Blog - California Labor & Employment Law

Coronavirus Layoffs

April 2, 2020 by Beck Law P.C.

Coronavirus layoffs have hit employees hard. Unfortunately, things look to get worse economically before we turn the corner on this crisis. When employers consider cost-cutting measures, one of the first things they look at is layoffs. Before making a hard and fast decision on the topic of coronavirus layoffs, there are some important issues employers need to consider.

Layoff Issues to Consider

First of all, employers need to take a look at how serious the fiscal hit to business is, and take an educated guess regarding how long the financial crisis will last. One key thing employers need to weigh is the difficulties they may face in replacing laid off workers when things turn around and business picks up. This becomes more of a challenge when the skills of workers are more refined and specialized.

Who Has Been Hit?

Among the hardest hit by coronavirus layoffs are industries whose existence rely on people interacting. Clearly, social distancing gets in the way of those in the hospitality industry. That includes hotels, travel, restaurants, and entertainment, among others, and their bottom lines have been dramatically impacted since the advent of coronavirus. In this situation, the majority of employees do not have unique skill sets or specialized training. Although ramping up the workforce will take some effort when the time is right, finding qualified workers, even in a tight market, will likely not be a significant challenge. Layoffs in these fields, therefore, may not result in critical deficiencies when the economy turns around.

Businesses focused on manufacturing or advertising are generally impacted by any recession, as are those involved in freight and delivery. The current coronavirus layoffs crisis is no exception. Although eliminating these positions will save a company money, recognizing that these are skilled workers means that replacing them in an upturn will put you in competition with others for the best workers. It may be better for employers to look at simply reducing workers’ hours and letting workers’ compensation supplement their income during this downturn.

Alternatives to Coronavirus Layoffs

When tough times hit any business, employers are wise to communicate clearly the concerns of the company and keep employees in the loop as plans are being made. Having clear goals and expressing them openly will benefit everyone involved. In order to avoid layoffs, there are strategies that might be considered to get the business through the rough patch:

Sharing the pain: If everyone in the company cuts back, from the janitorial staff to the CEO, it may be possible to limp along for a significant period of time. That way the business can stay intact, and be 100% ready to go when things turn around.
Crowdsource ideas: If you open the discussion to workers, a variety of money-saving solutions may evolve as employees buy-in to the notion of saving the business.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, COVID-19 Tagged With: coronavirus, covid-19, layoffs

Coronavirus Pandemic Shuts Down Commerce

March 30, 2020 by Beck Law P.C.

If you are a worker who is concerned about making ends meet in the era of the coronavirus pandemic, you are not alone. Nearly 7 million Californians do not have enough money on hand to pay for basic necessities. So, when income is cut off, it puts people in dire straits.

The Coronavirus Pandemic Cripples the Economy

In just a matter or weeks, once thriving businesses have had to shutter, and entire sectors have closed down. Workers of all stripes are wondering how they will be able to afford food and other necessities, and where the money for their next rent payment will be coming from. And indicators like colossal drops in the stock market, federal reserve municipal bond purchases, and a drop in Treasury yields tell us the financial decline is going to stick around for a while. Estimates are that jobless claims will skyrocket to 2 million in the coming days and weeks, putting many across the nation in difficult situations.

Who is Primarily at Risk?

Hourly employees generally are at greatest risk of layoffs and losing their jobs, particularly those in the service industry. We have seen employees in hotels and restaurants hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic. Those in manufacturing and retail are finding themselves in the same boat. Often, these workers do not have paid leave or other benefits to help.

Government Pandemic Plan

The federal government has passed a coronavirus pandemic prompted plan to send Americans cash in the coming weeks. The stimulus package included payments of up to $1,200 to US taxpayers but not everyone will get the entire amount and others, not at all. Federally funded emergency leave has been passed and here in California, the governor also extended the eligibility period for Medi-Cal, welfare, and food stamps by three months.

For families who have mortgages that are federally backed, evictions and foreclosures have been suspended until May. Governor Newsom also issued an executive order to allow local governments to ban commercial and residential evictions.

Voluntary Assistance

California’s largest power utilities have voluntarily agreed to protect customers from phone, water, and power shutoffs. Comcast is giving new customers 60 days of free Internet.

