California Employee Rights Against Unfair Arbitration Agreements

California law looks at both the process and the terms of an arbitration agreement. Courts examine whether the employer presented the form during a take-it-or-leave-it moment and whether the clauses treat both sides equally. You gain protection when the agreement shows procedural pressure or substantive terms that favor the company. The recent opinion confirms that a court may refuse to enforce an agreement when the provisions strip you of access to evidence, reserve courtroom rights for the employer, or block fair remedies. You can rely on these principles when you face an arbitration packet at hire or later in your employment.

California Court Of Appeal Clarifies Mid Employment Rollouts

Many employers ask workers to sign new forms months after onboarding. The appellate court addressed a rollout like that and held that the presentation and content mattered. You improve your position when you show how the company delivered the documents, what deadlines it set, and whether you received a meaningful opt-out. The decision recognized that a formal opt-out line does not cure pressure when the workplace reality tells a different story. You can also point to companion documents, such as confidentiality policies, that try to muzzle witnesses or hide outcomes. The court treated related documents as a package and measured their combined effect. You can use that approach to show a judge how the puzzle pieces fit together.

Challenging One-Sided Workplace Arbitration Agreements In California

California applies unconscionability analysis to arbitration contracts. You prove procedural concerns through evidence of surprise, unequal bargaining power, and rushed signatures. You prove substantive concerns by showing terms that favor the company, such as carve-outs for employer claims, limits on discovery, secrecy rules that block witness contact, or fee arrangements that chill employee claims. The appellate court affirmed a trial judge who found the agreement permeated by unfairness and refused to sever a few sentences. You benefit from that guidance because it confirms courts need not rewrite a lopsided deal. You can ask a judge to deny enforcement and keep your wage, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or whistleblower claims in court.

California Employment Lawyer Guidance For Arbitration Battles

Legal advice early in the dispute gives you real leverage. A lawyer who represents only employees will audit the paperwork, compare versions, and track every change across time. You should share how and when human resources delivered the forms, who presented them, and what pressure you felt. Counsel can cross-reference those facts with company policies to show a judge how the system worked in practice. You also gain strategic options when your lawyer identifies the provisions that block access to evidence or reserve special court rights for the employer. This approach helps you decide whether to move to compel discovery inside arbitration, to oppose arbitration outright, or to seek a court ruling that keeps your case in the public forum.

Evidence You Gather Now To Strengthen Your Case

You build strength by collecting documents and details that demonstrate both the process and the unfair terms. A short list keeps you focused on what matters most and helps your lawyer act fast.

• Save every agreement, handbook, update email, and acknowledgment sheet;
• Keep timestamps, screenshots, and envelopes that show delivery methods and deadlines;
• Preserve messages where supervisors refer to the forms or apply pressure to sign; and
• Identify witnesses who saw the rollout or who faced similar documents.

These items provide the court with a clear record and support the argument that the agreement does not constitute a fair bargain. You finish this step by organizing the files and sending copies to your lawyer so nothing goes missing later.

California Court Standards For Confidentiality And Discovery Limits

Employers often pair arbitration with sweeping confidentiality or nondisclosure clauses. Courts will not accept rules that bar you from speaking with coworkers or witnesses about facts. Judges also look closely at discovery limits. You should highlight language that blocks you from obtaining documents that the company would control in a court case. The appellate opinion approved a trial judge who viewed the agreement and the companion confidentiality policy together. That combined reading showed a structural advantage for the company and supported the denial of arbitration. You can point to the same theme when paperwork tries to silence you while preserving courtroom options for the employer.

California Employee Rights Strategy For Keeping Your Case in Court

You protect your rights by following a clear plan. Start by requesting a full copy of every agreement and policy that relates to arbitration or confidentiality. Next, list the differences between versions across time. Then map the terms that favor the company, such as carve-outs, fee shifting, venue selection, gag orders, or discovery restrictions. Finally, meet with a California employment lawyer who represents workers only and decide whether to oppose arbitration, to seek limited discovery on formation issues, or to ask the court to strike the agreement entirely. This plan gives you control and aligns your next moves with the standards the Court of Appeal just reinforced.

Talk To A California Employment Lawyer Who Represents Employees Only

You deserve a fair forum and a level field. The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, represents employees only. You get a team that understands how to challenge one-sided arbitration agreements, overbroad confidentiality clauses, and mid-employment rollouts that lack mutuality. Call 800-700-WAGE (9243) for a free consultation. You will get a straight review of your documents and a clear plan to protect your rights.

A recent case involving an employee of UPS Freight highlights the challenges of pursuing employment-related claims. Alleging fraud, racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, the worker sought remedies under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Despite the claims, procedural barriers ultimately led to the dismissal of the case, illustrating the importance of meeting legal requirements.

How Procedural Rules Can Impact California Employment Claims

The outcome of many employment disputes often hinges on procedural issues rather than the facts of the case. In this instance, the court relied on the doctrine of res judicata to bar claims previously litigated in federal court. This legal principle prevents duplicate lawsuits on the same primary issues, underscoring the importance of careful case planning and strategic filing.

The court also applied California’s exclusive remedy doctrine under the workers’ compensation system, which limits employees’ ability to sue for work-related injuries. While exceptions exist for retaliation or whistleblower claims, they require meticulous preparation and evidence to overcome procedural defenses. In this case, procedural missteps overshadowed the merits of the employee’s claims, resulting in dismissal.

