Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Don’t Be That Guy!

Every once in a while I receive a pleading or a motion or some other “legal work” from another attorney and I am reminded of a scathing 2001 decision by District Court Judge Kent from the Southern District of Texas.  The facts of the case are less important than what the judge has to say about the papers submitted by the attorneys.  I pull the case out every once in a while to remind myself of what not to do.

The following are a few choice quotes from the case.

Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causweay into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation.  Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact–complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words–to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed.  Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions.  With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor’s edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins.

After commenting on the fact that the defendant’s opening brief cites only a single legal authority (and it’s not even the seminal case known to every first-year law student – Eerie), the court moves on to the plaintiff’s response.

Plaintiff responds to this deft, yet minimalist analytical wizardry with an equally gossamer wisp of an argument, although Plaintiff does at least cite the federal limitations provision applicable to maritime tort claims. (citation omitted)  Naturally, Plaintiff also neglects to provide any analysis whatsoever of why his claim versus Defendant Phillips is a maritime action.  Plaintiff “cites” to a single case from the Fourth Circuit.  Plaintiff’s citation, however, points to a nonexistent Volume “1886″ of the Federal Reporter Third Edition and neglects to provide a pinpoint citation for what, after being located, turned out to be a forty-page decision. … The Court cannot even begin to comprehend why this case was selected for reference.  It is almost as if Plaintiff’s counsel chose the opinion by throwing long range darts at the Federal Reporting (remarkably hitting a nonexistent volume!).  And though the Court often gives great heed to dicta from courts as far flung as those of Manitoba, it finds the case unpersuasive.

The court did have some good things to say about the pleadings:

Despite the continued shortcomings of Plaintiff’s supplemental submission, the Court commends Plaintiff for his vastly improved choice of crayon–Brick Red is much easier on the eyes than Goldenrod, and stands out much better amidst the mustard splotched about Plaintiff’s briefing.  But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig.

There is one footnote about brevity that I find particularly instructive:

Take heed and be suitably awed, oh boys and girls–the Court was able to state the issue and its resolution in one paragraph … despite dozens of pages of gibberish from the parties to the contrary!

The Court was able to make a ruling, despite having received “no useful guidance whatever from either party.”  I believe the court’s final footnote bespeaks his feeling on the matter:

In either case, the Court cautions Plaintiff’s counsel not to run with a sharpened writing utensil in hand–he could put his eye out.

You can read the Court’s opinion in Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corporation, Inc. at 147 F.Supp.2d 668.  May you never have this case cited in response to any of your pleadings.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Not only is April 26th my mother’s birthday (Happy Birthday, Mom!), I will be leading a presentation entitled, “How to Protect Yourself and Your Clients from Employee Lawsuits” at the Professional Fiduciary Association’s annual conference in Monterey, California.

The presentation will focus on recent cases expanding the definition of “employer,” and how those cases could create additional liability for conservators, trustees, and other fiduciaries that hire care providers, personal attendants and companions.  We will discuss ways to minimize risk and comply with the law.

This is my third year presentation at the PFAC annual conference.  PFAC is a wonderful organization dedicated to trustees, conservators and other fiduciaries assisting the elderly and disabled.  The annual conference is a great opportunity to learn about new developments in the law, and to refine your skills as a professional fiduciary.  If you are not already a member, check them out.  If you are a member, hopefully I will see you at this year’s conference.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

I will present the Top Mistakes Employers Make presentation on March 28, 2013, for the Gavilan Employers Advisory Council.  The Gavilan EAC provides local employers with relevant Information on human resource issues and other topics of interest, opportunities to network professionally, and a greater understanding of the resources available through the Employment Development Department (EDD) and the California Employer Advisory Council (CEAC). Its membership represents a cross-section of the businesses and industries in the region, and strives to build a partnership between local employers and the EDD.

The presentation will cover new laws for employers doing business in California as well as the biggest mistakes employers make that lead to costly litigation.

If you are interested in attending, you can register for the event on the GEAC’s website.

Top Mistakes Presentation Gavilan_3-28-13 Flyer.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

The San Jose Minimum Wage Ordinance goes into effect on March 11, 2013.  Passed by voters during the last election, the new ordinance requires employers doing business in San Jose to pay a minimum of $10.00 per hour for any employee that works at 2 hours per week in San Jose.