Unemployment

For workers who have had hours cut, unemployment benefits may be available. Those who have contracted the coronavirus may qualify for disability benefits.

Food

The federal coronavirus pandemic relief is designed to assist mothers and pregnant women, as well as seniors, with funds for groceries and/or home delivered meals. Previously planned cuts to food stamp programs have been halted by a federal judge, allowing able-bodied but unemployed individuals to continue to collect benefits. In the works during the coronavirus pandemic are plans for bolstered food banks, as well. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, COVID-19 Tagged With: coronavirus, covid-19, economy, unemployment

Coronavirus and Employment Discrimination

March 27, 2020 by Beck Law P.C.

Coronavirus related anxiety is palpable. The worldwide growth of those infected and those that have died from the virus has been exponential. With travel bans and World Health Organization alarms ringing, it is natural that fears related to the virus and its symptoms abound. But when those fears become outright cases of xenophobia, it is a real problem. If your workplace no longer feels safe because of prejudice and unfounded fears directed toward people of Asian descent, it is an issue that may require the assistance of a local employment attorney.

Common Maybe, but Not Normal

The University of California Berkeley Health Services made a serious mistake when they sent out an Instagram post to students telling them that bias and bigotry are normal and common when facing the coronavirus. The university surely realized as much, leading to their quick deletion of the post. The fact is, while it may be true that many Americans experience bias and bigotry, it is not normal, and is certainly not acceptable. The unfortunate truth is, Western culture sometimes reverts to unreasonable xenophobia when faced with such issues, and it is not a pretty sight.

A Comparison of Health Issues

The flu season this year in the United States has resulted in 19 million ill individuals, 180,000 people being hospitalized, and 10,000 fatalities. Yes, the coronavirus has deadly potential and it is important to have some perspective when considering the potential issues related to coronavirus.

Workplace Issues

What is an employer to do? There certainly is a real issue confronting us; an epidemic apparently originating in Wuhan, China, is wreaking havoc worldwide. Actions have been taken to shut down non essential businesses, limit travel and shelter in place. Confirmed coronavirus cases continue to mount here in America. Employers of essential businesses have a responsibility to keep the workplace safe even in the face of a frightening epidemic. Common sense practices like regular hand-washing are appropriate. Here is what is not:

Just because an employee is of Asian descent, it does not mean they are carriers of the coronavirus. If your employee has not been to China in recent weeks, there is no need to treat them any differently than any other employee. Ostracizing such employees by word or deed is both improper and illegal. That is true for all employees, regardless of nationality.
Allowing employee gossip to flourish can be extremely damaging to employee morale and performance. If an employer is aware of unfounded rumors related to Asian-American employees and coronavirus, those rumors must be dealt with promptly. Failure to do so could result in legal action.

Layoff vs Furlough – Employer Guidelines in a COVID-19 World

March 23, 2020 by Beck Law P.C.

Layoff or Furlough? As California enters this unprecedented time with Mandatory “Shelter In Place” orders throughout California, many employers are facing the imminent decision to reduce workforce while we all face uncertainty over when normal business with resume. Many employers are unable to assign work to their employees at home and must consider greatly reducing their current workforce as soon as possible.

Employers reducing scheduling for non-exempt hourly employees with a reduced work schedule or not at all generally do not have to worry about liability for the reduction. However, a common question is what to do with employees and whether employees should be laid off or furloughed during this time.

Layoff vs. Furlough

A layoff can be temporary or permanent. It is recommended that layoffs occurring during this recent pandemic are temporary due to the unknown duration of the reduction of workforce. When laying off an employee, the employer must follow all California Labor Laws and the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act (WARN) with no expectation the employee will return to work in the future.

A layoff is a separation of the employment relationship and the rehire process must occur for the employee to rejoin the workforce. All benefits are terminated at the end of the term of the separation and the employee will no longer be employed by the employer.

A furlough occurs when the employer is reducing the days or weeks an employee may perform work. An employer will suspend the work of most or all employees and send them home without pay. This is a mandatory suspension from work that can last briefly or as long as the employer desires. It typically occurs when the employer wants to retain staff that they cannot afford. Furloughed employees also retain their benefits with the Company and retain their employment relationship with the employer.

Employees are generally furloughed when there is a reduction in workforce but the reduction is temporary and employees are expected to return to work on a certain date or a specific condition.

If an employee performs any work for the employer during the furlough, an exempt employee is entitled to an entire week’s pay and a non-exempt employee is entitled to payment for any time worked. Employee work includes checking e-mails, making phone calls, or performing any task for the employer. A “workweek” in California is defined as 7 consecutive days, starting with the same calendar day each week. The workweek can begin on any day and any hour. However, if an employer has no properly established workweek, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DSLE) assumes the workweek is from Sunday through Saturday.

It is highly recommended that employers revoke all access for employees during the furlough and send notices of the change in employment status outlining the employer’s furlough procedures and policies.

The main difference between a furlough or laying off employees is that furloughed employees can come and go fairly easily but layoffs require the employer comply with all relevant Labor Laws, the federal and California WARN Act, and possibly conduct the rehiring process to reinstate the employees. Furloughed employees also retain their benefits and employment status with the employer while a lay off is the end of the employment relationship.

Work Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN)

When an employer decides to layoff its workforce, it is important to comply with the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act (WARN) both federally and within California.

Federal WARN

Compliance with Federal WARN laws is triggered when there are temporary layoffs longer than 6 months and the layoffs include 50+ employees in a 90 day period. Notice may be shortened if circumstances were not reasonably anticipated 60 days before the employee was laid off. However, actual notice must be given is a much advanced time as possible.

California WARN

The similar California WARN laws provides no exception for the 60 day notice rule and it has not yet been determined if COVID-19 would be an exception to the notice requirements. However, on March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-31-20 relieving employers of some on these requirements.

Executive Order N-31-20 explains “the need to prevent or mitigate the spread of COVID-19” has caused employers to “close rapidly without providing their employees the advanced notice required under California Law. Therefore, Labor Code sections 1401(a), 1402, and 1403 are suspended for the employer at this time.

This order will be in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 “emergency” and provides notice still must be given but amends the 60 day requirement to “as soon as practicable.” The following is required by all California employers engaging in layoffs during this time:

The employer must still give written notice to the employee under the WARN Act;
The employer must give as much notice as practicable including a brief statement explaining why the notice is reduced;
The notice must explain that COVID-19 was not reasonably foreseeable that the time notice would have been required; and
The notice must include “If you have lots your job or been temporarily laid off, you may be eligible for Unemployment Insurance (UI). More information on UI and other resources available for employees is available at labor.ca.gov/coronavirus2019

It is anticipated further guidance will be given to employers in the upcoming week by the Employment Development Department (EDD).

Other Resources

While employers are faced with difficult decisions there are resources available for both employers and employees.

All employers have the option the offer paid Sick Leave and use of Paid Time Off to their employees during any temporary closure but cannot require the employee use Sick Time.

All employees with changes in their current employment status should check the EDD regarding possible unemployment compensation. Employers should advise their employees that more information is available at labor.ca.gov/coronavirus2019 for possible resources during this emergency.

Employers may also avoid potential layoffs by participating in Unemployment Insurance Work Sharing Program if the employer will reduce wages and hours no more than 60%. This allows for a quick adjustment when the business improves.

If your business is closing or you will be laying off your entire staff, you may be able to utilize the EDD’s Rapid Response Services.

If you are an “Essential Business” with an exception to the Shelter In Place Order and will be staying open during this time, you may consider possible waivers of liability and informed consent. A list of “Essential Business” can be found here.
[Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, COVID-19 Tagged With: lake county labor attorney, mendocino county labor attorney, sonoma county labor attorney

Huge California Sexual Harassment Verdict

March 19, 2020 by Beck Law P.C.

2019 was not a good year for Alki David, owner of Alki David Productions and FilmOn. The year wrapped up with David being plastered with a nearly $9 million workplace sexual harassment verdict. The jury punctuated their sexual harassment verdict with an award for damages totaling an additional $50 million.

The Gist of the Case

Mahim Khan claimed she was subjected to David’s groping, moaning, dropping his pants, and other examples of sexual harassment. The jury found that the behaviors, which occurred repeatedly over an extended period of time, were perpetrated with malice. That led to the punitive damages, and a finding that David’s companies fostered a hostile work environment. David’s own attorney described him as “…loud, arrogant, and obnoxious.”

