Janssen Law Blog » Amelia Burroughs

Misclassification is Going to Brand You

mzumwalt — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:11:21 +0000

Governor Brown recently signed SB 459, employment-related legislation aimed at that ever-complicated pas de deux: employee versus independent contractor classification. Under the new law, there are serious consequences for any employer who willfully misclassifies an employee as an independent contractor, as well as any person advising an employer that the employee can be classified as an independent contractor. There are also civil penalties beginning at $15,000, as well as additional civil damages, reports to the State Contractor’s Licensing Board for contractor employers, and posting (a lá “The Scarlet Letter”) of the employer’s violation in a public area or employer’s website for one year if the employer is found to be in violation.

DLSE Increased Enforcement Mechanisms for 2012

mzumwalt — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:00:21 +0000

AB 469, signed by Governor Brown and effective January 1, 2012, adds some expensive teeth to the enforcement of the Labor Code by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). Among the many changes harkened by AB 469, the Labor Code has now been amended to make the willful violation of specified wage statutes or orders a misdemeanor. Additionally, the law is amended to expand from one year to three years the time in which the DLSE may collect statutory penalties or fees.

2012 Notice Requirements for New Hires

mzumwalt — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:54:29 +0000

California employers have new notice requirements beginning January 1, 2012. AB 469 goes into effect on January 1, 2012, and as a result, private employers in California must provide written notice to non-exempt new hires of the following: (1) rate(s) of pay, (2) meal or lodging allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage, (3) the regular payday(s), (4) the name(s) of the employer, including any “doing business as” names, (5) the employer’s physical address or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different, (6) the employer’s telephone number(s), (7) the name, address and telephone number of the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, and finally (8) “Any other information the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary.” With certain exceptions, employers must also give written notice to employees within seven days if any of the above information should change during the course of employment. The Legislature directed the Labor Commissioner to prepare a template for employers to use that complies with the notice requirements, but the better practice is to provide the information in writing to new hires even if the Labor Commissioner’s template is not yet available.

Consumer Attorney of the Year Award Nominations

mzumwalt — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:37:17 +0000

Janssen Malloy LLP partners, W. Timothy Needham, Michael J. Crowley, Patrik Griego and Amelia F. Burroughs have been nominated by Consumer Attorneys of California for the organization’s Consumer Attorney of the Year Award. The nomination arises from the firm’s handling of the seminal jury verdict case of 2010, Lavender vs. Skilled Healthcare LLC. The Janssen Law Firm, along with co-counsel Michael Thamer and Christopher Healey, obtained the largest jury verdict in the United States in 2010, $677 million dollars. The case had a significant impact on the healthcare industry, specifically the skilled nursing facilities throughout the nation.

The verdict has forced corporations that operate skilled nursing facilities to pay attention to the minimum nurse staffing requirements necessary to ensure the health and safety of the residents.

Janssen Malloy LLP partners W. Timothy Needham and Michael J. Crowley spent seven months in trial on Lavender vs. Skilled Healthcare LLC in 2010. Both Mr. Needham and Mr. Crowley have served on the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys of California, and Patrik Griego currently serves on that organization’s Board of Governors.

The Consumer Attorneys of California champions the rights of injured people, safety and responsibility, and the right to trial by jury.

DFEH Procedural and Practice Regulations

mzumwalt — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:05:01 +0000

On October 7, 2011, the procedural and practice regulations for the Department of Fair Employment and Housing became effective in the California Code of Regulations. The regulations can be found beginning at California Code of Regulations, Title 2, section 10000 through section 10066. The regulations govern the Department’s practices and procedures with respect to the filing, investigation and conclusion of complaints alleging violations of any law the Department enforces (employment discrimination, Unruh Civil Rights Act, Ralph Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act and housing discrimination complaints). Practitioners and employers alike now have ready access to the Department’s procedures, which should go a long way toward clarifying a sometimes obscure complaint process.

Janssen Malloy LLP Partner Appointed to Board

mzumwalt — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:50:21 +0000

On September 15, 2011, at the 37th Annual Dinner of the California Women Lawyers, Janssen Malloy LLP partner Amelia F. Burroughs will be appointed to the 2011-2012 California Women Lawyer’s Board of Governors. California Women Lawyer’s mission is to develop and implement a statewide advocacy agenda. This year, California Women Lawyers has been productively engaged in amicus curiae briefing in cases important to its core issues, legislative advocacy for women’s and children’s rights, combating gender bias in the media, and seeking diversity in the judiciary.

Amelia is thrilled to serve on the Board of Governors and looking forward to yet another productive year.

Eureka Lawyer Named Partner at Janssen Malloy

mzumwalt — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:53:16 +0000

Janssen Malloy is pleased to announce that Amelia F. Burroughs has become a partner in the firm. Born and raised in Humboldt County, Ms. Burroughs was recently selected by Super Lawyers Magazine as a 2011 Northern California Rising Star. Notably, Ms. Burroughs was part of the trial team for the plaintiffs in the Lavender v. Skilled Healthcare class action litigation, which resulted in the largest jury verdict ever awarded in Humboldt County ($677 million dollars). Ms. Burroughs is an experienced litigator who graduated at the top of her law school class and served as Editor-in-Chief of the McGeorge Law Review (2001 – 2002). Ms. Burroughs joined the firm in 2007 after practicing in the San Francisco and San Diego areas for five years. She is currently the Secretary of the Humboldt County Bar Association.