Protecting Your Rights After Workplace Discrimination or Harassment

California workers who experience harassment, discrimination, or retaliation must navigate several administrative steps to pursue their claims. For cases under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, obtaining a right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit. Without this, courts are likely to dismiss your case regardless of its merits.

In addition, claims involving whistleblower protections or retaliation under California Labor Code sections 98.6, 1102.5, and 6310 must meet specific legal standards. Employees must demonstrate they engaged in protected activities, that their employer was aware of these activities, and that adverse actions were taken as a direct result. Failing to meet these requirements leaves claims vulnerable to dismissal.

The Role of Employment Attorneys in Complex California Employment Law Cases

Employment claims require precision and expertise, especially when facing procedural hurdles. In the UPS Freight case, the court dismissed allegations due to insufficient factual support and procedural deficiencies. Legal representation ensures that claims are prepared with the necessary evidence and arguments to counter employer defenses effectively.

An experienced attorney can identify procedural pitfalls, such as filing deadlines or compliance issues, and provide strategic advice on building a compelling case. This is especially important when employers attempt to use procedural defenses, like res judicata or exclusivity under workers’ compensation laws, to block valid claims.

Challenging Retaliation and Whistleblower Violations

Retaliation and whistleblower claims require substantial evidence and a thorough understanding of applicable labor laws. Employers may argue procedural errors or insufficient evidence to dismiss these cases. Demonstrating clear causation between protected activities and retaliatory actions is crucial to overcoming these defenses.

In the UPS Freight case, allegations under California Labor Code sections 98.6, 1102.5, and 6310 were dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence and failure to meet administrative requirements. Legal counsel to guide you through these processes can make a significant difference in the success of your claims.

Taking Legal Action Against Unfair Treatment in California

Pursuing claims for workplace misconduct requires more than just filing a lawsuit. From obtaining a right-to-sue letter to adhering to strict filing deadlines, every step of the process matters. Errors in these areas can result in the dismissal of otherwise valid claims, as seen in the UPS Freight case.

Speak With a California Employment Lawyer About Your Case

If you have experienced workplace discrimination, retaliation, or harassment, do not wait to take action. Procedural missteps can jeopardize your case before it even begins, making it essential to have knowledgeable legal guidance from the start. The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, is dedicated to protecting California employees and ensuring that employers are held accountable for unlawful conduct.

Our experienced employment law attorneys will review your situation, help you navigate administrative requirements, and build a strong case to pursue the justice you deserve. Call the Nourmand Law Firm, APC, today for a free consultation and take the first step toward asserting your rights.

The decision highlights the importance of protecting employee privacy and ensuring compliance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Information Practices Act (IPA). For employees in California, understanding their rights under these laws is crucial, especially when dealing with disability accommodations or breaches of confidentiality by employers.

The Interactive Process and Reasonable Accommodations Under FEHA

One of the central issues in this case was whether the employer had met its obligations under FEHA to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations for the employee’s disability. Under FEHA, employers are required to engage in good-faith discussions with employees who request accommodations for disabilities. This process involves the employee and employer working together to identify reasonable accommodations that would enable the employee to perform their job duties.

In this case, the employee alleged that the university failed to meet these obligations. However, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant summary adjudication in favor of the employer on these claims. The court found that the employee did not present sufficient evidence to show that the employer had failed to engage in the interactive process or provide reasonable accommodations. For employees facing similar situations, it is critical to document all interactions and efforts made to request accommodations, as these records can be vital in pursuing a claim under FEHA.

Employee Privacy Rights Under California Law

The court’s ruling also addressed claims under the Information Practices Act (IPA), which protects employee privacy by limiting the disclosure of personal information. In this case, the employee argued that his privacy rights were violated when the employer disclosed details about student complaints against him and information related to his disability accommodations during a faculty and student meeting.

The appellate court found enough evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the employer violated the IPA by disclosing this sensitive information. As a result, the court reversed the summary adjudication on the privacy claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling emphasizes the importance of confidentiality in employment settings, particularly when it comes to handling personal information related to employee disabilities or complaints.

California employers must be cautious about how they handle employee information, as unauthorized disclosures can lead to serious legal consequences.

How Privacy Violations Can Impact Your Career and Well-Being

Workplace privacy violations can go beyond just legal implications—they can profoundly affect an employee’s professional reputation and personal well-being. When sensitive information is improperly disclosed, it can lead to loss of trust, professional setbacks, and emotional distress. In cases like this, where private details about disability accommodations or workplace complaints are exposed, employees can face unnecessary challenges both in their career and personal lives. It’s essential to take action to protect your rights and safeguard your future in the workplace.

Harassment Claims and Gender-Based Discrimination Under FEHA

The former employee alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment created by a coworker’s behavior. To succeed under FEHA, employees must prove that harassment was based on a protected characteristic, such as gender or disability. In this instance, the employee claimed that the workplace harassment she experienced was linked to her gender.
The court, however, found that the evidence did not support a connection between the harassment and the employee’s gender. Despite the employee’s testimony about the hostile treatment and her assertion that other women had experienced similar behavior from the coworker, the court determined that the offensive conduct was directed at both men and women. Without sufficient evidence that the mistreatment was based on gender, the employee’s harassment claim could not succeed.
This outcome emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a clear link between workplace harassment and a protected characteristic to prove a hostile work environment under FEHA. General workplace hostility, though inappropriate, does not meet the legal requirements of a harassment claim unless it is shown to be rooted in gender or another protected characteristic.

