LOS ANGELES (CNS) – A woman who sued an advertising agency in Culver City, claiming she was wrongly fired last May for raising concerns about the honesty of a marketing deal from Princess Cruises that she believed was A judge ruled today that he has minimized the health threat from the coronavirus must revise your entire complaint so that it continues.

Los Angeles Supreme Court Justice Barbara Scheper said all six pleas in Tiffani Harcrow’s lawsuit v Omelet LLC in the Los Angeles Supreme Court – including retaliation against whistleblowers, wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair business practices – would have to be clarified more precisely.

As an example, the judge said that Harcrow’s whistleblower retaliation was not based on her belief that she was being punished for coming forward and that she believed the marketing campaign she found offensive was against the non – Violated CDC sailing instructions.

“The no-sail orders issued by the CDC did not prohibit marketing by cruise lines,” Scheper wrote. “Nothing in the CDC … commands Princess Cruises to develop or run a marketing campaign. In fact, the … orders don’t even stop cruise ships from operating as long as they develop a plan to contain the spread of COVID-19 and get U.S. Coast Guard approval. ”

Scheper also wrote that Harcrow was not giving enough support that her emotional burden was severe.

“There are no allegations here of behavior that is so extreme that it transcends all boundaries of behavior that is normally tolerated in a civilized community,” the judge wrote.

Scheper gave Harcrow attorneys 20 days to file an amended complaint. She scheduled a case management conference on March 23rd.

The 33-year-old plaintiff was hired as the assistant creative director of Omelet in May 2018 and received “glowing reviews” for her work. This emerges from her court files filed on June 22nd, in which she was described by Omelet’s management as “everything consistent” -star and praised as one of Omelet’s best creative professionals. ”

But in April, Omelet urged Harcrow and her team to develop a “materially false, misleading and dangerous marketing campaign for … Princess Cruise Lines”, a corporate client.

Omelet wanted an aggressive marketing campaign designed to “mislead consumers” and believes it is safe to travel on a Princess cruise ship by June 30th when the opposite is true.

Harcrow claims she shared an April 22 omelette briefing with the alleged purpose of Princess to mislead customers into believing the cruise lines are safe. By then, however, Harcrow and other Omelet employees and managers knew that congressional and government agencies were investigating alleged failures of cruise lines to protect the health of passengers and employees, the lawsuit said.

“Omelet’s misleading campaign has clearly violated its own core values, to always tell the truth, the suit claims.

On March 14, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a no-sail order suspending cruise lines and other air carriers for 30 days. The next month the policy was extended to July 24, the lawsuit said.

Harcrow said she objected to Princess Cruises’ assignment to regulators and complained about it and asked if there were any safety logs in place. She also stated that to testify by the public that it would be legal, let alone safe to travel on a cruise line on June 30, was against CDC instructions.

“As a result, Harcrow told her managers that she reasonably believed the campaign was misleading, fraudulent, unethical … and would endanger the health, safety and lives of consumers,” according to her court records.

In response, Harcrow’s manager said, “I wouldn’t put my family on a cruise ship for fear of catching COVID-19, but it was our duty to our client to ask the public to do so,” the suit claims.

Harcrow was fired on May 6, and all of their responsibilities were transferred to employees who had no objection to omelets “dangerous, misleading and illegal marketing campaigns”.

Photo: Getty Images

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR