Jointly Employed? New NLRB Ruling Has Major Implications

Jointly EmployedDoes your business include employees who are jointly employed (meaning that they work for you and another employer), as well as employees who work only for you? If the answer is yes, a new ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) may complicate how your company handles collective bargaining.

In the case of Miller & Anderson, Inc., the NLRB was faced with the issue of whether workers who are solely employed by one employer can collectively bargain alongside jointly employed workers without the permission of their employers. It does not mark the first time the NLRB has ruled on the jointly employed issue. In 2000, in the case of M.B. Sturgis, Inc., the NLRB ruled that employer consent was not necessary. In 2006, however, the NLRB took the opposite approach in Oakwood Care Center, 348 N.L.R.B. No. 37, and held that Sturgis was incorrect.

The ruling in Miller & Anderson is a return to the Sturgis standard. It holds that jointly employed workers in this situation can bargain collectively, regardless of whether their employers approve.

A Return to the Old Standard

This issue involves Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 9(b) refers to different types of bargaining units, such as “employer units,” “craft units,” and “plant units.” The NLRB has long held that when employer units contain employees who work for multiple employers, these “multi-employer” units can only bargain collectively with the consent of all parties – meaning all of the employers involved have to give their permission.

But what happens when some of the employees are employed by a “supplier” employer (such as a temp agency) and perform work for a “user” employer? (The NLRB refers to these types of units as “Sturgis” units.) Does a Sturgis unit constitute a multi-employer unit?

In Oakwood, the NLRB ruled that Sturgis units are multi-employer units. However, Miller & Anderson reverses this holding. It states that multi-employer units are created “without regard for any preexisting community of interest among the employees of the various separate employers.” According to the ruling, a traditional multi-employer unit contains employees whose employers have nothing to do with one another, aside from being in the same industry.

A Sturgis unit, on the other hand, contains employees who are all employed by the same employer (even though some of the employees are joint employees, who also work for a different employer). The Miller & Anderson ruling states that because workers in Sturgis units share an employer, Sturgis units are not multi-employer units, and that they meet Section 9(b)’s definition of an employer unit – which does not require employer consent to bargain collectively. [Read more…]

Will California’s Equal Pay Law Be Amended to Include Race?

Equal Pay LawWill California’s equal pay law be amended to include race? California employers should already be familiar with the state’s Fair Pay Act, which prohibits them from paying employees lower wages than employees of the opposite gender who perform substantially similar work. The law, which took effect on January 1, 2016, is considered the strictest of its kind in the nation.

Racial disparities may soon be prohibited, in addition to gender disparities. State Senator Isadore Hall has introduced legislation that applies similar prohibitions with regards to race. If Senate Bill No. 1063 becomes law, an employer may not pay employees lower rates than employees of other races or ethnicities for performing substantially similar work – with certain exceptions.

The Bill’s Specifications

The bill does not state that all employees must receive the same salaries paid to colleagues of other races that hold the same position. Rather, it prohibits employers from paying their employees lower salaries than other employees of other races or ethnicities performing substantially similar work (when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility), unless an employer can demonstrate a valid reason for the wage differential.

If you are wondering what would be considered a valid reason, the legislation provides guidance. Racial wage disparities would not be in violation if an employer can show that they are based on either:

  • A seniority system
  • A merit system
  • A system based on the quantity or quality of an employee’s production, or
  • A bona fide factor other than race or ethnicity.

The legislation also specifies that a factor will only be considered bona fide if it is not related to race or ethnicity, if it is related to the employee’s particular job, and if it is “consistent with a business necessity.” Also, if the employee who is making a complaint can show that there is a different practice that would satisfy the business necessity without a racial pay disparity, then the factor will not be considered bona fide.

The bill gives examples of the types of factors that could qualify. These include education, training and experience.

What Would Happen to Employers Who Violate the Equal Pay Law?

Employers who violate the law would be liable for damages to employees who have been affected by the wage disparities. They would be required to pay the employees for their lost wages, along with interest, and an additional equal amount of liquidated damages.

