Feeds:
Posts
Comments

When settling an employment claim, many employers insist upon a confidentiality clause.  The clauses vary, but oftentimes provide for liquidated damages or the return of the settlement payment if the person discloses the existence or amount of the settlement agreement.  So how enforceable are those agreements?  According to a story by the Palm Beach Post, one Florida teen’s Facebook post cost the father his $80,000.00 settlement.

According to the article, Patrick Snay settled his age discrimination case against his former employer, Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami.  The settlement agreement included a confidentiality clause.  Upon learning of the settlement, Mr. Snay’s daughter posted the following on her Facebook page: “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”  When the school learned about the post, they accused Mr. Snay of violating the confidentiality clause and refused to pay the settlement.

Snay won an early victory to enforce the agreement, but the school appealed the decision and won.  Mr. Snay could appeal again, but there’s no guarantee he’ll get the money back.

The moral of the story: If you sign an agreement promising not to disclose something, keep your mouth shut.  Perhaps even more importantly, know that what you post online may come back to bite you.

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.

 

Some employees want to work longer hours each day in exchange for working fewer days per week.  These “alternative workweeks” are permissible, provided the employer follows prescribed methods of adopting and implementing the policies.  The most common alternative workweek situation allows employees to work four ten-hour days without receiving overtime.  Without the alternative workweek policy, the employee would be entitled to two hours of overtime every day. With a proper alternative workweek agreement, the employee can work the schedule without the employer incurring overtime pay.

Many alternative workweek agreements are invalid because employers fail to follow the appropriate procedures for adopting the policy or they fail to notify the Labor Commissioner about the policy.  To be enforceable, an alternative workweek agreement must comply with the following:

(1)           The employer must present a written schedule available for the employees (this can be one option or several options from which the employees can choose).

(2)           Employees can submit alternatives to the employers options with the employer’s approval;

(3)           The written schedule must specify the number of days and amount of hours offered (the actual days do not have to be specified);

(4)           There must be at least two (2) consecutive days off during the week;

(5)           If the employees elect an alternative workweek, they can switch between the various alternative workweeks offered by the employer;

(6)           Each workday must consist of at least four (4) hours but not more than ten (10) hours;

(7)           The employer must inform the employees what effect the alternative schedules will have on wages and benefits;

(8)           If more than 5% of the workforce does not speak English, the notice of available schedules must also be in the language of that portion of the workforce;

(9)           The employees must meet at least 14 days before they vote on the alternative workweek and the employees must be given advance written notice of the meeting;

(10)        If all employees cannot attend a single meeting, the employer must hold multiple meetings;

(11)        The employer must mail a copy of the disclosure to any employees who could not attend the meeting;

(12)        The ballot must be all affected employees;

(13)        The “affected employees” can be limited by division, department, job classification, shift, separate location or recognized subdivision of a work unit;

(14)        The vote must carry by a 2/3 approval;

(15)        The ballots must be confidential (i.e., no names or employee ID)

(16)        The election must occur during work hours at the worksite;

(17)        The vote cannot be used to retroactively allow an alternative workweek;

(18)        The results of the election must be filed with the Labor Commissioner within 30 days of the election (do not send the ballots).  The results can be mailed to:

Division of Labor Statistics & Research,

Attn: Alternative Workweek Election Results

P.O. Box 420603

San Francisco, CA 94142

(19)        The Labor Commissioner must receive the following:

  • Company name, phone, address and contact person;
  • Date of the election
  • Election results summary
  • Description of alternative workweeks from the election
  • Statement that the election was by secret ballot, written, and passed by a 2/3 vote

(20)        The employer cannot require employees to work the new work hours for at least 30 days after the announcement of the final election results – The regulations do not appear to prohibit allowing an employee to work the alternative workweek if they voluntarily choose to do so.

When deciding whether to adopt or offer an alternative workweek, the employer should consider:

  • What schedule(s) did you have in mind for the alternative workweek?  (i.e., hours, days, etc.)
  • Do you want to offer more than one option?  (i.e., four 9-hour days and one 4-hour day, plus four 10-hour days)
  • Will employees be able to choose not to work an alternative workweek?
  • Do you want to allow employees to submit alternatives to your options?
  • Will each employee get at least 2 days off?
  • What effect will the alternative workweek have on wages & benefits? (consider how vacation accrues, eligibility for health benefits)
  • What percentage of your workforce does not speak English? (if more than 5%, Notice of available schedules must be provided in their language)
  • Will all employees be able to attend a single meeting to discuss the proposed schedule? If not, how can all employees have a chance to meet?
  • Which employees will be “affected”?
  • How are you going to ensure the ballots are confidential? (use drop box and form)

If an employer adopts an alternative workweek wherein the employee is scheduled to work ten hours per day and the employee actually works more than ten hours, the employer must pay one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours in excess of the alternative workweek schedule.  Additionally, if an employee works more days than scheduled under the alternative workweek agreement, the employer must compensate the employee at the overtime rate even if the employee works less than forty hours during the week. Employees are still entitled to double time for hours in excess of twelve hours per day.