Retaliation Claims and Protected Activity Under FEHA

The former employee also argued that she was retaliated against for raising concerns about her coworker’s conduct and the structure of the firm’s internship program. Retaliation claims under FEHA require employees to show that they engaged in protected activity, such as opposing practices prohibited by FEHA, and were subjected to adverse employment actions.
While the former employee raised multiple concerns with her employer, the court found that her complaints about the firm’s business practices and wage structure did not qualify as protected activity under FEHA. Although she had reported potential workplace harassment, the court found no clear evidence linking her demotion or termination to her opposition to practices prohibited by FEHA. As a result, the court ruled against the former employee on her retaliation claim.
This decision highlights a critical aspect of retaliation claims: employees must demonstrate a direct connection between their engagement in protected activity and the adverse actions taken by their employer. Complaints about issues outside of FEHA’s scope, such as wage disputes or general business practices, do not qualify as protected activities under the law and cannot form the basis of a retaliation claim.

Building a Strong Case in Employment Discrimination Lawsuits

This case underscores employees’ challenges in proving harassment and retaliation under California’s FEHA. Simply experiencing mistreatment in the workplace or raising concerns about various practices is not enough to succeed in a lawsuit. Employees must clearly demonstrate that the mistreatment they experienced was based on a protected characteristic, such as gender, or that the adverse employment actions they faced were directly linked to their opposition to unlawful conduct under FEHA.
For employees who believe they have experienced workplace harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, it is crucial to gather strong evidence and carefully document their complaints and the employer’s response. This includes maintaining records of any reports made to management and documenting the timing of any adverse actions, such as demotions or terminations, that follow those reports. Such evidence is essential for building a compelling case under FEHA.

Key Takeaways from the California Supreme Court on Harassment and Retaliation Protections

The California Supreme Court recently issued a critical ruling that further defined what constitutes actionable harassment and retaliation under FEHA. In this case, an employee reported that a coworker had directed a racial slur at them. After the incident was reported, the employee faced obstruction from their employer’s human resources department and was subjected to threatening behavior.

The Court addressed two important issues. First, it confirmed that even a single incident of racial harassment could be considered sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment. This decision underscores that racial harassment doesn’t have to be part of a prolonged pattern of behavior to be actionable; one extreme incident may be enough to alter the conditions of employment and violate FEHA protections.

Second, the Court examined whether efforts by the employer to block the employee from formally reporting the harassment could be considered retaliation. The Court determined that obstructing the complaint process and intimidating the employee could be considered retaliation under FEHA. This ruling reinforces the legal protections for employees who report harassment, making it clear that any actions taken by the employer to discourage or punish the reporting of harassment may be grounds for a retaliation claim.

A Single Incident of Racial Harassment Can Be Actionable

One of the key takeaways from this Supreme Court ruling is the recognition that even a single severe act of racial harassment can create a hostile work environment. In many harassment cases, courts previously focused on repeated or pervasive behavior to establish a hostile work environment. However, this ruling clarifies that a single instance of severe racial harassment—especially one involving the use of racial slurs—can be enough to constitute harassment under FEHA.

This ruling is a significant development for employees who have experienced isolated but deeply harmful incidents of racial harassment in the workplace. It affirms that employees do not have to endure repeated incidents of harassment to take legal action. A single, egregious act can be sufficient to alter the work environment and trigger FEHA protections.

Retaliation After Reporting Harassment: What You Need to Know

The Supreme Court’s decision also highlights that employees often face retaliation after reporting harassment. Retaliation can take many forms, including attempts to undermine the complaint process, direct threats, or adverse changes to job conditions. The Court made it clear that such behavior by an employer can be considered retaliation under FEHA, and employees have the right to hold their employer accountable for these adverse actions.

Employees who report racial harassment have the legal right to do so without facing any form of retaliation. When retaliation occurs, it violates the employee’s rights and discourages others from reporting harassment. This ruling reinforces that employers must take employee complaints seriously and that any attempts to interfere with or retaliate against employees for reporting harassment may result in legal consequences.

How an Employee-Focused Attorney Can Help You Stand Up Against Harassment and Retaliation

Dealing with harassment or retaliation in the workplace can be overwhelming and isolating. If you face these issues, having an attorney focused on representing employees can make all the difference. An attorney who is committed to employee rights will understand the specific challenges you are facing and can help you build a solid case to seek justice.

Legal representation can provide the support you need to pursue a harassment or retaliation claim effectively. Your attorney can gather the necessary evidence, ensure that the employer’s actions are properly documented, and work on your behalf to hold the employer accountable for violating FEHA. If you’ve been the victim of racial harassment or retaliation, it’s essential to consult with an experienced employment attorney who can guide you through the process and advocate for your rights.

The court’s decision highlights the challenges employees face when pursuing claims of discrimination and retaliation, particularly when an employer has documented reasons for termination unrelated to the employee’s disability or complaints. However, it also serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding your rights under FEHA and taking appropriate legal action when violated.

Understanding Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Under FEHA

Under FEHA, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on a physical disability or medical condition. This includes making employment decisions—such as termination, demotion, or changes in job responsibilities—based on an employee’s disability. Additionally, FEHA prohibits retaliation against employees who engage in protected activities, such as filing complaints about discrimination or requesting reasonable accommodations for a disability.