David’s History of Sexual Harassment Shows He Does Not Learn

Khan was not the first to take David to court for his improper behaviors in the workplace:

Lauren Reeves was awarded over $5 million in damages following a sexual harassment case against him;
Chastity Jones was awarded roughly $11 million in her case against David.

How to Respond if You Experience Sexual Harassment at Work

Sexual harassment occurs every day in this country and across the globe. As a sexual harassment victim, you have the law behind you in these situations. Your best bet is to hire a reputable sexual harassment attorney right away. There are a number of steps you can take to ensure justice prevails. For starters:

Look at the guidance in your employee handbook, and follow any procedures outlined there;
Make a formal complaint to the human resources department in writing;
Keep detailed notes of what occurs, including who was present, what was said and done, and when and where incidents took place;
Speak to a direct supervisor about the issue and ask for protection from the abuser during the investigation process;
Seek support from friends, family, or co-workers if you feel comfortable doing so;
Consider filing a complaint with the EEOC if you believe discrimination is a factor in the harassment.

If Reporting Sexual Harassment Results in Retaliation

In the event an employer chooses to retaliate against you for coming forward, you still have the law on your side. Retaliation may be in the form of job reassignments, exclusion from training or other opportunities, or outright degradation and shaming. These and other reactions to sexual harassment are not legal, and they are not to be tolerated. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Sexual Harassment Tagged With: santa rosa sexual harassment attorney

Strippers $3.65M Lawsuit Settlement

February 14, 2020 by Beck Law P.C.

In an industry fraught with unscrupulous club owners, the financial plight of strippers has gone largely unnoticed by the legal system. That is, until AB5 gave strippers a leg up on the issue.

Disparities in the Industry

In a general sense, strippers go to work, take the deal club owners offer, and make it out of there with as much cash as possible. Unfortunately, the amount they wind up with can be pretty paltry. More often than not, strippers work strictly for tips, which they are often required to share with bartenders, wait staff, house moms, managers, and DJs. In addition to that, dancers fork over a variety of fees to club owners, including stage fees, dance fees, or other house fees. Sometimes, fees are based on the degree of nudity achieved by the end of a performer’s act. Naturally, the dancers are considered independent contractors, meaning they are ineligible for sick leave, workers’ compensation, insurance, and other benefits. Overall, the finances of the business seem pretty shady in many cases.

Strippers Lawsuit Emerges

A class action lawsuit was filed against Spearmint Rhino strip clubs claiming that dancers were being misclassified as independent contractors. The suit alleged that the law was being violated because strippers were not being paid minimum wage, and they were not even allowed to keep a significant portion of their tips. They were also responsible for purchasing their own wardrobes. Finally, dancers were never provided legally required wage statements.

The Settlement

Although the suit was brought in 2017 before AB5 was on the books, the plaintiff clearly saw the writing on the wall, and agreed to a settlement of $3.65 million. Here is how it was broken down:

$10,000 to be divided between the four strippers who brought the original suit;
$75,000 to the state’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency;
Just over $900,000 for attorney’s fees;
$2.6 million to be divided among all eligible class members who submit a claim.

In addition to the strippers financial payout, dancers have been reclassified as employees.

Tensions Over AB5

Despite the influence of AB5 in this case, there are many in the exotic dancing field who see the other side of the coin. They prefer the flexibility of being independent contractors and like choosing multiple clubs on the schedule that is convenient to them. Giving up their independence and having to be under the control of an employer is the last thing they want, and they said as much in a protest in front of Los Angeles City Hall. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law Tagged With: exotic dancers, independent contractors, strippers

Commute Time Compensation?

January 9, 2020 by Beck Law P.C.

Commute time compensation? Most people who work spend a fair amount of time commuting to the job site. Furthermore, many jobs require workers to commute as part of the job. With such variety in the expectations and commuting requirements for various occupations, how can you know whether or not your employer is treating you fairly when it comes to commute time? Actually, the courts have come up with some pretty clear guidelines on this topic.