The legislation also specifies that an employee who is entitled to these damages would also be entitled to compensation for the costs of their suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees. In order to recover damages under a civil action, the action must be commenced within two years of when the discrimination occurs – unless there has been a willful violation, in which case the action must be commenced within three years. [Read more…]

Fair Labor Standards Act and “Fair Notice”

Fair Labor Standards ActOnce an employee has made a complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), she is protected from retaliatory acts such as being fired for making the complaint. What if the employee never filed a formal complaint, and instead she simply alerted management to a potential Fair Labor Standards Act violation? And what if the employee was a manager? If a manager voices concerns that her company is not complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act, would it be clear that she was actually making a complaint under the FLSA, or would it appear that she was just doing her job?

The Fair Labor Standards Act Case

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this scenario in the case of Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiff, Alla Rosenfield, was hired by the defendant, a transportation management services company, to serve as their Manager of Human Resources. She was later promoted to the position of Director of Human Resources and Corporate Training.

Rosenfield made numerous complaints to her superiors that the organization was violating the FLSA. Her boss, who saw himself as the only employee at GlobalTranz in charge of FLSA compliance, agreed to look into her concerns. Rosenfield later concluded that he had not corrected the violations and complained to him again.

Shortly afterward, he fired her. Rosenfield then filed a wrongful termination complaint, which included an allegation that her firing was retaliation in violation of the FLSA. At trial, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that Rosenfield’s complaints to management did not actually constitute an FLSA complaint. Rosenfield appealed.

Fair Labor Standards Act and “Fair Notice”

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an employer must be given “fair notice” that an employee is making a complaint. Under this precedent, a complaint must be “sufficiently clear and detailed” that a reasonable employer would recognize it as an assertion of the rights protected by the FLSA.

Several federal courts have adopted a separate standard for complaints from managers when determining if complaints are sufficiently clear and detailed. The rationale behind this distinction is that when an entry-level employee points out a violation of the FLSA, the most obvious explanation is that the employee is asserting his or her rights – whereas a manager who does the same thing may be pointing out the violation as part of his or her job duties.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit sided with the plaintiff. Its decision overturned the summary judgment ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court determined that because informing management of FLSA violations was not part of Rosenfield’s job portfolio, it should have been reasonably clear to her superiors that when she notified them about FLSA violations, she was not simply doing her job.

In the ruling, the Court rejected the idea that all managers should be held to a different standard than non-managerial employees. Rather, the Court held that complaints should be resolved on a case-by-case basis, in which an employee’s managerial status is one factor. [Read more…]

SB 358: Equal Pay for Substantially Similar Work

equal payThe concept of paying men and women equal pay for equal work should be familiar to California employers but under new legislation, wage equality requirements no longer apply only to employees with identical job descriptions. Employers are now required to pay male and female employees equal wages for doing “substantially similar” work.

The legislation in question, California Senate Bill 358, was signed into law on October 6, 2015 by Governor Jerry Brown at the Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park in Richmond. The new legislation amends Section 1197.5 of the California Labor Code.

What Does the equal pay Bill Say?

SB 358 states that an employer may not pay any of its employees at lower wage rates than employees of the opposite sex for work that is substantially similar, when viewed “as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions,” unless the employer can demonstrate that:

  • The wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors: a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, and/or a bona fide factor other than sex (such as education, training or experience.)
  • Each factor is relied upon reasonably, and
  • The factor or factors relied upon account for the entire wage differential.

The legislation clarifies that if an employer cites a “bona fide factor other than sex,” it must not be based on, or derived from, a sex-based differential in compensation. In addition, the factor must be related to the job in question, and it must be consistent with a business necessity.

Other aspects of the legislation include:

  • The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is in charge of administering and enforcing the legislation, may supervise the wages that are due to employees when a violation takes place.
  • Employers must maintain records of the wages and wage rates, job classifications, and other terms of employment of their employees. The records must be maintained for at least three years.
  • When an employee files a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, the name of the employee will be kept confidential until the Division establishes the validity of the complaint. (There is an exception to this, however, if abridging the employee’s confidentiality prevents the Division from investigating the complaint.) If the employee withdraws the complaint before his or her confidentiality is abridged, then the Division will maintain the employee’s confidentiality.