In this particular case, the employee claimed that the employer’s decision to terminate his employment was motivated by his medical conditions and that the employer retaliated against him after he made complaints about his treatment. While the employee believed his rights under FEHA had been violated, the court ultimately found that the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination. The evidence did not support the claims of retaliation.

The Challenges of Proving Disability Discrimination

Proving disability discrimination in the workplace can be complex, mainly when an employer provides documented reasons for its actions that appear unrelated to the employee’s disability. To succeed in a disability discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must demonstrate that the adverse employment action was taken because of their disability. This often requires showing that the employer’s reasons for the action were a pretext for discrimination.

In cases like the one above, the court looks at the evidence presented by both sides to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that should be decided at trial. If the employer can provide legitimate reasons for the termination, and the employee cannot produce sufficient evidence to show that these reasons are a pretext, the court may grant summary judgment in favor of the employer, as it did in this case.

Retaliation Claims and the Importance of Documentation

Retaliation claims are another critical area of employment law under FEHA. When an employee files a complaint about discrimination or requests accommodations for a disability, they are engaging in protected activities. Retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse actions against the employee in response to these protected activities. This could include termination, demotion, reduced hours, or other adverse employment decisions.

To prove a retaliation claim, an employee must show a causal link between their protected activity and the adverse action taken by the employer. This often involves presenting evidence that the timing of the adverse action was suspicious or that the employer’s reasons for the action were inconsistent or unconvincing.

In the case discussed, the employee alleged that the employer retaliated against him for making complaints about his treatment related to his medical conditions. However, the court found that the evidence did not support a retaliation claim, emphasizing the importance of robust documentation and evidence when pursuing these claims. Employees should keep detailed records of their complaints, any responses from their employer, and any changes in their employment status after making a complaint.

If you have questions about your employer’s questionable actions, give the Nourmand Law Firm, APC a call to discuss your situation with an experienced Los Angeles employment attorney.

Why You Need a California Employment Lawyer

Navigating employment law can be daunting for employees facing discrimination or harassment. Employers often have legal resources and expertise to challenge claims, making it difficult for employees to achieve a fair outcome. A dedicated employment lawyer can provide essential support and advocacy, ensuring your rights are protected and your case is presented effectively.

In this case, the employee argued that her employer had agreed to comply with FEHA despite having fewer than five employees. However, the court found no evidence that such an agreement could impose liability under FEHA. This decision highlights the complexities of employment law and the necessity of having a lawyer who understands the nuances and can argue effectively on your behalf.

Understanding FEHA and Employer Liability

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is designed to protect employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. Under FEHA, an “employer” is any person regularly employing five or more persons. This threshold is crucial for determining whether an employer can be liable for discrimination claims under FEHA.

In this case, the employee presented evidence that her employer had voluntarily agreed to comply with FEHA. Despite this, the court ruled that such an agreement did not create a triable issue regarding the employer’s liability under FEHA. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the employer, emphasizing the importance of meeting the statutory definition of an “employer” under FEHA.

Key points to understand about FEHA:

• FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees;
• Voluntary agreements to comply with FEHA may not impose liability if the statutory definition is not met; and
• Employees need to provide clear evidence of discrimination and the employer’s liability under FEHA.
• These points illustrate why understanding the specifics of FEHA is crucial for both employees and employers.

Legal Support for Employees Facing Discrimination

This case also highlights the importance of seeking legal support when facing workplace discrimination. The employee did not lack evidence of discrimination; she had some grounds to argue that her employer subjected itself to FEHA. Despite the trial court rejecting her position, the court recognized that her claims were not frivolous or groundless.

Employees should understand that even if their claims are ultimately dismissed, a knowledgeable lawyer can help ensure their case is thoroughly examined and presented. Legal representation can make a significant difference in the outcome of discrimination cases, providing the necessary support and advocacy to challenge unfair treatment in the workplace.

Protecting Your Rights in the Workplace

If you believe you have been discriminated against or harassed at work, seeking legal advice from an experienced employment lawyer is essential. A lawyer can help you understand your rights, gather evidence, and build a solid case to present in court. They can also help you navigate the legal complexities and advocate for fair treatment and justice.

• Key benefits of hiring an employment lawyer:
• Guidance on employment law and your rights;
• Assistance in gathering and presenting evidence;
• Strong advocacy in court or settlement negotiations; and
• Increased chances of achieving a fair outcome.

This recent case serves as a reminder of employees’ challenges in discrimination cases and the importance of having skilled legal representation. If you are experiencing workplace discrimination, do not hesitate to seek legal help to protect your rights and pursue justice.

For assistance with you employment law claim, or if you have questions about a possible claim, reach out to the Nourmand Law Firm, APC. for immediate assistance.

What is a Hostile Work Environment?

A hostile work environment occurs when an employee is subjected to discriminatory harassment that is severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working atmosphere. This harassment can be based on various protected characteristics, such as race, gender, age, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. It’s important to note that occasional teasing or isolated incidents, unless extremely serious, do not typically qualify as a hostile work environment. The behavior must be so frequent or severe that it interferes with the employee’s ability to perform their job.

How Do You Prove a Hostile Work Environment?

Proving a hostile work environment claim involves demonstrating several key elements:

Protected Characteristic: You must show that you are a member of a protected class under California law. This includes race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, age (40 and older), disability, and more.

Unwelcome Conduct: The behavior in question must be unwelcome. This means that you did not invite or accept the harassment, and you found it offensive or undesirable.

