vitally important,” and without it, “Lyft forces its drivers into a Hobbesian choice: risk their lives (and the lives of their passengers) or risk their livelihoods.” 

March 12, 2020
Verhines v. Uber Technologies Inc. (San Francisco County, California); Rogers v. Lyft, Inc. (San Francisco County, California)
Class action complaints against Uber and Lyft, respectively, allege that because drivers were misclassified as independent contractors (pursuant to California Assembly Bill 5), they have been improperly deprived of necessary paid sick time under the California Labor Code to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Non-compete

May 29, 2020
Mattson, et al. v. WTS International, Inc. (Middle District of Florida)
The four plaintiffs worked as bartenders for a hospitality staffing and management company. As a result of COVID-19, all four plaintiffs were laid off. The plaintiffs allege that after they were laid off, the defendant attempted to enforce unsigned non-compete agreements. The defendant allegedly told the plaintiffs’ prospective employers that they would have to “buy out” the non-compete agreements, and then rejected the prospective employers’ offers to do so, saying that the offers were not high enough. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the non-compete agreements are unenforceable, and claims for defamation and tortious interference.

WARN Act

July 10, 2020
Hampton, et al. v. Golden Valley Health Centers (Merced County, California)
The plaintiff filed a California WARN Act (CAL-WARN) class and PAGA action alleging that she and members of a putative class had their rights under CAL-WARN violated. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a provider of health care services to the uninsured, refused her union’s proposals and laid off approximately 350 workers, some temporarily and others permanently, in the weeks after Governor Newsom issued his statewide shutdown order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the defendant gave notice of the lay-offs on April 23, 2020, the plaintiff claims that later notice did not abate the alleged violation of CAL-WARN. The plaintiff seeks back pay, waiting time penalties and civil penalties under PAGA. 

May 6, 2020
Smith, et al. v. Ideal Image Development Corporation, et al. (St. Louis County, Missouri)
Six plaintiffs, who worked in sales for a medical spa, allege that defendants failed to pay them commissions owed and failed to provide notice under Missouri’s WARN Act when they were laid off as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

April 30, 2020
Green v. The Hertz Corporation (Middle District Florida)
Class action brought by employees who were allegedly terminated in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint alleges that the while the employer previously furloughed employees, the plaintiffs were given no advance notice prior to their terminations, purportedly in violation of the WARN Act.

April 16, 2020
Scott & Seales v. Hooters III Inc. (Middle District Florida)
Class action on behalf of 679 Florida employees who were allegedly terminated in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs allege that no advance notice was given prior to their termination, purportedly in violation of the WARN Act.

Whistleblower

July 27, 2020
Weiler v. Sexual Violence Center (Hennepin County, Minnesota) 
The plaintiff, a systems change program coordinator for a nonprofit corporation, alleges that she was demoted and then terminated after she raised concerns to the executive director and the board of directors regarding her request to work from home in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff claims she was demoted, and was told that her demotion was “for attempting to instill fear and anxiety in employees about working in the office during the pandemic.” In addition to the plaintiff’s internal complaints, the plaintiff also sent an email to an email address provided by the state of Minnesota for reporting stay home order violations. The plaintiff alleges that an investigator contacted the executive director about the plaintiff’s report a few days later. Shortly thereafter, the executive director purportedly informed the plaintiff that her position was being eliminated immediately due to a reduction in the workforce. The plaintiff alleges she was terminated in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. 

July 17, 2020
McIntyre v. Medical Solutions, LLC (Jackson County, Missouri)
The plaintiff worked as a nurse for an agency that places nurses in hospitals on short-term contracts. The plaintiff contracted with the defendant to work at a hospital for 10 weeks from March 9, 2020, to May 16, 2020. During her assignment, the plaintiff overheard hospital managers discussing the fact that the hospital had failed to isolate a patient who reported having COVID-19 symptoms – contrary to CDC recommendations – and further, allowed him to walk through the hospital without wearing a mask. According to the plaintiff, the hospital managers were debating whether to warn the doctors and nurses who cared for the patient about their possible exposure to COVID-19 and that ultimately, they decided not to do so. The plaintiff reported to the defendant that the hospital was not informing staff of its possible COVID-19 exposure, was not quarantining patients, and not providing staff with PPE. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to act in response to her warnings. On March 18, 2020, the plaintiff developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Because COVID-19 tests were available only to those who required hospitalization at the time, the plaintiff self-quarantined. She also gave the hospital two weeks’ notice because she felt it was unsafe to return to work there. The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s actions by allegedly refusing to pay her earned wages and sick pay, terminating her employment, and “blackballing her from further travel nursing opportunities within the industry.” The plaintiff alleges, among other causes of action, wrongful discharge and retaliation in violation of Missouri public policy against terminating employees for reporting wrongdoing and unsafe working conditions, having and/or requesting a reasonable accommodation for a disability or illness, and promoting activity that helps stem the spread of COVID-19. 

July 8, 2020
Courtney Burton v. St. Joseph's Regional Medical Center (Passaic County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff was an emergency room manager. She alleges that she lodged a complaint with the defendant’s ethics committee regarding multiple staff members becoming infected with COVID-19 due to purportedly inadequate PPE. The plaintiff’s complaint implicated her supervisor, who the plaintiff claims then filed a complaint against her for “allegedly stealing company time.” The complaint against the plaintiff “was proven to be untrue because she was a salaried manager,” but the plaintiff alleges that she was told she was being terminated “because a conflict now existed between” the plaintiff and her supervisor. The human resources director who informed the plaintiff of her termination purportedly “agreed with [the] plaintiff that the termination of her employment did look like retaliation for her filing of the subject ethics complaint that implicated” her supervisor. She brings suit for retaliation under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Act. 

Gonzalez v. Carrillo Surgery Center, Inc. (Santa Barbara Superior Court, California) 
The plaintiff, a registered nurse, alleges that she was terminated after she complained to the defendant employer about unsafe conditions at the defendant’s medical facility. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant had failed to implement necessary safety measures to protect employees and patients from COVID-19, including a lack of available PPE. The plaintiff alleges that two days after she complained, the defendant terminated her. The plaintiff claims that her complaints were protected by California’s whistleblower statute, and that the defendant violated this statute by terminating the plaintiff for complaining. Based on the same facts, the plaintiff also alleges that the defendant retaliated against her for reporting workplace safety hazards in violation of the California Labor Code, and also wrongfully terminated her in violation of California public policy. Finally, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to provide adequate meal and rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code.

July 7, 2020
Rivera v. General Nutrition Corp. (Hillsborough County, Florida)
The plaintiff was a store manager in the defendant’s retail location in Tampa, Florida. Effective June 19, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mayor of Tampa issued an executive order requiring, among other things, that “every person working, visiting or doing business in … Tampa shall wear a face covering in any indoor location.” On June 22, several customers entered the defendant’s store without face coverings, in violation of the executive order. The plaintiff advised these customers of the executive order’s requirements. At least one customer became physically aggressive while screaming obscenities at the plaintiff. The next day, the plaintiff spoke to his district manager about the customers’ behaviors. The manager told the plaintiff the business would not lose sales because of face covering requirements. He also said he was suspending the plaintiff pending an investigation. That day, Hillsborough County, where the defendant’s store is located, issued an Emergency Face Covering Order, which required business operators to ensure that individuals in their establishments comply with the order’s face covering requirements. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant refused to ensure compliance with the Tampa and Hillsborough face covering orders, that the plaintiff objected to the defendant’s noncompliance, and that the defendant retaliated against him for doing so by terminating his employment one day after suspending him. The plaintiff alleges that his termination violated the Florida Private Whistleblower’s Act.

June 19, 2020
Coley & Crawford v. Princeton University, et al. (Mercer County, New Jersey) 
The plaintiffs, public safety officers, allege that they were unlawfully discharged in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). The plaintiffs allege that they were asked to transport students returning from China who may have been exposed to COVID-19. The plaintiffs allege that they had no training, instruction or guidance on how to transport or interact with the students suspected to have come into contact with COVID-19. The plaintiffs claim that they expressed their concerns over the lack of training, and objected to performing the transports. The plaintiffs allege that they provided the defendants with written statements regarding their objections, and were subsequently terminated, purportedly for engaging in CEPA-protected conduct. 

June 17, 2020 
Lisabeth Reglewski v. Landmark of DesPlaines Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC (Cook County, Illinois)
The plaintiff, the director of nursing for the defendant employer, a long-term nursing care facility, alleges that she was terminated for accurately reporting the number of COVID-19 patients at the facility. The plaintiff claims that she reported the number of COVID-19 patients to her supervisor, who then reported them to the Illinois Department of Public Health. The plaintiff was discharged on April 15, 2020, after the defendant reported a lesser number of COVID-19 patients to the Illinois Department of Public Health than the accurate higher number of cases. The plaintiff alleges she was discharged “in retaliation [for her] accurate reporting of Covid 19 patients.” The plaintiff further states that she “has reasonable cause to believe that [her supervisor’s] underreporting violates state or federal law, Rule or regulation.” The plaintiff alleges violations of the Illinois Whistleblower Act and public policy. The plaintiff also asserts a claim for libel, citing alleged false statements on a disciplinary action form related to her work ethic and character.

June 10, 2020
Kalba v. Lee County RV Sales Company (Lee County, Florida)
The plaintiff alleges he was terminated in violation of the Florida Whistleblower Act. The plaintiff alleges that in early March, the governor of Florida ordered the adoption of the CDC guidance, which (he says) required social distancing and the wearing of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff says he complained to human resources about the lack of PPE for its employees, and in particular the lack of masks. He alleges he was told there were no masks available. In response to the concern the plaintiff expressed about putting himself and his family at risk, he was told to take paid time off, which he did. Upon his return to work, the plaintiff complained to a manager that one of the steps the defendant put in place while he was off work was not protecting customers, that customers were being charged for the “Eco Shield” service even when it was not applied, and that the defendant was merely trying to profit from the COVID-19 virus. Subsequently, the plaintiff complained to two managers about his continued concern over the lack of PPE and how he was being treated. Less than two weeks later, the two managers called the plaintiff into a meeting, told him he was not a good fit and that he was terminated, but said the decision had nothing to do with how hard the plaintiff worked or his results. 

Worker's Compensation

June 5, 2020
Fargo v. Big Cedar, LLC (Taney County, Missouri)
The plaintiff was a duty engineer for a wilderness lodge. He alleges that he injured his lower back on the job, and filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. He claims that he was placed on limited duty, but was then cleared to return to full-duty work. The plaintiff alleges that two days after he was cleared to return to work, the defendant employer placed him on furlough, purportedly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleges that although numerous other employees were furloughed, he was the only one who was asked to return his keys. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that almost two months later, the company sent an email to all associates welcoming them back to work, but the same day, the email he received was recalled. The plaintiff claims that the company kept him on furlough, and continues to do so, although all of the other employees have returned to work. He alleges that the company is keeping him on an indefinite furlough so that he will be forced to quit his job, in retaliation for exercising his rights under the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law. 

Workplace Safety

July 24, 2020
Switz v. Fisher Titus Health (Huron County, Ohio)
The plaintiff, “a CMA patients accounts/insurance specialist,” alleges she was constructively discharged because “to remain employed” by the defendant, “she would have to agree to work in a unsafe workplace in a medical clinic.” The plaintiff claims that her work place was unsafe for two reasons: (1) she was told by her managers that “she could not wear a face mask to prevent her from being exposed to [the] COVID-19 virus under the unreasonable theory that if she wore such a mask, it might make other people think the medical facility was not safe;” and (2) her employer “insisted that the untrained Plaintiff provide medical care assistance to COVID-19 patients in a separate hospital building while she suffers from a cardiac condition that makes her more vulnerable to the virus.” The plaintiff alleges that when she protested these instructions, she was told “to do what you are told.” The plaintiff alleges that she was forced to resign as a result of the unsafe working conditions. The plaintiff claims that her employer violated Ohio’s public policy requiring employers to provide employees with a safe work environment, and this violation resulted in the plaintiff’s constructive discharge. 

July 22, 2020
Ornelas et al. v. Central Valley Meat Co., Inc. (Eastern District of California)
The plaintiff brought a class action against the defendant meat-packing plant, alleging a number of violations of California state law due to the defendant’s alleged failure to take appropriate actions and to adopt recommended precautions against the spread of COVID-19. By mid-April, the defendant had at least nine known cases of COVID-19 in its workforce. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant did nothing to arrest the spread of the virus in its plant, and in fact took action that made it worse. The defendant allegedly did not inform employees of positive COVID-19 tests among the workforce; allowed employees who tested positive to return to work within days of testing positive; failed to send home employees who were experiencing symptoms of COVID-19; pressured employees who were experiencing COVID-19 symptoms to come to work, threatening them with discipline under its no-fault attendance policy; and failed to implement preventative measures recommended by the CDC and OSHA (such as social distancing and encouraging extra breaks for employees to wash their hands.) Employees only learned that several of their co-workers had tested positive for COVID-19 by talking with each other on Facebook. By early May, the defendant had 161 reported positive COVID-19 cases in the plant. The plaintiff began to experience symptoms and tested positive for the virus. The plaintiff paid for the test on her own, as the defendant allegedly refused. The plaintiff claims that even after she tested positive, she was pressured to come to work. The plaintiff brings her claim on behalf of a class of employees, and alleges a number of violations of California state law, such as negligence, public nuisance, wanton and reckless misconduct, and violations of the California Family Rights Act, as well as a violation of federal law under the FMLA.

June 29, 2020
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. Harrah’s Las Vegas LLC, et al. (District of Nevada) 
The plaintiff labor union sued two hotels and a condominium complex on the Las Vegas strip seeking a “reverse Boys Market” injunction to prevent the employers from enforcing COVID-19 health and safety rules that the union alleges are “manifestly unreasonable … for addressing instances in which a worker tests positive for COVID-19.” The plaintiff alleges that these rules (1) permit the defendants to continue to operate and to require employees to continue to work, without a COVID-19 contact person for each shift who is trained in the scientifically accurate protocols for reporting, quarantine and isolation; (2) permit the defendants to continue operating without immediately closing and conducting deep cleaning of the infected worker’s work areas; (3) permit the defendants to continue operating, and to require employees to work, without immediately informing the them that a co-worker has tested positive for COVID-19; (4) permit the defendants to continue operating, and to require employees to continue working, without immediately conducting any contact tracing so that potentially exposed employees may quarantine; and (5) permit untrained and unqualified managers and security personnel to pressure employees to continue working even when they complain of symptoms associated with COVID-19 or have worked in close contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19. The union seeks an injunction preventing the defendants from “promulgating and following unreasonable rules” until its grievances have been arbitrated under its collective bargaining agreement, and an injunction “abating the nuisances” alleged in its grievances. 

June 11, 2020
Elijah v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (Hudson County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, the representative of a deceased power rail mechanic for a rail carrier, alleges wrongful death under New Jersey law. The plaintiff alleges that the deceased was exposed to COVID-19 when he embraced a co-worker who later tested positive for COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that the decedent was not wearing a mask, because his employer “instructed its workers at safety meetings not to wear masks at work unless they were performing their specific job functions.” Approximately 10 days after being exposed to COVID-19, the decedent began to experience symptoms of COVID-19, which progressively worsened. The complaint alleges that decedent was hospitalized, and over the next 20 days, experienced a “horrible and protracted death.” The plaintiff alleges that the employer was negligent by: (1) failing to provide employees with a safe place to work; (2) failing to properly train employees about contracting COVID-19 at work; (3) failing to timely provide PPE to employees; (4) failing to conduct contact tracing; (5) failing to test employees for COVID-19; (6) failing to timely quarantine decedent and other employees who had been exposed to COVID-19; (7) failing to apply social distancing measures for employees; (8) failing to properly clean areas; (9) failing to warn employees of the dangers of contracting COVID-19 at work; (10) failing to medically treat the decedent; and (11) failing to follow its own safety rules, practices, and procedures.  

June 10, 2020
Esco v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Sacramento Superior Court)
The plaintiff filed an action alleging that she and the members of a putative class are victims of employment policies, practices, and procedures that violate California’s Business and Professions, Civil and Labor Codes as well as the Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare Commission, and Division of Occupational Safety and Health orders and standards. The plaintiff cites a variety of state, local and federal regulations and guidelines and contends that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic the defendant failed to implement and maintain an effective illness and injury prevention program and provide proper PPE, materials, policies, trainings and communication to the plaintiff and members of the class. Specifically, she claims that the defendant failed to provide sufficient sanitary face coverings, failed to require customers, vendors and others entering the stores to wear face coverings, failed to endorse social distancing, failed to provide sufficient breaks to allow for hand washing stations, failed to provide sufficient hand sanitizer, failed to train employees on the use of protective gear such as the removal of gloves and masks, failed to implement an illness prevention program, failed to provide sufficient barriers and failed to provide sufficient disinfectants and cleaning agents. Based upon this conduct, the plaintiff alleges she and all non-exempt employees are entitled to relief because the defendant’s conduct constitutes a public nuisance. She also claims that she and the class are entitled to injunctive relief to stop the defendant’s alleged violations of state law. 

May 13, 2020
Flores v. Built Brands, LLC (Utah County, Utah)
The plaintiff, a production line worker for a nutritional supplement manufacturer, alleges she contracted COVID-19 when her employer remained open for operations despite being aware that workers on the production line contracted COVID-19, and other employees expressed concerns about reporting to work. The plaintiff alleges that her employer inflicted harm upon her by failing, among other things, to: (1) follow all applicable government-issues safety rules; (2) cease business operations; (3) provide employees PPE; (4) have adequate policies and procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at their facilities; (5) adequately sanitize the facilities; and (6) heed employees’ safety warnings. The plaintiff seeks damages for, among other things “emotional pain, great physical pain ... past and future medical expenses ... permanent impairment, diminished earning capacity, lost wages, past and future household services, diminished life expectancy,” and punitive damages.

May 7, 2020
Jane Doe v. Hillstone Restaurant Group Inc. dba R&D Kitchen (Northern District of Texas)
In a case removed to federal court from Dallas County Court, the Plaintiff, a kitchen worker, alleges that she was informed she would be removed from the schedule and would not be permitted to return to work at the reopened restaurant unless “she agreed to work without a face covering.” The plaintiff alleges that she was informed that the restaurant would be re-opening following the Governor’s executive order permitting restaurants to allow limited dine-in services, but that “the company was prohibiting employees from wearing masks or face coverings while at work.” The plaintiff seeks a TRO enjoining the employer from prohibiting employees from wearing face coverings and putting the plaintiff back her prior schedule.

May 5, 2020
Paterson Custodial & Maintenance Association v. Paterson Board of Education (Passaic County, New Jersey)
Plaintiff, a labor union, filed a lawsuit on behalf of its members against a local board of education seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the defendant had violated the state emergency order pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff union alleged that the board of education violated the order by requiring its members to return to work on a full-time basis to perform their regular, non-essential duties. The plaintiff union alleges that the board’s disregard for the order places it members, many of whom are older and have pre-existing conditions, at risk of contracting COVID-19.

