3 Cheers for Cheerleaders

Cheers for Cheerleaders: California has added labor code 2754 that now makes "cheerleaders" of a California based "professional sports team" an employee (and no longer an independent contractor). As an employee, cheerleaders have more rights and protections under labor code, unemployment insurance code, and FEHA. For more information, contact Campano Law Group at 661-945-5300 or via email at acampano@campanolaw.com

Victim in an accident involving a drunk driver?

Victim in an accident involving a drunk driver? If you are a victim of an accident and the driver of the other car is convicted of drunk driving, not only will the car insurance company help compensate you for your injuries but you are also entitled to get victim restitution through the district attorney's office. For more information, contact Attorney Angelo F. Campano at 661-945-5300 or email us at acampano@campanolaw.com.

Injured while riding in a cab? Know your rights.

Question: If I am riding in a cab in California and there is an accident, do I have any rights? Can I get my medical bills paid?

Answer: Yes, you have the right to be compensated for your injuries and also have your medical bills paid when you are a passenger in a cab. Call Attorney Angelo F. Campano at 661-945-5300 or email us at acampano@campanolaw.com for more information.

California overtime update

Employment update on overtime pay: In order for a California employee to be exempt from getting paid overtime, the employee has to make a certain amount each month or per year. On January 1, 2016, minimum wage increased from $9.00 to $10.00. With this increase in minimum wage means that for an employee to be exempt from overtime, the employee's monthly salary has to increase from $3,170 per month to $3,467 per month OR their yearly salary has to increase from $37,440 per year to $41,600 per year. For more information, contact Attorney Angelo F. Campano at 661-945-5300 or by email at acampano@campanolaw.com

Workers' Compensation available regardless of immigration status

Workers' Compensation/Employment Update: California Labor Codes 3733 and 4756 ensure that an injured employee can get workers' compensation benefits regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Also, these codes are to apply retroactively. For more information, contact Campano Law Group at 661-945-5300.

California gives cheers to Cheerleaders

California has added labor code 2754 that now makes "cheerleaders" of a California based "professional sports team" an employee (and no longer an independent contractor). As an employee, cheerleaders have more rights and protections under labor code, unemployment insurance code, and FEHA verus independent contractors who do not have the same protections. For more information, contact Campano Law Group at 661-945-5300 or via email at acampano@campanolaw.com

Interview with Attorney Campano about California Prop #8

Interview with Attorney Campano about California traffic amnesty program

Unemployment law update

Unemployment law update: Beginning July 1, 2015, people who wish to challenge an unemployment hearing decision have 30 days to appeal. It used to be 20 days.

How to comply with California's new paid sick leave.

Is there a way to comply with California’s new paid sick leave without violating this new law? Yes. (I probably would not ask the question if the answer was going to be no.)

One of the drawbacks (bad things for employers) with this new law is that the employer has to keep track of the hours worked by the employee and have the amount of accrued paid sick leave put on the paystub or some other writing to the employee. This can be too time consuming and confusing depending on a variety of things, such as the number of employees you have and when the employees started working for your company. For example, the more employees you have means more keeping track of hours worked and sick leave earned. And, when an employee started working for you affects the 90 day work requirement before paid sick leave can be earned.

The new law, however, does give an employer a chance to avoid these headaches in at least one way: by the employer offering paid sick leave (3 days or 24 hours) each year without the employee having to earn it every 30 hours as the new law requires. This way, the employer can be able to avoid having to keep track each pay period for sick leave earned and having to give the employee notice each pay period of how much paid sick leave has been earned because in theory in the employer has already complied with the new law and ensures its employees they have 3 days or 24 hours of paid sick leave available to them.

If you, as the employer, would like more information or assistance with putting together a policy to suit this new law, contact Attorney Angelo Campano at Campano Law Group at 661-945-5300 or by email: acampano@campanolaw.com.

Employment law update

Employment law update: california fair employment laws now protect unpaid interns and volunteers from harassment at work.

For more information, contact Attorney Angelo Campano at 661-945-5300 or email us at acampano@campanolaw.com.

Putting up a sign that reserves the right to refuse service to anyone? Think twice.

A business putting up a sign that says the business can refuse service to anyone should think twice who that business means by “anyone”. California state law prohibits a business from refusing service to just anyone they choose. See Unruh Civil Rights Act.

What is the Unruh Civil Rights Act, you ask? It’s California Civil Code Section 51 that states: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Civil Code section 51(b).

But, what does that mean in plain English? Basically this law prevents people from being discriminated against in housing and public accommodations based on their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition. This law is also meant to cover arbitrary discrimination on the basis of characteristics of a person that appear to be one of the specified.

What’s considered a “public accommodation”? This includes but not limited to hotels/motels, non-profit organizations, restaurants, theaters, beauty shops, retail establishments. This is not an exhaustive list, so just because your business does not fall under these categories does not give your business the right to refuse service to anyone protected under this law.

Who can a business refuse service to, if anyone? Well, the right to refuse has to generally serve a legitimate business interest. Some examples are when a customer is not dressed properly; a customer is disruptive; a customer harasses customers or employees; or when there are legitimate safety concerns. Like the public accommodation list, this list is also not limited to what has been mentioned here.