Commuting in a Company Vehicle

Installation and repair crews for Pacific Bell Telephone Company believed they should be paid for their commute time to and from home because they were driving vehicles that were provided by Pacific Bell, and those vehicles were equipped with the tools and equipment necessary to address customer needs. They decided to pursue the issue in court.

Details of the Commute Time Case

Technicians were paid hourly for an eight-hour day to address customer issues at customer’s homes. While driving the prescribed vehicle and using company tools was required, employees had a couple of choices when it came to those vehicles:

Technicians could take the company vehicle to and from their own homes. This option was known as the Home Dispatch Program (HDP). Technicians received no pay for their commute time driving to a customer’s home prior to 8:00, and they were not compensated for the time spent driving home after their last appointment.
Employees could drive their personal vehicles to the Pacific Bell garage to exchange it for a Pacific Bell vehicle. These employees were paid for their time spent going to the garage in the morning, and from the garage home at the end of a shift.

In either case, employees were compensated for the commute time driving to and from the warehouse when they needed to restock materials for the job.

Court Findings

The California Supreme Court defined hours worked as those hours during which an employer maintains control of an employee. The issue of employer control was central to their findings, and was directly correlated to whether or not riding in employee-provided transportation was required. The court referred to Morillion v Royal Packing Co., which dealt with a similar issue. In that case, workers were required to meet at a particular place in order to take the company bus to the worksite. Employees were under the control of their employers at that point because they could not make the decision to stop at a drive-through window for coffee, could not pick up or drop off kids on the way, and could not run other errands while on the bus. Therefore, the commute time on the bus counted as hours worked.

In the case of the Pacific Bell Workers, employees were not required to drive a company vehicle to and from home. Additionally, they were free to make stops during their commute time in the company vehicle, meaning the worker was not under the control of the company. Therefore the commute time spent under the HDP plan was not compensable. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Wage and Hour Law Tagged With: commuting, Petaluma Wage and Hour Law Office, workers' rights

The End of The “No Rehire” Clause

November 27, 2019 by Beck Law P.C.

Have you been forced to sign a no rehire clause in order to settle a workplace dispute? When California Highway Patrol analyst Camryn Fields experienced sexual harassment at work, she followed company protocol and reported the issues to her supervisors. They, in turn, did nothing to quell the problem, leading Fields to seek legal redress. California Highway Patrol eventually settled the suit, and included in the final documentation a no rehire clause. It meant that Fields could not find work in any related state agencies after signing the agreement, which led her to a senate hearing where she bemoaned the unfairness of the double victimization.

What is a No Rehire Clause?

As the name implies, a no rehire clause bars employees from future employment with an entity following her departure. In Field’s case, even other government agencies were empowered to dismiss her applications without consideration because she had signed such an agreement.

California’s Ban

In October 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB-749 into law, banning the use of these clauses after an individual has settled an employment dispute. While individuals who have engaged in sexual assault or harassment may be barred from future employment with an entity, a victim of such cannot. The law takes effect in January 2020, and faces stiff opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce. Their fear is that employees fired for legitimate reasons will be able to claim that they were retaliated against if they are not rehired down the road. Nevertheless, employers should take the law seriously, and revise any agreements accordingly in the new year. The details of the bill have provisions banning the following:

Contracts of any kind that restrain individuals from lawful employment;
Settlement agreements that limit an aggrieved individual’s right to work for an affiliate or subsidiary of a parent company, in another division of an employer’s business.

Who is Not Protected by AB-749?

Limited options are available for employers who are unhappy with the new law. No Future Employment provisions may be included in agreements if there have not been legal claims initiated by the aggrieved party, which is someone who has filed a claim in any of the following places:

A court;
An administrative agency;
Through an employer’s complaint process;
Any formal forum used to address disputes.

Other instances where rehire ineligibility may be legal include when there is documentation of an employee’s misconduct or subpar job performance, or when there is reasonable evidence that the employee engaged in sexual assault or harassment. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law Tagged With: California employment attorneys, no-rehire

Do Your Problems at Work Constitute a Hostile Environment?

November 20, 2019 by Beck Law P.C.

Let us say you really hate your job, and it is mostly because of the people with whom you work. A negative and hostile environment at work makes it miserable day after day. Does what you are experiencing rise to a level that might be worth seeking legal help? The short answer is… maybe.

