Posts Tagged ‘Amelia F. Burroughs’

In Humboldt County, as throughout California, the law requires that all employers “engage in a timely,  good faith,  interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.”  (California Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n).)   An employer who fails to engage in the interactive process will be liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

The statute’s phrasing, “in response to a request[,]” makes one think that there must be some formal request by the employee, but that’s just not true.   California courts have decided that there are “no magic words necessary” to be used by the employee, and furthermore, the employer’s “obligation arises once the employer becomes aware of the need to consider an accommodation.”  In other words, employers must be extremely careful to hear “requests” by employees that the employer engage in the interactive process.

(more…)

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published a decision regarding the misidentification of employees as independent contractors.  Such a decision by a court could have serious consequences for Humboldt County employers.  In short, having your employees acknowledge that they’re independent contractors doesn’t make it so.

In Narayan, et al. v. EGL, INC., et al., No. 07-16487, the employer, “a global transportation, supply chain management and information services company[,]” was a Texas company with driving operations in California.  Three of the employer’s California drivers signed agreements for “Leased Equipment and Independent Contractor Services,” which provided that the parties’ intentions were to enter into an independent contractor relationship.  Subsequently, the California drivers filed a lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime, expense reimbursement, meal compensation, and reimbursement for unlawful wage deductions—all owed to employees under California law.

(more…)

The U.S. Department of Labor recently updated its Employment Law Guide, as useful starting point for answering basic employment questions for employers. The updated Guide can be found here.

Remember that many federal laws are not as broad as California employment laws, and employers in Humboldt County must comply with both federal and state laws.

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…)