Category Archives: Uncategorized

Unfortunately, pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is still very prevalent in California. Earlier this year we won a trial for over $500,000 for a woman who was discriminated against because of her pregnancy. Beyond that, our firm receives several calls per week from female employees being treated unfairly because of their pregnancy. The journey of having a child is already filled with enough stress, both physical and emotional, and it further adds to the stress of having a child when a pregnant employee’s job and financial security are being threatened by the very company they work hard for. Therefore, when an employer discriminates you, you should contact an employment lawyer for a free consultation.

Pregnancy Discrimination in California

Under Federal and California law, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or any other related medical conditions (such as breastfeeding). Basically, to have any kind of case at all, the employee must show that her employer knew or was aware that she was pregnant and evidence of employer’s intent to discriminate based on pregnancy.

Reyes v. Gary R. Arnold and First Take Productions Inc.

Reyes is a 2009 pregnancy discrimination case coming out of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and is a great example of how pregnancy discrimination in the workplace typically occurs. Plaintiff worked as an executive assistant and manager of the fundraising department for Defendant. Plaintiff was terminated after she informed her employer that she was pregnant. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant terminated her because she was pregnant.

Clearly, Defendant knew she was pregnant because she informed them. But was their discriminatory intent to fire the Plaintiff based on her pregnancy? Yes, on numerous occasions, Defendant made derogatory and negative comments regarding Plaintiff being pregnant. Defendant showed his annoyance with her being pregnant as he kept referring to her as having “a belly full of Iranian baby.” The jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, and was awarded over $700,000 in damages.

Although Reyes is a few years old, California juries are still ruling in favor of employees who are subject to pregnancy discrimination. Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is a serious thing, and it never looks good in front of a jury when an employer fires an employee while they are on maternity leave or upon giving birth to their child. If you believe your employer is discriminating against you because of you are pregnant or because you have given birth, visit our webpage on pregnancy discrimination.

More Information Related to This Post

• Maternity Leave
• CFRA
• Pregnancy Disability Leave
• Leave of Absence Lawyer

Companies frequently try to squirrel out of having to pay payroll taxes and benefits to employees by calling them “independent contractors.” Employees are frequently misclassified this way. One popular example are sports cheerleaders. Governor Brown recently signed AB 202 which adds Section 2754 to the Labor Code, providing that cheerleaders for California-based professional sports teams are employees, rather than independent contractors. The statute applies “for purposes of all of the provisions of state law that govern employment, including the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.” The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2016. After that date, the Chargers, Raiders, 49ers, Angels, Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers and all of the other sports teams will have to pay their “cheer” staff an hourly wage, overtime, and all the other perks of employment.

In today’s economy, women work as hard or harder than men. Even still, priority number one for many working women is having a family. Luckily, the US and California legislature’s have enacted laws that protect women who choose to have children and work. The law requires most employers to grant CA women maternity leave. Sadly, employers sometimes disregard the law and terminate the female soon after they find out she’s pregnant. If this has happened to you, you need to hire a maternity leave lawyer.

Maternity Leave Lawyers Know CA’s Employment Laws

A maternity leave lawyer is an employment lawyer who know’s a lot about California’s leave of absence laws that apply to maternity leave. These include the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Leave (PDL) laws. They are also very familiar with the federal laws on point, the Family Medical Rights Act (FMLA). There are many more laws that apply.

In a nutshell, a maternity leave attorney will be able to review your situation and let you know whether or not your employer has violated the law. If you need a reasonable accommodation because your doctor put you on bedrest, and your employer refused to provide you with accommodation, you might have a case. If you were fired shortly after you told your boss that you were pregnant, then you might have a case.

