The California Supreme Court later decided that the additional hour’s pay is a “wage” and not a “penalty.”  See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole.  Since that time we have since a proliferation of suits alleging a violation of Labor Code Section 226.7.  If court filings are to be believed there is hardly an employee in California that is allowed to take the required meal and rest breaks.  I rarely see an overtime case filed that does not include a missed meal and/or rest break claim.

When the court first decided Murphy I recall thinking about how it would affect the attorneys’ fees provisions in the Labor Code.  Under Labor Code Section 1194 the prevailing employee is entitled to recover his/her attorneys’ fees in an action for unpaid minimum wage or overtime.  The employer can never recover its attorneys’ fees in an unpaid minimum wage or overtime case.  Labor Code Section 218.5, however, allows the “prevailing party” to recover attorneys’ fees in any action for nonpayment of wages other than minimum wages or overtime.

Based on Murphy and the language of Labor Code Sections 218.5 and 1194, I theorized that an employer that successfully defeats a claims for unpaid meal and/or rest breaks would be entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees. In the common unpaid overtime case where the employee “throws in” a claim for missed meals/rest breaks I believe the employee is at risk of having to pay a portion of the employer’s attorneys’ fees even if the employee prevails on the unpaid overtime claim unless the employee also prevails on the missed meal/rest break claim.

Well, the Third Appellate District agrees.  In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection (10 C.D.O.S. 9451), the court came to the same conclusion I did: because a claim for missed meal/rest breaks is a claim for “wages” other than minimum wage and overtime, an employee who does not prevail on those claims is liable for the employer’s attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against those claims.

Attorneys representing employees in unpaid overtime and minimum wage cases need to carefully consider whether to include the unpaid meal/rest break claim.  Considering the fact that employers are not required to force employees to take rest breaks (whether this is true with regard to meal breaks remains to be seen) or to track the rest breaks (which is not the true with regard to meal breaks) means prevailing on a rest break case may be difficult.  Good attorneys will carefully interview their clients, and hopefully other percipient witnesses, before deciding to add the rest/meal breaks claim as a matter of course.

Employers should not treat this as a license to violate the law.  To the contrary.  Although you may be able to offset a judgment against you by the amount awarded to you in attorneys’ fees, actually collecting an award of attorneys’ fees is usually problematic at best.  The best policy is to know the law, follow the law, and ensure you have accurate records reflecting what occurred.  But you already knew that!

One reporter who reviewed the “game” was amazed at the level of empathy he experienced.  While the game may not change every mind, it does offer men the opportunity to experience what can be viewed as an unending onslaught of inappropriate and unwelcome advances.  An interesting aspect of the game is that regardless of how the player deals with the remarks, the comments keep coming, indicating that even extreme violence is an unhelpful response to the situation.

The article can be viewed here.

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 clients 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.

Currently, under Wage Order 14-80, agricultural employees are entitled to overtime only when they work longer than 10 hours in a single day or more than six days during any workweek.  The wage order requires a meal period if the agricultural worker works more than five hours in a day, but is silent as to whether a second meal period is required after working ten hours in the day.

The proposed law would strike out the language in Labor Code Section 554 that says: “This chapter, with the exception of section 558, shall not apply to any person employed in an agricultural occupation, as defined in Order No. 14-80 (operative January 1, 1998) of the Industrial Welfare Commission.”

Proponents of the law, led by the California Applicants’ Attorneys Association, say the agricultural exemption is outdated and based on an obsolete federal provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The proponents argue that California have long supported farmers through subsidies, and it is time for the State to support the people whose work in the fields makes California’s agricultural industry among the world’s most productive and profitable.

Opponents argue that the exemption is still necessary because the nature of the work does not allow a regular eight-hour workday.  Many farmers are at the whim of the water and the weather, and therefore must work when the time is right.  Opponents also point out that requiring overtime pay after eight hours instead of ten hours will raise the cost of doing business in an industry where the profit margins are already dismal.

I haven’t seen anybody point out the fact that since many farms are still subsidized, this bill will require the State to provide even more subsidies if our State’s farmers are to succeed.

The Senate already passed the bill in a 23-12 vote and he bill is now headed for the Assembly floor.  If the bill passes and is signed into law, farmers throughout our state will have to drastically modify how they do business.

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 clients 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 May 5, CNNMoney.com reported as follows:

“An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork. Section 9006 of the health care bill — just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document–mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year. Right now, the IRS Form 1099 is used to document income for individual workers other than wages and salaries. Freelancers receive them each year from their clients, and businesses issue them to the independent contractors they hire. But under the new rules, if a freelance designer buys a new iMac from the Apple Store, they’ll have to send Apple a 1099. A laundromat that buys soap each week from a local distributor will have to send the supplier a 1099 at the end of the year tallying up their purchases. The bill makes two key changes to how 1099s are used. First, it expands their scope by using them to track payments not only for services but also for tangible goods. Plus, it requires that 1099s be issued not just to individuals, but also to corporations. Taken together, the two seemingly small changes will require millions of additional forms to be sent out.”

The complete article is available at:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/index.htm.

One wonders about the mindset of people who come up with legislation and rules like this. They’ve obviously never owned or managed a small business–or, seemingly, encountered a small business they liked. They constantly impose more and more costly requirements for doing business, which we know costs jobs in the private sector, while requiring ever more and more bureaucrats to be hired at taxpayer expense to make sure we obey and do what we’re supposed to.

This report by CNNMoney.com also raises the question in my naturally-suspicious lawyerlike mind as to what other unpleasant surprises lurk in in the darkened catacombs of this “health care bill.” What does filing of Form 1099 have to do with health care?

You may recall that in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Inc. 550 U.,S. 618.  In Ledbetter the Supreme Court held that an employer’s decision with respect to setting pay is a discrete act of discrimination, and that the relevant period of limitations begins to run when the act first occurs.  After several attempts at modifying the law through legislation, in 2009 President Obama signed the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009″ which added the following provisions to Title VII:

(3)(A) . . .[A]n unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.

(B) In addition to any relief authorized by . . .42 U.S.C. 1981a, liability may accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful employment practices with regard to discrimination in compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a charge.

The Ledbetter Act deems each paycheck issued pursuant to a discriminatory compensation decision or pay structure an independent, actionable act. It applies retroactively “to all claims of discrimination in compensation under Title VII . . . that are pending on or after [May 28, 2007].”

In a case that did not deal with “discrimination in compensation” the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the strict filing deadlines by deciding when the statute of limitations begins to run on a disparate impact claim.  In Lewis v. City of Chicago, Illinois, the court held that

What that requires depends on the claim asserted. For disparate-treatment claims — and others for which discriminatory intent is required — that means the plaintiff must demonstrate deliberate discrimination within the limitations period. See Ledbetter, supra, at 624–629; Lorance, supra, at 904–905; Ricks, supra, at 256–258; Evans, supra, at 557–560; see also Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U. S. 6, 8 (1981) (per curiam). But for claims that do not require discriminatory intent, no such demonstration is needed. Cf. Ledbetter, supra, at 640; Lorance, supra, at 904, 908–909. Our opinions, it is true, described the harms of which the unsuccessful plaintiffs in those cases complained as “present effect[s]” of past discrimination. Ledbetter, supra, at 628;see also Lorance, supra, at 907; Chardon, supra, at 8; Ricks, supra, at 258; Evans, supra, at 558. But the reason they could not be the present effects of present discrimination was that the charged discrimination required proof of discriminatory intent, which had not even been alleged. That reasoning has no application when, as here, the charge is disparate impact, which does not require discriminatory intent. [emphasis added]

The court was not swayed by the City’s argument that the Court’s holding “will result in a host of practical problems for employers and employees alike.”  Under the Court’s ruling employers may face new disparate-impact suits for practices they have used regularly for years, thereby depriving the employer of evidence essential to their case.  According to the Court:

Truth to tell, however, both readings of the statute produce puzzling results. Under the City’s reading, if an employer adopts an unlawful practice and no timely charge is brought, it can continue using the practice indefinitely, with impunity, despite ongoing disparate impact. Equitable tolling or estoppel may allow some affected employees or applicants to sue, but many others will be left out in the cold. Moreover, the City’s reading may induce plaintiffs aware of the danger of delay to file charges upon the announcement of a hiring practice, before they have any basis for believing it will produce a disparate impact.

The court ultimately concluded that it was not their “task to assess the consequences of each approach and adopt the one that produces the least mischief. [Their] charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted. By enacting §2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(i), Congress allowed claims to be brought against an employer who uses a practice that causes disparate impact, whatever the employer’s motives and whether or not he has employed the same practice in the past. If that effect was unintended, it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix.”

Lewis v. City of Chicago, Illinois will likely be seen as a victory for employees, as many plaintiffs’ counsel will creatively plead their time-barred disparate treatment case as a disparate impact case.  This may cause significant problems for employers who adopted facially neutral policies that have lasting effects on employees because evidence regarding the basis for the initial decision may no longer be available.

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.

Prior to this decision, certain factors such as attorney performance, risk, and expense advancement, were used by Courts to calculate reasonable attorney’s fees in contingency cases. Those fees are referred to as Lodestar fees. Under the Lodestar method, the Court multiplied the number of hours a lawyer worked by the prevailing hourly rates in the lawyer’s area, to determine the reasonable attorneys’ fees. However, in extraordinary circumstances, a Court could then use other factors to enhance the attorneys’ fee, for example, multiplying the fee by two.

In this case, however, the Court held that attorney performance, a factor previously limited to calculating the Lodestar fee, could also be used in enhancing that fee. The Court reasoned that in extraordinary circumstances, Lodestar calculation factors might not adequately take into account the justification for enhanced fees, and should not, therefore, be per se subsumed in fee calculation only.