Severe or Pervasive Conduct: The conduct must be either severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. This can include actions such as verbal harassment, physical threats, or unwelcome physical contact.

Affect on Work Performance: The hostile behavior must significantly interfere with your work performance or create an intimidating or abusive work environment. This can be shown through evidence that the harassment made it difficult for you to do your job effectively.

Employer Liability: You must show that your employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take appropriate corrective action. This can involve demonstrating that you reported the harassment and your employer did not address it adequately.

Steps to Take if You Believe You’re Experiencing a Hostile Work Environment

If you think you are experiencing a hostile work environment, it is crucial to take action to protect your rights and build a strong case. Here are some steps you can follow:

Document the Harassment: Keep detailed records of the harassment, including dates, times, locations, witnesses, and descriptions of the incidents. This documentation will be critical evidence in your claim.

Report the Harassment: Follow your company’s procedures for reporting harassment. Inform your supervisor, human resources department, or another appropriate person within your organization. Make sure to keep copies of any complaints or reports you submit.

Seek Support: Talk to trusted colleagues, friends, or family members about your situation. They can provide emotional support and may also serve as witnesses if they have observed the harassment.

Consult an Attorney: If the harassment continues or your employer does not take appropriate action, consider consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment law. They can help you understand your legal options and guide you through the process of filing a claim.

Speak with a California Employment Attorney To Learn More About Your Rights

Proving a hostile work environment claim under California law can be complex, but understanding the key elements and taking the right steps can help you build a strong case. Remember, you have the right to work in an environment free from discrimination and harassment. If you’re facing a hostile work environment, take action to protect your rights and seek the justice you deserve. To learn more, give the Nourmand Law Firm, APC a call at 800-700-WAGE or through our secure online contact form.

The case underscores the importance of having a skilled attorney when dealing with arbitration agreements. These agreements often contain complex and sometimes unfair terms that can heavily favor the employer. Without legal assistance, employees might unknowingly waive their rights to pursue specific claims in court, as seen in this case.

The Difference Between Procedural and Substantive Unconscionability

The Los Angeles County Superior Court’s decision to deny USC’s motion to compel arbitration highlights key aspects of procedural and substantive unconscionability under California law. Procedural unconscionability occurs when an agreement is presented as a contract of adhesion, meaning it is offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with no opportunity for negotiation. In the case involving USC, the arbitration agreement was forced upon the employee as a mandatory condition of employment, illustrating a classic example of procedural unconscionability.

Substantive unconscionability, on the other hand, focuses on the fairness of the agreement’s terms. The court found the arbitration agreement’s scope and duration to be excessively broad and unfair. The agreement required the employee to arbitrate all claims against USC and its related entities indefinitely, even if the claims had no relation to her employment. Additionally, the agreement lacked mutuality, compelling the employee to arbitrate her claims while not imposing the same requirement on USC’s related entities.

These findings are significant because they underscore the importance of balanced and fair arbitration agreements. In California, courts scrutinize these agreements to ensure they do not overly favor one party at the expense of another. This case serves as a reminder that employees should be aware of their rights and the potential for unconscionable terms in arbitration agreements.

The Role of an Employment Lawyer in Challenging Unfair Arbitration Agreements

The appellate court’s decision to uphold the trial court’s findings highlights the critical role an employment lawyer plays in these cases. An experienced attorney can identify unfair and one-sided terms within arbitration agreements and challenge their enforceability.

When faced with an arbitration agreement, employees must understand their rights and the potential implications of signing such agreements. Legal help is crucial in reviewing these documents and ensuring employees do not waive important legal protections. A knowledgeable employment lawyer can provide guidance and support, ensuring justice is served.

How Employment Lawyers Protect Your Rights Against Unfair Arbitration Agreements

Employment lawyers play a crucial role in protecting employees from unfair arbitration agreements. These agreements can often be complex and filled with legal jargon that obscures their true implications. An attorney can help employees understand their rights and the potential consequences of signing such agreements.

Having legal assistance is vital in these situations. An attorney can scrutinize the terms of an arbitration agreement and argue against its enforceability if it is found unconscionable. If you face an arbitration agreement as a condition of your employment, seek legal advice before signing. An employment lawyer can review the terms, explain your rights, and challenge unfair provisions. This proactive approach can help you avoid unwittingly giving up your legal protections and ensure that you receive fair treatment.

If you have questions about an employment arbitration agreement, reach out to the Normand Law Firm, APC at 800-700-WAGE or through our secure online contact form.

The Alleged Harassment and Discrimination

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the appellant was a senior marketing manager for the defendant company. She alleges she faced sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation starting in 2012. Her initial supervisor made her uncomfortable by following her around the office. Later, while working internationally, her new supervisors engaged in unwanted sexual conduct, creating a hostile work environment, and unfairly targeted her by gathering personal information and reprimanding her. After raising compliance issues, she claims these supervisors retaliated by restricting her budget, ridiculing her, and sabotaging her job opportunities. Following her termination at the end of 2018, she sued the company and her supervisors for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful discharge, labor code violations, and negligent hiring and supervision.