At first glance it might seem that the law only applies to businesses physically located in San Jose, but that is not accurate.  The ordinance defines an employer as:

any person, including corporate officers or executives, as defined by Section 19 of the California Labor Code, who directly or indirectly through any other person, including through the services of a temporary employment agency, staffing agency or similar entity, employes or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Employee and who is either subject to the Business License Tax Chapter 4.76 of the Municipal Code or maintains a facility in the City.”

The City’s perspective is that anyone carrying on or conducting business in San Jose is subject to the Business License Tax.  Even if your business is located outside of San Jose, if you provide goods or services in San Jose you are an “employer” under the SJMWO.

Not all employees working in San Jose are covered by the SJMWO.  Employees who are not otherwise entitled to payment of minimum wage under California minimum wage laws (e.g., outside salespersons, certain family members of the employer, etc.) are not “employees” under the SJMWO.  Additionally, the employee must work in San Jose at least 2 hours per week.

In addition to paying the increased minimum wage, employers subject to the SJMWO must post the SJMWO poster in a conspicuous place.  You can download copies of the SJMWO poster here.

The City has developed a list of FAQ’s that they hope to post on their website soon.  Unfortunately, there were a few errors in the FAQ’s that require revision, so we don’t know when the FAQ’s will be posted.

The City has, or soon will, set up an enforcement mechanism for complaints regarding violations.  One of the benefits of the enforcement/complaint process is the ability to resolve the matter through early mediation or conciliation.  One of the drawbacks is that complaints do not need to be filed with the City agency and nothing prohibits an employee from pursuing a claim with the City and in court.

As with many wage and hour statutes and regulations, an employee suing an employer for a violation of the SJMWO is entitled to recover his/her attorneys’ fees, but a successful employer is not able to recoup its attorneys’ fees even if the employer proves there was no violation.  The City hopes that its administrative process will allow the parties to resolve cases early without extensive litigation, and that the attorneys’ fees therefore will not be a significant issue in resolving a case.  I’ll hold my opinion until I see the results.

One of the concerns is that an employer who has a posting violation, for example, may be subject to a $50.00 per day per employee penalty (plus attorneys’ fees), if the employer fails to have the required posting in a conspicuous place.  The penalty begins from the date of the violation and continues until the violation ceases.  For example, if you have 5 employees that each travel to San Jose at least 2 hours per week, and you fail to have the correct poster, you could face over $90,000.00 in penalties.

Employers are also required to maintain payroll records, and to allow the City access to such records, for 4 years.

Of course employers may not discriminate in any manner or take adverse action against any person in retaliation for exercising any of the rights under the SJMWO.

Failing to understand and comply with the SJMWO may have devastating effects on your business.  Every employer and every employee should become familiar with the SJMWO so they can understand their rights, remedies and responsibilities.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), specifically Gov’t Code §12940(h), makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge a person because the person testified or assisted in any “proceeding under this part.”  So what is an employer supposed to do when an employee lies or is uncooperative during a sexual harassment investigation?  According to the Sixth Appellate District, it is not unlawful to terminate an employee because, in keeping with analogous authority interpreting Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, FEHA §12940(h) does not shield an employee against termination or lesser discipline for either lying or withholding information during an employer’s internal investigation of a discrimination claim.

The appellate court also rejected the employee’s termination in violation of public policy claim and his defamation claim.

The case can be reviewed here.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

A colleague of mine said that her friend’s company (it’s always a friend) has a “you broke it, you bought it policy,” in that if an employee breaks or loses a piece of equipment, the employer deducts the costs from the employee’s pay check.  My colleague opined that the policy is likely problematic, but the employer was adamant that it had the right to deduct money from an employee’s wages for breakages or losses.  So who’s right? They both are.

Labor Code Section 224 prohibits an employer from making unauthorized deductions from an employee’s pay.  The statute authorizes deductions for taxes, court ordered garnishments, health insurance when authorized by the employee and as otherwise authorized by the employee in writing.  This means the Labor Code does not allow an employer to deduct money from an employee’s pay check without the employee’s written authorization except as otherwise provided by law.