This case opens up the possibility that numerous other factors, such as an extraordinary result, advancement of expenses, or delay caused by defendants, could be used to increase the size of the plaintiff’s attorneys fees beyond the ordinary Lodestar calculation.

Employment related legal issues can present significant exposure to employers.  Employees and employers should consult with an attorney to ascertain their rights.

Original article by Rutger J. Heymann 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.

Employer’s policies can be updated when the IRS updates its regulations, or the employer can simply say they will reimburse mileage at the current IRS rates.  Reimbursing employees at a lower rate can subject the employer to a claim that the employer did not fully reimburse the employee for expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties.  Failing to fully reimburse employees for work-related expenses may require the employer to pay interest and attorneys’ fees incurred in recovering the underpaid expense.

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.

I’m not sure why the Governor would sign a bill that requires employers to pay computer software workers $220.00 more per year than previously required.  As with the hourly rate, the Labor Commissioner will continue to increase the minimum salary for computer workers each year based on the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

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.

• Businesses of 10 employees or more would have to provide up to nine days of sick leave per year.
• Smaller providers would have to provide up to five days per year.
• Full-time and part-time workers would earn sick days at the rate of one hour per 30 hours worked.
• The benefit could be used after 90 days of employment.
• Employers can cap the annual sick leave
• The sick leave can be used for diagnosis, care or treatment of health conditions of the employee or the employee’s family member, or for leave related to domestic violence or sexual assault.
• Employers would be prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against any employee who requests paid sick days and would have to comply with specified posting requirements.
• Employees who do not receive the required sick days could bring an action for enforcement including attorneys’ fees.

The text of the bill can be reviewed at www.leginfo.ca.gov.

People interested in this bill should contact their senators.

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.

In FLSA2008-1NA, the DOL was asked whether the minimum salary of $455 per week under the FLSA could be prorated to reflect the part-time status of an employee. The DOL rejected the idea that the minimum weekly salary could be reduced. Courts interpreting similar provisions under California law would likely agree with the DOL’s conclusion. California employer should be aware, however, that employees qualifying for California’s Administrative, Professional or Executive exemptions must receive a weekly salary of at least $640 (two times California’s current minimum wage).

In FLSA2008-2NA, an employer asked if it was using an acceptable method of tracking hours worked when employees performed mandatory on-line training while at home. The employer’s time records showed the type of training taken, the completion date, start and end times and contained a place for the employee’s and manager’s signature. The DOL pointed out that “No particular method of keeping required records is prescribed, provided that the relevant information [i.e., hours worked each day] is maintained and preserved.

The opinion letter serves as a good reminder that employers are required to compensate non-exempt employees for time spent in mandatory training, even if the training occurs at home. Accurate records of hours worked by non-exempt employees must be maintained and preserved.

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.

This month the U.S. Department of Labor issued an insert for the current FMLA poster. The insert provides important information regarding the new law that became effective on January 28, 2008. As a reminder, the new law permits a “spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin” to take up to 26 workweeks of leave to care for a “member of the Armed Forces, including a member of the National Guard or Reserves, who is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, for a serious injury or illness.”

Until the final regulations are approved, employers are required to act in good faith in providing the new leave. The new poster can be downloaded here ( New FMLA Insert) or from the DOL’s website.

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 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows an employee to take FMLA leave for “any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on active duty or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency operation.”

According to the Department of Labor, this provision of the NDAA is not effective until the Secretary of Labor issues final regulations defining “any qualifying exigency.”

The Department of Labor is in the process of preparing the required regulations. In the meantime, employers are encouraged to provide leaves of absences to employees who need time off work due to a family members’ call to duty.

The NDAA will likely be in addition to any rights an employee would have under California’s newly enacted AB 392 (see California Employers Must Allow Leave For Spouses of Armed Forces).

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.

To comply, employers must mail directly to employee or hand the notice to the employee personally. It is no longer enough to post notice of the EITC tax credit on an employee bulletin board or sending notice through the office mail.

Sample notices are available at the Internal Revenue Service website.

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.

• Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Form N-560 or Form N-570)
• Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or N-570)
• The Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I0151)
• The Reentry Permit (Form I-327); and
• The Refugee Travel Document (Form I-571)

The new Form I-9 can be obtained at http://www.uscis.gov/I-9

A revised Handbook for Employers (M-274) with instructions for completing the Form I-9 can be downloaded at http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/m-w74.pdf

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.

A qualified employee is one who works 20 or more hours per week and is the spouse of a deployed member of the armed forces, national guard or reserve. The employee must notify the employer within 2 business days of receiving official notice that the serving spouse will be on leave from deployment and that the employee would like to take the leave. The employee must also submit documentation certifying that the employees spouse will be on leave during the unpaid leave.

Employers with 25 or more employees should modify their policies to reflect the availability of this new leave and should prepare blank certification forms that the employee can fill out requesting the leave.

If you require assistance modifying your handbook or preparing the required certification, contact an attorney familiar with the new leave requirements.

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.