The Discovery Dispute and Attorney-Client Privilege

After filing her lawsuit, the appellant requested evidence from her employer related to internal investigations into her claims that were performed by an attorney hired by the defendant company to evaluate the claims. The company rejected her request, citing attorney-client privilege in refusing to turn over the documents. The trial court agreed with the company and prevented the woman from obtaining the evidence, seriously hampering her case. The woman appealed the ruling to the California Court of Appeals, arguing that the challenged documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege.

more The Appellate Ruling and Disposition

The appellate Court found that although there was an attorney-client privilege between the company and the hired attorney, the company was not protected from disclosing the challenged evidence because it had waived attorney-client privilege by placing the investigations directly at issue through its defense. The company claimed it had policies and procedures to promptly prevent and correct inappropriate conduct, and accused the plaintiff of failing to utilize these mechanisms. This defense inherently involves the adequacy of the attorney’s investigations, making them central to the case. The company’s response to discovery requests emphasized the thoroughness of these investigations, further integrating them into its defense strategy. Thus, fairness dictates that the plaintiff be allowed access to these reports and related materials to challenge the company’s claims, overriding the privilege and ensuring a fair adjudication of the dispute.

Finding An Employment Attorney Who Isn’t Afraid to Stand up to Large Corporations

If you or a loved one has been harassed or discriminated against at work, you are entitled to challenge how you have been treated. Federal and California laws protect employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and these statutes have been used to support tens of thousands of employees who have been treated improperly. If you have questions about your case, the experienced California employment law attorneys with the Nourmand Law Firm can help. Our lawyers have successfully argued hundreds of California employment law claims, including discrimination and retaliation claims. We take cases on a contingency basis, meaning if we don’t collect a judgment, you don’t need to pay our fees. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

A closer look at the details of the case reveals that the plaintiff, a registered nurse, suffered an injury while pushing a patient on a gurney. The nurse did not immediately report the work incident, hoping her injury would improve, but once she realized that it was not improving, she sought medical treatment. After her healthcare provider indicated that she should be placed in a sit-down job that required no standing, the County employer accommodated the work restrictions. Before the lawsuit, multiple incidents occurred, including the County determining that the nurse could not perform her essential job functions. Ultimately, the nurse decided to file a lawsuit against the County.

The lower trial court ruled in favor of the County, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of discrimination, and the plaintiff filed an appeal. The appellate court ultimately agreed with the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence. In the opinion, the appellate court lays out the elements required to establish disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Under the Act, a plaintiff is required to present evidence that he or she (1) suffers from a disability, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability.

The Act permits an employer to discharge a disabled employee who, “because of a physical or mental disability, is unable to perform the employee’s essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health and safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.” Unfortunately, this means that the plaintiff or employee bears the burden of proving that he or she was able to do the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.

This case illustrates the importance of a plaintiff being certain to introduce evidence showing that he or she was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position from which they were terminated. Because laws like the Fair Employment and Housing Act can be complex, and because bringing employment lawsuits can be equally, if not more, tricky, it can be helpful to connect with an experienced employment attorney in your area.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

If you have suffered disability discrimination from an employer, you may be entitled to relief. Contact an experienced California employment lawyer to discuss your case. Our attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will help present the evidence you need to make the strongest possible claim. To schedule a free, no-obligation consultation, contact us at 310-553-3600 today.

The plaintiff was a Black woman who was employed by the Department. She filed the lawsuit in April 2019 and filed her first amended complaint in March 2021. The amended complaint, amongst multiple other incidents, alleges multiple incidents of racist terms by coworkers and alleges multiple instances of disciplinary actions that the plaintiff believed were in retaliation for reporting her coworker’s racist comments. The incidents span from 2015 to 2018. The Plaintiff appealed to the State Personnel Board, and after two-day evidentiary hearings, the Board sided against the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the higher court that reviewed the Plaintiff’s case found against her for multiple reasons. One reason provided is that two events that she discussed in her complaint occurred much earlier and were outside of the filing deadline. The court also considered whether certain claims she made were barred because they were not distinguishable from earlier claims made. Additionally, the court found that her whistleblower claim was barred because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In other words, because the plaintiff did not seek judicial review of the administrative decisions that the State Personnel Board made by timely filing a required petition, she was no longer able to bring the claims that she brought. Certain legal rules require that all judicial remedies are exhausted first. This means that the legal rules prevent plaintiffs from bringing claims that should have been brought in a previous suit involving the same parties and also bars litigating the same issues that were argued and decided in the first suit.

These legal rules seek to enhance the efficiency of courts but can be complex and difficult for everyday citizens to understand when these legal rules may or may not apply and to which issues they apply specifically. Because it can be difficult to navigate such legal rules alone without a legal education, this case highlights the importance of connecting with experienced attorneys early on, even during the administrative proceedings stage, because filing deadlines and other legal rules can impact your court case in the long run.

Are You in Need of a California Employment Law Attorney?

Do you have claims against your employer but are unsure which steps to take and how to navigate complex legal rules? Contact a California employment lawyer today to discuss your situation. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will review every possible avenue for recovery. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

Facts of the Case

Soon after the plaintiff was hired as CFO of Ampla Health in 2016, the CEO received complaints about the plaintiff’s attitude toward staff and expressed concern that she disclosed confidential and inaccurate information to the board. Ampla Health claimed the plaintiff repeatedly left work without requesting time off, resulting in a threat to dock her pay. After a poor annual review, she did not receive a raise. However, every other executive received a raise, despite negative findings in their performance audits. Finally, after she reported Ampla Health’s various financial woes to the board, the nonprofit eliminated her position to reduce costs. The CEO further cited poor performance and interpersonal skills as reasons for her termination.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged discrimination and retaliation. First, she lodged complaints of racial and gender bias against other high-level staff members. Second, she claimed CEO allowed non-Black employees to bypass attendance policies. She also noted that she was terminated while on paid family leave. She brought causes of action for race and gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and retaliation under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), among other claims.