So, does the Labor Code allow an employer to deduct for breakages or losses?  No, but most Wage Orders do in limited circumstances.  “No employer shall make any deduction from the wage or require any reimbursement from an employee for any cash shortage, breakage, or loss of equipment, unless it can be shown that the shortage, breakage, or loss is caused by a dishonest or willful act, or by the gross negligence of the employee.”  See, for example, Wage Order 4-2001, section 8.

I have three concerns with an employer relying on this subsection of the Wage Order as a basis for deducting money from an employee’s pay check.  

  1. Although the Wage Order authorizes the deduction, the Labor Code does not.  Until a few years ago that would have been enough for me to advise my clients to avoid this briar pit.  After Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, which held that the the Wage Order regulations can be enforced by the employee through a PAGA action, you might have a better argument that the Wage Order authorization is sufficient.  I’m not convinced, but I could make a credible argument supporting the deduction.

  2. If you are wrong, you could face significant penalties.  What is “gross negligence” and what constitutes a “willful act?”  There are some case authorities interpreting the phrases, but you run the risk that a judge or a jury will disagree with your conclusion.  If the Labor Commissioner or a judge or a jury determines that you should not have deducted money from the wages, then you failed to pay an employee all wages earned and could be subject to penalties under Labor Code Sections 203, 204 & 210.  Labor Code Section 203 penalties can equal the employee’s daily wage multiplied by 30.  Is that worth the risk?
  3. Even if there is no question the employee engaged in a culpable degree of negligence, the employer still has to pay the employee no less than minimum wage.  In my friend’s case, most of the employees only earn slightly more than minimum wage.  If the employer deducted too much money from the wages the employee would not earn minimum wage.  Any time an employer reduces an employee’s earnings to less than minimum wage without a court order or the employee’s written authorization, red flags fly and sirens wail.

An employer puts itself at risk whenever the employer puts itself ahead of other creditors by virtue of the fact that the employer controls the pay check.  For example, if I lent my car to a friend and that friend crashed into a pole, I don’t have the right to deduct money from my friend’s pay check to cover the loss without first obtaining a judgment and a garnishment order.  Why, then, should the employer be in a better position than other creditors?  The employer, just like the friend, can either work it out with the employee or take whatever judicial efforts are necessary to recoup the losses.

So, what should the employer do?  You can always tell the employee s/he is responsible for the loss and has to pay you back.  The employee can agree to make payments over time, either through payroll deductions or by separate payment.  If the employee agrees to pay through payroll deductions, the agreement should be in writing signed by the employee.  To be safe, I would still ensure the employee receives at least minimum wage.

If the employee refuses to pay for the loss, then you need to decide whether you will pursue the claim through court.  You may also want to consider disciplining the employee.  I would decide the discipline issue separate from the the repayment issue.  If you insist the employee pay you back through pay roll deductions and the employee refuses to allow you to deduct money from his/her pay check, the employee has likely engaged in protected activity.  You cannot fire the employee for refusing to allow you to deduct amounts from his pay check.  Therefore, discipline the employee for the breakage or loss (documented in writing), and then have the discussion about how the employee will pay you back.  Do not increase or decrease the discipline based on the way the employee agrees to pay you back.

If you are losing money due to employee losses and breakages, talk with an attorney or HR consultant familiar with the Wage Orders and the Labor Code before taking action.  The last thing you want to do is spend tens of thousands of dollars defending a wrongful termination or unpaid wage claim because an employee “accidentally” dropped the computer monitor out of the window.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

On September 30, 2012, Governor Brown vetoed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (AB 889).  The governor’s veto message indicates, among other things, the bill raised too many unanswered questions about what “economic and human impact on the disabled or elderly person and their family of requiring overtime, rest and meal periods for attendants who provide 24 hours care.”  Governor Brown apparently felt that we should answer some of those questions before mandating a change in the law.  He seemed particularly troubled by the fact that the bill required the Department of Industrial Relations to find answers to the question and come up with regulations at the same time.

I think the veto was a good move for now.  Let’s gather the facts and consider the impact of a law before we change it.

Phillip J. Griego & Associates
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
East Bay 925-364-4655

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Phillip J. Griego & Associates

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. Griego & Associates. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Phillip J. Griego & Associates cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The attorneys of Phillip J. Griego & Associates represent employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 310 other followers