Wrongful Termination, Retaliation and Bias

July 28, 2020
Sumeet Nain et al. v. Lynnes Nissan City, Inc. et al. (Essex County, New Jersey)
The plaintiffs, car salespeople, claim wrongful termination under New Jersey law, stemming from their refusal to report to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs allege that their employer violated the governor’s executive order mandating all non-essential retail businesses to close their brick-and-mortar stores and that car dealerships could perform only maintenance and repairs, and could only do so by allowing customers to schedule in-person showroom appointments. The plaintiffs allege that they complained about the in-person showroom appointments to their supervisors and to the state of New Jersey, and refused to report to work. The plaintiffs contend that the employer terminated their employment in retaliation for their purportedly protected activity. 

Randall v. Garrison Healthcare, LP (Eastern District of Texas)
The plaintiff was the director of social services at a nursing home. She alleges that on April 22, 2020, a resident coughed directly into her face while she was transferring the resident from a bed to a wheelchair. The plaintiff claims that the following week, she was told that the resident tested positive for COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that on May 1, all employees were tested for COVID-19, and that on May 5, her supervisor called and told her that her test was positive for the virus. She claims that her supervisor told her that she would be paid while off work. The plaintiff alleges that on May 27, she called and requested to return to work on June 8, the date her doctor approved her to return to work. The plaintiff alleges that she was then told that she would have to use her PTO starting from a second negative COVID-19 test. Because the plaintiff’s second negative test was on May 24, she would have been required to use 80 hours of PTO to return on June 8. The plaintiff alleges that she had only accrued 12 hours of PTO, and was therefore required to exhaust it, and was told that she would not be paid for the remaining time she was off work. The plaintiff claims that she informed the defendant that it was legally required to pay her under the FFCRA. She further alleges that on June 5, she texted her supervisor stating that she was ready to return on June 8. She claims her supervisor called her and stated that the defendant was not able to move forward with her employment because she did not return to work when she was able to do so. The plaintiff brings causes of action for violation of the FFCRA and violation of the FLSA.

July 24, 2020
Rodriguez v. SMA Distributors, LLC, et al. (Nassau County, New York)
The plaintiff worked as a manager until her discharge. She alleges that, on or about April 18, 2020, she experienced COVID-19 symptoms while at work and that, pursuant to the governor’s executive order, she notified the defendants that she would need to self-quarantine. A week later, the plaintiff advised the defendants that she had tested positive for COVID-19 and would remain in self-quarantine. She also explained that the executive order required her to have two negative COVID-19 tests before she could return to work. On May 2, the plaintiff informed the defendants that she had tested negative for COVID-19 twice, and that she would be returning to work on May 6. The defendants allegedly responded that they had “already arranged for new help” and “wished her luck.” The plaintiff sued for violations of New York state law, including disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation for taking protected leave. 

July 23, 2020
Timothy Burkhard v. City of Plainfield et al. (Union County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a firefighter, claims racial discrimination under New Jersey state law stemming from a co-worker’s alleged racial comments related to his Asian-American ethnicity. The plaintiff alleges that during a training on COVID-19 attended by the plaintiff’s department, one of the defendants allegedly made racist comments to the plaintiff about Asians, and asked if the plaintiff had visited Wuhan, China, recently while squinting his eyes. The plaintiff contends that the defendant’s conduct was witnessed by no less than 19 firefighters, including five lieutenants and the fire chief, none of whom objected to the conduct. As a result, the plaintiff claims he was subjected to gross discriminatory conduct resulting in a hostile work environment. 

Dunn v. Hamra Enterprises, et al. (Northern District of Illinois)
The plaintiff worked as the regional director of facilities at a restaurant franchisee. He alleges that he made a written complaint to human resources detailing that he and his team were required to work in unsafe conditions. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he complained that when their worksite was relocated, he and his team were then required to use the restroom and wash their hands at a restaurant next to their office where the general manager had tested positive for COVID-19. The plaintiff complained that the restaurant they were required to use was not closed for deep cleaning and sanitation despite the confirmed diagnosis of the manager. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that he complained that his team was forced to work long hours as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but were not paid any overtime. He alleges that the company informed him that he was being terminated because the company was eliminating his position, but that he was actually fired in retaliation for voicing his concerns about safety and overtime. The plaintiff brings causes of action for retaliation in violation of the FLSA and retaliatory discharge in violation of Illinois law.

Gates v. Lejeune Motor Company dba Lejeune Honda Cars (Eastern District of North Carolina)
The plaintiff, a parts and service manager at an automobile dealership, alleges violation of the FFCRA and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The plaintiff alleges she requested leave due to the closure of her son’s school in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While on leave, the plaintiff alleges that she worked intermittently both at home and in person, and that she did not receive compensation for the work she performed while on FFCRA leave. The plaintiff was told she would be demoted to the position of service writer due to her alleged poor performance. The plaintiff disputed the data that was used to support her alleged poor performance as inaccurate. The plaintiff alleges that the demotion constituted retaliation for using FFCRA leave and that the defendant violated the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing to pay her earned wages while on leave. 

Otteh v. Sundance Memory Care (Harris County, Texas)
The plaintiff was a nurse working for the defendant, an assisted living facility. According to the plaintiff, the defendant’s facility served a primarily elderly population who, it later became clear, was particularly susceptible to the COVID-19 virus. Indeed, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s facility was accepting patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and were required to quarantine. In addition, according to the plaintiff, the defendant required its nurses to re-use single-use PPE equipment such as protective gowns. Such PPE equipment was allegedly required to be used by the nurses over multiple shifts, so that different nurses would allegedly have to re-use the same equipment. When the plaintiff refused to re-use single-use PPE, she was terminated. The plaintiff sued the defendant under Texas state law for wrongful termination and retaliation for reporting an alleged violation of the law to the defendant.

July 22, 2020
Voznesensky v. Peninsula Convalescent Associates, LLC dba Carlmont Gardens Nursing Center et al. (San Mateo County, California) 
The plaintiff, a nurse educator and supervisor, alleges that her employment was terminated after she tested positive for COVID-19. Before the plaintiff was cleared by her doctor to return to work, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated, allegedly due to a decrease in patient occupancy. The plaintiff claims that before the defendant terminated her employment, she had requested to wear a mask while performing her job. She alleges that the defendant denied her requests and told her that wearing a mask would not be reassuring to the patients. The plaintiff alleges that she was terminated due to her illness, disability and perceived disability of having COVID-19. Based on the same facts, the plaintiff also alleges wrongful termination in violation of California public policy. 

July 21, 2020
Vigilance v. Bridge Street Development Corporation, et al. (Eastern District of New York)
The plaintiff, a human resources employee, alleges that she was terminated in retaliation for opposing the defendants’ violation of New York’s COVID-19 stay-at-home order. The plaintiff alleges that despite the fact that other employees performing similar duties to those performed by the plaintiff were allowed to work from home, the defendants refused to allow the plaintiff to work from home. The plaintiff alleges that she was a non-essential employee, and that the defendants’ refusal was a clear violation of New York’s public health order. The plaintiff claims that her request to work from home, and the defendants’ denial, created significant tension between her and the defendants, and that the tension led to the defendants terminating her employment. In addition to her COVID-19 retaliation claim, the plaintiff asserts several wage and hour violations against the defendant, seemingly unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants improperly classified her as exempt, and as a result violated both the FLSA and New York Labor Law by failing to pay her overtime wages. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants violated state law by failing to provide her with accurate wage statements, failing to provide her with proper notice of her wage rate, and failing to pay her the severance owed to her upon termination. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks her unpaid wages, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees. 

Corina DePhillips v. Johnson Peerless Inc. (Southern District of Texas)
The plaintiff, who worked for the defendant (a provider of laundry and dry cleaning services) as a garment presser for the brief period of Feb. 6 through July 15, 2020, claims violations of the FFCRA and the FLSA. Specifically, the plaintiff says that on July 6 she notified her supervisor that she and her husband were experiencing “COVID-like symptoms” (and that “she was feeling very sick, had a bad headache, a bad cough, severe congestion, was feverish, achy, fatigued and having body cramps”). The plaintiff reportedly told her supervisor that she and her husband had been advised by a healthcare professional to self-quarantine. The plaintiff’s husband received test results positive for COVID-19 on or about July 10, and the plaintiff and her husband were advised by the local health department to continue to self-quarantine through at least July 20. The plaintiff claims that when she reported this news to her supervisor, and requested sick leave pursuant to the FFCRA, her supervisor “responded with anger, accusing Plaintiff of lying, telling Plaintiff that she couldn’t possibly be positive for COVID so soon and – completely ignoring the fact that [the plaintiff] was experiencing symptoms – demanded strict proof.” The plaintiff received her COVID-19 positive test result on July 15. When the plaintiff contacted her employer, she was reportedly told that she would “not be paid for the days she was out while experiencing symptoms and waiting for her test results,” and was also fired. The plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, unpaid wages and retaliation under the FFCRA and FLSA, and seeks reinstatement, compensation and benefits, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.

Haring v. HD Industries LLC dba Home Instead Senior Care #805 (Multnomah County, Oregon)
The plaintiff held the position of office manager for the defendant, “a for-profit company that provides in-home senior care services.” She alleges that while she was pregnant, she was demoted “from a management position” to the position of scheduling coordinator, when the defendant’s new ownership was announced. According to the plaintiff, she was demoted due to her pregnancy. She also claims that her prior office manager position would have permitted her to perform her job remotely when the governor issued a stay-at-home order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon her return from maternity leave, however, the plaintiff was required to return to work in person due to her new scheduling coordinator position, “thereby potentially exposing herself and her newborn child” to COVID-19. The plaintiff refused to return to work in person and alleges she was not permitted to work remotely, but was instead terminated. She brings a claim for pregnancy discrimination in violation of Oregon law.

Hill and Balzano v. K & D Petroleum, Inc. (Southern District of Indiana)
The plaintiffs, gas station cashiers, bring a complaint for violations of the FFCRA. The plaintiffs are “close friends and next door neighbors, and “spend significant amounts of time together.”  The daughter of one of the plaintiffs “began to exhibit symptoms of COVID-19,” and because both of the plaintiffs “spent significant time” with and “had significant exposure to” the daughter “in the days and weeks” prior to her becoming symptomatic, they reported their potential exposure to the defendant and began to self-quarantine in March 2020.  The plaintiffs each sought leave under the FFCRA, but allege that the defendant “violated the provisions of the FFCRA by failing to pay [them] any paid leave whatsoever during each Plaintiff’s period of COVID-19 quarantine.” One of the plaintiffs resigned her employment, while the other planned to return to work in April 2020, but was terminated.  The plaintiff claims her termination violated the FFCRA. Wholly unrelated to their claims regarding COVID-19, the plaintiffs bring additional claims for wage and hour violations. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants illegally deducted any cash register shortages from their paychecks, purportedly in violation of the FLSA, and the Indiana Wage Claims Statute.  The plaintiffs also claim that the defendant failed to pay them for all hours worked and failed to pay one of the plaintiffs overtime to which she was entitled.

July 20, 2020
Aguilera v. Healthpointe Medical Group, Inc. (Los Angeles County, California)
The plaintiff suffered two separate work-related injuries in 2019—one in March and another in September. Her employer allegedly failed to properly report either injury so that the plaintiff could receive workers’ compensation benefits. The plaintiff was thus forced to seek treatment on her own, and she did so. The plaintiff’s doctor placed work restrictions on her. After she presented these work restrictions to the defendant, the plaintiff’s boss and her co-workers allegedly began harassing her. For instance, the plaintiff’s boss began tracking her work and productivity closely, which he did not do for any other employee. The plaintiff also allegedly suffered jokes and insults about her injuries and accommodations from co-workers, and, although she reported these instances to human resources, nothing was done about it. The plaintiff was laid off on March 27, purportedly as a result of staffing cuts due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleges this reason was pretextual, and sued the defendant under California state law for unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and harassment based on her alleged disability and her request for workers’ compensation benefits.

Thomasson v. Sentinel Transportation, LLC (Kern County, California)
The plaintiff had suffered from frequent nausea and headaches from the time he started working for the defendant in 2018. He had taken leaves of absence in late 2019 and in April 2020 due to these symptoms. The symptoms worsened in June 2020, and the plaintiff left work early on June 12, allegedly due to severe headaches and nausea. The plaintiff claims that the next day, was a scheduled day off for the plaintiff. The plaintiff scheduled a doctor’s appointment for June 14 for his worsening symptoms, and was advised to stay home from work on June 14 and June 15, in part because the doctor feared the plaintiff may have COVID-19. On June 13, the plaintiff’s scheduled day off, he texted a picture of the doctor’s note requesting that the plaintiff take off June 14 and 15 to the defendant. The defendant approved those two days off for the plaintiff. The plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes at his June 14 doctor’s appointment, and approved to return to work on June 16. However, when the plaintiff returned on June 16, the defendant suspended and later terminated his employment, allegedly for providing false information to the defendant.  Specifically, the plaintiff had driven to Nevada on June 13 with his brother. According to the plaintiff, however, the trip to Nevada was on his scheduled day off—and he attended his doctor’s appointment the next day as he said he would. The plaintiff alleges the defendant’s stated reason for terminating him is pretextual. Among violations of other laws, he asserts several causes of action under California law based on the defendant’s alleged retaliation for his need to use protected sick leave under the California Family Rights Act, for using his accrued sick leave under the defendant’s policy.

July 17, 2020
Floyd v. Alonzoe Zapp d/b/a Cutting Edge Lawn Care (Southern District of Indiana)
The plaintiff alleges that he sought and received a COVID-19 test and was advised by his doctor to self-quarantine for a week. The plaintiff alleges that the self-quarantine order triggered the defendant’s obligation to provide the plaintiff leave under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)). The plaintiff alleges that after the week of self-quarantine, he asked the defendant about reporting back to work, but that the defendant responded that it no longer needed the plaintiff, and terminated his employment. The plaintiff claims that the defendant “took adverse employment actions” against the plaintiff “because of his statutorily protected conduct.” 

Ledyard v. JAG-OB, LLC (Orangeburg County, South Carolina)
The plaintiff, a service advisor for a car dealership, alleges that she was wrongfully terminated for self-quarantining, and that she was not paid all wages due upon termination.  The plaintiff alleges that when she advised the defendant of what she thought were symptoms of COVID-19, the defendant advised her to get tested and remain quarantined until the results came back.  The plaintiff alleges that she voiced her concerns of not being paid during her self-quarantine with her supervisor, but was assured that she would continue to be paid while remaining home.  Several weeks later, the plaintiff’s COVID-19 tests returned negative, and she returned to work with a doctor’s note excusing her for the time she spent in quarantine awaiting the test results. On the day of her return, the plaintiff alleges that she was terminated without explanation.  The plaintiff alleges further that, despite assurances that she would be paid, the defendant did not pay her on her regular payday.  When the defendant finally did pay her, the Plaintiff alleges that her check was more than $1,000 less than the normal amount.  The plaintiff claims that her termination violates South Carolina law prohibiting termination of employees for quarantining, and that the reduced pay in her final paycheck violated the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Nasr v. Paul Miller Motors, LLC (Essex County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff worked as a sales representative for the defendant, a car dealership. In March 2020, New Jersey’s Governor declared a public emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and issued an emergency stay-at-home order. In response, the defendant closed its business and furloughed the plaintiff. In late April 2020, the defendant recalled the plaintiff to work. After hearing rumors that other employees believed they had COVID-19, the plaintiff obtained a COVID-19 test on May 10, 2020, and worked on May 11 and 12, 2020 while awaiting the results. The plaintiff learned mid-day on May 12 that he tested positive for COVID-19, and that he should self-quarantine. He left work and notified his manager of his diagnosis and his need to take time off from work. The next day, the plaintiff alleges that members of the defendant’s management team called him at home, asked him about his diagnosis, symptoms, and the reason for being tested. After he explained the circumstances that led him to obtain a COVID-19 test, the plaintiff said he would need to take several weeks off from work. The defendant called the plaintiff the next day and requested proof his positive COVID-19 test, which the plaintiff provided.  The next day, the defendant allegedly told the plaintiff it was terminating his employment because he tested positive for COVID-19 and caused the defendant to close for several days to clean the facility and lose money. The plaintiff sued for retaliation in violation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and two New Jersey laws that require employers to provide protected leave to employees who contract COVID-19 and that require employers to accommodate employees who seek a leave as a reasonable accommodation.

Ruiz v. Ebet, Inc. (Passaic County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, an employee in the shipping and delivery division, alleges disability discrimination, perceived disability discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law, and interference with his rights under the FFCRA.   The plaintiff claims that he was hospitalized on March 17 and tested positive for COVID-19, which he alleges constitutes a disability under New Jersey law.  According to the plaintiff, he was provided with a doctor’s note excusing him from work until April 16.  While the plaintiff was off work, he utilized all of his accrued sick and vacation time.  The plaintiff claims that on April 16, the plaintiff again tested positive for COVID-19, and was instructed by his doctor to self-quarantine for another two weeks.  The plaintiff alleges that when he returned to work after the two-week quarantine, he was terminated by his supervisor, and that he “was not provided a reason for the termination.”  The plaintiff alleges that a “determinative and/or motivating factor in plaintiff’s termination was his disability,” “defendant’s perception that [the plaintiff] was disabled,” “plaintiff’s . . . protected activity;” and “to interfere with benefits plaintiff was entitled to under the FFCRA.”

July 16, 2020
Caro v. The Athenaeum of Ohio (Hamilton County, Ohio)
The plaintiff worked as communications director for the defendant. In March 2020, pursuant to the governor’s order, the defendant closed down. The plaintiff is the mother of a 9-year old son, whose school was also closed as a result of the governor’s order. When the defendant announced to its employees it would reopen in early May, the plaintiff reached out to her boss and asked about options for working parents, since her son’s school had closed and she did not have other options to care for him. The plaintiff’s boss allegedly responded that he expected the plaintiff to be at work like everyone else. The plaintiff responded that Congress had passed the FFCRA to cover situations like hers. Rather than responding to the plaintiff’s inquiry about the FFCRA, the defendant terminated the plaintiff the next day, telling her that it was due to a “restructuring” of her position. The plaintiff alleges this reason is pretextual, and sued the defendant for violating the EFMLEA when it denied her request for leave to care for her son, and also for retaliation under the EFMLEA for terminating her after she requested leave.