Your Equal Pay Responsibilities Under the New Law

If you run a business in Sonoma County, Mendocino County or Lake County California, and you have not monitored whether there is a gender gap in your employee’s wages, it is time to start. Consulting an attorney to ensure your wages meet the standards of this legislation may be far less expensive than dealing with a gender discrimination lawsuit. [Read more…]

Big Labor Rights Movement Win For California-Area Walmart Employees

labor rights movementBig labor rights movement win for California-area Walmart employees. Walmart employees at stores in Richmond and Placerville, California recently had a big win against their retail giant employer. In fact, in December an administrative law judge found in favor of California-area Walmart employees who claimed that they were unfairly disciplined for attempting to organize employees in a strike and other collective bargaining activities. The National Labor Relations Board Administrative law judge of Washington, D.C. ordered Walmart to stop pressuring employees in order to prevent work stoppages, because it is believed that Walmart used intimidation tactics to encourage employees to return from strikes. Walmart was also ordered by the judge to change its dress code for its California employees who were being restricted from wearing pro workers’ rights shirts.

Labor Rights Movement

The administrative judge’s decision in favor of the California Walmart employees is a victory for the Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart), an employee-based campaign advocating enhanced health benefits and better pay for Walmart’s employees at the companies  4,000+ U.S. stores. Though OUR Walmart is not an official labor union that represents workers in collective bargaining issues, the organization does receive substantial support and advice from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. On Black Friday of this year, OUR Walmart led employee protests at over 1,000 Walmart stores, while calling for more full-time jobs opportunities and also for a $14 base wage paid to employees.

The OUR Walmart Labor Movement

The NLRB ruling was supported by the federal law that prohibits employer retaliation against workers who support unions, and also prohibits employers from making intimidating statements intended to discourage workers from supporting worker unions. The NLRB judge ruled that a California Walmart manager had unlawfully threatened to close a Walmart store if employees decided to join the (Organized United for Respect at Walmart) or “OUR” Walmart in its demands for higher wages, and also that Walmart had illegally disciplined employees for exercising their legal right to go on strike. It was discovered that one specific Walmart manager had used illegal intimidation tactics against workers by stating that “If it were up to me, I’d shoot the union.” Furthermore, it was also found that it was an unlawful statement for the Walmart managers to tell its employees that their co-workers who had returned from a one-day strike would soon be looking for new jobs.

In addition to claims that Walmart prevented employees from exercising their right to both strike and organize, the suit also focused on dress code restrictions enforced at Walmart’s California stores that prohibited employees from wearing most logos excluding clothing manufacturers and also Walmart logos. This restriction served to prevent workers from wearing clothing that expressed the OUR Walmart cause and message. The administrative judge’s ruling, which focused only on the two specific California Walmart stores, is the first NLRB judge opinion that was submitted since OUR Walmart began operations in 2010. Complaints about labor practices at Walmarts across the U.S. have also been consolidated into one nationwide complaint that is currently ongoing.

If you need legal advice and representation regarding workers’ collective bargaining rights, or any other employment law legal assistance, you should contact our employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. in California today.

Photo Credit: JeepersMedia via Compfight cc

Are Unpaid Interns Protected From Harassment or Discrimination in the Workplace?

InternshipAre unpaid interns protected from harassment or discrimination in the workplace? California employment law is changing rapidly and creating more protections for employees.  In addition, Governor Brown just signed a new law that protects unpaid interns from harassment or discrimination in the workplace.

California law already prohibited discrimination and harassment of employees.  The new law means that unpaid interns are also afforded the same protections.

What does the law provide for unpaid interns?