more The Decision

In upholding the lower court’s decision, the Appeals Division characterized Ampla Health’s alleged discriminatory acts as minor, one-time events that did not evidence a material change in the plaintiff’s job duties or compensation. The court further concluded that Ampla Health showed “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions against the plaintiff, including various performance issues and the nonprofit’s financial situation. Additionally, the plaintiff did not show evidence that the executives she complained about supervised her or had control over her termination. She also failed to show objective evidence of her subjective belief that she faced racial and gender discrimination, or that Ampla Health’s reasons for terminating her were pretextual.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to show a causal link between her family leave and termination, as is required under the CFRA. Additionally, the court dismissed her claims of failure to prevent discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination against public policy, primarily for lack of causal evidence. As a result, the court dismissed all of the claims, finding “no triable issue of material fact.”

Have You Faced Workplace Discrimination?

Unfortunately, proving a causal relationship between an employer’s actions and an employee’s termination often proves fatal to a plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims. To put your best case forward, contact The Nourmand Law Firm for assistance. Our firm has proudly represented plaintiffs in California employment discrimination claims for over 20 years. If you have experienced workplace discrimination of any kind, we will develop a strategy to present your claims in an effective way. To schedule a free, no-obligation consultation, call our office at 800-700-9243.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the plaintiff began working as an assembler in 1989 for a fairly large company. In 2015, the plaintiff took an extended medical leave because he was having problems with his liver. These medical issues eventually led to a liver transplant in October 2016.

The plaintiff had been unable to work for approximately 13 months. In late October 2016, the plaintiff’s employer sent him a letter informing him that his unpaid medical leave had expired many months ago, and that he had one week to return to work before the employer would assume he had resigned. The plaintiff failed to return to work, and the company terminated his employment one week later.

In November 2018, the plaintiff filed a claim for disability discrimination. He alleged that the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation given his medical condition.

The Decision

On appeal, the court had to decide whether the lower court had improperly ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s previous employer. Looking at the evidence, the court noticed that the plaintiff had settled a workers’ compensation claim in July 2018. This workers’ compensation action was based on the fact that the plaintiff was “medically precluded” from performing his essential job duties. He was compensated because he had no choice but to stay home from work due to his liver condition.

Looking then at the discrimination claim, the court concluded that if the plaintiff was medically prohibited from performing his job duties, the employer was not discriminating against him by telling him he could not return to work. If the plaintiff was truly unable to perform his essential tasks as an assembler, it was unreasonable for him to think that he could still have a job with the company.

Relevant statutes do not prohibit an employer from firing an employee with a disability if the employee is unable to perform their duties even with reasonable accommodations. Because the company could not offer the plaintiff accommodations for his liver condition that would allow him to work, the plaintiff’s claim was without merit. The court thus affirmed the original verdict.

Are You Facing Disability Discrimination in the Workplace in California?

Unfortunately, disability discrimination is far too common, and at The Nourmand Law Firm, we know which arguments are most likely to convince a court that you have unjustly suffered from your employer’s actions. We are proud to have been fighting for employees’ rights in California for over 20 years, and we would be proud to represent you. For a free and confidential consultation, call us today at 800-700-9243.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the employer in this case reported that the defendant was fired because he violated the center’s well-established privacy and confidentiality policies. In a deposition, the plaintiff admitted that he copied various medical records, removed the copied records from the workplace, and copied the records onto his personal computer at home. He also emailed documents that contained protected health information to his personal email account. This violation of the employer’s policy led to his firing in 2018.

The plaintiff told a different story. According to the defendant, he faced racial discrimination while in the workplace. At one point, for example, the plaintiff’s supervisor told him, “You stubborn Indian, do your job.” The plaintiff felt as if he was treated differently due to his race, and he felt that his race was ultimately a factor in his termination.

The Decision

The lower court denied the plaintiff’s claim and ruled in favor of the employer. On appeal, the plaintiff asked for the district court to reconsider the ruling. He argued that his conduct in bringing the health records home was inadvertent and that it was not grounds for his termination. The real reason he was terminated, said the plaintiff, was at least in part due to his race and the discrimination he faced while at work.

The court looked at the record and concluded that the employer had offered clear and convincing evidence that they had a legitimate business reason for firing the plaintiff. The employer’s case, said the court, was “so clear as to leave no substantial doubt” that the plaintiff was fired for violating the center’s privacy and confidentiality policies. Because the conduct was also admitted by the plaintiff at his deposition, there was no doubt that he committed the acts in question.

The court thus denied the plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the lower court’s verdict.

Have You Faced Discrimination in Your Workplace?

At the Nourmand Law Firm, we understand that every client has a story and that every story brings its own set of considerations. If you have faced discrimination of any kind in the workplace, call us today so that we can advise you on how to bring your claims in a clear, concise, successful way. Courts look at a variety of factors when deciding employment discrimination claims, and a high-quality attorney is crucial to your success. At Nourmand Law Firm, are proud to provide the experience-based, cutting-edge representation you need. For a free and no-obligation consultation, call us today at 800-700-9243.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was employed as a nurse in the defendant’s hospital in California. The employee claimed that the defendant was discriminating against her due to a disability and failing to provide accommodations for her disability in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The employee underwent carpal tunnel surgery and was placed on modified duty and took several leaves of absence for surgery and recovery. The employee alleged her supervisors passed her over for a promotion after these absences, promoting a less-qualified nurse in her place.

