California Employment Lawyer Blog

Simple answer is YES. I have litigated every kind of employment law case you can think of. I have been involved in retaliation cases which had to do with an employee complaining of: sexual harassment, sexual discrimination against an employee or an applicant, or violations of the law. I have also been part of cases dealing with age discrimination, disability discrimination and failure to accommodate a disabled employee, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages agreed upon, ……. What’s more, I have represented clients on both sides of the aisle. I have defended major public companies and have had the pleasure of representing some of the most vulnerable members of our community the elderly and the young. I write all of this to let the reader know that I have seen it all (pretty much) and am a strong believer in mediating cases. The one caveat I have however, is that you have to use the right mediator.

In my opinion the right mediator is one who knows the area of law, has had experience in that particular field as a lawyer or a judge, and does not depend on a certain industry or side (defense) for most of his cases. If both sides can agree on such a candidate, and the parties are reasonable, I can’t see why most cases cannot be resolved at mediations.

Class Actions as a tool of addressing legal matters and class action lawyers as a whole have been the subject of much attack and criticism by the business industry and some in the media for the past decade or so. The criticism has also made its way into the halls of congress and in 2005, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Purpose of the Act was to reduce unwarranted and frivolous Class Actions and to streamline the dockets for cases. As someone who has defended against class actions and their constant threat while serving as the General Counsel and then the lead litigation attorney representing public companies I have seen my chare of bogus class actions which do nothing as far helping consumers and only fill the pockets of the class attorneys. However, as a whole I am a strong believer in the system which allows many powerless individuals to band together and challenge illegal and unlawful conduct of big and powerful interests. Without this tool many wrongs will go unaddressed due to the fact that litigating cases on a one by one basis would not make any sense for any attorney to agree to represent consumers individually.

Continue reading " Why I Still Believe in Class Actions " »

The U.S House of Representatives has passed the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2008 by a 247-178 vote. The bill will now head to Senate under a threat of veto by President Bush. The measure (HR1338) which was supported by the AFL-CIO, women’s groups and the ACLU, while many employer and business groups voiced their concern over the measure’s impact on the economy. The bill will most notably lift any cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded to female employees who sue and prevail alleging wage discrimination. Furthermore, the bill makes it easier for women who feel that they are being discriminated against by being paid less than male co-workers. The measure also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers. Proponents of the bill claim that the Act would strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and expand available damages. They specially point to study by the Census Bureau in 2006 which stated that women make about 77 percent as much as men do and that minority women are even worse off. According to the study African American women make 66 cents on the dollar compared to the highest earners (white men), while Hispanic women make only 55 cents. Opponents claim that the Act would oblige the government to adopt “junk science” by requiring use of flawed surveys and studies and that the only winners would be trial lawyers who can now demand high punitive damages. Obviously if this bill becomes law it will be applied as a federal law. This Act was in part in response to Lilly Ledbetter’s case against Goodyear. Lilly who had worked for Goodyear for 19 years sued when she discovered she was being paid much less than every single one doing the same work she was. Although she was awarded $3,000,000 in punitive damages, the judge had cut the award to $300,000 citing 1991 law that limited a company’s liability for damages.

Welcome to Employment Law Team's blog. Our hope is that in these pages we can expose the general public and our clients to the latest developments in the labor and employment filed. Our office regularly represents individuals and sometimes companies in cases involving age discrimination, sexual harassment, disability, racial discrimination, denial of FMLA leave, non-payment of wages and failure to comply with other state and federal laws. Our website, www.employmentlawteam.com addresses issues of concern to employees and employers and we routinely update sections dealing with cases that we handle and note worthy news stories. We have offices in Orange county, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and service Riverside and San Diego as well. We hope that our blog will be a forum for those interested in making sure justice in the workplace is served and that we can address topics of concern to you. This week we would like to highlight the passage of ADA Amendment Act of 2008. The Bill passed the House 402 to 17 and if enacted into law it would help restore protection to those with physical or mental disability that materially impairs a major life activity. The bill will now go to the senate for consideration. According to the bill, when deciding as to whether a person is disabled courts should not consider the effects of “mitigating measures” like prescription drugs. The bill also adds that “an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.” The passage of this bill is considered a big win for the employees all over the United States.