The previous basic counsel of child merchandise producer Munchkin, Inc., has filed a lawsuit in opposition to the corporate alleging a poisonous work tradition, discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination at each Munchkin and its dad or mum firm, Why Manufacturers, Inc.
The grievance in Berkowitz v. Munchkin, Inc., filed July 25 within the Superior Court docket of California, alleged that whereas the corporate “positions itself as a utopia for girls, kids, and households,” its tradition is “the polar reverse.” Fairly, the corporate is “suffering from discrimination, cruelty, and retaliation” led by Munchkin’s chief model officer, who allegedly was concerned in a romantic relationship with the CEO.
The chief model officer allegedly “was engaged in a Struggle on Households that included disparaging moms as ‘loopy’ or ‘cowards,’ who ‘can’t have all of it, and even reprimanding them on Convey Your Children to Work Day with their kids current,” per the grievance.
The plaintiff tried to analyze the possibly illegal conduct however allegedly was met with “swift and private retaliation,” together with assaults on his character and competence,earlier than his eventual termination, in response to courtroom paperwork.
The grievance alleged that Munchkin violated the California Truthful Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA, by discriminating in opposition to the previous basic counsel based mostly on his gender, “subjecting him to a office permeated by widespread sexual favoritism and graphic nude photographs” and knowingly permitting the chief model officer to sexually harass him. The corporate additionally allegedly retaliated in opposition to the plaintiff as “a direct and proximate results of [the plaintiff’s] protected exercise.”
FEHA protects employees from harassment or discrimination over age, ancestry, shade, creed, denial of household and medical care go away, incapacity, marital standing, medical situation, nationwide origin, race, faith, intercourse and sexual orientation.
The grievance alleged the corporate’s retaliatory habits additionally violated the California Whistleblower Safety Act and that its termination of the plaintiff violated state public coverage.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of no less than $10 million, punitive damages, protection of attorneys’ charges and prices as allowable and calls for a jury trial. Munchkin didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark.
In a earlier case filed in the identical courtroom, a former Taco Bell cashier stated the corporate allegedly didn’t take motion after she was threatened by co-workers for reporting misconduct at a restaurant Christmas celebration at which her colleagues have been brazenly having intercourse.
In that case, the worker’s lawsuit alleged discrimination, sexual harassment, a hostile work surroundings, retaliation and failure to analyze beneath FEHA and the California Labor Code.