July 15, 2020
Leibensperger v. Weldship Corporation (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff was a supervisor at a manufacturer of trailers and ISO containers. He alleges that at the end of March and beginning of April 2020, he made several complaints to the company’s owner as well as the plant manager about the lack of COVID-19-related PPE. The plaintiff alleges that the owner and plant manager told him that the company was not required to provide masks or to require employees to utilize them. He claims that the company eventually began providing masks but did not require employees to wear them and did not provide hand sanitizer or institute any procedures to maintain the cleanliness of the facility. He alleges that 80 to 90 percent of employees did not wear masks. The plaintiff claims that in mid-to-late April 2020, he sent an email regarding his concerns about safety at the facility to the human resources representative. He claims that the human resources representative responded that employees should be required to wear masks and that she would follow up regarding the cleanliness at the facility. The plaintiff claims that nothing was done—that masks were not required and no additional cleaning was performed. He claims that he continued to discuss his concerns with human resources. The plaintiff alleges that in May 2020, the owner contacted him and said that he was tired of him “stirring the pot” and that he was laying the plaintiff off permanently. The plaintiff brings one cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 

Loeb v. Vantage Custom Classics et al. (Essex County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, the chief operating officer of the company, filed a complaint against the company and its CEO claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for insisting that the company follow guidelines and executive orders to keep workers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.  According to the plaintiff, his termination violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act. The plaintiff alleges that when he first expressed concerns about COVID-19 and its potential effects in a management meeting that included the CEO, the CEO did not take his concerns seriously. According to the plaintiff, after he continued to express concerns about worker safety, the CEO reluctantly agreed to set up a task force to establish worker safety protocols, but the CEO delayed notifying employees about the protocols because the CEO feared the protocols would encourage workers to stay home.  According to the plaintiff, the CEO also resisted the plaintiff’s other efforts to keep workers safe, such as allowing office employees to work from home full-time, refusing to allow temperatures to be taken of workers entering the factory, and not properly notifying employees when a worker tested positive for COVID-19. Shortly after the plaintiff insisted (for a second time) that employees be notified about a worker who tested positive for COVID-19, the plaintiff was terminated.

Mayer v. Vibrant Express, Inc. et al. (Cuyahoga County, Ohio)
The plaintiff, a 67-year-old line haul driver, filed a two-count complaint against the company and one of its supervisors claiming that he was terminated because of his age in violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act. According to the plaintiff, he was told on April 22, 2020 that he was on temporary layoff due to evolving government recommendations in light of COVID-19. Subsequently, on May 1, 2020, the plaintiff was informed that instead of a temporary layoff, he was being terminated as a result of downsizing. The plaintiff alleges that immediately after his termination, the company continued to hire substantially younger drivers. 

July 14, 2020 
Xavier Gomes v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (District of Connecticut)
The plaintiff, a machine operator, claims his termination violated the FMLA. In early March, the plaintiff began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and sought medical treatment.  Although the plaintiff’s doctor believed he had COVID-19, due to limited testing available at that time, his doctor instructed him to self-quarantine for two weeks. The plaintiff notified his employer of the diagnosis and quarantined as instructed.  Approximately one week into the quarantine, the plaintiff received a letter from his employer notifying him that he was terminated as a result of accruing excess attendance points for his absences.  The plaintiff alleges he was retaliated against for attempting to exercise his rights under the FMLA.

Street v. Arvco Container Corp. (Western District of Michigan)
The plaintiff worked as a split shift supervisor. In late March 2020, the plaintiff’s healthcare provider diagnosed him as an “unconfirmed positive” for COVID-19 and ordered him to quarantine for seven days. When the plaintiff’s healthcare provider extended this quarantine by an additional seven days (based on an unconfirmed positive phone screening and the plaintiff’s wife’s contact with a confirmed positive person), the defendant terminated his employment, citing a “position elimination.” The plaintiff challenged this explanation as pretextual and threatened to sue. The defendant responded by notifying the plaintiff that he was being furloughed, and that the defendant expected to end the furlough in a month (May). The defendant did not return the plaintiff to his position in May or June, though it returned other employees to work in those months. He brought suit against his employer for, among other claims, violating the FFCRA and wrongfully terminating his employment in violation of public policy.

July 13, 2020
Summers v. Georgia Behavioral Health Professionals (Northern District of Georgia) 
The plaintiff, a transcranial magnetic stimulation coordinator who suffers from asthma, alleges that her employment was terminated in violation of the ADA. On three occasions, the defendant asked the plaintiff if she could come in to work as a transcranial magnetic stimulation treater, but the plaintiff informed the defendant that she did not feel comfortable conducting treatments as she was considered high risk for COVID-19. The plaintiff’s supervisor informed the plaintiff that she was fired for “not being a team player.” The plaintiff claimed that any reason given for the plaintiff’s termination was “a pretext for unlawful discrimination, based on [the plaintiff’s] disability, and retaliation for [the plaintiff] engaging in protected activity.”

July 10, 2020
Blonski v. Gateway Care Center, LLC, et al. (Monmouth County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff was an employee at a long-term care facility. She alleges that she suffers from lupus, and that during the COVID-19 pandemic, her doctor advised her to take a leave of absence from work because she is at high-risk for COVID-19 complications. Further, the plaintiff alleges that she is the primary caretaker for her four minor children, whose schools and child care centers closed due to the pandemic. The plaintiff alleges that in late March 2020, she contacted the defendant’s human resources director to ask how they were supporting employees who had children at home due to COVID-19-related school closures. She claims that the human resources director responded that she could continue working, stop working temporarily, or use her paid time off. The plaintiff claims that she made a written request to take a leave of absence due to her medical condition and to care for her children. She claims that the human resources director told her that it was fine for her to take time off and to advise the company when she was ready to return. The plaintiff alleges that she was not paid during her leave, as is required by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). She also claims that approximately one month later, she received a letter from the defendant stating that she was removed from the work schedule due to excessive absences. She alleges that she tried to contact the defendant’s administrator and the defendant’s human resources director, but that her calls were not returned and her employment was thereby terminated. She alleges that her leave of absence was a determinative or motivating factor in her termination, and brings causes of action for violation of the FFCRA and retaliation. 

Castillo v. The Bengal Shaw Agency Limited Liability Company, et al. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff was an operations manager for an insurance company. She alleges that she tested positive for COVID-19 and informed her supervisor that she would need to quarantine for at least 14 days. The plaintiff claims that her supervisor responded with text messages stating that she was required to work from home unless she was hospitalized, and that if she could not work, she would be placed on unpaid leave. The plaintiff alleges that she informed her supervisor that she could not work remotely due to her symptoms, and requested that she be placed on paid sick leave pursuant to the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The plaintiff alleges that the following day, she was terminated due to purported performance deficiencies. She claims that her alleged performance deficiencies were a pretext for her termination, and that she was actually terminated for requesting paid leave. She brings claims for violation of the FFCRA and violation of a clear mandate of public policy.

July 9, 2020
Circo v. Thomas E. Moore, D.D.S., P.C. (Jackson County, Missouri)
The plaintiff was an orthopedic assistant for a dentist. She claims that on March 25, 2020, the defendant held a meeting with staff in which the staff were told that if they felt unsafe and did not want to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, they would be granted leave to stay home and that their jobs would not be in jeopardy. The plaintiff claims that she informed the defendant that she planned to remain at home for the duration of the state’s stay-at-home order, because her husband has an auto-immune disease and kidney disease, and because she resides with her minor children. The plaintiff claims that the defendant assured her that her job was secure. She alleges that two days later, she applied for unemployment benefits and was approved. The plaintiff alleges that several weeks later, she received a paycheck from the defendant representing her accrued vacation pay. The plaintiff claims that she then called the defendant, who informed her that her employment had been terminated because they interpreted her application for unemployment as a voluntary resignation. The plaintiff alleges that her choice to stay home while the statewide stay-at-home order was in effect was the reason for her termination, and that the termination was therefore in violation of public policy. 

Fitzgerald v. The We Company d/b/a WeWork (Southern District of New York)
The plaintiff sued her employer for retaliation and discrimination in terminating her employment, and alleges that the defendant used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext. Beginning in spring 2019, the plaintiff made complaints to human resources against a supervisor for sexual harassment, and had complained about another supervisor for requiring her to work on the same team as the alleged harasser after she had complained of harassment. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant took no action against the alleged harassers. Moreover, the plaintiff informed the defendant in late 2019 and early 2020 that she was experiencing anxiety and depression, due in part to the alleged harassment she was suffering at work. The plaintiff applied for and was approved for intermittent FMLA leave for appointments to treat her anxiety and depression. According to the plaintiff, the defendant exhibited indifference to her alleged disability. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged New York City, where the plaintiff was employed. The defendant informed the plaintiff that she was being terminated due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government shutdown orders on the defendant. The plaintiff brought suit alleging that the defendant used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext for disability discrimination and retaliation for her complaints of harassment. The plaintiff also alleges the defendant failed to take adequate remedial measures against her supervisors’ harassment. Finally, the plaintiff alleges FMLA interference and retaliation.

July 8, 2020
Daniel v. ABS Seafood, Inc. (San Francisco County, California)
The plaintiff, a white male employed as a driver, alleges he was discriminated against and retaliated against based on his race in violation of California law. He claims that other employees used derogatory language in reference to him, such as “white boy,” and would say to him “f*** you, Donald Trump’s nephew.” The plaintiff also alleges that when other employees did not want to perform certain jobs, such as driving to specific companies to pick up specialty items or shoveling snow, the employees deferred the work to the plaintiff and said, "make the white boy do it.'' The plaintiff claims that he reported the behavior to human resources every month for over two years, “but little to nothing was done to remedy the situation as the harassment continued.” The plaintiff alleges that he was “laid off” on March 19, 2020 “under the pretext of COVID-19,” but that the real reason he was laid off was his race, because he was the only white driver employed, and no other drivers were laid off at that time.

Dr. Katherine Grundmann Grundy v. University of Maryland School of Medicine, et al. (District of Maryland)
The plaintiff, an attending emergency medicine physician, claims discrimination and failure-to-accommodate under the ADA. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the university issued a statement related to telework. The statement indicated that all staff members at higher risk of COVID-19 complications would not be required to be physically present on campus, and could arrange telework, use accrued sick or other leave, or receive an excused absence. The plaintiff alleges that because she suffers from asthma and eczema, she is at higher risk for severe illness should she contract COVID-19. The plaintiff provided a physician’s statement to the university, which included a recommendation that she not have direct patient care during the outbreak, and requested permission to telework. During the plaintiff’s discussions with the university regarding her requested accommodation, the plaintiff had a breakdown and explained that she was struggling with severe anxiety over contracting COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that less than an hour after this call, the university advised her, without explanation, that it would not renew her contract for another term despite the fact that her appointment had been consistently reviewed each year during her twenty-one year career. The plaintiff claims that any reasons proffered by the university for the non-renewal of her contract are a pretext for its discriminatory and retaliatory actions against her.

Hofmayer v. Jewish Senior Living Group, et al. (San Francisco County Superior Court, California)
The plaintiff, a 72-year-old “Supportive Counselor,” filed claims against his former employer, a senior living facility, alleging various theories of discrimination and retaliation based upon his age and disabilities. The plaintiff alleges that in mid-March 2020, as a result of San Francisco’s COVID-19 shelter-in-place order, the defendant agreed that the plaintiff should perform his counseling duties from home. However, according to the plaintiff, in early April the defendant demanded that the plaintiff return to work in person. The plaintiff alleges that he requested to continue to working remotely, due to the recommendation by his physician given his “advanced age,” but that the defendant rejected this request. The plaintiff further alleges that he attempted to engage in an interactive process in order to find a reasonable accommodation, but claims that the defendant did not meaningfully participate. Thereafter, the plaintiff was placed on “Indefinite Unpaid Personal Leave of Absence,” which the plaintiff alleges amounts to a constructive termination. The plaintiff asserts claims under California state law for age discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge. Notably, the plaintiff also asserts violations of the California Labor Code for the defendant’s alleged nonpayment of wages, and for waiting time penalties.

Vorkoper v. Tech M3, Inc. (San Diego County, California)
The plaintiff, an executive administrator, alleges among other things that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and wrongfully terminated in violation of California public policy. The plaintiff claims that on or about Feb. 20, 2020, she became ill with a non-contagious sinus infection and requested two days of sick leave to recover. She claims that when she returned to work, she provided her supervisors with medical documentation reflecting her diagnosis, but her supervisors “proceeded to harass and discriminate [the plaintiff] by falsely accusing her of carrying COVID-19.” For example, the plaintiff alleges that “every time [the plaintiff] sneezed or coughed in the office, [her supervisors] loudly heckled [the plaintiff] in front of coworkers stating, ‘Stay away from me!’ and ‘You have the corona!’” The plaintiff claims that on one occasion, her supervisor loudly yelled in front of coworkers, “This whole outbreak started with [the plaintiff’s] cough!” The plaintiff alleges that when she arrived to the office on or about March 17, a coworker expressed her sympathy stating, “I am so sorry you were fired.” The plaintiff walked into her supervisor’s office to ask about her employment status, and was informed that her supervisor intended to fire her that day but had forgotten to tell her, and that her “termination was necessary to ‘protect the workplace’ from her illness.” The plaintiff claims that her supervisors’ conduct of falsely accusing her of carrying COVID-19, coupled with the false accusation that the plaintiff started the COVID-19 pandemic, constitutes “discriminatory, retaliatory, and harassing” conduct. She alleges that the real reasons she was terminated were because of her requests to use accrued sick leave, her reporting of workplace complaints, and to avoid having to pay her with stock options that would be due to her in the near future.

July 5, 2020
Peralta v. Eton Street Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Big Rock Chop House (Eastern District of Michigan)
The plaintiff worked as a manager at a high-end steak house. In mid-March, Michigan’s governor issued an order requiring all restaurants to close, save for takeout orders, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the plaintiff, her general manager told employees they should file for unemployment but kept them working nonetheless. Most employees accepted this arrangement, whereby they worked for free while collecting unemployment, but the plaintiff refused. On March 19, the plaintiff began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and told the general manager that she felt she should stay home. The general manager purportedly told the plaintiff to come in anyway. The next day, the plaintiff was still experiencing symptoms, and the general manager told her not to come in “until [the general manager] had some plan from the owners.” A week later, the plaintiff informed the general manager she was feeling better and inquired about a return to work. Three days later, the general manager told the plaintiff to “hang tight.” The plaintiff heard nothing from the defendant until the general manager called her on May 26 and informed her she was being terminated. The ownership had allegedly told the general manager she had to make cuts and that she “had to take care of the people that had been there over the last three months with her.” The plaintiff sued the defendant under the FLSA and Michigan state law, alleging she was retaliated against for her refusal to perform unpaid work. She also sued the defendant for violations of the FFCRA, alleging she was not given paid leave when she was experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, was not reinstated to her former position when she recovered, and was retaliated against. Finally, the plaintiff alleges the defendant violated public policy when it terminated her for her refusal to work without pay while collecting unemployment.

July 2, 2020
Jones v. Kentuckiana Curb Company, Inc. (Jefferson County, Kentucky)
The plaintiff, who has diabetes and high blood pressure, alleges that the defendant violated the Kentucky disability discrimination statute when it failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment because of his disability or his perceived disability. The plaintiff also alleges that he is entitled to relief because he relied to his detriment on the defendant’s promise to return him to work after he took leave during the COVID-19 pandemic. In early April 2020, the defendant began to offer employees leave under its coronavirus time-off policy. Due to his immune-compromised health conditions, the plaintiff believed taking leave might be the safest option for him, but wanted to ensure that his job would be available upon his return to work. According to the plaintiff, after three management officials assured him that his position would be available to him upon his return from leave, on April 6 he applied for and subsequently took leave under the coronavirus time-off policy. On May 1, the plaintiff received a phone call telling him that his position was no longer available and that he was terminated. According to the plaintiff, other employees who were not disabled or perceived as disabled took coronavirus leave and were returned to work. 

Whitney Stevens and Regina Stewart v. Ubiqus Reporting Inc., et al. (Southern District of New York)
The plaintiffs, a government contract account manager and an administrative assistant, claim they were terminated as a result of their race in violation of Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law. The employer’s stated reason for downsizing was slow business caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the plaintiffs allege that their terminations were actually due to their race, because the employer later hired back all non-minority employees who had been terminated, but did not hire back three of the company's five minority employees, including the plaintiffs.

July 1, 2020
Cox v. Dotson DDS (Hillsborough County, Florida)
The plaintiff, the defendant’s office manager, alleges she was terminated in violation of the Florida Private Whistleblower’s Act. She alleges that from March 17 through April 30, the plaintiff and other employees were furloughed by her employer. The plaintiff claims that she filed for unemployment benefits with a retroactive date of March 17. On or about April 26, the plaintiff received a group text message from her supervisor informing the team of a staff meeting on May 1, to address a return to work and the changes due to COVID-19. The plaintiff attended the staff meeting and returned to full-time employment on May 4. The next day, the defendant presented the plaintiff with a check stating it was a bonus check for coming back to work. However, the pay stub for the paycheck stated it was for 40 hours worked in the period of April 17 through 30; the dates the plaintiff was furloughed and receiving unemployment benefits. As the office manager, the plaintiff alleges that she received complaints from other staff members about how the “bonus checks” would affect their unemployment claims. The plaintiff requested that her supervisor correct the payroll records and issue a new check for all employees. The plaintiff made this request so that she could accurately report her time and wages for unemployment benefits. In response, the owner of the company stated that "the paycheck is actually part of the Paycheck Protection Program, and not a bonus. If you don't want the check provided, then give it back to me and I will pay you for the (2) hour staff meeting you attended on May 1, 2020." Later that day, the plaintiff alleges, the owner called and terminated her employment, purportedly for opposing and refusing to falsify her time records. 

Constance v. Hollybrook Golf and Tennis Club Condominium, Inc. (Southern District of Florida)
The plaintiff, an employee at a “55 and older” residential community, sued his employer for retaliation under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA, part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act). The plaintiff alleges that he was experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and advised the defendant that the other employees should know. Shortly after, the plaintiff received a positive COVID-19 test result, and was given isolation orders by his doctor. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant instructed the plaintiff not to tell the employees or residents of the positive COVID-19 test result. The plaintiff alleges that his supervisor texted him, instructing him not to discuss his medical situation with any residents because it was not appropriate, and that the defendant was “seeing more and more residents thinking they can ask inappropriate questions about employee health specifics.” Upon the plaintiff’s return from leave, he was terminated. The plaintiff alleges that his termination was in retaliation for taking sick leave. 

June 30, 2020
Adler v. Starboard Group Management, Co. Inc., et al. (Broward County, Florida)
The plaintiff was the defendant’s vice president of legal affairs and human resources, until she was terminated on June 1, 2020. The plaintiff asserts that her supervisor sexually harassed her and she complained to the CEO, who responded by “ratifying” the harassment. The plaintiff also alleges that the CEO ordered her to contact the employer’s “creditors, landlords, vendors, and suppliers and claim that the company could not meet its financial obligations because it had not received [Paycheck Protection Program] funding.” The plaintiff asserts that the statements were false, because the company received almost $9 million in PPP benefits. According to the plaintiff, the CEO diverted roughly $1 milion of PPP funds to finance his new home in Montana, and directed the plaintiff to characterize certain personal employees in Montana as corporate employees. The plaintiff contends that she complained to her supervisor about these actions because she understood them to amount to fraud against the SBA and U.S. government. Among other causes of action, she asserts that the defendants violated Florida's Private Whistle Blowers Statute by firing her for, among other things, engaging in protected conduct by objecting to “delivering fraudulent claims to creditors.” 

June 29, 2020
Queponds v. Ordway Corporation (Orange County, California)
The plaintiff, a 60-year old male whose “national origin/race is Hispanic,” brings a six-count complaint for violations of California law after exhausting his administrative remedies.  The plaintiff alleges that in 2016, he began experiencing discrimination by supervisory and managerial employees “on the basis of his national origin/race and age” in a variety of ways, including: insulting the plaintiff in front of customers, “falsely criticizing [the plaintiff’s] performance,” providing the plaintiff “with old equipment,” not providing the plaintiff with “necessary training updates” or “new assignments,” and not inviting the plaintiff to “necessary conferences” or “out-of-state repairs.”  The plaintiff claims that he made complaints, but that nothing was done to address the purported discrimination, that the discrimination continued, and that he was terminated in retaliation.  The plaintiff alleges that he was told that “he and three other employees were terminated due to COVID-19.”  However, the plaintiff alleges that the reason provided was a pretext for discrimination and retaliation, because the other employees “were returned to work and plaintiff was replaced by a non-Hispanic individual under the age of 40.”  The plaintiff claims wrongful termination in violation of public policy, race and national origin discrimination and retaliation, age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

Escobar v. City of California City, et al. (Kern County, California)
The plaintiff was a general services worker for California City’s department of public works. He alleges that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the city required him to attend a meeting of approximately 20 employees, in violation of the county’s public health order. He claims that at the meeting, he complained about unsafe working conditions and health and safety violations by the city. The plaintiff alleges that his complaints included that the city failed to properly sanitize equipment and vehicles, failed to provide employees with proper safety equipment, and failed to implement social distancing requirements. He also alleges that he complained that the city was failing to protect the health of its essential employees because the city was not limiting work calls to actual emergencies. He further alleges that he complained that the city made it impossible to follow social distancing guidelines (because it required employees to ride together in the same vehicles), and that the city was violating California OSHA regulations. The plaintiff alleges that after making these complaints, he was sent home. He claims that later the same day, he was told to report to human resources, where he was terminated. According to the plaintiff, the city claimed that he was being terminated because he failed to pass his probationary period. The plaintiff alleges that this supposed reason was a pretext for his termination, and that he was actually terminated as a result of his complaints. He brings causes of action for discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 

Handel-Orefice v. New York Presbyterian Hosp. et al. (New York County, New York)
The plaintiff, a physician who was in the last few months of a maternal fetal medicine fellowship program, filed a complaint against the defendants seeking an order requiring the defendants to provide an expedited review of the decision to terminate her hospital privileges and her enrollment in the fellowship program. In addition, the plaintiff seeks at least $15,000,000 in damages due to her termination. The plaintiff alleges that she was singled out and placed on an intensive corrective action plan due to her race and national origin following a patient care incident. On March 13, 2020, when the defendants began to require the plaintiff to administer COVID-19 swab tests to patients arriving for care, the plaintiff requested an N95 respirator because she was concerned for her safety and the safety of her patients. After the hospital denied her request for an N95 respirator, the plaintiff contacted the associate director of the fellowship program (on March 15) as well as other hospital administrators (on March 16 and 17) to express her concern for the safety of the patients and her own safety. On March 18, 2020, the plaintiff was designated as the COVID tester on the labor and delivery floor. The plaintiff performed the COVID-19 tests as required, without an N95 respirator, and three patients tested positive. On March 19, several other fellows expressed concern about the increased risk of exposure for the plaintiff and the patients due to the requirement that plaintiff conduct all the tests on the labor and delivery floor during her shift without an N95 respirator. On March 20, the defendants terminated the plaintiff’s hospital privileges, as well as her employment and her participation in the fellowship program.

Hoffman v. Providence Health & Services Washington (Spokane County, Washington)
The plaintiff, a doctor, sued his employer for disability discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of Washington law. The plaintiff alleges that he had been granted an accommodation to use alternative masks prior to COVID-19, because the defendant’s supplied masks caused him to have oral and throat irritation and swelling. The plaintiff alleges that because he was required to work at other locations for the defendant, he kept a supply of masks in his car. The plaintiff alleges that shortly after he complained to the defendant’s administration about the COVID-19 preparedness and areas for improvement, his supervisor berated him. The plaintiff alleges that other staff were using his masks, and as a result, he had to replenish the masks he stored in his car. The plaintiff claims that, “[w]hen it became convenient to dismiss [plaintiff], [the defendant] revoked the accommodation and claimed [plaintiff] had been stealing the masks.” The plaintiff claims that he was wrongfully terminated for bringing COVID-19 concerns to the defendant’s attention, and due to his need for an accommodation. 

Ware v. Dismas Plasma, Inc. (Jefferson County, Kentucky)
The plaintiff was discharged after complying with his doctor’s order to self-quarantine for 14 days for suspected COVID-19 exposure. The plaintiff sued his former employer, a charitable organization, under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate a disability, and retaliation. The plaintiff learned that a person with whom he interacted regularly at work was self-quarantining for two weeks because his doctor suspected he had COVID-19. The next day, the plaintiff’s physician ordered the plaintiff to self-quarantine for 14 days. The plaintiff went to his workplace and gave one of the defendant’s executive employees his doctor’s note. She allegedly responded, “Why should I give you sick time if you aren’t sick?” The plaintiff claims he told her the quarantine order was based on the plaintiff’s interactions with someone suspected of having COVID-19, and the plaintiff’s weakened immune system. After quarantining for 14 days, the plaintiff returned to work and presented his medical clearance. The same executive allegedly told him not to return to work until she contacted him. Later that day, the plaintiff wrote to his employer’s human resources department and complained that he felt discriminated against based on the quarantine order, his high risk of contracting COVID-19, and his underlying health conditions. The next day, the plaintiff faxed a second letter, reiterating the same discrimination complaints. The plaintiff contends that within the hour, the defendant terminated plaintiff due to “lack of performance.” 

June 26, 2020
Ruth Sanchez v. 5 Star Building Services LLC (Broward County, Florida)
The plaintiff, a cleaner, claims violations under Florida’s Whistleblower Protection Act and Safety and Health Act and under OSHA, related to her employer’s refusal to provide protective gear to reduce her exposure to COVID-19. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that she requested face masks and gloves to use in the course of her job cleaning local condominiums. After her employer refused her request, the plaintiff requested two weeks off work. In response to her request for time off work, the plaintiff claims that her employer construed her request as a resignation and notified her that her position would be filled on the basis that the employer was an “essential business allowed to operate despite government shutdown orders.”

June 25, 2020
Kopesky v. Surface Technologies Corporation, et al. (Southern District of California) 
The plaintiff, a heavy machine mechanic, alleges that in violation of California law, he was discriminated against because of his disabilities, and that the defendants failed to engage in the interactive process with him regarding his requested medical leave. The plaintiff alleges that he informed his manager that “he would be taking a medical leave of absence because he feared his comorbidities placed his life at risk . . .” due to the defendants’ lack of safety protections regarding PPE and lack of social distancing measures in response to COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that while he was taking time off to see his doctor, the defendants wrongfully terminated him for job abandonment in violation of California law. 

Lopez v. Progressive Business Corp. (Los Angeles Superior Court, California)
The plaintiff filed a wrongful termination case alleging that she was terminated in violation of public policy following her pregnancy. The plaintiff gave birth in the summer of 2019, and upon her return, she alleges that she was subjected to harassing comments, a reduction in her duties, and harassing surveillance. In March 2020, she alleges that she complained about the defendant employer’s handling of COVID-19-related health and safety issues in the workplace and was terminated a few days later. The plaintiff alleges four causes of action: wrongful termination in violation of public policy (including retaliation for her COVID-19 health and safety complaints), gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation. 

Marc Rotenberg v. Electronic Privacy Information Center (Superior Court for the District of Columbia)
The plaintiff, founder of defendant Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), dedicates a significant portion of his 40-page complaint outlining his profile, reputation, performance, and success as the defendant’s president and executive director. The plaintiff claims that “EPIC's problems began when Mary Stone Ross, a former CIA agent, started working at EPIC. Per the plaintiff, Ross bred division among the EPIC staff, raised concerns about [the plaintiff’s] management abilities, and questioned [the plaintiff’s] role as Executive Director” and “derailed” EPIC’s efforts to meet key organizational goals. On March 5, after returning from international travel, the plaintiff consulted with his doctor about potential COVID-19 testing and was advised that a test was not necessary. The plaintiff claims that Ross maliciously raised concerns about the plaintiff with EPIC staff and board members, suggesting that the plaintiff (who was asymptomatic) was required to self-quarantine. The next day, the plaintiff’s doctor reportedly indicated that the plaintiff could take the test and, without urgency, it was scheduled for March 9. The plaintiff tested positive for the virus and promptly left the office. The plaintiff worked remotely until March 19, “when he was notified by the D.C. agency that he was classified as ’recovered,’ a determination that follows two negative tests 24 hours apart.” The plaintiff claims that during this period, Ross created more controversy and made false accusations about him, and alleged that the plaintiff had left his home during the self-quarantine period, which the plaintiff denies. The plaintiff claims that Ross was dismissed from EPIC in late April 2020 due to poor performance, and then allegedly caused a false article to be published about the plaintiff. Not long thereafter, the plaintiff was told that he needed to resign or he would be dismissed. The plaintiff claims that the defendants’ leaders published the false, malicious and defamatory statement that the plaintiff knowingly placed the health and safety of the EPIC staff and others at risk. The plaintiff claims discrimination in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401.01, et seq.; breach of contract; defamation; invasion of privacy; breach of confidential relationship; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement, attorney’s fees, and injunctive and other relief. 

June 24, 2020
Di Nola v. Freudenberg-NOK General Partnership (District of New Hampshire)
The plaintiff, a human resources manager, alleges wrongful termination in violation of New Hampshire public policy. The plaintiff was advised that two employees were returning from Malaysia and China amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on CDC guidance, the plaintiff decided to require the two employees to stay at home for one week to avoid these two employees potentially infecting other employees with COVID-19. A few days later, the plaintiff alleges that she “was summoned to a meeting with” two vice presidents. One vice president advised the plaintiff “that he could not work with her and did not trust her.” The other vice president “accused [the plaintiff] of exaggerating ‘the China virus,’” and directed the plaintiff “to go home.” Approximately one week later, the plaintiff was terminated when one of the vice presidents “walked [the plaintiff] out the main entrance of the defendant’s offices in the 8:00 a.m. hour as employees arrived for work, with boxes of her personal belongings in tow.” The plaintiff alleges that she was fired “for communicating to employees information obtained from [the CDC] regarding COVID-19, for advocating adherence to [CDC] recommendations, and for directing employees returning from China and Malaysia to stay home.”

June 23, 2020
Fawaz Kazi v. The Fullman Firm (Orange County, California)
The plaintiff, an intake specialist, claims religious discrimination and wrongful termination under California law.  The plaintiff, a practicing Muslim, stated that he regularly attended communal prayers on Fridays during his lunch break.  When the COVID-19 pandemic caused communal prayers to be temporarily cancelled, the plaintiff contended that he prayed in his office at work during lunch time.  He alleges that the firm’s owner observed him praying in his office and terminated him the same day.   The plaintiff claims the reasons the employer provided for the termination (which are not alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint) were pretextual.  

O’Bryan v. Joe Taylor Restoration (Southern District of Florida)
The plaintiff sued his employer for denial of benefits and for retaliation under the FFCRA. In late March, the plaintiff began coughing, and he immediately reported this potential COVID-19 symptom to his supervisor, who sent him home. The plaintiff was told by the defendant to complete forms for sick leave, which he returned promptly. The plaintiff then quarantined for 14 days, but claims he did not receive any pay as he was owed under the FFCRA. After 14 days, the plaintiff inquired whether he could return to work, as he needed income, and the defendant told him to get a doctor’s note clearing him to return. The plaintiff obtained a doctor’s note confirming he had self-quarantined for 14 days due to COVID-19 symptoms and could return to work. The defendant would not accept this note and allegedly told the plaintiff he needed a note specifically saying he was not contagious. The next day, the plaintiff informed the defendant he was being tested for COVID-19. The following business day, while his test results were pending, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The plaintiff seeks recovery of the benefits he was allegedly due for paid leave under the FFCRA, as well as damages for alleged retaliatory termination.

Aaron Lathrum v. Smokers Outlet Management, Inc. (Oakland County, Michigan)
The plaintiff sued his employer under the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act for allegedly terminating him in retaliation for his report to the Michigan attorney general about what he believed to be the defendant’s violation of the governor’s shutdown order issued due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff worked in IT for the defendant, a chain of retail stores selling cigarettes and related tobacco products. According to the plaintiff, the defendant informed its employees that it was an “essential business” under the COVID-19 shutdown order, and was therefore allowed to stay open. The plaintiff complained that he did not think the defendant was such an essential business, but the defendant continued with its plans to continue operating. The plaintiff then sent a message to the Michigan attorney general and the local police department informing them of the defendant’s alleged violation of the governor’s order. The plaintiff forwarded his message to the defendant as well. The next day, the plaintiff’s supervisor locked him out of his company email account, and told him to turn in his company-issued equipment. When he inquired about returning to work after the governor’s COVID-19 order permitted retail outlets to re-open, the plaintiff was allegedly informed he had been terminated.

Preston v. Evergreen Underground Sprinkling Company (Kent County, Michigan)
The plaintiff, a seasonal service technician and salesperson for an irrigations systems company, alleges race discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of Michigan public policy. On March 23, the Michigan governor issued a shelter in place order to limit and prevent the spread of COVID-19. On April 24, the governor issued a continuation of the order, but provided narrow exceptions for business performing outdoor activities to resume business operations with certain safety precautions. The plaintiff alleges that his employer notified him that workers needed to report to work on April 29 for a meeting, and that field work would continue on April 30. The plaintiff alleges that he challenged his employer’s decision that its business fell within the exceptions in the executive order, and expressed concern that work could not be resumed safely. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he advised his employer: (1) that his work required him to go into people’s homes, an activity that remained prohibited under the order; and (2) that he could not perform his duties while maintaining the order’s social distancing requirements. In response, the employer’s principals “expressed opinions that the COVID-19 pandemic had been ‘overblown’” and that the COVID-19 pandemic “is a ‘black problem’ and not an issue for Caucasian people, like [the plaintiff].” The plaintiff alleges that he refused to violate the governor’s order by returning to work, and that his employer terminated him for “refusing to return to work when required.”

Reiter v. Dejean and Kuglen Eye Associates, LLP (Montgomery County, Texas)
The plaintiff, a pregnant employee in the employer’s insurance verification department, alleges disability and sex discrimination in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The plaintiff alleges that in January 2020, she informed her supervisors and coworkers that she was pregnant, and would be having a baby in August. At the end of March, the plaintiff alleges that she received a text “stating she was being furloughed due to the COVID-19 public health emergency” but “would be brought back to work once the situation improved.” The plaintiff alleges that in May “almost all other employees were returned to their positions,” but the plaintiff “received a termination letter stating she was being permanently laid off due to COVID-19.” The plaintiff alleges that her former employer tried to replace “her by hiring someone who was not pregnant.” 

June 22, 2020
Angela Miarer v. Orthopaedic Institute of Ohio, Inc. (Hancock County, Ohio)
The plaintiff, a receptionist, claims disability discrimination under Ohio law for her termination related to COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that in March 2020, when the pandemic developed, she notified her employer that she suffered from multiple sclerosis. She claims that after declining her employer’s request to take a temporary layoff, she was terminated over the phone. The plaintiff alleges that the employer’s purported basis for her termination – that she was supposedly creating a toxic work environment based on her interactions with a co-worker – is false, and a pretext for her termination, which she claims was actually due to her disability.

June 18, 2020
Gallagher & Gallagher v. Boesch & Fieldworks, LLC (Flathead County, Montana)
The plaintiffs were employed for approximately two weeks in May 2020 as canvassers on two ballot initiative signature drives. Following their discharge, the plaintiffs sued their former employer for wrongful termination. Among other causes of action, the plaintiffs contend that they were terminated due to their refusal to violate state and local social distancing guidance, and their complaints to the defendant that inadequate training and ill-fitting personal protective equipment were increasing the risk to workers and the public of contracting and spreading COVID-19. 

Volpe v. Ottinger Golf, LLC (Gloucester County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, the head chef at a golf club, alleges that he was not permitted to use his earned paid sick time in violation of the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Act, and that he was unlawfully terminated in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the New Jersey governor’s stay-at-home order, the golf club closed its facilities to the public and furloughed the majority of its employees, including the plaintiff, with the expectation that such employees would be recalled to work after the order was lifted. The plaintiff alleges that he emailed human resources requesting to utilize his earned sick time during the time he was furloughed, but did not receive a response. After three to four weeks, the plaintiff expressed his concern about using his sick time to the executive chef, who told the plaintiff “to stop asking about his sick time because [his employer] was not going to pay him for any sick time.” The plaintiff alleges that he then inquired with the general manager about using sick time, and was told “if we tried to pay out everybody’s sick time, or tried to continue paying people throughout the pandemic, chances are we would not have enough money to reopen.” The plaintiff alleges that the next day, he was terminated “in retaliation for expressing concerns to [his employer] about [its] illegal practices.”

June 17, 2020
Jackson, III v. RX Staffing and Home Care, Inc. (Sacramento County, California)
The plaintiff was a social worker for a home health care company. He alleges that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the company suspended in-person contact with clients, and his job duties therefore consisted solely of administrative work which could be performed from home. He claims that he has HIV, and he requested to work from home because he has a weakened immune system, but was told that he needed to report to the office. The plaintiff further alleges that he was hospitalized for a medical procedure in April 2020 and then returned to work nine days later. He claims that eleven days after he returned, the company informed him that he was being terminated because he had not been completing charts for his patients quickly enough. The plaintiff alleges that he had been catching up on completing the charts as a result of his illness and time off. He claims that the company used his delay in completing the charts as a pretext to terminate his employment. He brings claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, violation of the California Family Rights Act, and retaliation. 

June 15, 2020
Worthy v. Wellington Estates LLC (Ocean County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff was discharged while on a medical leave of absence to recover from COVID-19. The plaintiff, a medical assistant, sued her employer, the owner and operator of a senior and assisted living community, for disability discrimination, perceived disability discrimination, and wrongful termination in violation the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The plaintiff also asserted that her termination violated public policy, as reflected in New Jersey Assembly Bill A3848. The bill, which became effective in March 2020, prohibits an employer from terminating, otherwise penalizing, or refusing to reinstate an employee who takes time off from work because the employee “has, or is likely to have, an infectious disease … [that] may infect others at the employee’s workplace.” The plaintiff alleges that she tested positive for COVID-19 on April 19, 2020, informed her employer immediately, and commenced a medical leave of absence. The plaintiff was released to return to work on May 16, 2020. Before her scheduled return date, the plaintiff asserts that her employer’s representative telephoned her, said the plaintiff was not “welcome back to work” because she contracted COVID-19, and “could have gotten everyone sick.” The plaintiff alleges that the employer’s termination decision was improperly motivated by her contracting COVID-19 and her resulting need for a medical leave. 

