Joy Ann Julian, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive
Published: Sep. 30, 2022 | Result Date: Mar. 24, 2022 | Filing Date: Dec. 30, 2020 |Case number: 3:20-cv-09446-VC Settlement – $275,000
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Howard L. Magee
(Diversity Law Group PC)
Larry W. Lee
(Diversity Law Group PC)
Simon Lee Yang
(Diversity Law Group PC)
William L. Marder
(Polaris Law Group LLP)
Dennis S. Hyun
(Hyun Legal APC)
Defendant
Allison C. Eckstrom
(Bryan, Cave, Leighton & Paisner LLP)
Daria D. Carlson
(Bryan, Cave, Leighton & Paisner LLP)
Facts
Walgreen is a retail pharmacy with locations throughout the United States, including several stores in California. On February 20, 2018, Joy Ann Julian was hired by Walgreen, Co. to work as a non-exempt customer service associate in its San Mateo location. She began pregnancy leave on November 29, 2019, and worked her final day at the Walgreen on November 28, 2019. She was terminated on January 29, 2020. On November 16, 2020, Julian brought an action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Mateo against Walgreen Co. on behalf of all current and former non-exempt California employees who were paid sick pay in the same workweek in which they earned non-discretionary incentive wages since May 20, 2016.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant failed to pay sick pay wages at the regular rate of pay by not factoring non-discretionary remuneration, including shift differentials and shift premiums into the regular rate of pay for calculating sick pay wages. Moreover, plaintiff argued that defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements and engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices by utilizing employment policies and practices that failed to pay all wages due. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant failed to accommodate her pregnancy and disability despite receiving medical documentation from her, failed to engage in a good faith interactive process, and unlawfully terminated her for being pregnant in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Finally, plaintiff alleged that as a result of defendant's maliciously and intentional unlawful discrimination, she has suffered and continues to suffer compensatory damages, including lost wages, loss of future earnings, loss of bonuses, emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and damage to her reputation in the business community.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.
Result
$275,000 settlement.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390