The Janssen Malloy firm continues its representation of providing the highest qualified and most vigorous advocates for its clients throughout the North Coast in personal injury, healthcare, employment, elder abuse, real estate and criminal litigation. The firm also provides a variety of business and transactional services, including real estate, business planning, employment advice, corporation and contract law, as well as estate planning and probate.

Janssen Malloy LLP is proud to welcome Ms. Burroughs to our partnership.

Eureka Personal Injury Attorneys Finalists

mzumwalt — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:48:01 +0000

News Release – For Immediate Release

June 21, 2011

Contact: Deborah Mathis, Communications Director – (202) 797-8600 or dmathis@publicjustice.net

Six California Lawyers Who Won Historic Verdict for Nursing Home Residents Are Finalists for Trial Lawyer of the Year Award

A team of California lawyers is in the running for the 2011 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award, presented annually by the Public Justice Foundation, a national organization of public interest attorneys and advocates headquartered in Washington, D.C.

After six years of litigation that included a seven-month trial in Lavender v. Skilled Healthcare Group, attorneys Tim Needham of Eureka, Calif., Michael Thamer of Callahan, Calif., Chris Healey of San Diego, and Michael Crowley, Patrik Griego and Amelia Burroughs, also of Eureka, won a staggering $677 million jury verdict against Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., a for-profit corporation that owns and operates nursing homes throughout the U.S. The lawyers represented a class of approximately 32,000 current and former nursing home residents and their families in their lawsuit against Skilled Healthcare.

Contacted by some residents’ families, Needham and his team took on the case and discovered that the nursing homes weren’t employing enough staff to provide adequate care, and that Skilled Healthcare had, in fact, intentionally understaffed all of its 22 California nursing homes in order to cut overhead and boost profits.

The $677 million was the largest ever verdict against a nursing home chain.

Needham, Thamer, Healey, Crowley, Griego and Burroughs are among 36 total lawyers—spanning six cases—named as award finalists for their extraordinary legal work in the public interest. Fifteen cases were nominated for this year’s award. They involved a range of issues: from marketing smokeless tobacco to children, to predatory lending by mortgage brokers, to discrimination against Native American farmers.

Detailed summaries of Lavender v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and the other finalist cases are accessible on the Public Justice website at http://www.publicjustice.net/Newsroom/News/2011-TLOY-Finalists-Selected.aspx.

The winner of the nationally prestigious award will be announced on July 12 at the Public Justice Foundation Annual Gala and Awards Dinner in New York City.

Public Justice is a national public interest law firm that fights injustice and holds corporate and government wrongdoers accountable. See our website at www.publicjustice.net.

Avi Kramer
Communications Coordinator
Public Justice Foundation
1825 K Street, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 797-8600 x240
http://www.publicjustice.net/
http://twitter.com/Public_Justice
http://www.facebook.com/publicjustice

What is a “disabled” employee under FEHA?

mzumwalt — Wed, 04 May 2011 15:51:26 +0000

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits employment discrimination based on a disability, real or perceived. In employment discrimination cases, it is the employee’s burden to demonstrate that he/she (1) suffered from a disability, (2) could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3) suffered an adverse employment action (termination, demotion, etc.) because of the real or perceived disability.

Under FEHA, a physical disability is one that limits a major life activity. And, there are actually state regulations describing major life activities: functions such as “caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” This state definition of physical disability differs from similar federal law in a significant way. Federal law requires that a disability “substantially limit” a major life activity. California law only requires that the major life activity be limited. Thus, it is far less likely in California that there will be a question of fact about whether an employee is, in fact, disabled under FEHA. For example, a California court of appeal recently held that an employee who needs the assistance of a cane to walk is disabled for the purpose of a FEHA disability discrimination claim—even if the employee could perform work at normal capacity. (See Sandell v. Taylor-Listug Inc., California Courts of Appeal, 4th District, Case No. D055549, Sept. 7, 2010.) In short, if an employee walks with the assistance of a cane or has a mild speech impediment, she meets her first burden in a disability discrimination claim—establishing that she suffers from a disability. Again, the import for California employers (and employment law practitioners) is that California and federal laws diverge on what it means to be “disabled” for the purpose of a discrimination claim, with California’s definition being more inclusive.

The Paper Tiger Sexual Harassment Policy

mzumwalt — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:26:29 +0000

Words are Not Enough

Humboldt County employers know that having an written sexual harassment policy is a critical practice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently released an opinion that reads like a cautionary tale about excellently-written sexual harassment policies that don’t get enforced. (See EEOC v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., 2010 DJDAR 14107, Sept. 3, 2010.) The employer had a written sexual harassment policy, signed by employees, that encouraged employees to report sexual harassment to their immediate supervisor and promised that the employer would “investigate each complaint in a prompt and proper fashion.” In this particular instance, a male employee reported sexual harassment by a female employee to three different supervisors in the chain, saying that he just wanted the harassment to stop. The last supervisor to receive the complaint responded that he didn’t want to get involved in a personal matter, and spoke to the offending employee once about her behavior. After approximately five month of harassment, even subsequent to the supervisor counseling the offending employee, the employer terminated the male employee, basically for his bad attitude. His complaint against the employer has now been litigated before a United States District Court of Appeal—an expensive proposition for any employer.

In short, employers must enforce their sexual harassment policies, or they face credible complaints of harassment.