Hostile Environment at Work

If the environment at work is leading to feelings of depression or anxiety, it is possible that your employer is not taking state and federal harassment laws seriously. Particularly if the bullying behavior or abuse is a repetitive problem against a protected class, a lawsuit may be your best option going forward. In California, any unwanted behavior toward a person in a protected class that would be judged as offensive to a reasonable adult could legally be classified as a hostile work environment.

Protected Classes

Federal law makes it illegal to discriminate against any person based on the following:

Race, color, nationality;
Religion;
Sex;
Age;
Disability;
Citizenship;
Genetics.

In California, the anti-discrimination laws are more extensive, and prohibit discrimination abased on the following:

Sexual orientation;
Gender;
Military status;
Politics;
Marital status;
Having been a victim of assault, domestic violence, or stalking.

Is it Illegal?

The fact of the matter is plenty of nasty or annoying behavior is not necessarily illegal. In order to cross the legal standard, one of three things about the behavior must be true:

It is discriminatory;
It violates specific company policy;
It leads to safety issues in the workplace.

Additionally, in California issues are generally part of a series of actions that compile to create a hostile workplace environment.

Who Might be Guilty of Harassment?

Many people mistakenly believe that harassment might only occur at the hands of a supervisor or co-worker. In actuality, clients, vendors, or customers might be guilty of harassment, and an employer has a responsibility to address issues involving even these groups.

What if the Harassment is Unintentional?

If there is one thing the #MeToo movement has brought to light, even comments or behaviors that were not intended to offend could be considered harassment, particularly if they continue after a request has been made to stop. Furthermore, a victim of harassment does not necessarily have to be the target of the comments or behavior. Anyone who is exposed to offensive, intimidating, or abusive conduct and who experiences offense or discomfort may have the right to pursue action against the offender. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Employment Discrimination Tagged With: hostile work environment, Mendocino County Discrimination Attorney

Mandatory Arbitration Mostly Prohibited in California

November 8, 2019 by Beck Law P.C.

California law on mandatory arbitration is about to change. Will the new law be better or worse for employees and businesses? Do you have a bone to pick with your employer? If employment policies or practices are illegal and unfair, you may wish to pursue legal action against your employer. Starting in January 2020, that right will be afforded to you, thanks to a new bill that was just signed into law here in California.

AB 51

Governor Newsom signed AB 51 into law, prohibiting employers from requiring employees to waive their right to sue when it comes to allegations of impropriety in the workplace. This could include anything from discriminatory behavior, labor violations, sexual harassment, retaliation, and any other offenses that may be illegal. While up until now many businesses compelled employees to agree to private arbitration in lieu of a lawsuit, the new legislation eliminates forced arbitration altogether.

Understanding Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

Arbitration agreements are designed to handle workplace disputes without involving the courts. Employers generally favor them for a number of reasons:

Arbitration is faster than a courtroom proceeding;
Arbitration is generally less expensive than lawyer fees and court costs;
Claims against employers never make it to a jury, avoiding massive payouts from employers.

For employees, however, mandatory arbitration can be a huge disadvantage when they have a solid case of wrongdoing. Juries are often quite supportive when it comes to the mistreatment of workers, and have been known to award hefty damages. Even the threat of a jury trial can result in higher offers from companies who wish to avoid a courtroom battle.

Is Arbitration Fair?

In some cases, arbitrators, who are themselves employed by arbitration firms, tend to have a certain amount of bias toward employers who regularly utilize them. Researchers call this the repeat player effect, and report that workers are 500% less likely to prevail against an employer who had previously used a particular arbiter. In situations when workers did win, they were paid significantly less in settlements.

A Tricky New Law

What makes the whole thing somewhat controversial is the fact that the Supreme Court has previously determined that mandatory arbitration agreements are, indeed, legal. In California, it means that, while these agreements may be offered, and may be enforced if signed, employees now have a choice when it comes to signing such an agreement. Employers may not retaliate against anyone who refuses to sign this document, and may not revoke any job offers in the event a would-be employee chooses not to sign on to such an agreement. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law Tagged With: Arbitration Agreement Law Office Lake County