June 12, 2020
Michael Flinspach v. Indiana Quarries and Carvers LLC (Southern District of Indiana)
The plaintiff, a quarry extraction worker, claims that in response to his request for FMLA paperwork to stay home and care for his children due to the closures of their schools, his employer retaliated against him by firing him. The plaintiff alleges that he contacted his employer and requested FMLA paperwork for a COVID-19 related reason, and in response to his request, his employer responded that he “was not going to permit [the plaintiff] to stay home and get paid,” and was firing him. He brings claims under the FMLA, the Expanded Family and Medical Leave Act (EFMLA), the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
 
Roman v. Jewish Home Assisted Living, Inc., et al. (Bergen County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff sued her employer, claiming disparate treatment and discrimination based on her pregnancy in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. The plaintiff was a physical therapy assistant at an assisted living facility. She was informed by her doctor that she was pregnant, and that her pregnancy was high-risk. When the plaintiff found out a co-worker had tested positive for COVID-19, the plaintiff became concerned given her high-risk pregnancy and asked the defendant if she could be furloughed. The defendant’s management allegedly declined her request, and instead suggested the plaintiff work in the facility’s kitchen area, which was supposedly a lower-risk area. The plaintiff reluctantly agreed. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff had her performance review with the defendant, after which she was terminated, allegedly based on reports of her “negative attitude,” although her job performance was good. The plaintiff alleges this reason given by the defendant for her termination is pretextual, and that the real reason was that she requested an accommodation for her high-risk pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

June 11, 2020
Derek Henson and Michael Martin v. Total Air Care, Inc. (Madison County, Florida)
The plaintiffs, both sales technicians, claim retaliation under Florida’s Whistleblower Act for their terminations, which they claim were related to COVID-19. Specifically, Plaintiff Henson alleges that in early April, his employer directed him to travel across state lines for work despite the state-wide lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Henson refused his employer’s directive due to his concern that his travel may expose his high-risk wife (diagnosed with emphysema and COPD) to the virus, and he was terminated. Thereafter, Plaintiff Martin, Henson’s brother-in-law, was placed on three consecutive administrative leaves, without reason, and then fired. 

Miller v. Arthritis & Osteoporosis Center, Inc. (Berks County, Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff, a registered nurse, alleges she was terminated in violation of Pennsylvania public policy. The plaintiff alleges that she informed her employer that she would not be reporting to work because she was suffering from a fever, sore throat, and congestion. The plaintiff consulted with her primary care doctor who recommended that the plaintiff not report to work for one week and get tested for COVID-19. The plaintiff informed her employer she was getting tested for COVID-19 and, two days later, received a phone call from human resources informing the plaintiff that she was being laid off because her employer “was cutting staff because of reduced business during [the] COVID-19 pandemic and the Pennsylvania governor’s closure of businesses.”  

Faraji v. Coastal Pain & Spinal Diagnostics Medical Group, Inc., et al. (San Diego County, California)
The plaintiff, a marketing coordinator, claims her employment was wrongfully terminated in violation of California law. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant insisted she continue making in-person marketing visits to attorneys’ and doctors’ offices, despite the governor’s stay-at-home order. The plaintiff also expressed her concern to the defendant regarding an unsafe work environment, due to COVID-19. The plaintiff claims she told the defendant that if she was unable to work remotely to care for her school-aged daughter whose school was shut down due to COVID-19, then she would take leave provided by the California Labor Code. The plaintiff claims that she was fired in retaliation for asking to take leave and for expressing safety concerns. 

Welcome v. Huffmaster (Bergen County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a van driver for a company providing strike management and security services, sued his employer for allegedly terminating him for complaining about a co-worker who was exhibiting signs of COVID-19. After he had observed a co-worker, “Steve Last Name Unknown,” constantly coughing and not wearing a mask at work, plaintiff assembled a group of seven or eight employees to discuss Steve LNU’s situation. After this discussion, the plaintiff called his supervisor and informed her of Steve LNU’s apparent symptoms, and requested that the employer have Steve LNU tested for COVID-19. The plaintiff also added that he was concerned not only for this own safety, but also for that of his young asthmatic daughter. According to the plaintiff, his supervisor responded by telling him the company had rules against discussing COVID-19 in groups, and that, as the “ringleader” of the group of employees, he had violated company rules. After her call with the plaintiff, the supervisor allegedly emailed everyone in the group except the plaintiff, told them there had been “misinformation” circulated about Steve LNU, and told the employees not to worry about it. Three days later, the plaintiff was terminated, allegedly for being the “ringleader” of the group of employees who met to discuss Steve LNU’s apparent COVID-19 symptoms, thereby violating the company’s rules against “employees discussing the COVID-19 virus…having non-work-related conversations with each other,” and “hav[ing] large meetings of employees to discuss work issues.”

June 9, 2020
Barbara Lesikar v. Jefferson Place Assisted Living, Inc., et al. (Travis County, Texas)
The plaintiff, a licensed nurse employed at an assisted living facility, claims that she was retaliated against in violation of Texas law after she reported what she believed to be violations related to in-services, fire drills, and COVID-19 safety precautions. The plaintiff alleges that since September 2018, the employer failed to provide nurses with required in-service training; failed to conduct monthly fire drills despite falsely documenting the fire drills were completed; and failed to provide training or information to nurses regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleges that the day after she called and made the report to the facility’s owner, her supervisor told the plaintiff she was “being terminated because she allegedly had two complaints” about her.

Willmeng v. Allina Health System
(Ramsey County, Minnesota)
The plaintiff, an emergency room nurse, filed a two-count complaint claiming he was terminated in violation of Minnesota’s whistleblower and occupational safety laws for reporting safety concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleges he reported to the defendant that he was concerned that he and other employees could put their families at risk by working in personal scrubs and then wearing them home, and requested that employees be issued surgical scrubs. When the defendant failed to issue the surgical scrubs, the plaintiff and other nurses began wearing the surgical scrubs that were available at the hospital. Thereafter, the plaintiff reported to a number of the defendant’s managerial employees his continued concerns over safety relating to the defendant’s alleged: (1) failure to provide adequate PPE, (2) insistence that employees wear personal scrubs, and (3) failure to provide adequate patient gowns for COVID-19 patients. After the plaintiff filed a complaint with OSHA, and informed the defendant that he had done so, he alleges he was disciplined for wearing hospital-issued scrubs. Subsequently, when multiple nurses were approached by managers during their shifts about wearing hospital-issued scrubs as opposed to their own personal scrubs, the plaintiff complained that the meetings were being conducted without union representation, and informed one of the managers that the complaint he filed with OSHA had been referred to the Minnesota Department of Labor discrimination unit. On May 4, 2020, a number of employees and members of the public protested in front of the hospital, demanding that employees be allowed to wear hospital-issued scrubs and publicizing the alleged retaliation. The plaintiff was terminated on May 8, 2020.

Burgess v. Bret Russell, Inc. (Oakland County, Michigan)
The plaintiff, a property manager for a luxury housing complex, claims that she was wrongfully discharged in violation of Michigan public policy after refusing to show any apartments unless the prospective tenants needed “housing very soon.” The plaintiff alleges that showing the units would have been in contravention of the governor’s COVID-19-related orders. The plaintiff alleges that she sent the defendant’s operations director a lengthy email “explaining that she would not violate the Governor’s Order.” Soon thereafter, the defendant informed the plaintiff she was being discharged, supposedly because the plaintiff “did not respect management.” Separately, the plaintiff was informed by the defendant’s attorney that “among various reasons given,” the plaintiff was “laid off” because of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and that other persons from the corporate office were also being laid off.” 

Carney v. H.S.F. Enterprises, Inc., et al. (Camden County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a sales consultant at a luxury car dealership, claims that she was discharged in violation of New Jersey’s whistleblower law. The plaintiff claims that, following the reopening of the car dealership, she repeatedly “blew the whistle to management” regarding the dealership’s noncompliance with New Jersey’s COVID-19-related safety and health requirements. The plaintiff claims, among other things, that she was not provided a physical barrier, that she was “scolded and reprimanded because a customer complained that [the plaintiff] sat the customer six feet away from her,” and that she was reprimanded for taking a photo of a salesperson sitting next to a customer in a small cubicle with the salesperson’s mask off. After complaining to the defendant, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated, and she was told that she had “been nothing but a disruption.”

June 8, 2020
Porti v. PM Pediatrics Management Group, LLC, et al. (Queens County, New York)
The plaintiff, a medical director at a pediatric health clinic, claims that she was discharged in violation of New York Labor Law. The plaintiff alleges she made multiple written complaints to the defendants concerning the defendants’ handling of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. This, the plaintiff claims, was a violation of New York Labor Law because defendants “did not equip and operate in a manner to ensure the ‘reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of all persons employment [at defendant]...’” Following the plaintiff’s third written complaint to defendants, her employment was terminated. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants told her that her termination was necessary because she seemed “unhappy.” The plaintiff claims that her discharge was in retaliation for her protected complaints. 

June 5, 2020
Morales v. American Health Associates, Inc. (Seminole County, Florida)
The plaintiff was a phlebotomist, and her primary job duty was to draw blood from patients. The plaintiff alleges that she signed a letter that was forwarded to her supervisor, as well as the defendant employer’s vice president and chief executive officer. The plaintiff states that the letter informed the recipients that phlebotomists were being asked to collect COVID-19 specimens, but that the company had not provided them with PPE, in violation of OSHA regulations. The plaintiff also alleges that she sent numerous text messages to her supervisor complaining about the company’ failure to provide the PPE, and demanding that the company do so. The plaintiff alleges that her fears of exposure to the virus were realized when she came into contact with a COVID-19-positive patient while she was without PPE. The plaintiff alleges that after her exposure, her supervisor instructed her to self-quarantine for seventy-two hours. According to the plaintiff, when the seventy-two hours passed, she texted her supervisor about returning to work, and was told that she was terminated for failing to show up to work for three days. The plaintiff brings a claim for whistleblower retaliation in violation of Florida Statutes section 448.102. She also brings claims for wage and hour violations under the Florida Constitution and the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Stivers v. Indiana Limestone Acquisition, LLC (Southern District of Indiana)
The plaintiff worked as a limestone sawyer. He alleges that he told the defendant employer that he would need to take leave to care for his child because his mother, who normally provided childcare, was ordered to quarantine for one month after exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19. Further, the plaintiff alleges that after he informed his employer that his mother was exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms, the company required him to self-quarantine for at least fourteen days. The plaintiff alleges that he applied for thirty days of leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), and that the company expressly approved the leave and paid him at two-third his regular rate of pay for forty hours per week for the remainder of his employment. However, the plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated after three weeks of leave. According to the plaintiff, the company maintained that he was losing his position as part of a reduction in force, but the plaintiff alleges that the company’s stated reason for his termination is untrue. The plaintiff claims that the company transferred or rehired an individual from another facility to work in his position, even though the individual was untrained as a limestone sawyer. The plaintiff further alleges that in determining which positions to keep or eliminate, the company focused primarily on employees who were on FMLA/FFCRA leave. The plaintiff brings two causes of action—one for violation of the FMLA and one for violation of the FFCRA. 

Wallace v. Hub International Insurance Services, Inc. (San Diego County, California)
The plaintiff, an account executive, claims, among other things, that in violation of California law, she was harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against due to her gender. She also alleges she was wrongfully terminated in violation of California public policy. In March 2020, the plaintiff was instructed by her employer to work from home in response to the California governor’s lockdown order due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff was unable to secure childcare for her two young children during the lockdown order, and alleges that her supervisor instructed her that “her children are not to be heard during phone calls.” The plaintiff explained that background noise would likely occur while both children are awake in the morning, but that “her youngest napped in the afternoon, so that would be the best time for calls.” Despite this conversation, the plaintiff alleges that her supervisor continued to schedule calls when she was feeding her children or putting them down for a nap, and gave the plaintiff “rush” assignments. The plaintiff objected, and told her supervisor that she felt that his expectations were unrealistic, given her need to care for her children. The plaintiff alleges that her supervisor told her to “take care of her kid situation” and to “figure it out.” The plaintiff subsequently took her concerns that she was being discriminated against as a mother to human resources. After expressing her concerns, the vice president of human resources told the plaintiff that the company “was experiencing a reduced revenue due to COVID-19 and they were laying Plaintiff off as a result of the pandemic.” The plaintiff alleges that the company “was using COVID-19 as a bogus justification to terminate Plaintiff,” and alleges that the company posted an opening for her former position, “effectively disproving that Plaintiff’s job was eliminated for financial reasons.”

Watts v. Microsoft Corp.
(King County Superior Court, State of Washington)
The plaintiff (former “Senior HR Manager for Microsoft Retail Stores”) says that she informed Microsoft on March 4, 2020, that she had a job offer from another employer. Apparently, the offer was a good one, because she wanted to “see what opportunities existed within Microsoft that were commensurate with the [other] offer.” The plaintiff alleges that Microsoft only pointed her to a “position that was less appealing than the one offered by [the other employer].” As a result, the plaintiff says that she accepted the other position on March 11 and so informed her Microsoft manager and asked if she would be immediately released from her Microsoft employment. According to the plaintiff, she was asked (and agreed) to stay with Microsoft during the “transition of all her work duties to other employees.” The plaintiff reports that she continued working for Microsoft without any defined end date and took on additional work due to the impact of COVID-19. However, in mid-March the plaintiff learned about the closure of her child’s school and requested flexibility from her supervisor in light of the school closure and the unavailability of her nanny, in keeping with Microsoft’s internal statements at the time about the need for flexibility with employees facing school closures. The plaintiff claims that she suggested a daily schedule of being online and offline during a day, “using sick time, if necessary, for time away.” The supervisor allegedly did not respond to this email and later that day the plaintiff reportedly asked for sick time to care for her two children. The plaintiff claims that the next day she emailed human resources general email account regarding her “need for flexibility in her schedule to accommodate her child’s school being closed.” The plaintiff claims that her supervisor separately wrote to her that day, informed her of the termination of her employment, and told her that she could “now just go be with [her] kids.” The plaintiff claims that, on the day after her termination, Microsoft opened a position “that was equivalent to the position [she] had accepted with [the other employer].” The plaintiff claims retaliation in violation of the Washington Paid Family Leave Act, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and promissory estoppel. She seeks compensatory damages, lost wages, emotion damages, injunctive relief, and other damages.

June 4, 2020
Ratliff v. Powell County Detention Center, et al. (Powell County, Kentucky)
The plaintiff, a former substance abuse counselor at a Kentucky detention center, alleges that she was wrongfully discharged in violation of the Kentucky Whistleblower Act. The plaintiff alleges that she inquired about COVID-19 mitigation plans, and was informed that the counselors “would have to work normally and if a counselor refused to do so that person would be fired.” Following this meeting, the plaintiff sought unpaid leave, then the defendants discharged the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that she and others were discharged “after they coordinated in an effort to bring to attention violations of CDC and OSHA recommendations” and the Kentucky governor’s executive orders pertaining to COVID-19.

Mondello v. Kelco Construction, Inc. (Suffolk County, New York)
The plaintiff, a manager of a car restoration and customization garage, claims that his employer discriminated against him based on “his actual and/or perceived disability,” “retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity, and effectively terminated his employment.” The plaintiff alleges he “repeatedly complained about unsanitary and illegal working conditions,” which “was putting everyone’s health at risk during COVID-19.” He claims his supervisors dismissed his concerns, saying “the Company won’t do [expletive] about it” and telling him to “leave it alone.” After the plaintiff learned that three employees contracted COVID-19, he made a request to work remotely, accompanied with a doctor’s note indicating that he is at high risk of contracting COVID-19 due to the fact that he is a cancer survivor. The employer denied the plaintiff’s request, sent him home, and “failed to pay him for at least two days for that workweek.” The plaintiff’s supervisors emailed him in April, stating that if “he did not return to work [the following Monday], provide a medical note saying he could work without any restrictions, and sign a waiver of his legal rights, he would be fired.” When the plaintiff did not comply, his remote access was terminated. The plaintiff seeks damages for disability discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law, and unpaid wages and commissions under the New York Labor Law.

James v. Language World Services, Inc., et al. (Sacramento County, California)
The plaintiff, a temp-to-hire medical assistant, brings numerous causes of action against the defendants including disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful discharge, and failure to provide rest periods in violation of California law. Among other things, the plaintiff claims that the nurse manager refused to provide the plaintiff with a mask, even though she would come into contact with a patient exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms. The nurse manager explained that “a mask would not protect [the plaintiff] from infection.” After experiencing COVID-19 symptoms herself, the plaintiff was put on a one-week medical leave of absence. Upon her return to work, the plaintiff confirmed that she came into contact with a COVID-19-positive patient, and obtained another doctor’s note. The plaintiff alleges that she was then informed that her assignment had been “terminated due to a breach of confidentiality.” The plaintiff alleges the defendants discriminated against her “after perceiving her as being infected with the COVID-19 virus.”

Henslovitz v. Thunderball Marketing Inc., et al. (Essex County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a 70-year old sales person, claims he was discriminated against on the basis of his age and disability, and retaliated against in violation of New Jersey’s whistleblower law. The defendant closed its facilities after one of its employees tested positive for COVID-19. The plaintiff asked the defendant’s attorney whether the office would be sanitized prior to opening. The defendant employer responded that the defendants would clean the office when they came back to work after Passover. After the defendant reopened its facilities, the plaintiff claims he was the only employee that was not permitted to return to work on the same day as other employees. The plaintiff contacted the defendant’s attorney again, claiming he was “startled that [the defendant] would put other employees in danger without cleaning out the Cragwood Road facility...” The next day, the vice president of the defendant company informed customers that the plaintiff was no longer employed by the defendant. The plaintiff claims his employment was terminated in retaliation for complaining of conduct that was incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy, including an executive order issued by the governor. 

June 3, 2020
Reyna v. Cascade Health Services, LLC (Southern District Court of Texas)
The plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant at a nursing home, claims that she was wrongfully terminated and retaliated against in violation of the FFCRA. The plaintiff alleges that “she went home from work feeling horribly sick,” and attempted to schedule a COVID-19 test. The soonest appointment at a testing center was not until the following week, and the local health department informed the plaintiff “to self-quarantine until she received her test results.” The plaintiff then contacted her supervisor and explained she was experiencing COVID-like symptoms and “would self-quarantine until she got her [COVID-19] test results in order to protect the residents.” In response, the plaintiff claims she was informed that she was being fired. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks damages for “past and future wages” and a “mandatory injunction reinstating plaintiff’s employment benefits, retroactive to May 15, 2020.”