You can search the Labor Commissioner’s database for employer names to find out if the employer has registered a valid alternative workweek election.

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.

Am I Entitled to Holiday Pay?

With President’s Day coming up next week, I thought it would be a good time to answer and oft-asked question: Does the law require employers to pay employees for holidays?  In most cases, the answer is no.  Neither California nor federal laws require employers to pay employees for holidays, or to pay them a higher rate for holidays.  Some union contracts or public employment situations may require paid holidays, but otherwise it is up to the employer to decide whether it will offer paid holidays.

If an employer’s policies provides for paid holidays, however, then the employer is required to pay employees according to the employer’s policies.  Some employers offer paid holidays or pay a higher rate on holidays because it is one way to reward employees who have to miss time with their family in order to help the company meet its deadlines.  Other employers realize that if they want to attract and retain qualified employees, you can’t make them work on Christmas Day without some sort of premium pay (I’m talking about you, Ebenezer!).

Employer handbooks should identify the specific holidays the employer will observe (either by date or title), and explain whether employees will be paid a higher rate if they work on the holiday and the rate at which employees will be compensated for the holidays.  If you haven’t updated your handbook recently, now is an excellent time to review it with a qualified professional to ensure your policies are up to date.

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.

New Year and New Laws

A new year has come, and with it a slew of new laws affecting employers in California.  The courts and legislature were busy last year.  We created a short summary reviewing some of the more significant changes that will impact employers in 2014

Enjoy the reading, and we hope you have a great 2014!

Located in San Jose, California, the employment law lawyers of Phillip J. Griego & Associates, provide quality legal representation for both the employee and the employer. The firm was founded by attorney Phillip J. Griego in 1987, and its employment law attorneys have over 50 years combined experience in labor relations and litigation.

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.

With the new overtime requirements under the newly enacted Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (AB241), I’ve received a lot of questions about how the law will impact caregivers and the families they serve.  Many employers and employees do not understand their rights and obligations.  Hopefully the following answers to some of the common questions I’ve been receiving will help clarify the law.

Keep in mind, this is a newly enacted statute with some ambiguities.  Future cases or amendments could affect my interpretation of the statute.

Q: My employer told me that they are reducing my pay rate so they can afford to pay overtime.  Can my employer do that?

A: Usually, yes.  Most employees are employed “at-will.”  This means the employer or the employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without notice, and for any reason or no reason (except an illegal reason).  When an employer lowers an employee’s pay rate, the employer is effectively terminating the old employment relationship and offering new employment under the new lower rate of pay.   Your continued employment constitutes acceptance of the terms of the unilateral contract.  As long as the employer notifies the you of the new terms of employment (e.g., the new rate of pay), the employer can change the terms.  An employer may not retroactively alter the terms of the employment.

Employers are supposed to provide employees a new Notice to Employee under Labor Code section 2810.5 whenever the employer changes the employee’s pay rate (or any other item included in the 2810.5 Notice to Employee).

Q: Can an employer deduct the cost of room and board from an employee’s pay?

A: Yes, if the employer provides meals and lodging to an employee, even if the meals and lodging are provided at the client’s site, an employer can deduct specific amounts for the meals and lodging as a credit against the employer’s minimum wage obligations.  The employer must have a written agreement, and can only deduct up to certain amounts specified in the wage order.  Generally speaking, the amounts an employer can deduct are fairly low, and are usually well below fair market value (For example, an employer can only deduct $2.90 for breakfast, $3.97 for lunch, $5.34 for dinner, and $37.63 per week for an unshared room), and the employee must actually receive the meals or lodging if the employer is going to use that as a credit against the employer’s minimum wage obligation.

Q: Can I pay a caregiver a “daily” or “weekly” rate?

