The former general counsel of baby products manufacturer Munchkin, Inc., has filed a lawsuit against the company alleging a toxic work culture, discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination at both Munchkin and its parent company, Why Brands, Inc.
The complaint in Berkowitz v. Munchkin, Inc., filed July 25 in the Superior Court of California, alleged that while the company “positions itself as a utopia for women, children, and families,” its culture is “the polar opposite.” Rather, the company is “plagued by discrimination, cruelty, and retaliation” led by Munchkin’s chief brand officer, who allegedly was involved in a romantic relationship with the CEO.
The chief brand officer allegedly “was engaged in a War on Families that included disparaging mothers as ‘crazy’ or ‘cowards,’ who ‘can’t have it all, and even reprimanding them on Bring Your Kids to Work Day with their children present,” per the complaint.
The plaintiff tried to investigate the potentially unlawful conduct but allegedly was met with “swift and personal retaliation,” including attacks on his character and competence,before his eventual termination, according to court documents.
The complaint alleged that Munchkin violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA, by discriminating against the former general counsel based on his gender, “subjecting him to a workplace permeated by widespread sexual favoritism and graphic nude images” and knowingly allowing the chief brand officer to sexually harass him. The company also allegedly retaliated against the plaintiff as “a direct and proximate result of [the plaintiff’s] protected activity.”
FEHA protects workers from harassment or discrimination over age, ancestry, color, creed, denial of family and medical care leave, disability, marital status, medical condition, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.
The complaint alleged the company’s retaliatory behavior also violated the California Whistleblower Protection Act and that its termination of the plaintiff violated state public policy.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of at least $10 million, punitive damages, coverage of attorneys’ fees and costs as allowable and demands a jury trial. Munchkin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a previous case filed in the same court, a former Taco Bell cashier said the company allegedly didn’t take action after she was threatened by co-workers for reporting misconduct at a restaurant Christmas party at which her colleagues were openly having sex.
In that case, the employee’s lawsuit alleged discrimination, sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, retaliation and failure to investigate under FEHA and the California Labor Code.