Elliott Stein, M.D. v. Hebrew Home for Aged Disabled, et al.
(San Francisco County, California)
The plaintiff, a 72-year-old prominent geriatric psychiatrist, filed a six-count complaint alleging disability discrimination and defamation against the defendants, who operated a large nursing home and a psychiatric hospital. The plaintiff alleges that in early March 2020, he began to explore ways to provide telemedicine if COVID-19 continued to spread and providers were not allowed to provide in-person services. After the plaintiff was advised by his personal physician that he was significantly at risk of contracting COVID-19 and to shelter in place, the plaintiff began performing his duties remotely on March 17, 2020. The plaintiff alleges that although his performance did not suffer as a result of using telemedicine, he was told on March 31, 2020, that he had to return to the office because “patient-facing” staff were no longer permitted to work remotely due to a change in the telecommuting policy. According to the plaintiff, although he requested a reasonable accommodation and attached a letter from his doctor ordering him to work from home due to his health condition and his age, his request to work remotely was ignored. Ultimately, the plaintiff received a letter stating that his refusal to perform services on site was a breach of his services agreement, and his employment and clinical privileges were terminated effective April 6, 2020. 

Gargiulo v. Dr. Ernie F. Soto PA, et al. (Broward County, Florida)
The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, alleges that her employment was terminated in violation of the Florida Whistleblower Protection Act. The plaintiff alleges that defendants were violating OSHA, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Small Business Administration (SBA) loan requirements, IRS withholding statutes and defrauding the Department of Economic Opportunity of unemployment monies. Among other things, the plaintiff claims that when the defendant obtained $630,000 in monies from Emergency Disaster, PPP and SBA loans, the defendant used the money for personal matters – including the purchase of a rare, late 1960s Camaro – rather than the prescribed purposes for the loans. The plaintiff alleges she was terminated shortly after inquiring about appropriate PPE to her employer, and after sharing “the truth of the inadequate and inappropriate lack of protection with her fellow office colleagues on a private interoffice forum,” in retaliation for sharing safety information “and to teach the other ancillary staff a lesson.”

Lin v. CGIT Systems, Inc. (District of Massachusetts)
The plaintiff, a 55-year old Chinese-American with high blood pressure, claims he was discriminated against because of his disability, age, race, and national origin in violation of the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination law. The plaintiff alleges that on March 16, 2020, he obtained oral consent from his manager to work from home, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 25, the plaintiff’s general manager instructed all employees who were working from home to report to the office location for work on March 27. The plaintiff communicated with his manager that he wanted to comply with the governor’s stay at home order by working from home, and was concerned about social distancing in the office, given his high blood pressure. The plaintiff submitted a formal request to work from home, which was denied by the general manager. The plaintiff alleges that two other employees in his department were granted their work from home requests. The plaintiff alleges that on March 31, the president of the company told him he needed to report to the office to continue his employment. The plaintiff claims he reiterated his concerns and informed the president that all of his work could be handled remotely, and was terminated the same day for “job abandonment.” The plaintiff alleges that his manager told other employees that “he needed to make an example of Plaintiff” so that “people [wouldn’t] take sick or vacation time because they were concerned about coming in to work in [the] office location due to COVID-19.”

June 2, 2020
Rumble v. Jamac Steel, Inc. (San Bernardino County, California)
The plaintiff, a sales department employee, alleges among other things that, in violation of California law: (1) she was discriminated against because of her pregnancy, (2) her employer interfered with her pregnancy leave, (3) her employer retaliated against her for taking a pregnancy disability leave, and (4) her employer retaliated against her for complaining about the unsafe working environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleges that her employer was considered an essential business and was permitted to continue to operate following the implementation of California’s statewide stay-at-home order. The plaintiff alleges that she was concerned about contracting COVID-19, given her pregnancy, and that she asked her employer to implement safety precautions in the workplace, including ensuring that there were sufficient cleaning supplies and face masks. The plaintiff alleges that her employer failed to provide the requested supplies and that other employees “ridiculed [the plaintiff’s] concerns for safety in the workplace.” The plaintiff alleges that “other employees refused to wear face masks,” “refused to practice social distancing,” and would “intentionally cough[] on her when she walked nearby.” The plaintiff complained to her managers about these other employees, and discussed her upcoming need for a pregnancy-related leave of absence. The plaintiff alleges that one day after that discussion, her employer placed an advertisement to seek a replacement for her position, and terminated her.

Burden v. Everglades Preparatory Academy, Inc. (Palm Beach County, Florida)
The plaintiff was an assistant principal at a preparatory academy. He alleges that the academy attempted to force him to work in person at the school during the COVID-19 pandemic, in violation of unspecified county and federal law, even though students were attending school remotely. The plaintiff refused to work in person. Further, he alleges that the school wanted him to report false attendance numbers, and that he refused to do so. He alleges that as a result of his refusals to work in person and report false attendance numbers, his employment was terminated. He brings one cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Florida Statutes section 448.101-105.

Graham v. Barrier Technologies, LLC, et al. (Southern District of Florida) 
The plaintiff, a former embroiderer for a PPE manufacturer, claims that the defendants unlawfully terminated her employment in violation of the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA; part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act). The plaintiff alleges that she sought medical treatment for COVID-19 symptoms, and was advised to self-isolate for at least seven days. Prior to the plaintiff’s return to work, the defendants terminated the plaintiff’s employment, citing economic conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff claims that the defendants retaliated against her for taking sick leave and failed to pay her for her sick leave, in violation of the EPSLA. 

June 1, 2020

Castaneda v. Niagara Bottling LLC 
(San Bernardino County, California)
The plaintiff, a 61 year-old maintenance mechanic who suffers from diabetes and asthma, alleges violations of California law including: (1) he was discriminated against because of his age and disability, (2) his employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability, and (3) his employer retaliated against him for requesting an accommodation and by raising concerns about discrimination and treatment in the workplace. Around the same time that the COVID-19 pandemic began, the plaintiff began experiencing “general pain,” which forced him to leave work early to be hospitalized. The plaintiff was instructed “that he was at high risk of being infected with COVID-19” and “that it was not medically advisable for him to return to work at that time,” and he was placed on medical leave by his primary care doctor. The plaintiff alleges that his employer informed him that if he did not see the employer’s workers’ compensation doctor and return to work, his “job would be in jeopardy.” The plaintiff complied, and the workers’ compensation doctor extended his medical leave for 45 days. However, the plaintiff alleges that immediately after leaving the employer’s doctor’s office, the plaintiff received a call from his supervisor that he needed to return to the doctor’s office. The plaintiff returned, and after another examination, the doctor released the plaintiff to return to work that same day. The plaintiff returned to work, and subsequently emailed his supervisors expressing concerns about his high risk of being infected by COVID-19, the lack of social distancing in the workplace, and the employer’s failure to abide by CDC guidelines. The plaintiff was offered a severance for his resignation, which the plaintiff did not accept because he was unwilling to waive his rights to sue, and instead resigned without the severance package so he could pursue this lawsuit.

Busch v. Iowa Dermatology Clinic, P.L.C., et al. (Polk County, Iowa)
In a third complaint against the same dermatology clinic, the plaintiff, an advanced registered nurse practitioner, alleges wrongful termination and breach of her employment contract, in violation of Iowa law. The complaint alleges that the defendant employer “terminated Plaintiffs employment without notice, allegedly ‘for Cause’ [sic], despite the fact that Defendants did not have ‘cause,’” and that the defendant employer provided no “notice of any deficiency or non-performance of her contractual or employment duties prior to or upon her termination.” The plaintiff claims that the defendant employer “encouraged and expected [the plaintiff] to violate” “governmental restrictions and guidelines related to the COVID-19 pandemic,” and wrongfully terminated her “in retaliation for her refusal to violate these public policies.” 

Sumner v. Lincare Holdings Inc. et al. (Duval County, Florida)
The plaintiff, a former operations manager for the defendants, filed a single count complaint alleging that the defendants terminated her in violation of the Florida Whistleblower Act after she reported safety concerns to her district manager during the COVID-19 pandemic. In support of her claim, the plaintiff alleges the defendants were not taking adequate health and safety precautions—including, for example, allowing patients unfettered access to the defendants’ office without appointments, not providing thermometers, not providing sufficient PPE, and allowing an employee with COVID-19 symptoms to return to work even though the employee was still exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms. The plaintiff alleges that one of her subordinates lodged an internal complaint with the plaintiff about the employee with COVID-19 symptoms, which the plaintiff reported to her district manager. She alleges that she also reported to her district manager that there was insufficient PPE, insufficient testing and monitoring equipment for employees and others, and inadequate office space to maintain social distancing. Subsequently, after the employee who complained to the plaintiff also complained to the defendants’ safety department about her COVID-19 safety concerns (and another employee who reported to the plaintiff complained to defendants about safety concerns), the district manager called the plaintiff and accused her of creating an environment where employees did not want to work in the office and did not feel safe. During the phone conference, the district manager then issued the plaintiff a verbal warning for disrespectful and insubordinate conduct, and shortly thereafter terminated the plaintiff’s employment, calling it a “layoff.” 

Peake v. Louisville Metro Government (Jefferson County, Kentucky)
The plaintiff alleges she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment in violation of KRS 344.010, was terminated in retaliation for reporting a sexual assault in violation of KRS 344.280, and was wrongfully terminated under the Kentucky Whistleblower’s Act. The plaintiff alleges that she was sexually assaulted by an employee, and reported the incident to her supervisor. After an investigation into the matter, the employee that allegedly sexually assaulted the plaintiff received a disciplinary action notice that recommended that the employee be suspended for 10 days. The plaintiff also received a disciplinary action notice concluding that she “exposed potential new hires … to COVID-19” and recommended termination. The plaintiff claims that the disciplinary action notice’s conclusion that she exposed potential new hires to COVID-19 is false and that the recommendation for termination “constitutes unlawful retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaining about sexual assault and sexual harassment.”

Diana Montejano v. Pacific Living Properties, Inc., et al. (Fresno County, California)
The plaintiff, a property manager, claims wrongful termination in violation of public policy; disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate in violation of California law; and California labor law violations. Among other purported labor code violations, the plaintiff alleges that her employers misclassified her as exempt, required her to work overtime without pay, and failed to provide her meal and rest breaks. The plaintiff also alleges that in March 2020, she was placed on a short medical leave as a result of adverse medical effects – including stress, anxiety and depression – caused by harassment from a coworker. In that instance, she claims, she was forced to use sick and vacation time rather than receive compensation under the worker’s compensation statute, the availability of which she was not informed. The plaintiff further alleges that on April 6, 2020, she requested to work intermittent days as a result of her son’s school closure due to COVID-19. When she returned to work the next day, she claimed, she was terminated in retaliation for seeking an accommodation in the form of time off to care for her son as a result of the school closure.

May 31, 2020
Jennie Valdivia v. Paducah Center for Health and Rehabilitation (Western District of Kentucky)
The plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant, alleges she was denied paid sick leave under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) and was terminated for leaving work to “seek treatment for symptoms that could have potentially been COVID-19,” in violation of the EPSLA and Kentucky law. The plaintiff claims she arrived at work and took her own temperature, which read 99.8. About 30 minutes later, she took her temperature again, and it allegedly had risen to 100.1. The director of nursing was allegedly unavailable, but the assistant director of nursing told her to go home. According to the plaintiff, the director of nursing called her later that evening and told her that without a doctor’s note, her absence was unexcused. The plaintiff then visited her doctor and found out she did not have COVID-19, and texted a picture of her doctor’s note to her supervisor. The next day, the plaintiff was terminated for “being aggressive with patients.” She alleges this reason is a pretext for the defendant’s retaliation against her for seeking further evaluation for COVID-19 symptoms, in violation of the EPSLA. 

May 29, 2020
Hawkins v. Core Health & Fitness, LLC (State of Washington Superior Court)
The plaintiff, former global vice president of sales and marketing for the defendant, alleges that he was discharged in violation of Washington disability discrimination law. The plaintiff alleges he was regarded as having a disability, as he was ridiculed for his weight on several occasions. The defendant allegedly terminated the plaintiff due to the economic impact of COVID-19, but the plaintiff claims that given his “willingness to reduce his pay by fifty percent – an offer that defendant rejected – and the assistance of Payroll Protection Plan, the pretextual nature of defendant’s rationale for terminating [him was] easy to see.” 

Crowe v. The Akron Art Museum (Summit County, Ohio)
The plaintiff, a museum’s family events and activities coordinator, alleges that she was retaliated against and terminated for joining a letter authored by a group of employees to the museum’s Board of Trustees regarding “a series of claims of mismanagement, hostile work environment, sexual and racial harassment, and the slanderous actions of [the executive director of the museum].” The plaintiff alleges that she was subsequently given assurances by her employer and its legal counsel that she would not be subjected to retaliation if she participated in the investigation of the executive director. After participating in the investigation, the plaintiff alleges that she “was systematically subjected to new and overbearing oversight, criticism, reductions of resources for her projects, diminishment in her ability to facilitate family events, disciplinary action, and other unjustified and unwarranted harassment by her superiors and … management.” The plaintiff alleges that in March 2020, she was notified that she was being laid off due to the COVID-19 and would be recalled after the pandemic, but her employer subsequently advertised a posting for her job. The plaintiff alleges that these actions “constitute[] retaliation against [p]laintiff.”

Beltran v. 2 Deer Park Drive Operations LLC, et al. (Mercer County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff was employed as a maintenance building technician for defendants. He brings claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, perception of disability under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, discrimination under the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Law, unlawful discharge under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, and interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. He alleges that his mother tested positive for COVID-19, and that he received a letter from the Hamilton Township Division of Health advising him that he needed to quarantine for two weeks. The plaintiff alleges that his employers told him that he was required to return to work less than two weeks later, and that when he did not do so because he was obeying the Division of Health letter, he was terminated. 

May 28, 2020
Tana L. Barles v. Incite Rehab, LLC (Faulkner County, Arkansas)
The plaintiff, a certified occupational therapist assistant, claims that she was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy. The plaintiff alleges that she began exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19, and although she tested negative, her employer directed her to stay at home until her symptoms subsided, and refused to pay her for the time off. The plaintiff alleges that despite her outstanding performance history with the company, she was abruptly terminated without explanation, in retaliation for taking the employer-imposed leave. 

Haile et al. v. Steitz & Der Manouel Inc. dba Eco Water of Central California, et al. (Sacramento County, California)
The plaintiff, a sales representative, alleges that the defendant employer refused to comply with a government shutdown order, and that the company president “defiantly stated that ‘until the government came and put locks on my door then we will stay open and do business.” The plaintiff alleges that she informed the defendant that she was pregnant, and raised concerns “regarding violating the shelter in place orders and for the health risks from potential exposure to COVID-19.” The plaintiff alleges that she was placed on a leave of absence, and terminated two days later. As a result, she brings claims for retaliation, wrongful termination based on sex and in violation of public policy, and alleges that her employer failed to pay timely wages upon termination, in violation of California law. The plaintiff also brings a class action seeking to recover allegedly unpaid business expenses relating to employees’ automobiles. 

Lin v. Peacehealth (Whatcom County, Washington)
The plaintiff, a physician, claims he was terminated in violation of Washington public policy. The plaintiff alleges that during the COVID-19 pandemic, he became concerned that the hospital where he worked was not taking adequate measures to protect the health and welfare of its healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff emailed the managers of the hospital stating the hospital “is so far behind when it comes to protecting its patients and the community but even worse when it comes to protecting the staff.” That same day, the plaintiff posted the text of his email to his personal Facebook account. Over the next week, the plaintiff continued to post on social media about COVID-19, his employer’s response, and the lack of PPE. The plaintiff alleges that he eventually received a text message from the vice president informing the plaintiff that his shifts at the hospital had been covered, effectively terminating the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks damages for loss of compensation and benefits, emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment.

Peloso v. Arciero & Sons, Inc. et al. (San Luis Obispo County, CA)
The plaintiff, a 90-year-old former office manager and CFO of the defendant, who was classified as an independent contractor, filed a twelve-count complaint against his former employer and three individual defendants, including wrongful termination, age discrimination under state law, disability discrimination under state law, retaliation for opposing violations of FEHA, and misclassification as an independent contractor. In support of his claims, the plaintiff alleges that his supervisor told him he was too old and asked when he was going to retire. After the plaintiff told his supervisor that he enjoyed his job and did not want to retire, the plaintiff alleges his supervisor harassed him by making various ageist remarks, including telling him he couldn’t handle the work anymore because he was getting too old, telling him that he had gotten old and slow, and telling him that he was slowing down and was not the worker he used to be.  Following these remarks and his expressed intent to remain on the job, the plaintiff alleges that he was told by the CEO and his supervisor, in mid-March 2020, to take two weeks leave because he was older and they wanted to protect him from becoming infected with COVID-19. However, according to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to discuss any alternative accommodations (such as allowing him to isolate in an office, work from home, or work part-time), and instead terminated him via email while he was on COVID-19 related leave. 

Readus v. Trueblue Inc. and PeopleReady, Inc. (Eastern District of Michigan)
The plaintiff, a staffing specialist, alleges wrongful termination in violation of Michigan public policy and the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act. The plaintiff alleges that his worksite remained open, despite a shutdown order from the governor and the fact that certain other of the defendants’ locations were operating remotely in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff claims that he took personal leave to “avoid having to unlawfully break quarantine and expose himself to risk,” and that when his leave expired, he complained to his supervisor about being required to “break quarantine.” The plaintiff further alleges that he complained to the defendant employer “that he would be subject to stop by the police when traveling to work,” and inquired as to why a remote work plan was not put in place. The defendant employer thereafter terminated the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant employer falsely explained that the reason for his termination was a “massive layoff” (which plaintiff claims did not actually occur). According to his complaint, the true reasons for his termination were his complaints about the defendants’ purported violations of the shutdown order, his objections to “being forced to violate the Order and commit a criminal misdemeanor as a condition of his employment,” and the fact that he was preparing to report the supposed misconduct “to law enforcement.” With regard to his whistleblower claim, the plaintiff alleges that he was “about to report Defendants’ violation of Executive Order 2020-21,” and that he communicated that intent by complaining to the defendant employer and “by requesting that correspondence about his complaint be recorded or conducted in writing.” 

May 27, 2020
Gaya v. Person Directed Supports, Inc. (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff worked as a direct support professional for an assisted living facility. He alleges that he became ill with a fever, and when he informed his supervisor, he was told to stay home. The plaintiff alleges that two days later, he went to the doctor, and as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, was advised to self-isolate for five days. The plaintiff alleges that at the end of the five days, he called his supervisor to confirm he could return to work, but that his supervisor put someone from human resources on the line who informed him that he was terminated because he did not have a doctor’s note for the first two days that he was absent, even though his supervisor directed him to stay home. The plaintiff brings claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and violations of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Nathan Singh v. Crossover Health Medical Group (Santa Clara County, California)
The plaintiff, a doctor, sued his former employer for allegedly terminating him in retaliation for making complaints about being forced to work during the COVID-19 pandemic with inadequate safety precautions. The defendant allegedly told the plaintiff that the clinic where he worked would continue operating as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic until there were not enough healthy staff to operate the clinic. Moreover, the plaintiff alleges the defendant told him that he would have to reuse PPE, and that the defendant did not follow recommended COVID-19 safety guidelines. The plaintiff alleges that in retaliation, he was wrongfully terminated three days after making the complaints at a staff meeting. He alleges that the reasons the defendant gave for his termination—the “tone” of his complaints about safety, a supposed “failure to fit into the company culture,” and that it had purportedly received “anonymous complaints about his mannerisms and level of politeness”—were pretextual, and that his termination violates California state law and common law.

