Archive for the ‘Amelia Burroughs’ Category

On July 6, 2010, the Janssen Law Firm and attorneys from two other firms received for their clients the largest jury verdict in the United States this year.  The case is Lavender v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Case No. DR060264, Superior Court of California, Humboldt County.  The plaintiff class is represented by W. Timothy Needham, Michael Crowley, Amelia Burroughs and Patrick Griego of the Janssen Law Firm from Eureka, by Michael Thamer from Callahan, and by Chris Healey and Aaron T. Winn of the Luce Forward firm from San Diego. This is the highest verdict ever achieved against a nursing home chain and one of the highest verdicts  in the United States this decade.

(more…)

On July 6th, 2010 a Humboldt County jury returned a verdict in excess of $670 million dollars against Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., Skilled Healthcare LLC and 22 subsidiaries located throughout California for violating the state minimum staffing requirements.  The plaintiff class was represented by members W. Timothy Needham, Michael Crowley, Amelia Burroughs and Patrick Griego of the Janssen Law Firm from Eureka, by Michael Thamer from Callahan,  and Chris Healey of the Luce Forward firm from San Diego.  This is the highest verdict ever achieved against a nursing home chain and one of the highest in the United States this decade.   In its verdict the jury found that defendants understaffing was done with malice.   The jury will return on July 15th to decide the amount of punitive damages the defendants should pay as a result of their misconduct.   The specific Skilled Healthcare facilities sued were Alexandria Care Center, LLC, Alta Care Center, LLC, Anaheim Terrace Care Center, LLC, Bay Crest Care Center, LLC, Brier Oak on Sunset, LLC, Carehouse Healthcare Center, LLC, Devonshire Care Center, LLC, Elmcrest Care Center, LLC, Eureka Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Granada Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Hancock Park Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Montebello Care Center, LLC, Royalwood Care Center, LLC, Pacific Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Seaview Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Sharon Care Center, LLC, St. Luke Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Sycamore Park Care Center, LLC, The Earlwood, LLC, Valley Healthcare Center, LLC, Villa Maria Healthcare Center, LLC, Willow Creek Healthcare Center, LLC.

Michael Morrison and Amelia Burroughs of this Eureka, Humboldt County firm recently concluded the successful defense of a medical malpractice jury trial in Yreka, Siskiyou County, California.  The trial, presided over by the Honorable Karen Dixon, was very well run.  The court staff was quite helpful, and the jurors very attentive. The trial was a pleasant experience and demonstrated the civil jury experience at its best.
The Janssen Law Firm represents clients in litigation in all Northern California counties and Federal Courts.

By far, the majority of questions we receive from Humboldt County employers concern meal and rest period requirements. If you haven’t heard, California employers and employees alike (as well as the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) await a decision by the California Supreme Court in the Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court case.   Until then, in California, the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders require that employers authorize and permit nonexempt employees to take a rest period that should be taken in the middle of each work period.  You should always check the Wage Orders for your employees’ industries because more than one Wage Order may apply to a single employer,  particularly those who employ in different job functions.

(more…)

On September 18, 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a race harassment lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc. (EEOC v. Big Lots, Inc., CV-08-06355-GW(CTx).)  The EEOC alleged that Big Lots violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it subjected a black maintenance mechanic and other black employees to race harassment and discrimination at the Big Lots Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., distribution center.  According to allegations by the EEOC, an immediate supervisor and co-workers,  all Hispanic, made racially derogatory jokes, comments, slurs and epithets. The EEOC further alleged that Big Lots learned of the harassment but took no steps to either prevent or correct it.

(more…)

If you follow the news, you are familiar with Goldman Sachs’ current spotlight in the hot seat.   And you may know that the Securities and Exchange Commission used a Goldman Sachs’ employee’s e-mail to draft its historic complaint against the company for fraud, which also brought Congressional hearings in which Goldman Sachs’ executives have to testify, as well as intense media scrutiny.   Local employers should use this financial giant as a cautionary tale.

(more…)

Identifying which employment laws affect which employers is sometimes a difficult exercise, despite all of the available information. Sometimes, it takes a careful read of the applicable statutes and regulations to determine a law’s applicability.   For small Humboldt County employers, the first question in a discrimination complaint or lawsuit is whether a state or federal law even applies to the employer.   Many laws that apply to California employers require a minimum number of employees before the law is applicable.   As a general rule of thumb,  California state discrimination laws (concerning protected classes such as race, gender, national origin, religious affiliation, etc.) apply to employers with five or more employees.   Additionally, employers with five or more employees must comply with laws prohibiting pregnancy discrimination.

(more…)

If you’re an employer in California, you know the difficulties associated with proving an employee meets an exemption from overtime. Last month, a California appellate court issued an opinion highlighting those difficulties.  The case is entitled Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 713 (out of the Fourth Appellate District).   In Pellegrino, six former employees of a temporary staffing agency, most of whom were “account executives” sued the agency for Labor Code violations,  primarily failure to pay overtime and failure to provide meal periods.  The agency defended the lawsuit by arguing that the employees fell under the Administrative Exemption from wage requirements.   The appellate court decided in favor of the employees.

(more…)

As of November 21, 2009, employers must post a supplement next to the 2009 Employment Poster.  The new posting includes changes to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) notice concerning the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”),  signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008.  The purpose of GINA is to prohibit any improper use of genetic information (for example, any genetic predisposition to developing a disease) in health insurance and employment.  Employers may not use an employee’s genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement or promotion decisions.  Today, employers must begin complying with GINA.  Nor may group health plans or health insurers deny coverage to healthy individuals—or charge higher premiums—on the basis of genetic information.

The posting also explains changes in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as well as revisions to laws pertaining to employers who hold federal contracts or subcontracts.

The 2009 Employment Post supplement is available to employers for free at the EEOC web site.

In California, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) is the state agency responsible for adjudicating wage claims.   Sometimes, the first an employer learns that an employee or former employee has a wage dispute is when the employer receives a complaint from the DLSE.
(more…)