Robert half Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

The Class Action Settlement

On August 7, 2021, in San Francisco, CA, the California Court of Appeals upheld an employee a right to file a class action lawsuit against Robert Half. RHI attempted to force Jessica Gentry, alone, out of her position as an Accountant at Robert Half International. She was a longstanding employee there but was forced into this position, without notice or alternative, by RHI. The company denied her claim, and pursued the matter in court, where it received a hearing before the Employment Relations Commission.

Robert half Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

The ERAC determined that RHI discriminated against Gentry based on her gender and Title VII, a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on sex, race, religion, national origin or age. The corporation also argued that it could not be expected that all of their HR staff members, which would include all of the account executives, would be familiar with all the legal issues involved. At the hearing, the court issued a decision in favor of Gentry, holding that RHI had indeed violated Title VII, regardless of whether or not all of the account executives knew about the anti-gambling provisions. In a nutshell, the court held that if an employer has a general understanding that a potential employee has been subjected to discrimination, that employee is not protected from that discrimination. According to the ERAC, an understanding is not a legally binding requirement, but if an employee is able to establish that they were subjected to discrimination, then they have the ability to sue.

The dispute was then turned over to the California Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that Jessica Gentry had the right to pursue a case to recover damages from RHI and ordered the state to repay her fees. Because of this ruling, Robert Half Class Action lawsuit began to move towards arbitration. In an article on Page Six in the Los Angeles Times, John Bingham discusses the lawsuit’s chances of reaching a settlement through arbitration:

If the arbitration process can’t work out between the two sides, the case will go to trial, at which point either party can file their own claims and responses to claims. If a settlement agreement is reached, however, either party is obligated to submit any and all evidence they can possibly present to the jury. If the plaintiff wins the case, they’re entitled to their own lawyer, and if the defendant wins, they have to put forward their own attorney. However, there’s a very good reason to think that defendants might offer a settlement: they have to, since they’ve put up their own money to get on the stand. It’s only in very rare cases that lawyers for both sides come to an agreement.

If you know anything about California Civil Law, you know that plaintiffs are often less likely to receive compensation than defendants. Why is this so?

First, there’s the question of whether the complaint states a claim is valid. The easiest way to prove a case is legally sufficient to persuade a judge that your rights have been violated; the defendant can avoid this by pointing out that the plaintiffs have not presented a case that shows the infringement of any legitimate right. By calling their own attorney “sued to,” defendants are asking for a break from having to actually prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another reason that defendants are willing to enter into individual arbitration agreements rather than going through the more expensive class action claims is that they face a much greater risk of losing their case before the case gets to court

. If a judge believes that you have established a valid case, he may award damages to you. On the other hand, if he rules in your favor, he may also award you attorney fees, or may even rule that the negligent manufacturer of the product is liable for all of the victims’ injuries.

Rule 8.1115(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that an expert witness is unbiased and detached from any party to the suit who may give testimony concerning the “proposed” class.

According to this rule, expert witnesses are supposed to “give knowledge and opinion as a reasonable man would have observed or reasonably should have observed.” How do experts testify as a “reasonable man?” Rule 8.1115(a) requires that they “refer to” any evidence relating to the “proposed class” and “any” class members. The word “any” class member refers to any person that a plaintiff’s attorney believes would likely join the “class.”

The above discussion illustrates that it is very difficult for plaintiffs to obtain class action status when filing their California claims. It also demonstrates that class action lawsuits are not appropriate for large personal injury cases, such as automobile and medical liability claims. If you have been injured due to someone else’s negligence or recklessness, it is highly recommended that you seek representation from an experienced litigation lawyer in your area who is familiar with the laws of the state in which you live and the statutory class action waiver provisions. If you do decide to pursue such a case, please be sure to contact an experienced personal injury attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *