Blog :

Minami Tamaki LLP is investigating allegations that telehealth counseling network BetterHelp, Inc. mismanaged sensitive health information.

Based in Mountain View, California, BetterHelp offers online counseling services under several names, including: BetterHelp, Compile, MyTherapist, iCounseling, Terappeuta, Teen Counseling, Pride Counseling, Faithful Counseling, and ReGain.

In 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a proposed order banning BetterHelp from sharing consumers’ health data for advertising. The proposed order also required BetterHelp to pay $7.8 million to settle charges that it revealed sensitive customer data after promising to keep such data private.

The FTC alleged that BetterHelp used consumers’ e-mail addresses and the fact that they had previously been in therapy to instruct Facebook to identify similar consumers and target them with advertisements for BetterHelp’s counseling services.

The allegations against BetterHelp are particularly concerning given the sensitive nature of the information managed by the platform with which the platform deals. Many individuals turn to online therapy services like BetterHelp for assistance with mental health issues that they may be reluctant to discuss in person.

If you used BetterHelp counseling services and wish to discuss this matter, you may contact Minami Tamaki at (415) 788-9000 or through our online form. We look forward to the opportunity to speak with you.

See coverage of this case in the Sacramento Bee and ABC10 Sacramento. 

Minami Tamaki LLP is pleased to announce a judgment for its client Rouble Claire in a civil lawsuit against Sutter County and two sheriff’s deputies.

Mr. Claire, a first-generation Sikh American whose family has called Sutter, California, home since 1973, alleged that the Sutter County sheriff’s office failed to adequately investigate a pair of racist hate crimes he experienced in 2021.

On May 11, 2021, a woman confronted Mr. Claire in the parking lot of a local store. The woman shouted at Mr. Claire, including calling him a “f—— Hindu.”  The woman then sped towards Mr. Claire in her car, only swerving away at the last moment.  Mr. Claire called 911 and waited for the Sheriff’s Office to report to the scene, but no one arrived at the scene, so Mr. Claire returned to his home.

Later that same day, an associate of the woman who threatened Mr. Claire in the parking lot went to his house and wrote “Sand N—–” in chalk on the street and on his driveway, and called him “N—–.”  Mr. Claire again called law enforcement to report this incident, but the Sheriff’s Office failed to make any arrests, failed to further investigate, and failed to even prepare a report of the two incidents that day. 

One deputy who responded to the chalking incident poured water on the chalking in an attempt to wash away the evidence of the racial slurs before taking photos of the scene.

Over the next several months, Mr. Claire continued to contact the Sheriff’s Office about these disturbing incidents, but the Sheriff’s Office refused to take action.  Mr. Claire sought the assistance of the Sikh Coalition, which continued to follow up with the Sheriff’s Office.  The Sheriff’s Office finally prepared a police report that recommended criminal charges against the woman who threatened Ms. Claire in the parking lot.  However, the Sutter County District Attorney’s Office (the “District Attorney”) declined to press charges.  The District Attorney’s office cited the amount of time that had elapsed between the incidents and the preparation of the report recommending charges as a reason not to prosecute the matter, despite the fact that this delay was due to the Sheriff’s Office’s months-long delay in investigating this matter and recommending charges. 

On May 9, 2022, Minami Tamaki LLP and Szeto-Wong Law filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of California against Sutter County, two officers of the Sutter County Sheriff’s Office, and the two women who Mr. Claire harassed him.

Mr. Claire and his legal team secured an offer of judgment from Sutter County and the Sheriff’s deputies as to Mr. Claire’s claims that they violated his rights, which the court entered in his favor.

“This judgment reflects the unavoidable fact that Sutter County’s institutions failed our client,” Szeto-Wong and Tamura-Sato said in a joint statement Monday. “No one should have to experience hateful words or conduct – nor should they go months without an adequate investigation or have their legitimate concerns belittled and ignored when the safety of them and their family is at risk.”

The case is Claire v. County of Sutter, et al., 22-cv-00780-WBS-AC, Eastern District of California.

