A three-year investigation conducted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determined that clothing retailer, Wet Seal Inc., favored a caucasian workforce. Additionally, the EEOC found that Wet Seal’s upper level management had discriminated against Nicole Cogdell, a former store manager by removing her from her manager’s role.
Nicole Cogdell and two other former managers filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the company alleging an upper management policy of bias against its African-American employees. The lawsuit accused Wet Seal of catering to young caucasian women, of adopting a policy of firing and denying promotions and pay to its black employees in favor of hiring white workers who better fit the company’s “brand image.”
As evidence that discrimination was prevalent at “the executive level,” the suit included a 2009 email sent by former Senior Vice President of Store Operations, Barbara Bachman, to her employees pointing out the dominance of African-American workers as a “huge issue.”
One of the plaintiffs, Nicole Cogdell, an African-American store manager, claimed in the lawsuit she was fired one month after Bachman visited her store. According to Cogdell, two sales clerks overheard Bachman saying that the manager should have “blond hair and blue eyes.” Bachman later threatened to fire the Philadelphia district manager unless Cogdell was fired, the suit alleges. “I was shocked. I was humiliated. I was even embarrassed someone could say something like that and not look at the end results, which was the sales and customer service,” Cogdell said in an interview.
Another plaintiff, Kai Hawkins, alleges that she was told to diversify the staff by hiring non-African American workers. She was given a thirty-day deadline and threatened with termination unless she complied. “African-American employees were terminated despite doing a good job and without any explanation,” Hawkins said in the suit.
Following the EEOC’s investigation and the racial discrimination class action lawsuit Wet Seal purged its board and replaced Chief Executive Susan McGalla in January with John D. Goodman. The new executive team has agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle the class action lawsuit. Approximately $5.58 million of the amount will go into a fund to cover damages to black current and former Wet Seal managers
Wet Seal, In., has also agreed to track applications to ensure hiring diversity, expand its human resources department to allow for better investigation of discrimination complaints and maintain a council of advisors for guidance on equal employment tactics, according to the NAACP, an African-American civil rights organization.
In a statement released by Wet Seal, Inc. the retailer said its collaboration with the plaintiffs played an “important role in redefining the company and positioning it for success.”
“We appreciate the insights we have gained from plaintiffs’ counsel and the EEOC for our best-practices initiatives,” Goodman said. “We are pleased to put this matter behind us as we continue to be committed to nondiscriminatory employment practices that create a welcome environment for people of all backgrounds.”
Both Federal and California Employment Laws protect employees from a variety of discrimination, including racial, gender, religious and disability. If you have suffered wrongful termination or discrimination, please give California Employment Attorney, Todd M. Friedman a call at 877-449-8898 for a free consultation.
Quick Navigation
Free Consultation
"*" indicates required fields
Undisclosed
Settlement
TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.
TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.
Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.
TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.
TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.
Class-wide settlement in wage and hour independent contractor misclassification class action on behalf of approximately 1,800 valet employees. Final approval granted.
Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.
$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.
One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.
Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.
Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.
With so many law firms in Southern California and throughout the United States, why choose the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman?
Todd Friedman has been named a 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 Super Lawyer, a distinction of professional achievement and peer recognition.
Speak directly with attorney Todd Friedman about your case. Todd will evaluate your situation and provide prompt and straightforward feedback, saving you time and alleviating uncertainty.
Our firm has earned an A+ Rating from the Better Business Bureau, and has been accredited since 2010.
We are strong advocates for our clients and have the resources necessary to take on powerful opponents and win.
Contact Us
and start fighting back
We offer Free Initial Consultations.
If you have experienced a violation of your rights, call us at 323-690-1688 or fill out the form to the right →
Not ready to commit yet? Check out our Testimonials page and see what others have said about their experience working with us!
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site, including collecting and providing that information to third party vendors to improve our experience, and for marketing purposes. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.