Articles Tagged with Los Angeles employment lawyer

by

Roughly 70 workers at a private, non-profit museum in Los Angeles is facing a possible class action lawsuit for allegedly violating California’s WARN Act, which compels employers to offer at least a 60-day advance warning both to employees and local government agencies if there will be a plant closure, major relocation or mass layoff. As our Los Angeles labor lawyers can explain, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, found in California Labor Code 1400-1408LC, entitles workers denied this notification to receive back pay and benefits for the period of violation (the period by which their advance notice fell short of those 60 days). Los Angeles WARN Act lawyer

While most of the Golden State’s wrongful termination laws pertain to the rights of individual employees, the WARN Act protects workers fired/laid off in connection with a mass layoff (50 or more workers laid off within 30 days of each other), a company closure or relocation of substantial business activities to a physical location more than 100 miles away. The law only applies to companies that have employed 75 or more workers in the year preceding, and companies are exempted if the closure/layoffs/relocation is due to some act of war or physical calamity. It’s similar to the U.S. WARN Act, 29 USC;2104(a), but extends greater worker protections.

This kind of advance notice is key for workers and their families, who will need time to transition and adjust to employment loss and seek alternative income sources and/or job training while still providing for their family in the immediate future. The reason local government is included in this notification is that the California Employment Development Department has an established Rapid Response Team to aid both employers and employees in the midst of a mass layoff or company closing. They offer information about dislocated worker services available, unemployment insurance options, income support and assistance with job training and job searches. Continue reading

by

“No-rehire” clauses have long been boilerplate verbiage in employment lawsuit settlements. If you sue your employer for harassment or wage-and-hour violations or discrimination, you might well get compensation for your trouble – but you may still be out of a job. In California, that era is coming to an end. no rehire clause California

Starting Jan. 1, 2020, AB 749 will go into effect, stipulating that with only limited exception, all no-rehire provisions in employment settlement agreements will be considered void as a matter of law.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed the bill seeking to end this common practice, by which both sides agree to part ways, with the understanding the employee’s subsequent application won’t be considered or if by chance the worker is hired again, that employment can be automatically terminated. Continue reading

by

An increasing number of tech-based software companies that hire workers in a non-traditional setting are facing down the potential of a wave of employment lawsuits – potentially class action litigation – because of the fact they have long likely been misclassifying workers. Employment attorneys for companies looking to ward off this potential expense are preemptively doling out checks. If cashed, these payments have the effect of a worker signing away any possible right to pursuit of a future claim.Los Angles employee misclassification worker

Workers are strongly advised against cashing these checks until reviewing their legal rights with a Los Angeles employee misclassification lawyer – because your claim to damages from an employee lawsuit may far exceed the amount on that check.

That’s because by designating drivers and others as “independent contractors” as opposed to employees, companies like Lyft, Uber and a new startup, Getaround Inc., are able to sidestep any duty to cover major expenses like retirement benefits, overtime, workers’ compensation and various liabilities to third parties for worker negligence. Companies also get away with denying routine rights, such as regular breaks and mealtimes. Collectively, this all adds up to significant coin. Continue reading

by

Payroll processing companies can’t be held liable for the errors that employees of other firms claim resulted in their being shortchanged, the California Supreme Court ruled recently, reversing an appellate court’s decision. L.A. wage theft attorney

In a case that originated in Los Angeles Superior Court, employees filed a third-party claim for damages against the payroll company contracted by the worker’s employer. Defendant payroll company attorneys argued California’s Labor Code doesn’t allow employers to assign duty for accuracy in wage statements to third parties. Bloomberg reported in December an estimated there are 1,100 payroll process service companies statewide.

Los Angeles employment lawyers had been watching the case closely, knowing that if the high court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor, it would have meant those firms could be subject to liability in California wage-and-hour employment litigation. Continue reading

by

The overwhelming majority of American corporations listed in the Fortune 500 have settled at least one employment discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit, according to a corporate industry study by a national accountability and development think-tank. Good Jobs First reports these included both individual employment lawsuits as well as class action claims, with 189 large firms like Bank of America and Coca-Cola and Walmart paying out nearly $2 billion in settlements and penalties since 2000 – roughly 35 percent of those stemming from private lawsuits (as opposed to those filed by the EEOC or Federal Contract Compliance Programs). Private lawsuits accounted for 79 percent of the $2 billion in payouts. Those are only the cases in which settlements were disclosed. employment discrimination attorney Los Angeles

The big business that has paid the most in disclosed employment discrimination claims is Bank of America, which has paid approximately $210 million in settlements. Coca-Cola is a close second at $200 million, Novartis in third at $183 million, Morgan & Stanley fourth at $150 million and Abercrombie & Fitch rounding out the top five at $90 million. Of the parent companies that disclosed employment lawsuit penalties, 40 percent were involved in more than one case.