  • Employers cannot discriminate against interns on the basis of protected characteristics in the hiring, firing or training of unpaid interns.  Protected characteristics include age, race, gender, and sexual orientation.
  • Employers may not harass unpaid interns based on protected characteristics. As is the case with employees, employers may be liable for harassment against unpaid interns if the employer knows about the harassment and fails to take appropriate corrective action.
  • Employers specifically may not discriminate against unpaid interns on the basis of their religious beliefs and must provide reasonable accommodations for interns to observe religious obligations.

The law goes into effect January 1, 2015.  California joins New York, the District of Columbia, Oregon and Illinois as states that have laws that protect unpaid interns against sexual harassment and discrimination.

Why Protect Unpaid Interns?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California state law already provided protection for employees.  The new California law extending protections to interns was proposed after several courts around the country barred unpaid interns from bringing sexual harassment or discrimination lawsuits because they technically are not employees.

A case in New York that received a lot of media attention was one involving a Syracuse University student who sued the company where she was an intern because she alleged that her supervisor had sexually harassed her and groped her then retaliated against her when she reported his misconduct.  The court in New York decided that the intern could not sue the company where she had her internship because the law only protected employees, not interns.

The new law is especially important in California, where jobs in the entertainment, film, media and technology industries are highly competitive and many people are willing to work as unpaid interns with the hope of eventually becoming a paid employee.

What is Sexual Harassment?

Sexual harassment comes in many different forms, but includes:

  • threatening an employee with termination, a reduction of hours, less desirable work shifts, or denial of a promotion if the employee does not perform sexual favors;
  • unwanted sexual advances;
  • inappropriate touching; and
  • sharing inappropriate sexual images, pornography or other sexual content with employees.

What is Discrimination?

If an employer makes decisions regarding its employees and uses an employee’s gender, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, pregnancy or disability to make that decision, that employer may be engaging in discrimination.  Some of these decisions may include who to hire and fire, how much to pay employees, which employees receive a promotion, who loses their job during layoffs, and retirement plans.  There may be other situations where an employer unlawfully discriminates against an employee.  If you believe you have experienced discrimination in the workplace, it is best to consult with an attorney.

Experienced California Employment Attorneys

If you feel that you have experienced sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace, it is important to consult with an experienced employment attorney who will discuss your rights with you.  The attorneys at Beck Law P.C. have experience negotiating and litigating employment law issues and are available to discuss your case.  Please contact us to make an appointment.

How Long do I Have to Sue My Employer?

ContractHow Long do I Have to Sue My Employer? If your potential suit is in regards to a Fair Employment and Housing Act Violation, earlier this year, a California Court of Appeals released a decision regarding an employee’s claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  The decision is the first to address the issue of how long an employee has to file a claim, that length of time also known as the statute of limitations. (Non-FEHA claims: intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring)

Fair Employment and Housing Act

FEHA prevents discrimination in employment on the basis of a variety of reasons, including:

  • Age (over 40);
  • Race;
  • Marital status;
  • Gender; and
  • Sexual orientation.

FEHA also protects employees from retaliation for reporting discrimination in the workplace.  Employees may file private lawsuits under the FEHA, but they first must go to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing to exhaust their administrative remedies.  An employee has one year from the date of the discriminatory act to file a claim with the Department to seek what is referred to as a right to sue letter.

Employers Cannot Shorten the Time to Sue under the FEHA

The employee in the case, Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates et al., worked as a security guard for a company in Northern California and alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by a supervisor.  As the court’s decision details, Ms. Ellis reported unwanted sexual advances and unrealized promises to raise her rate of pay.  Ms. Ellis filed a claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and received a right to sue letter.  She then filed a lawsuit against her former employer.

The lower court dismissed Ms. Ellis’ claims because she had signed an employment agreement when she started working for the security company in which she agreed that she only had 6 months to bring any discrimination claims.  While parties to agreements sometimes do agree to shorten the statute of limitations, the practice is one that has been met with varying success throughout the country.  In this particular instance, the Court of Appeals determined that the provision in the contract shortening the statute of limitations was against public policy and it reversed the lower court’s decision.