Taylor v. Five Star Senior Living, Inc. (Greene County, Missouri)
The plaintiff was a resident assistant at an assisted living facility. She alleges that she provided care for, and had direct contact with, two residents who exhibited symptoms of COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that after the two residents received positive COVID-19 diagnoses, she informed her employer that she should self-quarantine for fourteen days. She alleges that her employer denied her request, and that when she proceeded to self-quarantine, her employer told her that she had resigned. She brings claims for wrongful discharge and fraud. 

Drayone Bland and Jennifer Deluca v. Visiting Nurse Association of Greater Philadelphia (Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania)
The plaintiffs, a chaplain and a registered nurse, claim wrongful termination in violation of Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Act and public policy. The plaintiffs allege that they objected to their employer’s failure to comply with proper public safety protocols in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the employer’s failure to provide proper protective equipment and its failure to test newly admitted patients for COVID-19, subjecting the plaintiffs and other employees to potential COVID-19 exposure. The plaintiffs claim that after they voiced their concerns to their employer and OSHA, they were terminated. One plaintiff claims he was terminated purportedly for failing to “pass the probationary period” and the other plaintiff claims she was terminated for her social media post commenting on the employer’s “lack of proper protective equipment.”

Pezza v. Landscape Maintenance Services, Inc., et al. (District of New Jersey)
The plaintiff, an hourly maintenance employee, alleges the defendant employer, a landscaping company, terminated him while he was on medical leave. The plaintiff claims that the defendant employer violated state and federal disability law by terminating him because his doctor extended his medical leave due to concerns about COVID-19. In March 2020, the plaintiff took a medical leave due to “heart-related complications,” and in early April 2020, the plaintiff submitted a note from his doctor to the defendant employer stating that, due to his heart condition, the plaintiff must limit his potential exposure to COVID-19 and should therefore self-quarantine for an addition four weeks. Thereafter, while the plaintiff was in self-quarantine, the defendant employer terminated him. In addition to his disability discrimination claims, the plaintiff also asserts violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, alleging that the defendant employer failed to pay overtime wages, and that his termination was also in retaliation for his complaints concerning the defendant employer’s failure to pay such overtime wages. 

May 26, 2020
Dustin Robbins v. Dallas County, Iowa; Douglas Lande; Chad Leonard, both individually and in their official capacities (Dallas County, Iowa) 
According to the plaintiff, a former correctional officer in a county sheriff’s office, his employer issued an email “that a co-worker had tested positive for COVID-19, but because the employee was symptom-free they would be returning to work ‘with precautions.’” The plaintiff says that he and several of his co-workers discussed their fears that an “infected co-worker” returned to work “prematurely.” The plaintiff claims that he called the Iowa Department Corrections “hotline” and reported that the “Dallas County Sheriff’s Office was allowing an employee infected with COVID-19 to return to work, creating a potential significant health hazard to staff and inmates in the form of the spread of COVID-19.” The plaintiff claims that within an hour his report, his employer issued an email “stating that the infected co-worker would not be returning to work at that time after all.” The plaintiff claims that he then raised a concern about potential infection risk in a group meeting, and that his superior accused him of going to the media and the Department of Health, which the plaintiff denies. The plaintiff claims that later that day, another superior chastised him for making an external report. The plaintiff claims that his superior told him to leave the premises and not come back. The plaintiff alleges unlawful retaliation in violation of public policy, and  seeks compensatory damages, reinstatement with back pay, attorney fees and costs, and other equitable relief. 

Monroe v. Southeast SNF LLC d/b/a Southeast Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (Bexar County, Texas)
The plaintiff, a vocational nurse, alleges that her employer was grossly negligent during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that she was terminated in violation of the Texas Health and Safety Code and the Texas Occupational Code. The plaintiff alleges that Texas Health and Human Services mandated that during the COVID-19 pandemic, nursing facilities must: (1) “implement screening protocols for anyone entering their facility;” (2) “screen staff for COVID-19 using guidelines issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;” (3) “maintain strong infection prevention and control programs to prevent the spread of communicable diseases;” and (4) “check for fever of staff…and provide personal protective equipment to residents or staff.” In March 2020, the plaintiff reported several violations of the law to her supervisors, informing them that: (1) the plaintiff was not provided PPE; (2) a co-worker had entered the facility without washing his hands or having his temperature checked; and (3) employees were leaving the facility doors open, all in violation of government mandates. The plaintiff also alleges that her employer was grossly negligent by “failing to provide rules regarding COVID-19 minimization, failing to warn [her] of the potential COVID-19 outbreak, failing to provide PPE as required, failing to provide a reasonably safe work place, and failing to hire competent co-employees.” The plaintiff claims that she “requested time off due to her advanced age and her heightened risk of injury should she come in contact with COVID-19,” but her request was denied and she was terminated. As a result, the plaintiff is seeking statutory and common law damages, including damages for past and future loss of earning capacity, exemplary damages, mental anguish, lost wages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs.

Rayer v. The Venue at Winding Hills, Inc. (Duchess County, New York)
The plaintiff, an event planner for the defendant employer, claims she was terminated in violation of the New York Whistleblower law. The plaintiff alleges that she was a non-essential employee, and that defendant required her to work onsite in violation of an executive order issued by Governor Cuomo mandating that all non-essential businesses cease onsite operations and permit non-essential employees to telework to the maximum extent possible in an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that after she began working at home as required by the executive order, her supervisor first required her to attend several meetings on premises and then directed her to return to work on premises full-time. The plaintiff claims she expressed concern to her supervisor on April 21, 2020, about being required to work onsite, about the lack of PPE, and about the lack of adherence to social distancing requirements. The plaintiff alleges the defendant informed her that she was terminated. Subsequently, in a written notice of termination, the plaintiff was told that her position was eliminated as part of a workforce reduction. The plaintiff alleges the defendant subsequently posted an advertisement on Indeed.com for the event coordinator position she held. The plaintiff claims the defendant’s stated reason for her termination was pretextual, and that the real reason for her termination was because she voiced concerns to her supervisor about the violations of the executive order, which exposed the plaintiff and other employees and members of the public to COVID-19. In addition, the plaintiff claims that the defendant has violated New York Labor Law, alleging that her employment agreement did not properly address commission payments, and that the defendant failed to provide her with the required statutory wage notice.

May 25, 2020
Gavilanes v. Lusardi Ltd., et al. (Queens County, New York)
The plaintiff was employed as a cook at Lusardi, a restaurant in New York. The plaintiff alleges that he was told to go home until further notice after he coughed in front of a supervisor. He alleges that even after two weeks with no symptoms of COVID-19, he was told that he should not come back to work, and that his final paycheck was in the mail. The plaintiff brings a claim for discrimination in violation of the New York City Administrative Code, as well as various claims for wage and hour violations. 

Jackson v. Midnight Express Power Boats, Inc. (Southern District of Florida) 
The plaintiff, a former employee of a powerboat-building company, alleges that he was unlawfully discharged in violation of the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) (part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act). The plaintiff claims, that “[f]or his own safety and that of those around him,” he needed to leave work due to experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. The plaintiff requested sick leave while self-quarantining, and was terminated. Given the temporal proximity of his request for leave and his termination, the plaintiff claims that the defendant employer retaliated against him for attempting to seek leave under the EPSLA. 

May 22, 2020
Collins v. ASO Safety Solutions (Morris County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a shop foreman, alleges he was terminated in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act. The plaintiff alleges that while he was on vacation for a week, his employer instituted a new policy regarding a two-week self-quarantine for employees who had recently traveled. Upon return from his vacation, the plaintiff self-quarantined for two weeks, and during that time, the plaintiff alleges that he “was aware from co-workers that [his employer] had not implemented safeguards to protect employees from COVID.” As a result, the plaintiff advised his employer that “he was not coming back to work after self-quarantine for fear of being infected and potentially exposing his elderly mother….” The plaintiff alleges that “he was asked to reconsider returning to work or resign from his position,” in response to which the plaintiff advised his employer that he had no plan of resigning. The plaintiff subsequently requested leave under the CARES Act in order to care for his nephew, and was subsequently terminated. The plaintiff also alleges that he was retaliated against for “voicing his concerns about what the plaintiff believed to be violations of the law and Executive Orders engaged in by” his employer.

Morales v. Sunrise Meats, Inc., et al. (Southern District of Florida)
The plaintiff, an hourly employee working in various positions, including butcher, alleges the defendant employer, a convenience store and butcher shop, terminated him for complaining about the employer’s failure to follow safety guidelines promulgated by the CDC due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff claims that by failing to follow CDC guidelines, the defendant employer violated OSHA regulations, and the plaintiff’s complaint to the employer was therefore protected activity under Florida’s whistleblower law. Notably, the plaintiff also includes FLSA collective action claims on behalf of similarly-situated hourly employees, for the defendant’s alleged failure to pay overtime wages.

May 21, 2020
Spells v. Physician and Tactical Healthcare Services LLC dba Paths LLC (District of New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a Medicare billing specialist, alleges that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The plaintiff alleges that he informed his employer when he was instructed by a doctor to self-quarantine for 14 days after he began to experience symptoms, “some of which resembled COVID-19 symptoms.” The plaintiff claims that the defendant employer refused to provide him with paid sick leave, and “advised him that filing for unemployment benefits would be ‘better than taking sick leave.’” After he tested negative for COVID-19, the plaintiff sought permission to return to work in a remote capacity (as most other employees had allegedly been permitted to do), but that the defendant employer claimed that his “position does not allow the work from home option.” The plaintiff claims he has not been returned to work, despite being medically cleared to do so, and alleges that “he was terminated from his employment and not rehired with Defendant . . . as a result of his requests for paid sick leave under the FFCRA/FLSA.”

May 20, 2020
Andrea Hinich v. Norwood Life Society, Inc, et al. (Cook County, Illinois)
The plaintiff, an assistant director of nursing, claims wrongful termination in violation of Illinois’s Nursing Home Care Act and Whistleblower Act, and retaliation in violation of public policy. The plaintiff alleges that she raised serious safety issues related to COVID-19 that were “disregarded and ignored by her supervisors.” The plaintiff claims that after she refused to “work under conditions which contravened government-mandated safety guidance,” she was terminated without warning, purportedly for “insubordination.”

Kraemer v. Golding Radiology, Ltd. (Washoe County, Nevada)
The plaintiff, a radiologist, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and money damages, for breach of his employment and shareholder agreement. The plaintiff alleges that when his relationship with the CEO began to deteriorate, the plaintiff tried to amicably sever ties with his employer and discussed with the president possible job opportunities he was examining, and the impact of the non-compete provision in his employment agreement. The plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently terminated “for cause” after this discussion. The plaintiff claims that the “termination ‘for cause’ coincide[d] with a significant drop in volume of work during the COVID-19 pandemic,” and the "for cause" designation “was pretextual, as [plaintiff’s] services were no longer needed due to the drop in volume [of work] and his termination was a way to save money by avoiding having to pay [plaintiff’s] severance package.”

Bryant v. Gray Construction Inc. (Multnomah County, Oregon)
The plaintiff, a temporary employee who worked as a temperature taker at a construction site during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleges that the defendant discriminated against her and retaliated against her because she reported to the defendant information she believed to be in violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation. As part of its COVID-19 screening process, the defendant construction company required employees to have their temperatures taken before being allowed entry to the construction site. The plaintiff alleges she reported that the defendant was allowing employees to enter the construction site in violation of safety rules, including use of faulty thermometers. Specifically, the plaintiff says she was directed to allow employees to enter the construction site under the following circumstances: (1) the thermometer malfunctioned and did not take a reading; (2) the thermometer read 100.4° or higher on the first reading, at which point she was directed to re-take the temperature behind the ear to obtain a lower reading; and (3) employees were instructed to place cold drinks on their heads before having their temperature taken to get a lower reading. The plaintiff also alleges she reported that employees were entering the construction site without wearing required masks. The plaintiff alleges the defendant told the temporary agency she worked for that it wanted to “go in a different direction,” which resulted in her termination.

May 19, 2020
Carnival v. Jim’s Towing Service, Inc. (Kern County, California)
The plaintiff, a tow truck driver, claims wrongful termination in violation of California public policy and California Labor Code Sections 232.5, 1102.5(b) and 6301(a)(1). He alleges that his employer ordered one of its tow truck drivers to pick up a motorist whose wife had COVID-19 and who was himself a “likely carrier of COVID-19.” The plaintiff alleges that upon learning of that dispatch by reviewing records, he discussed the assignment with his fellow employees, and “disclosed to his co-employees and [the director of towing] that [the defendant employer] failed to do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, and safety of its employees.” The plaintiff claims he told the director of towing that the employer should have told the other tow truck drivers that a driver was dispatched to assist a motorist who likely had COVID-19. The plaintiff alleges that in response, the director of towing fired the plaintiff for discussing working conditions with his fellow employees, for complaining of unsafe working conditions, and for reporting violations of law.  

Troy v. Mark Kriwinsky DDS, Inc., et al. (Northern District of Ohio)
The plaintiff, a dental assistant, alleges that the dentist she worked for refused to follow the health and safety regulations imposed by Ohio’s governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff claims she complained about the company’s refusal to follow the restrictions put in place, and was given the option to take a leave of absence until the company was permitted to reopen for dental procedures. When the plaintiff sought to return from the leave of absence, she was allegedly told that the company would “stay with the staff [they had].” The plaintiff brings a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, as well as unrelated claims for failure to pay overtime.

May 18, 2020
Gasper v. Mack Industries (Medina County, Ohio)
The plaintiffs, book keepers and a receptionist at a concrete manufacturing and supply business, allege wrongful termination in violation of Ohio law. The plaintiffs claim that their employer falsely explained that they were being terminated in connection with a “reorganization of job positions to consolidate one or more positions with the same or similar responsibilities because of  change in business conditions” arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs allege that the true reason for their terminations was to replace them with younger, less-qualified employees, in violation of Ohio RC 4112.02(A).

May 15, 2020
Celsa Garcia v. Texas Market Research Group LLC dba Reconnaissance Market Research (ReconMR) (District Court, Hays County, Texas)
The plaintiff, formerly employed as a call center manager for a market research company, claims that she was fired because she would not allow employees under her supervision to work at the defendant's call center in Bryan, Texas, when a COVID-19 shelter-in-place order was in place. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant employer was not an essential business and therefore only was permitted to conduct minimum basic operations at its call center in Brazos County, Texas. Per the plaintiff, she so notified her superiors and complied with the county order, informing all 147 market research agents in the call center to stay home and wait for work-from-home options (which were under development). The plaintiff claims that she then received a question from a market research agent about the availability of unemployment compensation benefit options if agents were not equipped to work from home. One of the plaintiff’s superiors thereafter allegedly contacted one of the plaintiff’s subordinates and instructed the subordinate “to call agents to see whether they would be willing to come into the call center to work if they were unable to utilize the work from home option.” The plaintiff claims that, when she “learned of this directive” she “immediately emailed” her superiors and advised that if the employer “allowed agents to work at the call center in violation of the Brazos County [order] she would not participate in the violation by managing these agents or providing support staff to assist these agents.” The plaintiff claims that “[l]ess than 24 hours following this email” her employment was terminated on March 31, 2020, via conference call. The plaintiff claims wrongful discharge based on her refusal to commit an illegal act she reportedly thinks would have subjected her to criminal penalties. The plaintiff seeks loss of income, benefits, emotional distress, exemplary, and other damages.

Sarah Cusick v. Medstar Health Inc. and Washington Hospital Center Corporation (Superior Court, District of Columbia)
The plaintiff (a self-described “accomplished student and young professional”) claims that she was wrongfully terminated from her position as a hearing and speech assistant after she “reported and protested the failure of senior managers, including her supervisors, to ensure that the Hospital’s patients, staff, and visitors were properly protected against exposure [to COVID-19].” In her role at the defendant hospital, the plaintiff conducted newborn hearing screenings; assisted diagnostic tests on inpatients and outpatients; and performed administrative office support functions. In her complaint, the plaintiff broadly presents her critical analysis of – and concerns about – the hospital’s patient screening, access, scheduling, distancing, and processing protocols; personal protective equipment; and sanitation processes (at the beginning of the pandemic). In her complaint, she admits that, in mid-March 2020, she uploaded video of the hospital cafeteria, “directing her post to the Twitter accounts of [the Mayor] and the Hospital” with a request that the mayor’s executive order be amended to cover public areas of medical facilities, which the plaintiff opined posed safety risk. Two days later, the plaintiff again sleuthed with her personal cell phone, recording herself entering the hospital and passing through the front desk without being screened. The plaintiff then “walked to another entrance… and requested to record a conversation with a security guard about check-in procedures.” The plaintiff uploaded these two videos to Twitter (with commentary) and tagged the hospital’s Twitter account. After a discussion with coworkers about potentially rescheduling non-emergent patient appointments, the plaintiff “tweeted an update that MedStar was finally in the process of updating its rescheduling protocol for non-emergent patients.” That day she recorded and posted new video of the hospital’s cafeteria, with commentary. The plaintiff claims that shortly after these social media posts, she was asked to meet with management and was told that she had violated her “social media contract” and had violated patient and employee rights by uploading videos of patients’ and physicians’ faces. The plaintiff reportedly advised management that, “as a last resort to get management’s attention to … time-sensitive issues, she had turned to social media.” The plaintiff claims wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and requests compensatory and consequential damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. 

Evans v. Kast Construction Company LLC (Southern District of Florida)
The plaintiff, a former interior superintendent at a construction company, alleges that he was unlawfully discharged in violation of the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) (part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)). The plaintiff alleges that the defendant gave him no “reasons for his termination, except that he was not a good fit.” The plaintiff claims that the actual reason he was terminated was “for taking leave in accordance with the FFCRA/EPSLA when Plaintiff was unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave because he was subject to a State and local quarantine and/or isolation order related to COVID-19.” Thus, the plaintiff alleges an unlawful discharge. 

May 13, 2020
Shuttleworth v. Eriez Manufacturing Co. (Erie County, Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff, the CEO of a manufacturing company, claims wrongful termination in violation of Pennsylvania public policy. He alleges that the employer’s owner and chairman of the board repeatedly insisted that the company remain open and “put the burden on the Commonwealth to force [the defendant] to close,” despite a Pennsylvania executive order that required the closure of all “non-life-sustaining businesses.” The plaintiff alleges that to comply with the executive order, he made a good-faith determination that the company was not a life-sustaining business, and was required to close. The plaintiff claims he was terminated as a result by the board of directors based on his attempt to comply with the executive order and temporarily close the business.