Walmart had the largest number of cases, but had paid out less than the others in the last 20 years – 52 million. The study authors note this likely would have been much higher if Walmart v. Dukes, a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case had a different outcome. In that case, a female Walmart worker filed for class certification alleging gender discrimination, alleging some 1.6 million former and current employees of the company qualified for the class. In a split 5-4 decision, the high court reversed the Ninth District’s ruling and determined the workers didn’t have enough in common for class certification.  Continue reading

by

Employees at giant tech companies are figuring out ways to exercise free speech and protest against employment attorneysassignments they find ethically questionable, in spite of at-will laws that could get them fired for such acts of rebellion, according to CNBC. Employees at big names such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are staging protests and signing petitions largely in response to government contracts requesting work they find objectionable. Some examples include facial recognition software being used by police, improved military drone technology, and technology used in immigration and customs enforcement.

Nondisclosure agreements and general fear of losing their jobs have kept workers quiet about moral gray areas when it comes to tech work in the past. The First Amendment protects free speech, preventing the government from impeding on rights of U.S. citizens. Those rights, however, do not protect people from their places of business taking action against them. Whistleblower laws offer some safeguards, but only if an employee is reporting illegal activity. They do not protect employees who are taking a stance against legal projects to which they have an ethical objection. Public dissent against the company you work for is not protected and could easily get a person fired. Continue reading

by

A longtime agent in Tennessee has filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles-headquartered Agency for the Performingemployment lawyers Arts alleging a hostile work environment and seeking to be released from his contract. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee. Plaintiff claims executives at the agency have tried to edge him out and take his clients, sent hostile and abusive emails to him, and threw him into a wall during an argument, according to a report from Tennessean. The agent alleged an internal inquiry into the events led to a vague response from the company, essentially calling on all parties involved to follow the rules and get along. Plaintiff found this conclusion unacceptable, and believes APA’s tolerance of a hostile work environment frees him of his contract, which is set to expire in 2019. Continue reading

by

According to a report last year by CareerBuilder, research conducted on behalf of the site shows 78 percent of American workers live paycheck-to-paycheck. The numberwage dispute attorneys breaks down further: 38 percent responded they sometimes live paycheck-to-paycheck, 17 percent said usually and 23 percent answered always. The overall percentage goes up for women (81 percent).

CareerBuilder’s chief human resources officer described these employee financial struggles as a problem for employers, citing that stressed out workers are less focused and less productive. Still, while a happy workforce can help financial standing long term, many employers can’t help but focus on immediate gains made by keeping wages as low as possible. Others may go as far as to dig into those already low wages even further to pad out their bottom line by making employees cover expenses related to the job.

This is what about 250,000 former and current employees of Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, and other affiliated stores are claiming happened to them, as far back as 2009, according to a report from The Columbus Dispatch. Workers alleged they were forced to buy and wear clothing from their stores on the job, though the company denies these claims. Continue reading

by

Our employment lawyers know how important it is for companies to have both strong anti-discrimination policies Employee Discriminationand enforcement of those policies. Not only are acts of discrimination against protected groups illegal, but they are also just plain bad business. Everyone wants to feel safe going to work, and no one wants to feel like they have to choose between their income and the values they hold sacred.

Disney is one company under scrutiny after a former employee of Walt Disney World in Florida filed a lawsuit (Sebti v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging he was discriminated against for his nationality.

The employee alleges he once found a noose made of duct tape in his office. He also allegedly was not allowed breaks for prayer during Ramadan. Plaintiff further says he was unfairly passed up for promotions and that the actions against him were a response to his Moroccan nationality. Continue reading

by

Little Saigon is a neighborhood that is south of Los Angeles that is home to many people of Vietnamese heritage.  Many of the Vietnamese immigrants who came to America and settled in Little Saigon are very much against the communist party, since the communists assumed control of their homeland following the Second World War.  This was the primary reason for America’s participation in the War in Vietnam.

LA Employment LawyerAccording to a recent news story for the Orange County Register, officials for the area are very upset about an Assembly Bill (AB 22) that, if passed into law, would prevent state employees from being fired based upon membership in the Communist Party.  This is actually currently allowed under a law that was passed during the 1950s during the Cold War.  AB 22 passed in the State Assembly by a margin of 41 to 30. There was not a single yes vote from Orange County, and that is likely due to the opposition of this law from the many Vietnamese residents. Continue reading