The Court of Appeals’ decision on public policy was based on the premise that the FEHA is designed to protect employees against discrimination and retaliation in the workplace and provides remedies for employees who have experienced either.  The FEHA also requires employees to exhaust all administrative remedies.  An employee who follows the rules of the FEHA and exhausts all administrative remedies will likely not be able to sue within a shortened amount of time as allowed by an employment contract.  Therefore, if enforced, the 6-month time period that Ms. Ellis agreed to in her employment contract would have the result of not allowing Ms. Ellis to pursue her claims under the FEHA.  The court determined that this was against public policy and the purpose of the FEHA.

Contact Us for Legal Help

Do you feel you have been harassed or discriminated against at your place of employment? The labor and employment attorneys at Beck Law P.C. have experience litigating employment lawsuits, including sexual harassment and retaliation cases and can advise you on these types of matters.  Please contact us if online or by phone at 707-576-7175 to schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys.

Photo Credit: thinkpanama via Compfight cc

Small Businesses Risk $100 Per Day Obamacare Fine

CautionEven though many of us do not quite understand the rules of Obamacare, or what we will be offering our employees, it is no excuse according to the Department of Labor.  Small business owners who were led to believe that they could “ease” into the Obamacare transition in 2015,  and perhaps thought they had time to absorb the rules and guidelines, may be in for an expensive wake-up call next month.

$100 Per Day Obamacare Fine

Beginning Oct. 1, all businesses with at least one employee and $500,000 in annual revenue must notify all employees by letter about the Affordable Care Act’s health-care exchanges, or face up to a $100-per-day fine. The requirement applies to any business regulated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is mostly all businesses, regardless of size.

 In addition whenever you hire a new employee, you have 14 days in which to give them all the most current information regarding their healthcare options under the Affordable Care Act’s market exchanges, according to the Department of Labor, or penalties and fines will accrue.  In order to get the model notice that must be sent to all employees, visit the Department of Labor website and download the pdf.

Workplace Harassment or Just Playful Conversation?

Workplace Harassment

Q: I’m an employer of a local business, and recently there’s been a problem between several employees. One of the employees claims the others are sexually harassing her. I’m not sure the conduct qualifies as harassment, and it seems like just playful conversation. What should I do?

A: A claim of harassment by an employee should be taken very seriously by the employer, as harassment of any type, sexual, discriminatory or otherwise, continues to be a common problem in the workplace in California. The California Code of Regulations is helpful in identifying several different layers of sexual harassment, but these principles may also be applied to other types of harassment as well:

  1. Where submission to harassment is a condition of employment;
  2. Where the choice to submit or not affects employment decisions;
  3. When the purpose or effect of the conduct alleged as harassment unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance;
  4. When the purpose or effect of the conduct alleged as harassment unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance; or
  5. When the conduct alleged to be harassment creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Fair Employment and Housing Act

2 Cal Code Regs §§7287.6(b), 7291.1(f)(1). These categories set the prohibitions on the variety of conduct by employers and co-employees. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California law defines two types of methods to prove sexual harassment in the workplace: conduct which establishes a quid pro quo, and conduct creating a hostile work environment. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 11.

Sexual Favoritism

Does your employee contend that the harassment is a result of some quid pro quo arrangement with another employee or manager? The California Supreme Court defined such quid pro quo harassment as conduct that leads to “sexual favoritism”, including the award of job benefits or bonuses if the employee submits to sexual advances. Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 461-462. However, this also incorporates the converse, such as a manager threatening to demote or take punitive action against an employee should they not submit to sexual advances or conduct requested, expressly or impliedly.

Your employee may also be referencing a claim of a hostile work environment. The California Supreme Court has also set forth the standards in Lyle in relation to what constitutes a hostile work environment sufficient to create harassment:

Under Title VII, a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim requires a plaintiff employee to show she was subjected to sexual advances, conduct, or comments that were (1) unwelcome (see Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at p. 68, 106 S.Ct. 2399); (2) because of sex (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 75, 80-81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (Oncale)); and (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work environment (id. at p. 81, 118 S.Ct. 998; Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at p. 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399). In addition, she must establish the offending conduct was imputable to her employer. (Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at pp. 69-73, 106 S.Ct. 2399.)

