The Importance of Establishing a Firm Foundation in Terminating Employees

Firing an employee is a decision that could sometimes be tricky. It is tricky in a sense that although there is a reason to fire a worker from his or her job (e.g. poor performance), it does not help that the decision comes at an inopportune time. She could be expected to give birth, or he or she is still on leave due to a medical or family reason, or has just filed a workers’ compensation claim. Any employee who is experiencing any of these circumstances can easily hire a Los Angeles employment lawyer and claim wrongful termination, especially if they have been made aware of their rights or that the employer’s decision was based on something illegal.

Indeed, the trickiness that comes with firing an employee may have legal implications that could hurt an employer’s reputation and its daily operations. Yet an employer can actually prevent these issues from happening by establishing a firm foundation when it comes to terminating employees. This would involve providing employees with honest evaluations on a regular basis, investigating any issues of misconduct before handing down the decision to fire them, and establishing a paper trail for every termination decision.

·         Evaluations of employees’ work performance allow an employer to provide them with constructive criticisms and other related feedback with regards their work in an effort to have increased productivity. These must always be done on a regular basis; otherwise, an employer might possibly face claims of discrimination and retaliation from their employees. Knowing that termination basis of one’s protected characteristics is against the prevailing employment laws on the federal and state levels, any employer cannot afford to deal with the costly matter.

·         Another thing to consider when building a firm foundation for termination procedures within the company is for the employer to have their employee evaluators undergo training. It is important for supervisors and other people from HR to be trained on how to provide truthful evaluations to employees, not just as an employment procedure but also in a way that would prevent employees from ever suing the company in the future.

·         Investigating a workplace issue involving an allegation about an employee’s wrongdoing or failure to abide with company policy is a must before deciding to fire him or her. The employer or company must be able to appoint someone who can spearhead the investigation and make a decision if the employee in question truly deserves to be disciplined through termination.

New California Bill to Put Three-year Time Limit on Claims for Liquidated Damages Stemming from Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

Last July 1, California’s minimum wage rate was set to $9.00, the first increase since 2008, when the state’s hourly rate went from $7.50 per hour to $8.00 per hour. By 2016, it is again expected to increase by a dollar, making it $10.00 per hour. Pursuant of the new changes in the labor laws in California, non-exempt employees must be paid at least the current minimum wage rate. Otherwise, they are entitled to file wage claims, which would allow them to recover from their employers the difference of what they were paid and what they should have been earning at the minimum wage rate.

Apart from the unpaid difference wages and other penalties that employees may be able to recover from their employers, they are likewise entitled to claim what is called liquidated damages. Under the California Labor Code Section 1194.2(a), liquidated damages comprises of an amount that is equal to the wages that were unlawfully unpaid to them, including the interest. In other words, if an individual recovers x dollars of unpaid wages, he or she may likewise obtain the same value in liquidated damages.

Workers, however, should be aware of the statute of limitations that is applied in filing claims for unpaid wages. Under California law, individuals are allowed to file wage claims for unpaid wages within a time limit of three years. But then, even though they are entitled to file claims for liquidated damages, there is no time limit for it under the aforementioned Labor Code section. How can it be possible, then, for workers to file such claims if there is no statute of limitations in place?

Enter the Assembly Bill 2074, which was introduced by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez (D-West Covina) earlier this year. Last August 4, the California Senate passed the bill via a 25-10 vote, and is now awaiting Governor Edmund “Jerry” Brown’s signature.

If passed into law, it would effectively amend the California Labor Code Section 1194.2 (a), allowing for workers seeking claims for liquidated damages to file a suit “at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for wages from which the liquidated damages arise.” Thus, non-exempt workers can file their claims liquidated damages within the existing three-year statute of limitations.

Meanwhile, every Los Angeles labor lawyer sees this proposed bill as another great addition to the California Labor Code, provided that it is passed through Governor Brown’s signature. Assuming that the bill would amend the state’s labor laws this year, employees with minimum wage issues with their employers today can file their claims as late as three years from now, in 2017. Upon the bill’s passage, employers must ensure that they adhere with the changes or risk facing claims from their aggrieved employees.

Hiring a Lawyer for Your Wrongful Termination Case

Wrongful Termination Laws in California

If you have been fired or have been laid off along with your other co-workers, you might be thinking if you are entitled to file any legal claims against the employer or company that employed you. For the most part, unfortunately, a terminated employee does not have any course of legal action against his or her employer, especially when taking into account the fact that most employees are considered “at will.” This means that they can be fired at any time and for any reason, so long as the basis for doing so is not illegal.

But then, “at will” employees still are entitled to their own rights. To begin with, the “at will” approach in employment has its exceptions. One typical exception to the rule is that an “at will” employee cannot be terminated based solely on his or her protected characteristic as defined by the prevailing anti-discrimination laws. If, however, the employer does so, then the employee is said to be wrongfully terminated. If you believe this happened to you, then you must exercise your rights as an employee. You need to establish a wrongful termination lawsuit against your employer, but before you could do so, you must first speak with an attorney who specializes in employer-employee disputes.

Meanwhile, it is worth noting and discussing what wrongful termination is. Basically, it comes in a lot of forms, and most of the time, they are carried out on the basis of one’s race, sex, age, disability, or any other protected characteristic as defined by the federal and state laws. It is also carried out in retaliation to the employee’s complaint of an employer or co-worker’s illegal conduct, such as harassment, workplace safety, labor law violations, and discrimination, among other things.

Also, unlawful discharge is illegal if the reason for carrying the decision out is based on what society thinks as morally wrong. This is also known as termination in violation of public policy. For instance, you are wrongfully fired in violation of public policy if it was based on you exercising a legal right such as serving jury duty or voting, reporting your employer’s illegal conduct to a government agency, or refusing to follow your employer’s orders to commit an illegal act.

As what has been already mentioned above, it is important that you hire an attorney who knows everything about wrongful termination law. Basically, your attorney will evaluate the facts of your case, and determine if you truly are entitled to file claims against your employer. Also, your lawyer will also determine the best course of legal action to take with regards your case.

A typical course of action is to have your case settled via an out-of-court settlement, wherein your employer will compensate you for the losses you incurred as a result of the ordeal you went through. Another course of action is by filing a lawsuit with the state or federal court, especially if the circumstances which led to your wrongful discharge are too grave and an out-of-court settlement is not enough. A court proceeding may also occur if the employer and your attorney wasn't able to come up with a settlement, and instead the former opted to have the case settled in court. Another scenario is that instead of filing a case, you are offered a severance package, which, if signed, waives your right to sue or file claims against your employer.

In any of these possibilities, you need to make sure if you truly have a strong claim against your employer. Hiring a wrongful termination lawyer in Los Angeles should be your top priority in situations like this.

Wal-Mart Hit with Employment Raps Twice this Month

Legal woes seem to be no longer new to Wal-Mart. Through the years, the retailer giant has always been the target of many different legal raps raised by its former and current employees, not the mention the other legal issues thrown against the company.

Incidentally, this month alone, Wal-Mart was hit with two employment discrimination lawsuit.

Earlier of this month, Wal-Mart was sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of the retailer giant’s Keller, Texas’ store manager, David Mooreman, 56, who was allegedly subjected to harassment and unequal treatment due to his age until he was eventually discharged for his old age.

Mooreman has claimed he was often ridiculed with frequent taunts by his supervisor about his age. He allegedly reported the matter to the store’s human resources department but the latter failed to take any corrective action. Thus, the taunting against him continued until he was eventually fired by the store.

The said lawsuit also alleged that the store unlawfully refused Moore’s request for a reasonable accommodation for his disability. Moore is diabetic and requested for a reassignment but the store rejected his request.

Meanwhile, in another lawsuit filed against a Cockeysville, Maryland Wal-mart store, the EEOC on behalf of an applicant who claims that the retailer giant violated a federal law when it refused to hire an individual with renal disease as a store associate.

According to the lawsuit, the store failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to Laura Jones, when it refused her request for an alternative drug test. Jones has end-stage renal disease, making it impossible for her to produce urine for the urinalysis test that the store required.

Instead of providing her an alternative drug test, the store told her that she can’t be hired if she did not pass the urinalysis test.

Obviously, such misconducts clearly exhibit disability discrimination. As always, the EEOC once again reminds everyone through its recent press release that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to applicants and employees with disability, as long as the accommodation does not impose undue hardship on the part of the employer.

As for Wal-Mart, amidst the pour of legal issues, at least it had made one good move when it opted to settle its previous sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit late this month – one business-wise decision for Wal-Mart.

McDonald’s Faces New Employment Raps

A few weeks after McDonald’s Restaurant of California Inc., has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit, McDonald’s Corp. is now facing another employment case filed by its workers.

According to recent news reports, McDonald’s and several of its franchisees have been slapped with multiple class action lawsuit filed by its employees.

Under the said lawsuit, the workers have claimed that the fast food-giant is systematically stealing their wages.

They have likewise claimed that the restaurant is making the employees work off the clock, cutting hours off their time cards, and not paying them with overtime.

Image gives credit to Imaginechina / Corbis.

The lawsuits were filed by several workers in California, Michigan and New York.

Meanwhile, in a statement released by McDonald’s Vice President of Global External Communications, Heidi Barker Sa, she affirmed:

"McDonald's and our independent owner-operators share a concern and commitment to the well-being and fair treatment of all people who work in McDonald's restaurants. We are currently reviewing the allegations in the lawsuits. McDonald's and our independent franchisees are committed to undertaking a comprehensive investigation of the allegations and will take any necessary actions as they apply to our respective organizations."

So far, this is the most recent string of action made by the fast food restaurant’s employees to call for a better pay and benefits.

It could be remembered that late last year, hundreds of McDonald’s workers had previously staged their nation-wide protests, demanding for a $15.25 monthly federal minimum wage.

However, McDonald’s on the other hand remains firm with its stance that it is already providing advancement opportunities, competitive pay and benefits to its workers.

AT&T Being Sued Again, This Time for Retaliation

Six months after the telecommunication giant had agreed to settle the age discrimination lawsuit filed against it, AT&T is once again facing employment raps.

In a recent press release published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in its official website, it has revealed that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has filed a retaliation lawsuit against the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, which operates AT&T, on behalf of 13 employees who were allegedly disciplined and had received unpaid suspensions after reporting workplace injuries between 2011 and 2013.

According to the agency’s report, the U.S. Department of Labor was prompted to file a lawsuit after OSHA confirmed during its investigation that the employees’ suspensions were as a result of their reporting of their injuries.

In a statement provided by OSHA’s Assistant Secretary of Labor, Dr. David Michaels, he claimed that giving sanctions or suspending employees for reporting workplace injuries is like discouraging them from reporting such incidents, thereby increasing the possibility of more workers being injured in the future.

Michaels also noted that it is against the law for employers to discipline or suspend employees for reporting injuries.

The said lawsuit alleges that the company violated the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. So far, the case is under litigation.

Under the said Act, employers should provide safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. The OSHA, which is under the DOL, is responsible for ensuring that the said Act is being implemented, not violated.

Until present, despite several employment issues and business situations, AT&T remains to be one of the largest companies by market value worldwide. Thus, consistent with its previous employment rap, it is more likely that the telecommunication giant will opt the easiest and business-wise way to get through this, and that is through a settlement, as speculated by our labor attorney in Los Angeles.

Father Loses $80K Age Discrimination Settlement over Daughter’s ‘Suck It’ Facebook Post

This is a very sad story of a father who loses a staggering amount of settlement he was supposed to receive from his age discrimination lawsuit because of his daughter’s Facebook post.

According to recent news reports, 69-year-old former head of a Florida private preparatory school Patrick Snay was out to claim his $80,000 from the institution after they both agreed to settle the lawsuit.

To his surprise, the monetary relief that he had been expecting is now far possible after the school informed his lawyer that it will no longer be paying Snay with any amount of the agreed settlement since the latter had broken a confidentiality agreement.

What Snay did not know is that while he and his wife were feeling victorious over the said settlement, his daughter,  on the other hand, was obviously pretty overwhelmed with the good news that she didn’t even notice that she had been oversharing things on her Facebook account.

"Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT," the daughter posted in her Facebook account.

Unfortunately, the girl’s post spread like a wildfire and reached the school officials’ knowledge.

Thus, a few days later, the school sent a letter to Snay’s labor discrimination attorney noting that Snay had broken a confidentiality agreement so he would no longer be receiving the $80,000 settlement.

Snay subsequently filed a motion to enforce the settlement which he won during a Circuit Court ruling. However, the school appealed the decision.

A hearing was further held to determine if Snay’s daughter’s knowledge of the settlement as well as the girl’s Facebook post had violated the confidentiality of the settlement agreement.

Unfortunately, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal agreed that Snay had indeed violated confidentiality. Thus, the court of appeal eventually reversed the previous circuit court ruling.

“Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do. His daughter then did what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent, advertising to the Gulliver community that Snay had been successful in his age discrimination and retaliation case against the school,” the court of appeal noted in its verdict.

Obviously, Snay got nothing but most probably a whopping legal fees he has to foot to his lawyer.

Hopefully, this would serve as a lesson for others out there who might have been spilling too much information on their social media accounts.