February 15, 2015 · 7:45 pm

Wrongful Termination Settlements

Mr. Robertson’s primary area of work is wrongful termination. Such cases come in all shapes and sizes and many people call and ask us how much their case is worth. Unfortunately, there is no good answer, we only have hunches and educated guesses. Some employment cases fail to settle, although we estimate that 95% settle before trial. Wrongful termination settlements, by their very nature, are confidential. The plaintiff accepts a sum of money in exchange for confidentiality and a dismissal of the case.

Wrongful Termination Settlements Vary Widely

Employment lawyers like Mr. Robertson acquire settlements on behalf of their clients all the time. The value of the settlement depends on many things: how easy it is to prove the law was broken, how much money the plaintiff was making at the time they were fired, how long have they been out of work, how long can a reasonable person expect them to be out of work in the future, how severe was the conduct on behalf of the defendant, how credible are the witnesses, how damning are the documents, and how is your lawyer at negotiating.

Many lawyers are terrible at negotiating, most are decent at it, and there are a select few who are truly extraordinary. Luckily, the better your case the more chips your employment attorney will have to bargain with. So the better the case, the better your lawyer becomes.

Settlements Usually Occur at Mediation

Mediation is a totally confidential session between the parties in an effort to settle the case. There is a neutral 3rd party mediator who is paid to go back and forth between the parties to grease the wheels of negotiation. Mediation is an art and there are a few dozen who are regularly hired by employment lawyers like Mr. Robertson. Obtaining a good mediator increases the likelihood that your wrongful termination case will settle.

Wrongful Termination Settlements Frequently Occur Before Trial

Unfortunately, some defendants and their lawyers refuse to make a reasonable offer until the eve of trial. What is critical is that you have an employment attorney who knows how to prepare for trial so that the settlement offer that is made is reasonable. If your attorney neglects the case or fails to properly prepare it for trial, the defense lawyers will not give you a fair value settlement offer. Therefore, it is critical that you hire a competent attorney.

Mr. Robertson and his team handles a wide variety of termination cases. We represent people who get fired for refusing to violate the law, get pregnant, complain about harassment, etc. Wrongful termination settlements come in all shapes and sizes. It is important that you contact an attorney as soon as possible after your termination so you don’t inadvertently let your legal rights expire.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Verdicts

· 4:08 pm

California Employment Lawyer

Branigan Robertson is a California employment lawyer. His firm exclusively represents employees across California in lawsuits against employers. Our consultations are always free and Mr. Robertson exclusively works on a contingency fee basis. If you’ve been wrongfully terminated or harassed at work, visit our home page.

Finding a California employment lawyer can be frustrating. Labor attorney’s like Mr. Robertson get lots and lots of calls everyday from people who have been wrongfully terminated. This article is meant to provide some information to the individuals who are looking for a California Employment Lawyer, but have not yet found an attorney who will take their case.

California Employment Lawyer’s are Busy – Be Patient

California employment attorney’s and their staff are very busy servicing their current clients. Many lawyers cannot call you back right away as they may be writing a motion, in trial, or taking a deposition. It is when they have a few free moments that they look at potential new cases. Branigan Robertson tries to call people back with 24 hours. However, sometimes this is impossible. If you do not receive a call back in a few days, please call us again and leave us a message. If you don’t hear from us, please don’t hesitate to call another law firm. Their are lots of good lawyers out there, you just need to find one who believes in your case and has enough time to properly handle it.

Why A Lawyer May Turn Down Your Case

Unfortunately, Mr. Robertson cannot take every case. Mr. Robertson is a contingency lawyer and doesn’t get paid unless the case is successful. Obviously, with that kind of fee structure, Mr. Robertson is extremely selective and can only take a handful of cases each year. But do not assume that you don’t have a case! Call us for a free consultation. Even if Mr. Robertson turns down your case, you still might have a great case and he will likely refer you to another California employment lawyer that he believes is better suited for your case.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Harassment, Wrongful Termination

February 13, 2015 · 4:55 pm

CA Jury Awards $185 Million Dollars in Punitive Damages in Gender Discrimination Case

Employers often assume that they can fire an at-will employee at any time for any reason. This is not entirely true. In California, a company can fire an employee for any reason except for something that violates the law. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee for his or her gender. Unfortunately, an employee getting fired for their gender or being pregnant is still common.