Typical Violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Laws

Is it rare in today’s world when an employer blatantly fires an employee because she is pregnant. Discrimination is far more subtle in today’s world. Here are a few typical pregnancy discrimination scenarios that we see frequently:

1. The employee finds out that she is pregnant and informs her boss a few months into the pregnancy. But then complications arise, and the employee is put on bedrest or her doctor instructs her to sit for 95% of the day. When the employee requests these accommodations, the employee is either fired, or gets a bad performance review and then is fired. Often, the employer will claim that the termination is for “tardiness” or some other made-up reason.
2. The employee is pregnant and goes on maternity leave. Shortly after the employee returns, she is fired for performance related issues that allegedly occurred when she was pregnant. We often find that these bogus reasons are related to the days she left for prenatal visits or are correlated with her transition in preparing for her maternity leave.
3. The employee tells the employer that she is pregnant and is suddenly fired for things that she allegedly did wrong before she told the employer that she was pregnant. If the lawyer can prove that these are not genuine reasons for her termination, the employer could be in a lot of legal trouble.

There are many more variations, but we see these all the time. But at the end of the day, whether or not you have a good case is determined on a case by case basis. If you want to know more, give our employment law firm a call. We always offer free consultations.

Branigan Robertson is a Los Angeles CA Employment Attorney.

Branigan Robertson is a employee rights attorney in Southern California. The firm exclusively represents employees across the state in lawsuits against employers. If you need a Los Angeles CA employment lawyer contact us for a free consultation. Mr. Robertson takes cases throughout California.

Wrongful Termination – Harassment – Retaliation

Los Angeles has 3.8 million people in it. If you count the surrounding areas, there are millions more. According to LA County’s own website there are 244,000 businesses operating daily. Unfortunately, thousands of people need a Los Angeles CA employment lawyer because their company broke the law when they fired them. Sadly, only a small percentage of these individuals have the courage to reach out and contact a lawyer.

Wrongful termination, harassment, and retaliation should be a thing of the past in Los Angeles. These unlawful acts will never disappear unless people stand up and fight for their legal rights. Despite California’s many challenges, Los Angeles is one of the most progressive cities in the world. But employment law and equality will never prevail unless people simply have the courage to call a lawyer.

A Different Kind of Los Angeles CA Employment Lawyer

There are thousands and thousands of lawyers in Southern California. How do you decide who to call? There is no right answer, as some lawyers are more suited for certain types of cases. But generally, the best lawyer for your case is someone who has the time and energy to fully devote to your case. A great lawyer will do a bad job on your case if he or she does not devote enough time or energy to it.

Mr. Robertson prides himself on his business model. His largest key to success has been picking honest clients! Mr. Robertson refuses to work with anyone who appears to have the wrong motivation or who is simply trying to win a bunch of money a trial.

Mr. Robertson takes very few cases each year so he can devote as much time as possible to each case. Mr. Robertson also co-counsel’s with other lawyers if he feels their expertise will add significant value to the case. This does not increase the contingency fee that the client pays for his legal counsel. Mr. Robertson also prides himself on giving each client fantastic personal service. Clients receive frequent phone calls an emails personally from Mr. Robertson. Mr. Robertson also returns emails and phone calls from clients within 24 hours.

Unpaid Overtime – Whistleblowers – Harassment

To our constant amazement, some unscrupulous employers still fail to pay overtime properly, and then wrongfully terminate an employee when the employee requests that they be paid according to the law. Unfortunately, Los Angeles CA employment lawyers frequently see companies retaliate and terminate whistleblowers. This is especially prevalent in the health care industry when nurses or other medical professionals complain about patient safety. Finally, we get calls every week about sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment.

Contact Us

If you feel that you are a victim of any of the above acts, contact our office today. Don’t wait to retain a Los Angeles CA employment lawyer. If you wait too long your claim might expire. Here is our main LA page. The sooner you contact an attorney the better. We offer free consultations with no obligation. More importantly, you don’t pay us any money up front. We are a contingency firm and we only get paid when you win. Call today.

SaveSave

On June 24^th of this year, in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, the California Supreme Court upheld the enforceability and validity of an employer’s use of class action waivers in arbitration agreements between the employee and the employer. However, this decision does not completely destroy the possibility for employees to take action against their employer. In the same case, the Court also upheld that an arbitration agreement which waives employees’ representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (also known as PAGA) is unenforceable under state law.

