In Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Found, 237 Cal.App.4th 78 (2015), the court held that “an employee’s inability to work under a particular supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to the supervisor’s standard oversight of the employee’s job performance does not constitute a mental disability under FEHA.” This could have very possibly been a different…
I am pleased to announce that I just obtained a Judgment in the amount of $680,172.00 against a company for not paying my clients overtime and minimum wages.
California courts hold that an unsuccessful plaintiff that files a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is only liable for the prevailing defendant’s attorneys’ fees if the Court finds that the case was frivolous. However, what about costs? Litigation costs can be substantial and may be a factor in deciding whether or…
The United States Supreme Court in Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n held that “typical” mortgage loan officers are not exempt and therefore entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.
In March 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Navarro, et al. v. Encino Motorcars, LLC, held that “Service Advisors” working at a car dealership were not exempt, and thus entitled to receive overtime wages.
A California Labor Commissioner recently held that Uber drivers are “Employees” and not “Contractors”. In reaching its decision, the Labor Commissioner reasoned that Uber controls the tools driver use, monitors their approval ratings and terminates their access to the system if their ratings fall below 4.6 stars. This decision could have a massive chilling effect…
California Labor Code Section 232 provides that: No employer may do any of the following: (a) Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages. (b) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose the…
The Court in Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries (1995) held that an employee may bring a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy if the employee was terminated for complaining to his employer about not being paid wages or overtime pay. In addition, Labor Code Section 232 prohibits employers from discharging an employee…
One of my business clients recently had a disgruntled employee that took confidential data/information from my client and then demanded that my client pay money under the threat of disclosing the confidential data/information. I immediately filed suit against the disgruntled employee and within 1 week obtained an injunction requiring the now former employee to return…
In addition to guaranteed leave for pregnant employees, California law requires employers with 5 or more employees to reasonably accommodate an employee’s pregnancy and related medical conditions to the same extent as it would accommodate other disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 12945(b)(1).)
