Tuesday, November 5, 2019




Visit us on Pinterest!
Why not? It's just photo's and fun.
Everything from photos from our employment law articles,
to haircuts from the 80's.


https://www.pinterest.com/employmentlawyersgroup/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, November 4, 2019

Bakersfield Employment Law Blog



Bakersfield Employment Law Blog




We have quite a few new blog articles currently on our Bakersfield Employment Law Blog:




https://bakersfieldlaborattorney.com/employment-law-blog.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Could your reporting of protected activity have caused your termination of employment?

CALIFORNIA WHISTLE BLOWER LAWYER


California whistle blowers laws pertain to:
• the employee must complain about something that is illegal, or they reasonably suspect is illegal;
• the illegal conduct must effect society at large opposed to merely internal issues in the company;
• the complaint must be made to a supervisor or manager;
• the employer must take an adverse employment action against the employee due to the complaint.
job termination law
The following types of complaints are complaints about violations of the law that create wrongful termination and make an employee a whistle blower:

• An actual report to a government agency (the employer must learn of)
• A complaint that a statute is being violated
• A complaint about any form of discrimination or harassment based upon age, disability, protected medical condition, national origin, or race
• A refusal to engage in unlawful or unhealthy work requests of the employer
• A refusal to testify falsely
• A refusal to desist in using a leave of absence law created by a statutory right
Both direct and circumstantial evidence may be used to prove causation, Colarossi v. Cory, 97 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1152, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 131 (2002). CACI 2430 only requires that the violation of public policy was a "motivating factor." An employer is liable for wrongful termination even if the termination was only partially motivated by an illegal reason.

Anheuser-Busch, 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1256, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 235 (1994). Moreover, wrongful termination can be based upon an employee checking on and trying to report possible illegal conduct to company officials, Collier v. Sup. Crt. 228 Cal.App.3d 1117, 1121, 279 Cal.Rptr. 453 (1991). "Retaliation by an employer when an employee seeks to further...public policy by responsibly reporting suspicions of illegal conduct to the employer seriously impairs the public interest" and is enough for wrongful termination, at 1127, 458. [A]n employee need not provide an actual violation of the law; it suffices if the employer fired him for reporting his 'reasonably based suspicions' of illegal activity, Green v. Ralee Eng. Co. 19 Cal.4th 66, 87, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 29 (1998) referencing Collier, 1125.

 https://www.bakersfieldlaborattorney.com/practice-areas/whistle-blower
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatclips/comments/cwsbit/psa_great_clips_will_refuse_to_serve_you_if_you/

Don't forget to visit us on Twitter | Your Employee Rights microblog.
Visit us on our New Facebook Page |  Employee Lawyer Facebook Page
Mix | links and posts
Our New Bakersfield Employment Law Blog
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 4, 2016

Employment Laws

The number of employment laws in California are astounding even to an employee lawyer. Each year the California legislature enacts more employment laws, many of great complexity which apply to small employers, Gerber said.
The Employment Lawyers Group, lead by Karl Gerber, has potentially handled more employee lawsuits than any other California employee law firm. Gerber began representing employees in 1993 which was before the gigantic explosion of employee lawsuits.

Notwithstanding the multiplicity of lawsuits by employees, and the limelight all of the newly enacted labor laws both on the California level and the national level, including amendments to the ADA, many management lawyers continue to live in the land of believing religion and disability cannot be accomodated. Their notions, including the motions they bring, are repugnant. Recently, in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit a female defense lawyer told me usually the expectation is if an employee gives a medical note about pregnancy restrictions they should expect not to have a job. Presently, I am dealing with a summary judgment motion in which a large employer thinks every business that is busy, or has unpredictable business, should not have to accomodate Sabbath observance and/or that is not really a religious basis. I could go on  and on
 The Employment Lawyers Group may be contacted at the below address:



http://worklawyerca.com/worker-lawyer/








Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Pregnant Employees Should Not Be Mistreated

In both California and on the national level pregnant employees have rights. They are entitled to leaves of absence due to pregnancy related medical conditions, including childbirth. Pregnant women should also be accomodated due to their pregnancies. Accomodations include time off for medical appointments, for child birth, and recovery. It is also illegal to fire an employee due to pregnancy.

There are limitations to the rights of pregnant employees. These limitations relate to the length of leave, and other factors.

It is best to consult an employee labor lawyer in your state to determine what your rights are as a pregnant employee. Bottom line:
Pregnant Employees Have Rights - Stay happy so you can enjoy them once they start walking!
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, May 12, 2014

Expanded Articles on Employment Law

FOUR STATE EMPLOYMENT LAWYER KARL GERBER, IN PRACTICE OVER 20 YEARS, AND AUTHOR OF OVER 300 ARTICLES ON EMPLOYMENT LAW LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE INTENDED TO BE THE LARGEST RESOURCE FOR EMPLOYEES TO RESEARCH WORKPLACE INJUSTICES

In order to provide expanded coverage of lengthy articles on topics pertaining to employment law, I launched a new website called http://employeelawca.com.

The goal of the new website is to feature:

Detailed employment case examples

Excerpts of statutes on discrimination in employment

Live interviews with myself and other members of the Employment Lawyers Group

To publish charts and diagrams about the interrelationships of the various laws pertaining to employment litigation

 To be the largest resource, written by an employment lawyer, available to the public in order to help them navigate difficult situations at work which might require an employment lawyer

Employees have many questions when they are considering a lawsuit against their employer. It is my hope the new website will improve the resources to California employees looking into suing their employer due to workplace injustice.

As a professional writer who has published over 300 different articles on employment law since approximately 1997, I look forward to covering all aspects of the workplace that may require the assistance of a labor lawyer.

For my complete biography and credentials as a labor lawyer, please see:

http://worklawyerca.com/employment-attorneys-sherman-oaks/

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, January 17, 2014

STATE LAWS ON NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT UNIFORM

In California, it is inherently unlikely an employer can enforce a non-compete agreement (also known as a restrictive covenant). California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 is a specific legislative act that prohibits covenants that restrict somebody’s ability to work in their profession and earn a livelihood.

Massachusetts does not have an equivalent of California Business and Professions Code Section 16600. Massachusetts law on non-compete agreements is therefore diametrically opposed to California’s. In Massachusetts, non-compete agreement are usually valid except for exception. One exception is the agreement must be signed each time the employee becomes an employee of the employer. Quite possibly, the restrictive covenant must be signed each time the job materially changes. Obviously, a signed non-compete agreement is required in Massachusetts.

Boston is known as a technology and bio-science hub. The number of graduates from Boston’s many fine universities create pools of employees in industries where trade secrets are everything. Accordingly, non-compete agreements are common in Boston and surrounding communities.

Employees move on, especially young people. In the case of a somewhat recent university graduates, they might soon move back to their home state. Difficult questions sometimes arise when a court is asked to enforce a non-compete agreement written in another state.

I encourage other lawyers and employees to comment on their experiences with restrictive employment covenants in different states. Do not divulge confidential information, or attempt to ask attorney-client privileged information. Nor should you bad mouth your employer. A lively discussion on which states have enforced non-compete agreements and what exceptions various states have would be most informative to the workplace.

If you have any legal issues about the workplace in California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, or Texas feel free to contact my firm at 877-525-0700, or view my California Labor or Massachusetts websites.

Karl Gerber, Representing Employees in California Since 1993
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)