Boshell v. Paul Phillips, et al. (Somerset County, New Jersey)
The plaintiff, a former employee who has asthma, alleges various violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act. The plaintiff alleges that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related executive orders issued by the governor of New Jersey, the defendant closed two of its offices and placed employees on furlough. After the defendant applied for and received a loan through the Payroll Protection Program, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant instructed all employees, including the plaintiff, to return to work on April 27, 2020. The plaintiff claims she was concerned about returning to work because of a lack of appropriate safety precautions in dealing with patients, a lack of PPE, and because of her underlying medical condition, which put her in a high risk category for contracting COVID-19. After the plaintiff spoke to her supervisor about her concerns, the plaintiff says she sent a follow-up email to her supervisor and Dr. Phillips, an individual defendant, requesting that she be allowed to remain on furlough or be placed on leave. The plaintiff also asked in the email, “who’s going to be responsible for medical bills/supporting my family? If something fatal happens, is the office responsible for it?” The plaintiff alleges that following this email, Dr. Phillips told her that he was terminating her employment due to her requests, inquiries, complaints and objections and because she threatened him with liability.  

Lula Jones, CNA v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. d/b/a Life Care Center Jacksonville (Middle District of Florida)
The plaintiff, a CNA at a Florida nursing home, alleges that she was terminated in violation of the Florida Whistleblower Protection Act and the federal Civil Rights Act of 1886. In addition to showing the executive director photographs that allegedly demonstrated “medication errors, patient neglect and the deplorable living conditions,” the plaintiff claims she complained about the purported lack of COVID-19 preparedness. The plaintiff alleges that the nursing home was hoarding PPE, and instructed the plaintiff and other staff to wear “used” cloth scarves instead of suitable masks. The plaintiff claims that after the nursing home implemented temperature checks, she was “singled out,” because she was required to pay out of pocket for COVID-19 testing despite her temperature purportedly being “just fine.” The plaintiff also alleges that her discharge (for attendance issues in 2019) was a pretext.

Fuente-Alba et al. v. Cork Alliance Inc. (Miami-Dade County, Florida)
The plaintiffs, a chief operating officer and a director of finance and accounting, allege that the defendant, a “worldwide wine distributor,” breached their employment contracts. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant, “citing COVID-19 concerns,” reduced one plaintiff’s salary by 50%, and subsequently terminated both five-year employment contracts before their expirations. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant used “the COVID-19 outbreak as an excuse to unlawfully back out of its obligations,” despite the fact that “wine sales have skyrocketed,” and “[i]n a sense, the wine distribution industry has actually benefited from the changed conditions.”

May 12, 2020
Edwin Rios v. Table Tek (Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)
The plaintiff, a crew leader in charge of assembling and maintaining pool tables, claims wrongful termination in violation of public policy and the governor’s Business Closure Order. The plaintiff alleges that his employer ordered him to drive a small, unmarked van and to “stay under the radar” while servicing clients, despite having typically driven a company van with a logo. After the plaintiff contacted his sales manager to voice his concerns that he “was being ordered to work illegally in defiance of COVID-19 Orders,” he was directed to return to work and terminated.  

May 11, 2020
Metzger v. Iowa Dermatology Clinic, P.L.C., et al. (Dallas County, Iowa)
Stocker v. Iowa Dermatology Clinic, P.L.C., et al.
(Polk County, Iowa)
In similar complaints, the plaintiffs, an advanced registered nurse practitioner and a dermatologist, allege wrongful termination and breach of their employment contracts, in violation of Iowa law. The complaints allege that the defendant employer terminated the plaintiffs for “a pretextual ‘Cause’.” The complaints also allege that the defendant clinics “encouraged employees, including the Plaintiff, to continue to see patients in person in hopes of avoiding interruption in revenue,” despite “governmental restrictions and guidelines,” and the plaintiffs claim that their terminations were in response to “attempts to follow . . . governmental restrictions and guidelines [regarding the COVID-19 pandemic] and refusal to violate them.”  

May 8, 2020
Kopit v. Beachwood Commons Assisted Living Ltd.; LifeServices Management Corporation (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County) 
After her resignation, the plaintiff, a former senior living counselor in an assisted living facility, alleges that the defendants “wrongfully terminated” her “in violation of public policy.” The plaintiff criticized defendants response to COVID-19 and claims that she requested “prudent alterations to her working conditions, in an effort to limit her exposure and the risk to both her and her immunocompromised husband.” The plaintiff’s husband was described as a “cancer survivor” who, with his age and medical history, was in a category of “heightened morbidity and mortality risks from COVID-19.” The plaintiff reportedly sought to work remotely, a request she says was denied. The plaintiff claims that she “did what any reasonable employee would do under the circumstances and resigned from her employment with Defendants.” The plaintiff seeks reinstatement, monetary damages, and attorney fees.

May 7, 2020
Crider v. Lute Supply, Co. (Boone County, Kentucky)
The plaintiff, a manager, alleges he was wrongfully terminated. He alleges that he requested intermittent leave for jury duty and to take care of his children amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff claims that his employer initially granted his request, but that he then received a series of text messages from his supervisor harassing him about taking leave for jury duty and to care of his children during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that he was subsequently terminated in violation of Kentucky law, the Emergency Family Medical Leave Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.  

Kanyuk v. Shearman & Sterling LLP (Southern District of New York)
Plaintiff, the Manager of Facilities and A/V and a 25-year employee at the defendant law firm, alleges wrongful termination and age discrimination in violation of New York law. The defendant employer explained that the plaintiff was terminated due to being “accused of receiving kickbacks from vendors.” The plaintiff claims that no details were provided, that he had no opportunity to defend himself, and that his employer “either made up the existence of the allegations or that they knew the allegations were likely false.” Plaintiff alleges that he was second oldest employee in his department, and claims that the defendant employer’s proffered reasons for his termination were “clearly a pretext for their plan to terminate their older employee in the face of the [COVID-19] business downturn.”

McIntyre v. Midwest Geriatrics, Inc. (Douglas County, Nebraska)
Plaintiff, a medical technician at an assisted living facility, was infected with COVID-19 and alleges that she was wrongfully terminated by her employer in retaliation for attempting to take time off of work under the FMLA, due to her infection. She states that her employer claimed that she had spread COVID-19 throughout the facility. Plaintiff alleges that her employer told her that she was terminated for not wearing a mask while caring for sick residents, but plaintiff asserts that she did not wear a mask because no masks were made available by her employer. Plaintiff further alleges violations of the FLSA, Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), and Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA), claiming that, prior to her termination, her employer failed to pay her for time she took off to self-quarantine.

May 5, 2020
Long v. Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. (Whitley County, Kentucky)
Plaintiff, a registered nurse (who was also pregnant), alleges that she was terminated when she sought workers’ compensation after quarantining herself due to possible exposure to COVID-19. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated by her employer in order to avoid her workers’ compensation claim. Plaintiff also alleges that she was terminated, “as a means to reduce the nursing staff during COVID-19 due to a reduction in elective procedure and emergency room usage and to conceal its deficiencies in protecting its employees.” 

May 4, 2020
Fulmore v. City of Englewood, et al. (Bergen County Superior Court, New Jersey)
Plaintiff, who identifies himself as a public works employee, a union steward, and an associate minister for a church, claims retaliation and discrimination and purports to bring claims under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act and federal and states civil rights statutes. Plaintiff claims that he was treated with “hostility” after he complained that the defendant city “was not providing the employees in the [Department of Public Works] with proper safety equipment and was not properly isolating/quarantining the employees.” Plaintiff also claims that a defendant supervisor “improperly and unlawfully disclosed the name of the individual who had tested positive for COVID-19 to Plaintiff.” Per Plaintiff, among other things, his supervisor told him (and not others) to self-isolate due to exposure to a coworker diagnosed with COVID-19. Plaintiff also claims that another supervisor disclosed “Plaintiff’s confidential and private health information [the fact of requested self-quarantining] to the pastor of [the church at which Plaintiff serves as an associate minister].” Plaintiff requests compensatory, punitive and emotional distress damages and other relief.

McClendon v. USA Vinyl, LLC (Franklin County, Ohio)
Plaintiff, a quality control supervisor, alleges that he was discharged in violation of the FMLA, an Ohio disability discrimination law, and Ohio public policy. Plaintiff alleges he was discharged after he informed defendant that he had been in close contact with a person who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and that his doctor ordered him to self-quarantine for 14 days because he could not be tested for COVID-19. Plaintiff alleges that defendant “told him he was being discharged for reporting his proximity to a COVID-19 sufferer.”

Perrella v. Railroad Group, LLC, et al. (Burlington County, New Jersey)
Plaintiff, an “Accounts Payable/Assistant Controller,” alleges that defendants retaliated against her in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff, who alleges she is a high risk individual for COVID-19 because she suffers from several auto-immune disorders, claims she was terminated after raising concerns about defendants’ plans to take precautions against COVID-19 and complaining that she was forced to work in violation of a state shutdown order.

May 1, 2020
Korloff v. Barclay Water Management, Inc., et al. (Monmouth County New Jersey)
Plaintiff, a “Safe Delivery Specialist,” brings claims including disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and wrongful termination. He alleges that he suffered from a compromised immune system and his doctor provided a note that he should avoid working in the field, but that defendants refused to accommodate him. Plaintiff alleges that when his wife tested positive for COVID-19, he refused to attend work per his doctor’s orders and for the “health, safety, and welfare” of his coworkers. Plaintiff alleges he was laid off as a result and was told he “was not covered for paid leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.”

Lange v. Progressive Broadcasting Systems Inc. dba WFRN Radio (Elkhart County, Indiana)
Plaintiff, a 22-year sales representative for a Christian radio station, alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleges the defendant’s operations are “non-essential,” and that in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and an order from Indiana’s governor, she informed her employer of her intention to work from home. Plaintiff claims that in response, her work was transferred “to a colleague who intended to disobey the governor’s stay at home order,” and she was terminated.

April 30, 2020
Rivera v. Hovione, LLC, et al. (Burlington County, New Jersey)
Plaintiff, a Mechanical Technician with a pharmaceutical company, alleges wrongful termination, retaliation, and violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges he was terminated as a result of his complaints about a lack of PPE and proper prevention and screening for COVID-19.

Jaramillo v. Martin Hicks, et al. (Cibola County, New Mexico)
Plaintiff, the City Manager for the City of Grants, New Mexico, alleges that defendants violated the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act. Plaintiff claims that the Mayor of the City ordered her to keep a City-owned golf course open in violation of a public health order put in place as a result of COVID-19. Plaintiff alleges that when she protested and refused, she was terminated.

Kristy v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al. (Santa Clara County, California)
Plaintiff, a meat cutter, brings numerous causes of action including disability discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination/constructive discharge, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and defamation. He alleges that his coworkers and supervisors called him names and falsely accused him of having contracted COVID-19, and refused to work with him. Plaintiff alleges that the behavior was so severe that he was constructively terminated.

April 24, 2020
Dozier v. City of Jasper (Northern District of Alabama)
Plaintiff, a laborer with the City of Jasper’s Parks and Recreation Department, brings a claim for interference with the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act. Plaintiff alleges that she requested 12 weeks of leave to care for her children, whose schools were closed as a result of COVID-19, but the City refused her request and terminated her employment.

April 23, 2020
Reggio v. Tekin & Associates, LLC (County of Dallas, Texas)
Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination in violation of the public policy of the State of Texas. Plaintiff, who lives in Dallas County but works in Collin County, alleges she was terminated after she refused to violate a Dallas County shelter-in-place order that purportedly made it unlawful for her to travel to work in another county.

April 22, 2020
Milanes v. Alaris Health, LLC (Hudson County, New Jersey)
Plaintiff, a nurse, alleges retaliation and whistleblower claims under New Jersey law, as well as battery and fraud, against her former employer, a long-term care facility. Plaintiff, who contracted COVID-19 while working at the defendant nursing home facility, asserts that she was terminated after notifying local public health authorities of the defendant’s attempts to cover-up the spread of COVID-19 at the facility, as well as defendant’s failure to provide PPE to the staff.

Chapman v. Alaris Health, LLC (Hudson County, New Jersey)
A companion case to Milanes, Plaintiff, a nurses’ assistant, alleges that she was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy, and in violation of state whistleblower law. Plaintiff alleges that despite testing positive for COVID-19, defendant terminated her for not returning to work.

Frunzi v. MEI Group (Tarrant County, Texas)
Plaintiff alleges that his termination amounted to disability, age, and race discrimination, among other forms of discrimination, pursuant to the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Plaintiff states that he has a preexisting lung condition, of which the defendant employer was aware, and requested an accommodation in the form of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff alleges that he gave his employer a doctor’s note stating that he was at a heightened risk for COVID-19 because of his lung condition, and that the defendant terminated him the next day.

April 21, 2020
Woolslayer v. Driscoll (Western District of Pennsylvania)
Plaintiff alleges retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the President of Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for informing other employees of the University where he worked that a colleague’s family member had been infected with COVID-19.

Benavides v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, et al. (Washtenaw County, Michigan)
Plaintiff asserts disability discrimination claim under Michigan law. Plaintiff alleges that due to her possible infection with COVID-19, her supervisor and HR at the hospital where she worked advised her to not come to work until she received her COVID-19 test results. Plaintiff claims that despite this advice, after calling in sick for several days, the hospital terminated her for a “continued pattern of unscheduled absences.”

April 17, 2020
Andrews v. Andrews Hydra Platforms, Inc. (County of York, South Carolina)
Plaintiff alleges a violation of the federal Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)) and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated for seeking paid leave under the new federal law in order to take care of her children, whose school had been closed due to the pandemic.

April 16, 2020
Sizemore-Harvey v. Senior Haven LLC (Multnomah County, Oregon)
Plaintiff alleges state law whistleblower and sick leave retaliation claims against her former employer, an assisted living facility. Plaintiff claims she was terminated in violation of state law after she reported to defendants that she believed it was in violation state and federal safety rules by continuing to encourage elderly patients to continue group activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and after she exercised her right to take available sick leave to self-quarantine.

April 14, 2020
Hartsuch v. Howard Young Medical Center & Jennie Larsen (Western District of Wisconsin) (Amended)
Plaintiff, a physician employed by a staffing agency and assigned at the defendant medical center, reportedly complained in March 2020 about policies of the medical center, regarding Particulate Respirator N95 facemasks and regarding the discharge of COVID-19 patients unable to self-isolate. He also reportedly communicated with the medical center about, among other things, the supply of N95 facemasks. Plaintiff claims that he was thereafter removed from the schedule and then discharged. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated public policy and violated Wis. Stat. § 230.83, and that the individual defendant defamed him.

Thomas v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. (Northern District of Illinois)
Plaintiff, an emergency room nurse who suffers from asthma and is immuno-suppressed, alleges she was fired in violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act and the FMLA, in part due to having taken intermittent FMLA leave in the past. Plaintiff alleges she was assigned to a room that lacked negative air pressure, and was thus especially dangerous due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff alleges that she requested safety precautions and PPE, but was subsequently fired.

April 13, 2020
Norris v. Schoppenhorst-Underwood & Brooks Funeral Home, LLC (Bullitt Circuit Court, Kentucky)
Plaintiff, the president of a funeral home, alleges she was terminated for attempting to comply with a public mandate intended to slow the spread of COVID-19. Plaintiff discussed with staff how to safely conduct funeral services and alleges that the owner of the funeral home terminated her employment after telling her that he was not going to limit the size of gatherings at funerals or implement more frequent cleaning and disinfecting.

April 9, 2020
Lynch v. Delisa Demolition (State of New Jersey, Monmouth Superior Court)
Plaintiff alleges that defendants wrongly terminated his employment in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A 10:5-1, et seq., where plaintiff was purportedly separated March 31, 2020, “two days before he was scheduled to return to work from a physician-ordered and government-mandated quarantine for symptoms consistent with the novel coronavirus.” Plaintiff claims wrongful discrimination based handicap and retaliation.

Michael Manwell v. Rochester Gear, Inc. (Eastern District of Michigan)
Plaintiff asserting wrongful termination where plaintiff was allegedly sent home after demonstrating symptoms possibly related to COVID-19. Plaintiff claims that by separating him on March 23, 2020, defendant violated the FMLA and public policy.

April 8, 2020
King v. Trader Joe’s East, Inc. (Jefferson Circuit Court, Kentucky)
Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination in violation of Kentucky public policy and various Kentucky statutes. Plaintiff alleges he was terminated because he complained about workplace safety regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and made numerous requests to Trader Joe’s to implement safety measures in accordance with the Kentucky governor’s executive orders and CDC guidance.

April 7, 2020
Dent v. PruittHealth (State of South Carolina, County of Bamberg, Court of County Pleas)
Plaintiff, an LPN Charge Nurse whose employment purportedly ended on March 13, 2020, alleges that defendant violated S.C. Code Ann. Section 44-4-530(E) [“An employer may not fire, demote, or otherwise discriminate against an employee complying with an isolation or quarantine order…”] and “other mandates of public policy relating to the standard of nursing care in nursing home facilities.” Plaintiff was allegedly told to be off for 14 days after she reported possible exposure to a relative who had in turn possibly been exposed to COVID-19, and alleges she was then terminated.

April 3, 2020
Hanson v. Marshall County (Marshall County Circuit Court)
Plaintiff alleges wrongful discharge in violation of Kentucky public policy, and in violation of a Kentucky whistleblower law. Plaintiff alleges she was terminated from her 911 dispatch position for voicing concerns to her supervisor about the lack of protective measures to protect employees from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

April 2, 2020
Webster v. Tower Construction Management LLC (Leon County Circuit Court)
Plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of Florida’s Whistleblower Act. Plaintiff claims that she engaged in allegedly protected whistleblower activity when she requested a remote work accommodation in light of her and her daughter’s stated health conditions and concern for COVID-19 exposure, and that she was terminated as a result.

Guaypatin v. Olshan Realty LLC (Southern District of New York)
Plaintiff, a former assistant property manager, alleges violations under New York and federal law in connection with her termination. Plaintiff asserts that her employer claimed she was being terminated because her employer believed she had been potentially been exposed to COVID-19 through her daughter’s school. The plaintiff alleges her termination was pretext for national origin discrimination (Ecuadorian) and harassment in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff also alleges that her employer deprived her of wages in violation of the New York Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying her as exempt from overtime.

March 27, 2020
Robbie Payne and Erica Shaw v. Radio Communications Systems Inc. dba RCS Communications (Jefferson County Circuit Court)
Plaintiffs, a former warehouse manager and a former administrative assistant, allege that they were wrongfully terminated in violation of Kentucky public policy. Plaintiffs claim they were terminated because they raised health and safety concerns related to their employer’s obligations to mitigate COVID-19 exposure under the “general duties” provision of Kentucky’s Occupational Safety and Health Act. 

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.