Private Attorney’s General Act

Before we get into what this decision means for employees, let’s discuss PAGA. Under PAGA, an employee is authorized by the state to bring an action against his or her employer and recover penalties on behalf of the state for the employer’s state law violations. Essentially, the employee is acting in the interest of the state. If penalties are awarded, seventy-five percent of the penalties go to the state and the employee keeps the remaining twenty-five percent of the penalties. This is unlike the usual class action suits in which all of the penalties are awarded to the employees.

Representative Actions Unenforceable

While Iskanian held that an arbitration agreement is generally enforceable, the Court held that an employer cannot force the waiver of an employee’s representative PAGA claims. The Court reasoned that such a waiver would be against public policy as it is important that employers be held accountable for state law violations. The Court’s decision stalls employers’ efforts to avoid employee class action lawsuits. This is because a waiver of PAGA claims will most likely not be enforced in a California court, and if the class action waiver includes language discussing a waiver of PAGA claims then there is a possibility a California court would find the entire arbitration agreement unenforceable.

As discussed above, PAGA claims may be less compelling for employees to pursue than class action claims because seventy-five percent of the recovery under PAGA claims goes to the state, but the penalties can potentially be considerable. Thus, the decision in Iskanian should give those employees who have signed arbitration agreements hope because employees can still pursue penalties in court if class action claims are not possible. Finally, there are a few perks when an employee files a PAGA claim. Unlike class action lawsuits, the employee in a PAGA claim does not need to meet the typical class certification requirements (which can often be difficult obstacles to overcome) because fellow employees do not need to be added into litigation as one employee can represent all of the harmed employees. In addition, the employee does not need to share his twenty-five percent cut of the penalty.

If employees are seeking to take action against their former employer, they should not lose hope just because they signed a class action waiver. If an employer violated state law, there is still a good chance the employee can ensure that the employer is not only held accountable for violating the law, but also can ensure that he or she receives the proper damages that is owed to him or her. Contact an experienced employment attorney for more information.

Attorney Case Law Update: Purton v. Marriott Int’l, Inc. – This case is about company holiday parties getting out of hand. Are employers liable for accidents caused by their employees who become intoxicated during holiday parties? Branigan Robertson is a California employee lawyer who focuses his practice on hostile work environment, unlawful retaliation, and wrongful termination.

Can Employers be Liable for Drunk Employees?

Marriott hosted an annual holiday party for its employees and management. In an effort to control over zealous employees, only beer and wine was served and each attendee was limited to two drink tickets.  However, Michael Landri wasn’t one to simply sip beer and wine. He decided that a little pre-party drinking would be fun, so he drank a beer and a shot before going to the party. He also brought a flask to the party filled with whiskey.

Mr. Landri did not work the day of the party, but was employed by Marriott as a bartender. While at the party he refilled his flask and proceeded to get intoxicated. After the party, Mr. Landri drove home. He did not drink any more after leaving the party. But after arriving home safely, Mr. Landri decided to get back on the road and drive a co-worker home.

Sadly, Mr. Landri drove over 100 miles per hour and rear-ended Dr. Jared Purton’s vehicle, killing him. Mr. Landri had a blood alcohol level of 0.16.

What did the Court Hold for the Employer?

Mr. Purton’s family sued Marriott for wrongful death. The trial court granted summary judgment for Marriott, effectively throwing out his case. I’m assuming that the trial court tossed the case because Mr. Landri arrived home safely the first time, and then decided to make a second trip. But the court of appeal reversed the trial court, and held that “a trier of fact could conclude the party and drinking of alcoholic beverages benefited Marriott by improving employee morale and furthering employer-employee relations… [and] that Landri was acting within the scope of his employment while ingesting alcoholic beverages at the party.”

Unfortunately, California courts are in a budget crisis. The largest court system in the Country will not share in any of the new revenue in Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised budget plan. Read the article here.