Overall, it is clear that the law is meant to protect people based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition but the law does allow the business to protect itself based on the conduct of customers.

Victims of employment harassment/discrimination are not alone. Recent “Me too” evidence case gives victims of harassment/discrimination a helping hand in employment cases. Pantoja v. Anton (August, 2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87.

             “Me too” evidence is a type of evidence used in employment cases. Typically, a victim of harassment/discrimination may come to learn that others have also been the victim of harassment/discrimination and will want to use that evidence to help them prove their case. That is where the phrase “me too” evidence comes into play. See Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 740. Having others who experienced harassment/discrimination at the same place of work can be very helpful to your case because as they say, “where there is smoke, there is fire.” But, like any evidence, there is always a question of whether it will be admitted into the court by the judge.

Defense lawyers, representing employers, do not like me too evidence, and they will do as much as possible to keep it out. Defense lawyers take the position that the victim of harassment/discrimination had to know that others were also experiencing harassment/discrimination at the time it was going on in order for me too evidence to be admitted into court. See Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590.

If a judge or jury hears that others at work experienced the same harassment/discrimination that you did, then that me too evidence will likely convince the judge/jury that you are not making up or exaggerating your claim. And, when it comes time for the judge/jury to decide if you are right or wrong, having another person also experiencing the same problems can make that crucial difference in your case.

                Generally, in order to have me too evidence admitted into evidence (allow the judge/jury to see/hear it), the victim needs to show that the victim knew that this other victim was or had experienced the same harassment/discrimination that you experienced. Sounds simple, but like many employment cases, victims do not always complain or voice their concerns out of fear of retaliation, losing their jobs in an already weak economy or just plain humiliation. Therefore, a lot of times, a victim of harassment/discrimination may never know of the other victims until well into after a lawsuit was filed, if at all. By then, courts may not admit that me too evidence because you did not know of the other victim while you yourself were going through the harassment/discrimination. Luckily, for employees, that no longer has to be the case.

                In Pantoja v. Anton (August, 2011) 198 Cal.App.4^th 87, the California Appellate Court ruled that a victim seeking to admit me too evidence did not need to know of the other victim’s harassment/discrimination in order to have me too evidence admitted into court. Instead, the Appellate Court ruled that a victim of harassment/discrimination can use recently discovered me too evidence to (1) impeach the defendant who denies ever committing harassment/discrimination before or (2) to show intent of the defendant to harass/discriminate against others in the same way.

Based on a reading of this ruling, the Appellate Court has provided victims of harassment more opportunities to prove they were a victim of harassment/discrimination. It no longer has to be a “he said, she said” type case. This ruling undoubtedly expands the rights of victims of harassment/discrimination in proving they were the unfortunate victims of harassment/discrimination.

Posted by: Attorney Angelo F. Campano at acampano@campanolaw.com; Tel: 661-945-5300.

An Employee refusing to sign a disciplinary memo can be fired and denied unemployment benefits.

            In many jobs, employers have written warnings or notices they give to employees who are believed to have violated a work rule. Typically, these warnings/notices have a place at the bottom where the employee is supposed to sign his/her name. Generally, it is so the employee cannot later on say they never knew of the warning/notice. Sometimes, the employee refuses to sign the warning/notice because it might be looked at like an admission of fault. In a recent case, one employee refused to sign his name, and was fired for not signing the warning/notice. The employee filed for unemployment benefits and was initially given benefits. The employer appealed that decision and the Appellate Court sided with the employer. The Appellate Court found the employee committed misconduct for not signing the warning.

            In Paratransit, Inc. v. Craig Medeiros, the fired employee filed for unemployment benefits. In California, an employee can be refused unemployment benefits if the unemployment judge finds the employee committed “misconduct”. In this case, the fired employee was granted unemployment benefits by the unemployment judge. The employer appealed, the case made its way to the Appellate Court, where the employer prevailed. The Appellate Court found the discipline notice/warning was a standard policy at work and signing the warning was required as part of the job. Further, the Appellate Court found that just below the signature line, it read “employee signature as to receipt”. The Appellate Court found, in this instance, that the employee signing the notice/warning was just to give the employee notice of the violation, not that the employee admitted fault.

            In the Paratransit, Inc. v. Craig Medeiros, the Appellate Court seemed to support the employer and find the employer’s actions reasonable. According to the Appellate Court, the discipline notice/warning was a part of the job, and the notice/warning made it clear that the employee signing his name was not an admission of fault. The Appellate Court found misconduct by the employee because the employee refused to comply with the employer’s reasonable work rules/policy of signing the warning/notice. With a finding of misconduct, the employee was denied unemployment benefits.

http://www.campanolaw.com/
acampano@campanolaw.com

No overtime pay for personal attendants

Overtime for personal attendants? A person hired to care for an elderly person is not entitled to overtime if that person is hired as a personal attendant. Overtime is earned if a person works in excess of 8 hours a day or more than 40 hours a week. A personal attendant is defined as someone hired to supervise, feed or dress the client/elderly person. See Joy Cash v. Iola Winn 2012 WL 1662629 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)