Lyle, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d at 12. Whenever an employee performs any type of investigation prompted by a claim of harassment, these three elements are necessary and essential questions to ask and conclusions to determine before taking any action. It may very well be that such “harassment” is in fact nothing more than workplace conversation which the employee has taken out of context, for the mere discussion of sex or vulgar, sexual language is generally insufficient to show the harassment was “because of sex”; the conduct must involve some treatment to the employee on the basis of sex itself.

In either sense, every employer should take a claim of harassment seriously. [Read more…]

Employer Retaliation

Employer RetaliationQ: I have a question about employer retaliation. I’ve worked at the same company for years.  Recently there was a problem on a job site where safety precautions weren’t implemented correctly by management, and someone was hurt.  I made my supervisor aware of the problem, but he said if I want to keep my job, I should simply let management worry about those problems, and go about my day.  What should I do?  Can my employer really get rid of me for telling them about that?

California Employer Retaliation Protections

A: California law is designed to protect employees from employer retaliation for raising issues which either violate legal statutes, rules, or other improprieties at the workplace.  For example, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA, California Labor Code §§6300-6718) provides for protections to employees who make complaints or notifications regarding the safety conditions of the workplace or job site.  Such employees who make complaints, regardless of whether written or oral, to the employer or to a government agency, cannot be subject to discharge, reprimand, or adverse action by the employer because of those complaints.  Taylor v Lockheed Martin Corp (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 472, 485.

How serious does your complaint need to be?  Generally, the complaint to the employer or to the administrative body need only be reasonable.  In other words, even if an employee makes a complaint about safety code violations, but the employer’s conduct otherwise complied with the relevant rules, they are still protected from any adverse action as long as the employee held a reasonable belief of the violation.

What does an employee do if an employer does take such adverse action against them for making those complaints?  An employee may file an administrative complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Office of the Labor Commissioner.  California Labor Code §98.7.  The complaint must cite the issues raised by the employee, the adverse action taken by the employer in retaliation, and must generally be filed within six (6) months of the action by the employer in question.  If the Labor Commissioner should find a violation of any law, rule or regulation, the Commissioner will order the appropriate remedies for the employee, including “rehiring or reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and interest thereon, payment of reasonable attorney’s fees associated with any hearing held by the Labor Commissioner in investigating the complaint, and the posting of notices to employees.”  Section 98.7(b).  It is possible the employee may not be required to exhaust this administrative remedy before proceeding to file a civil lawsuit against the employer should they choose to do so.  Daly v Exxon Corporation (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 39, 46.  Even so, filing an administrative complaint with the Labor Commissioner is generally less costly than a civil lawsuit, and the employee might consider that remedy first, in order to see if the administrative body can resolve the problem.

Your complaints about workplace hazards and safety, however, are not the only category of complaints protected under California law.  Employers may not retaliate against employees for refusing to perform any acts which the employee reasonably believes would result in a violation of the rules of law.  Section 2856; Tameny v Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 174 fn8.  While this would encompass safety violations, the provision is also broad enough to encompass administrative violations, crimes, or other conduct which would otherwise violate the rules of any state or local law.  In fact, Section 98.6 provides that employers may not take any retaliation against employees for exercising their rights under the Labor Code, and that doing so may entitle the employee various remedies such as reinstatement, reimbursement for back wages, and possible criminal penalties.

[Read more…]

Disclaimer

The information on this website should not be considered to be legal advice, nor construed to be the formation of any manner of attorney client relationship. Prior to taking any form of legal action, please consult with an attorney experienced in the appropriate area of law germane to your situation. Case results and testimonials presented on www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net or any of its related websites are germane to the facts present for each individual case and is not a promise of similar outcomes for any other cases. This website is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California.