See coverage of this case in the Sacramento Bee and ABC10 Sacramento.

Minami Tamaki LLP’s Consumer and Employee Rights Group is representing sleep technologists in their legal claims regarding the failure of their employers to provide legally mandated meal periods and rest periods.  

Sleep technologists, also called polysomnographic technologists, assist sleep specialists in documenting and analyzing sleep study patterns. A physician may refer a patient for a sleep study, which is an overnight visit to a sleep center to diagnose sleep disorders.  

Sleep technologists provide overnight care to these patients, often working shifts of 12 hours or longer. Sleep technologists monitor the breathing, movement, oxygen levels, and brain activity of patients throughout the night to determine what may be disrupting their sleep patterns.  

An individual sleep technologist is often required to monitor two to three patients at the same time. Minami Tamaki is representing sleep technologists who allege that they are regularly forced to monitor these patients throughout the night without being provided meal period or rest periods as required by law.  

California law states that an employer may not require a non-exempt employee to work for a period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent. A second meal period of not less than 30 minutes is required if an employee works more than ten hours per day, except that if the total worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent as long as the first meal period was not waived. Non-exempt employees are also entitled to a ten-minute rest break for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof.

Minami Tamaki has extensive experience in litigation regarding the fundamental workplace right to receive meal periods and rest periods.  For more information on litigation regarding wage and hour claims on behalf of sleep technologists, you may contact Minami Tamaki Consumer and Employee Rights Group attorneys Sean Tamura-Sato and Lisa Mak online or call us at 415-788-9000.

*The contents of this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.  Information in this article may not constitute the most complete or up-to-date legal or other information.  Readers should contact a licensed California attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. Use of this website does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Minami Tamaki LLP.

The tech industry has recently been hit by a series of major layoffs that will impact thousands of employees. Meta, Twitter, Lyft, and Stripe, among others, have all announced major job cuts in the face of economic challenges.

The decision to conduct layoffs is always difficult, especially when there is an urgency to implement layoffs quickly. Common issues that arise in layoffs include:

Potential employment discrimination claims. Employers must develop objective criteria for layoff decisions. Employers that fail to base layoff decisions on nondiscriminatory reasons, such as quality of work, may be subject to employment discrimination claims.   

Potential retaliation claims. Employees who have complained of suspected violations of the law may have grounds to pursue a retaliation claim if selected for a layoff.  

Disparate impact on protected classes. Employers should review selection criteria to determine if they will disproportionately affect older employees, employees with disabilities, or any other group protected by employment laws.  

Advance notice requirements. In some cases, employers are required to provide advance notice of layoffs under the federal WARN Act or the California WARN Act.  

While most employers are not legally required to offer severance packages to laid-off employees, many employers will decide to do so voluntarily. Issues for employers and employees to consider in severance agreements include:

Release of claims. Employers may condition severance payment, or increased payment, on the employee signing a waiver of potential legal claims against the employer. Employees should consider the impact of giving up the right to pursue such claims before agreeing to accept severance payments.

Confidentiality and non-disparagement. In exchange for a severance payment, employers often seek to force employees to agree not to discuss the terms of the severance package or to make negative statements about the employer. California has recently placed limitations on some of these restrictive clauses, which employers should be careful to comply with. 

Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Non-compete agreements that prevent former employees from working for a company’s competitors are generally not enforceable in California.    

Protections for older workers. The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act requires that employers provide workers who are at least 40 years old with at least 21 days to consider a severance offer.  

Employees are not required to simply accept an employer’s offer of a severance package in exchange for waiving their legal rights. Severance agreements can sometimes be negotiated, and employees can seek more favorable terms.  

For more information on reductions in force and severance agreements, you may contact Minami Tamaki Consumer and Employee Rights Group attorneys Sean Tamura-Sato and Lisa Mak online or call us at 415-788-9000.

*The content of this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.  Information in this article may not constitute the most complete or up-to-date legal or other information.  Readers should contact a licensed California attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. Use of this website does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Minami Tamaki LLP.