Superior Court of San Francisco Budget Crisis Update

Posted by Marc Kroop on Monday, October 10th, 2011

In a recent blog post, we informed our San Francisco employee clients about significant cuts in the budget for the Superior Court of San Francisco. In that post, we were very concerned that the necessary overwhelming budget cuts would so impact court services that we would be forced to consider alternatives to filing employment law cases in the Superior Court of San Francisco. While there are significant cuts still in effect, those cuts have been drastically reduced as a result of the court’s reorganization and an infuse of several million dollars in funding from the Judicial Council. Significantly, the Superior Court of San Francisco will...

Read more

Filing Your Administrative Charges of Discrimination, Retaliation & Harassment Online

Posted by Marc Kroop on Friday, October 7th, 2011

In the course of providing our free initial consultation to our prospective clients in our San Diego, Orange County and San Francisco offices, we regularly field questions from prospective clients about their employment law claims including discrimination, retaliation and harassment. In some cases, our clients have conducted research on their discrimination, retaliation and harassment in advance of meeting with us and have already taken steps to file their administrative charge(s) of discrimination, retaliation and harassment with the appropriate state or federal agency before meeting with us.

A Practical Approach For Our San Diego, Orange County & San Francisco Clients

For those clients who have not researched the issue, we typically advise those clients of their rights with regard to filing such...

Read more

Those With Disabilities And Medical Conditions Should Obtain Help At The Earliest Possible Time

Posted by Marc Kroop on Friday, September 23rd, 2011

In Rogers v. County of Los Angeles, the Plaintiff Katrina Rogers returned to work after 19 weeks of medical leave only to learn that after a reorganization of her department, her position was filled by another employee and she was transferred to a new department. At the time, Ms. Rogers had been employed by the County of Los Angeles for 36 years. In her lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles, Ms. Rogers alleged two distinct theories of liability. First, Ms. Rogers alleged that the county interfered with her right to medical leave by transferring her to a new position. Second, she alleged that the transfer amounted to retaliation. At trial, the...

Read more

Budget Cuts For The Superior Court Will Force San Francisco Employment Attorneys To Consider Alternative Venues

Posted by Marc Kroop on Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

On July 18, 2011 the Superior Court of San Francisco issued a press release with the following warning: Two hundred San Francisco Superior Court employees will receive their 60-day layoff notices this week as the Court prepares for an unprecedented dismantling of court operations with far-reaching public impacts, Presiding Judge Feinstein announced today. “The civil justice system in San Francisco is collapsing,” Judge Feinstein said. “We will prioritize criminal, juvenile, and other matters that must, by law, be adjudicated within time limits. Beyond that, justice will neither be swift nor accessible.” The court warned of dire consequences for civil litigants...

Read more

Friendly Forum For California Employees

Posted by Marc Kroop on Thursday, September 8th, 2011

California employers often require employees, as a condition of employment or continued employment, to sign a document agreeing to have any future employment claims determined in accordance with another state’s laws (“choice of law” provision). Such documents often also designate foreign states (or even foreign countries) as the only appropriate location for such claims (“choice of forum” provision). These provisions have both the purpose and effect of depriving California employees of the rights guaranteed to them under California’s strong employment laws. For example, an employee terminated by her employer because of her recently announced pregnancy will likely forego her right to sue her employer for wrongful termination when she realizes she must file her in...

Read more

Before You Agree To Arbitrate Your Employment Law Claim, Part 2

Posted by Marc Kroop on Monday, August 15th, 2011

From our point of view, there is little fairness for employees subject to arbitration agreements. This is the second post in a two-part series - part one covered Getting Educated About The Facts.

It's All About Fairness

At the outset of arbitration, the process of picking an arbitrator is generally accomplished by agreement between the parties. However, if an arbitrator cannot be agreed upon, one is assigned to the case by the arbitration company that manages the case and has the list of available arbitrators. The employer and defense attorneys who regularly arbitrate employment law cases are well aware of the panel of arbitrators and will...

Read more

Before You Agree To Arbitrate Your Employment Law Claim, Part 1

Posted by Marc Kroop on Wednesday, August 10th, 2011

As a matter of course of business, many employers insist that their employees agree to arbitrate any and all claims arising out of their employment as a condition of employment.

Employees who need employment to support themselves and their families often feel they have no choice but to accept their employer’s arbitration agreement. Many employees sign employment arbitration agreements but do not fully understand the implications of such an agreement on their future legal rights.

Get Educated About The Facts

Arbitration - Right From The Start Employers typically insert employment arbitration agreements into job applications prior to employment or as an attachment to an employee handbook that requires an employee acknowledgement at the outset of employment. Sometimes employment arbitration agreements are...

Read more

Overtime for Out of State Employees Who Perform Work in California

Posted by Marc Kroop on Friday, July 29th, 2011

According to California Labor Code § 510, non-exempt employees must be compensated at 1-1/2 times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 8 in a workday or 40 in a workweek. Also, employers must pay overtime to employees for the first 8 hours worked on the seventh consecutive workday in a workweek. In addition, employees must be compensated at 2 times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 12 hours in a workday and after the first 8 hours worked on the seventh consecutive workday in a workweek. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., the California Supreme Court decided that California Labor Code §510 applies to all non-exempt employees working in California,...

Read more

Negotiating The Terms Of An Employee Separation Or Severance Agreement

Posted by Marc Kroop on Monday, July 25th, 2011

When an employer terminates an employee from his/her employment, the employer in many cases will offer the employee a separation or severance agreement that provides continuing pay and/or benefits for several weeks or even several months. Unless such separation or severance pay was offered as a hiring or retention incentive (i.e., contractually guaranteed) or pursuant to the closing of operations for certain large employers, separation or severance pay is not legally required. Employers often offer small amounts of separation or severance pay to avoid the prospect of protracted and expensive litigation with former employees. In exchange for the severance benefits, the employer receives the employee's written agreement not to sue the employer at any time in the future...

Read more

Sexual Favoritism Can Constitute A Hostile Environment And Lead To Claims Of Sexual Harassment

Posted by Marc Kroop on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

When a workplace is permeated with sexual favoritism, the message to employees is that they are viewed by management as “sexual playthings.” The California Supreme Court in Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, recognized that such rampant sexual favoritism by a manager who provides unwarranted and unfair employment benefits in return for sexual favors can convey a demeaning message to employees. A message is implicitly conveyed that the managers who view employees as “sexual playthings” create a demeaning atmosphere in the workplace. Both female and male employees who find this type of sexual conduct offensive, can establish a claim for sexual harassment if the manager(s) conduct is sufficiently severe or...

Read more