A: You can, but you shouldn’t.  A daily or weekly rate is a salary.  The law says that a salary only compensates an employee for the “regular nonovertime hours” worked.   For a domestic work employee that qualifies as a personal attendant, this means the first 9 hours in a day or the first 45 hours in a week.  If you pay a worker a daily or weekly salary, you are not paying the employee for any overtime hours.  All caregivers should be paid by the hour and should be paid for all hours worked.

Q: Can my employer deduct for sleep time?

UPDATE:

The California Supreme Court granted review of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. in the fall of 2013.  Until the Supreme Court issues its decision, employers may not be able to rely on the sleep time rules stated below.  If you have questions about your work situation, contact an attorney familiar with California’s overtime requirements.

A: Under Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc, an employer can deduct for sleep time as long as:

  1. The employee regularly receives at least 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep;
  2. The employee is provided a comfortable place to sleep;
  3. The employer and employee agree (preferably in writing) that the sleep time is not compensable; and
  4. The employee works a 24-hour shift.

If any of those factors are missing, the employer cannot deduct for sleep time.  Additionally, the employer can only deduct the actual number of rest time hours, up to a maximum of 8 hours per 24-hour shift.  So, if the employee only receives 6 hours of uninterrupted sleep, the employer can only deduct those 6 hours.  If the employee receives 10 hours of uninterrupted sleep, the employer can only deduct a maximum of 8 hours.

As noted in the update above, Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. is currently under review and therefore an employer may not be able to avail itself of the sleep time rules.

See my article for more detailed information.

Q: If I work in San Jose, but the care agency that employs me is located outside of San Jose, am I still entitled to the San Jose minimum wage?

A: Yes.  Certain cities, such as San Jose and San Francisco, have adopted their own minimum wage ordinances.  Any employees performing work within the geographical boundaries of the specified cities must receive the minimum wage set by the ordinances.  In San Jose, the minimum wage is $10.15 per hour.  In San Francisco, the minimum wage is $10.74 per hour.

Q: My employer wants me to become an independent contractor.  Is that legal?

A: Likely not.  There are a number of factors that determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, and the tests can differ from agency to agency.  Under the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, an employer includes anyone that exercises control over the employee’s hours, wages or working conditions.  It is hard to imagine a scenario where the caregiver has 100% control over his or her hours, wages and working conditions.  If you are working one day as an employee, and the next day as an independent contractor without any other changes, chances are you are really an employee.

Q: I run domestic worker placement agency.  Do I have to comply with the new overtime laws?

A: Not if meet the definition of a domestic work employment agency under Civil Code section 1812.5095.  See my article to see if you meet all of the requirements.

Q: Which hours are counted toward the weekly overtime?  I work 12 hours a day, 5 days a week.  By the 4th day I’ve worked 45 hours.  Does that mean that the 5th day is all overtime?

A: The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights uses the same, or substantially similar, language as other overtime statutes in defining which hours require overtime payments.  Cases interpreting those statutes make it clear you only count the regular hours worked towards the weekly overtime.  In other words, you only count the first 9 hours worked toward the weekly 45 hour maximum.  You don’t count the daily overtime hours toward the weekly maximum because the employer already paid overtime for the hours in excess of 9 per day.

The following examples may help.

Correct!

M T W T F Total
Total 12 12 12 12 12 60
Reg Hrs 9 9 9 9 9 45
OT Hrs 3 3 3 3 3 15

Wrong!

M T W T F Total
Total 12 12 12 12 12 60
Reg Hrs 9 9 9 9 0 36
OT Hrs 3 3 3 3 12 24

Hopefully these answers help. Each situation is unique.  The questions and answers provided above are for general information purposes only. If you have questions or concerns about your particular situation, contact an employment attorney familiar with wage and hour issues in the elder care industry.

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 Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (the new California law that requires personal attendants to receive overtime when they work more than 9 hours in a day or more than 45 regular hours in a week) says most employment agencies that comply with Civil Code section 1812.5095 are not considered Domestic Work Employers.  But what does that mean?

Employees referred by a domestic employment agency are still entitled to overtime.  The DWBA simply makes it clear that the employment agency is not the employer (assuming the agency complies with all of the qualifying requirements).  The family or homeowner that contracts with the employee is likely still liable for overtime compensation.

Domestic employment agencies can still be considered a Domestic Work Employer if the agency fails to comply with Civil Code section 1812.5095 and Unemployment Insurance Code 687.2.  In order to avoid being considered an employer, the employment agency must comply with all of the following:

  1. The agency must have a bond registered with the secretary of state.
  2. The agency must have a signed contract with the worker that specifies:
    1. The agency will assist the worker in securing work;
    2. How the agency’s referral fee is paid; and
    3.  The worker is free to sign a contract with other employment agencies and perform work for other persons.
  3. The worker must inform the agency of any restrictions on the hours, location, conditions or type of work the worker will perform.
  4. The worker is free to renegotiate with the hiring person the amount to be paid for the work.
  5. The agency cannot provide any training regarding how the worker performs the work, but the agency can offer voluntary orientation training regarding the terms of the agreement.
  6. The agency cannot exercise “direction, control or supervision” regarding the manner and means of performing the work, but the agency can:
    1. Tell the worker about the services to be provided and the conditions of employment specified by the hiring party;
    2. Contact the hiring person to determine whether he/she is satisfied with the worker, but this contact should not be used to identify needed improvements in the worker’s performance and then to discipline or train the worker;
    3. Tell the worker regarding new referrals;
    4. As the worker to tell the agency if the worker is unable to perform the work.
  7. The agency cannot provide any of the tools, supplies or equipment to be used by the worker.
  8. The worker is not obligated to pay the agency’s fee, and the agency is not obligated to pay the worker, if the person that hires the worker fails to pay for the work.
  9. Payment for the work is made directly to the worker or the agency, but if the payment is made to the agency then the agency must deposit the funds into a trust account.
  10. The relationship between the worker and the person that hires the worker is only terminable by them, not the agency (although the agency is not required to make additional referrals)
  11. The agency must charge a reasonable, negotiable fee based on a fixed percentage of the job cost.
  12. The agency must inform the worker in writing that:
    1. The worker may be required to get business permits or licenses;
    2. The worker is not eligible for unemployment insurance, state disability insurance, social security insurance, or workers compensation through the agency
    3. If self-employed, the worker must pay self-employment tax, state tax and federal income tax.
  13. The agency must verify the worker’s legal status and authorization to work prior to providing referrals.
  14. The agency must orally and in writing provide the following notice to the person hiring the worker:
    “[Name of the agency] is not the employer of the domestic worker it referred to you.  The domestic worker may be your employee or an independent contractor depending on the relationship you have with him or her.  If you direct and control the manner and means by which the domestic workers performs his or her work you may have employer responsibilities, including employment taxes and workers’ compensation, under sate and federal law.  For additional information contact your local Employment Development Department and the Internal Revenue Service.”
  15. The agency cannot specify in any notice, advertisement or brochure that the referred workers are independent contractors.
  16. The agency must insert the following statement in any paid advertisement or promotional material:
    “[Name of the agency] is a referral agency”
  17. The agency’s advertisements and solicitations cannot refer to any required bond or to any licensure acquired by the agency.

Failure to comply with all of the above requirements may create an employer-employee relationship subjecting the agency to liability for unpaid overtime.

If you are an employment agency, receive referrals from employment agencies, or work for an employment agency and have questions about how the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights applies to you, contact an attorney familiar with employment agencies and in-home care.

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.

California’s Second Appellate District reversed a judgment in favor of Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. concluding that an employee could state a cause of action for wrongful constructive discharge when an employer refuses to reimburse a low-wage earner for mileage expenses.

Jorge Vasquez worked as a maintenance technician, earning $10.00 per hour.  His job required him to travel to various locations including the hardware store.  According to Vasquez, he drove about 30 miles a day incurring over $300.00 per day in fuel and maintenance costs.  When Franklin Management Real Estate Fund refused to reimburse Vasquez for the mileage expenses he quit and sued his employer for constructive discharge in violation of public policy.

The trial court originally dismissed the complaint after concluding that an employer’s failure to pay mileage expenses of $15 per day was not conduct “so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt no choice but to resign.”  On appeal, Vasquez argued that the employer, in effect, required Vasquez to use his own wages to pay for the employer’s costs of doing business.  Since Vasquez only earned $10.00 per hour, the mileage expenses allegedly represented a significant portion of his take-home pay.

The appellate court found that under Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, a jury could find that the employer “knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign.”  The court also concluded that California’s minimum wage law represents a fundamental policy for purposes of a claim for wrongful termination or constructive discharge in violation of public policy.

Although California is an at-will state, employers cannot terminate an employee for engaging in protected conduct.  Employers also cannot force employees to work under intolerable or aggravated working conditions.  When the working conditions become intolerable as a result of an employer’s violations of the law, the employee may be able to establish a wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy.
 
If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, or forced to quit due as a result of a violation of law, you should contact an attorney familiar with wrongful termination cases.
 
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 385 other followers