In Jaurez v. AutoZone, plaintiff (represented by the amazing Lawrance Bohm) sued AutoZone in San Diego Federal Court for sex discrimination and retaliation under California law. Over the course of her employment, plaintiff noticed that male employees were treated more favorable than female employees. For example, less experience male employees were being promoted more often than female employees. Even though she was very qualified, plaintiff was consistently brushed aside for promotion and inexperienced and unqualified male employees would be promoted instead. Several years into her employment, plaintiff became pregnant and almost instantly adverse action was taken against her by her employer upon her telling the employer the good news. The district manager made snarky comments to her about her being pregnant, nitpicked at all her work, placed her on a performance improvement plan and was even demoted back to assistant manager. She as replaced by a male store manager. She was fired after she returned from maternity leave for allegedly not being trustworthy.

AutoZone’s lawyers argued that there was no evidence to support Plaintiff’s case. AutoZone’s lawyers further argued that Plaintiff was a manipulator who lied and made threats to receive promotions.

Plaintiff presented testimonies and evidence of the contrary. Former employees testified about the aura of retaliation at the company. Another witness testified that the reasons Plaintiff was terminated was unknown to him although he was the employee who was deemed by AutoZone as most knowledgeable about Plaintiff’s termination. Finally, AutoZone did not have any female employees testify as to the fair treatment by the company of female employees.

Fortunately, the jury did not buy defense counsel’s arguments. The jury returned a stunning verdict in favor of Plaintiff awarding her roughly $800,000 in lost wages and emotional distress, and issued an enormous $185,000,000 punitive damages verdict.

At the end of the day, this is huge for employees who have been and potentially will be terminated by their employees for discriminatory reasons. Large corporations such as AutoZone need to be held accountable for breaking the law or else these corporations will keep doing it without any consequences.

While this case is not a typical employment verdict, contact an employment lawyer immediately if you believe that you have been wrongfully terminated. You should not wait as the statute of limitations may waive you case. The firm who represented Plaintiff in this case was the Bohm Law Group, a firm that Mr. Robertson works frequently with on employment cases. This is not a typical employment verdict. This information should in no way be construed as an estimate or guarantee of what you or your loved ones may win in court even if they suffered similar abuse.

Leave a Comment

Filed under FEHA, Pregnancy, Wrongful Termination

February 9, 2015 · 10:21 am

Guardia v. Roger Stuart Clothes Inc.

Case law update – Guardia v. Roger Stuart Clothes, Inc. Unfortunately, sexual harassment in the workplace occurs frequently across California and the nation. The most common form of harassment is a hostile work environment. Cases involving hostile environment involve many and different kinds of verbal and physical conduct, whether sexual or nonsexual in nature. Such conduct creates a hostile and offensive working environment.

To prove a hostile work environment, an employee must show that he or she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, conduct or comments; and the harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.

Guardia v. Roger Stuart Clothes, Inc

In Guardia v. Roger Stuart Clothes, Inc., plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, conduct and comments, and the harassment was so severe that it created an abusive working environment. Plaintiff sued the Roger Stuart Clothes Inc. and the president for sexual harassment, among other things. During her employment, the president of the company often discussed with her unwelcome sexual comments, had males take their pants off and walk in their underwear in her presence, and demeaned employees by the use of inappropriate nicknames such as racial slurs and sexual pet names. Further, the president promoted the viewing of pornography in the workplace, and at one point, released a false letter internally that plaintiff had sex with another employee.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and was awarded among other things, lost past earnings, past and future pain and mental suffering, and punitive damages against both the employer entity and the president of the company.

Cases like this should reassure California employees that their rights under California law are still very much protected by the courts. Even though sexual harassment in the workplace is sadly a frequent occurrence, employees can rest assured that their rights will be protected by the legal system if violated. If you believe that you are or have been a victim of harassment and a hostile environment, contact an employment law lawyer immediately.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Harassment

February 6, 2015 · 1:35 pm

Disabling Employers’ From Breaking the Law: Disability Discrimination in the Workplace and Rodriguez v. Valley Vista Services Inc.

California law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of a physical disability, mentally disability, or medical condition. Under the law, a mental disability include any mental or psychological disorder including, but not limited to, emotional or mental illness, clinical depression, and bipolar disorder. Thus, a California employer may not base the following employment decision’s on a person’s mental disability: refuse to hire the person, fire the person from employment, or discriminate against the persons in the amount of compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

In Rodriguez v. Valley Vista Services Inc., plaintiff requested to take a leave of absence and reasonable accommodations as she was suffering from a mental disability in the form of severe panic attacks. She was placed on leave of absence by her doctor. Oddly enough, plaintiff was terminated within one month of making her leave and accommodation request. After being a model employee for the defendant for roughly seven years, plaintiff was terminated from employment allegedly due to “job abandonment.” Plaintiff subsequently sued her former employer and brought causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation and wrongful termination among other things.

Defendants argued that plaintiff used company e-mail to promote her babysitting gig, and that she failed to report to work for a week and refused to contact her employer thereby causing her to be terminated. Yet, the jury did not buy defendants’ arguments. After a deliberation time of three days, the jury returned a stunning verdict of $21.8 million in favor of the plaintiff.

At the end of the day, a verdict this large reaffirms California employees’ rights in the workplace. Such a large figure sends a message to employers to do what they should be doing all along: abide by the law. If you have a mental or physical disability, or a medical condition, and your employer will not reasonably accommodate you, or your believe your employer has terminated, demoted, or cut your benefits due to your disability, contact an employment lawyer immediately.

Please note, Mr. Robertson was not involved in this case in anyway and this page should not be considered a guarantee or promise as to the outcome of your case.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Disability, FEHA, Wrongful Termination

January 9, 2015 · 1:54 pm

California Meal and Rest Periods are Mandatory Even for Motor Carrier Companies

Under California law, an employer is required to provide employees a 30 minute meal break during a work period longer than five hours with some exceptions. Further, an employer is required to provide a second 30 minute meal break if an employee works more than 10 hours in a day. Also, under California law, employers are required to provide 10 minute rest periods for every four hours worked by an employee. But the law for Truckers is rapidly evolving and changing, as the below case demonstrates.

In 2013, truck drivers brought a class action suit against their employer in part for failing to provide the required meal and rest breaks under California law. In May 2013, the bench trial court awarded the truck drivers damages. The employer filed an appeal.

On appeal, their employer argued that the FAAAA (Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act) preempted California law here and thus the required meal and rest breaks did not apply to truck drivers. The employer cited to a clause which basically stated that a state may not enact or enforce a law related to a price, route or service of any motor carrier. However, the court was not convinced by the employer’s argument. Citing to a recently decided case on the same matter in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC), the court held that the FAAAA does not preempt California law when it comes to meal and rest breaks.

As the above case shows, California meal and rest break laws apply to motor carrier employers and are not preempted by the FAAAA. Therefore, if a California employer fails to provide meal breaks, the employer will be liable for one hour of pay at the employee’s normal rate of compensation for each workday the meal break was not provided. Also, if an employer fails to provide rest breaks, the employer will be liable for an extra hour of pay for each workday the rest breaks are not provided. At the end of the day, this is a huge win for employees, especially truck drivers, as it solidifies the authority California’s meal and rest break laws in the workplace.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Wage & Hour

November 7, 2014 · 2:50 pm

Protecting Employees from Retaliation in the Workplace: Avila v. Los Angeles Police Dept.

Workplace retaliation is the unlawful employment practice in which an employer discharges or discriminates against an employee because that employee has opposed illegal practices that occurred at the workplace or because that employee has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any legal proceeding. Thus, an employee may have a retaliation claim in a situation where his or her employer wrongfully terminates the employee for testifying in a legal proceeding against the lawyer, or even assisting in a legal proceeding involving the employer.

In Avila v. Los Angeles Police Department, a police officer sued the LAPD alleging that he was owed overtime pay for working during his lunch periods. Avila, a fellow police officer, was called as a witness at trial. Avila testified that he worked through lunch without ever claiming overtime. He also testified that he witnessed other police officers working through lunch without claiming overtime. After his testimony, a disciplinary review board found him guilty of insubordination because he did not report overtime work violations to anyone during his tenure as a police officer. Subsequently, LAPD fired Avila. In response, Avila filed a retaliation lawsuit.

LAPD argued that he was not fired for testifying, but because Avila’s testimony shed light that he was not correctly reporting his work time. The Court was not convinced. Evidence showed that it was not uncommon for police officers to work through their lunch hours without reporting overtime hours. Oddly enough, only those who testified, including Avila, were fired. Further, Avila was terminated in the first placed because he had testified. If Avila had not testified, LAPD would have no knowledge of him not reporting working through his lunch break. Therefore, it was very reasonable for the jury to find that Avila’s testimony prompted his termination.

To sum it up, an employer cannot retaliate against an employee because the employee took part in a legal proceeding against the employer. Further, an employer cannot retaliate against an employee for complaining of potential wage and hour violations. Avila v. Los Angeles Police Department is a win for employees as it shows employers that they need to be extremely careful when firing someone for complaining or being part of a legal proceeding against them.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Retaliation