The employee was then transferred to another hospital, where a disputed incident led to the employee failing her probationary period at that hospital. At this point, she attempted to transfer back but was allegedly falsely told her position had been filled. She then took a leave of absence due to severe stress from her unstable work status. She returned to work at the original hospital, where new supervisors were in place. The employee accused these supervisors of forcing her to undergo evaluations of competency by unqualified employees, later firing her because of these sham evaluations. Upon her return, her pay was also reduced and her work schedule was changed. After termination, the employee filed suit, alleging discrimination, failure to follow certain administrative procedures, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court’s Decision

The appellate court agreed with the trial court in many respects. First, the court held that the employee failed to exhaust many of her administrative claims before bringing suit. As such, the court only addressed the employee’s claims arising out of the evaluations and subsequent termination. As to those claims, the court said that the plaintiff failed to show she was terminated due to discriminatory reasons because the plaintiff performed unauthorized work at another medical facility while on medical leave and did not show that other nurses also did similar unauthorized work without being terminated. In addition, the court found that the employers presented a valid and lawful reason for terminating the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, dismissing the case and the plaintiff’s claims.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Don’t make the same mistakes this plaintiff made. Contact a California employment law firm with experience in disability discrimination claims. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will fight for you every step of the process. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff began working for the defendant, a medical supply company, in December of 2013. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, during 2015 and early 2016, she began to experience harassment and discrimination from her supervisor. The plaintiff claimed that the supervisor, who was a woman, was discriminating against the plaintiff, also a woman, because of her gender. In May of 2016, the plaintiff reached out to the defendant’s human resources department to report that she was suffering health problems as a result of the mistreatment by her supervisor. Before the plaintiff’s complaint was addressed by human resources, she was terminated from her job, ostensibly because of her failure to accurately keep records as required by her job description.

The plaintiff filed a 10-count cause of action against the defendant after her termination, alleging gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation, unlawful termination, and other employment-related claims. The defendant responded that the plaintiff was an at-will employee and was terminated for her failure to abide by the record-keeping requirements of the job. The trial court addressed the plaintiff’s arguments in turn and summarily rejected them all as unsupported by the evidence. The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the state court of appeals, where the lower judgment was upheld. The appellate court ruled that most of the plaintiff’s arguments were waived on appeal because the plaintiff’s appellate brief was not sufficient to allow the court to consider the substantive merit of the claims.

If an employment discrimination plaintiff is not able to properly follow the procedural requirements to make a valid claim, they will not be able to obtain relief. Thousands of California plaintiffs each year fail when pursuing claims that likely have merit because they or their attorneys did not employ an effective strategy to have the meat of their claims considered by the court. Because procedural adherence is so important to California courts, it is important for wronged employees to have competent legal counsel on their side when preparing to pursue a claim.

Finding Your California Employment Law Attorney

If you or a loved one has been mistreated by an employer, you may have a claim for relief. Many hostile work environments are the result of several independently actionable claims, and with a qualified California employment law attorney by your side, you can present a winning case to the court the first time around. The experienced California employment lawyers with the Nourmand Law Firm have successfully argued all types of California employment law claims, and we can help you as well. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a woman who worked as a special education assistant for the Los Angeles Unified School District (The defendant) for 15 years between 2000 and 2015. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff was injured on the job in 2015, made a workers’ compensation claim, and took medical leave to address her injuries. In 2017, the plaintiff was cleared by her doctor to return to work with modified duties; however, the defendant determined that she was unable to perform her prior job and offered her a lower-paying position with lighter duties, which the plaintiff refused.

The plaintiff claimed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), alleging that she was discriminated against for her disability and retaliated against for making a workers’ compensation claim. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to make reasonable accommodations for her to return to her original position after she partially recovered from her injuries. On January 23, 2018, the California DFEH issued her a “right to sue” letter, which instructed her that she could file her claims in state court within one year of the date the letter was issued. Three hundred sixty-six days later, one day after the expiration of the right to sue, the plaintiff filed a claim in state court.

In response to the plaintiff’s claim, the school district argued that the statute of limitations had expired, as she failed to file in time. The plaintiff attempted to argue that one of several exceptions to the statute of limitations applied in her case, but the trial court continually denied her arguments. Ultimately, the plaintiff appealed the rulings to the California Court of Appeals, where the lower court rulings were upheld. The plaintiff argued that the one-year limitations period did not include the first and last days of the year and that her complaint was filed on time. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the deadline had already been rejected by California courts. As a result of the recent appellate ruling, the plaintiff’s substantive arguments will not be heard by a court, and she will be unable to obtain any relief for her claim.

Properly Following Employment Law Procedures Is Essential to Succeed with a Claim

If you believe that you have been discriminated against, retaliated against, withheld wages, or otherwise been mistreated by a California employer, following the proper procedures is extremely important to the success of your claim. Employment law claims in California may require adherence to state and federal procedural requirements, and often certain administrative steps must be taken before a claim can be brought to court. If you are considering a claim, bring your questions to an experienced California employment lawyer with the Nourmand Law Firm. Our attorneys have experience handling discrimination and retaliation cases, and without help, you’ll be confident that procedural requirements and deadlines will not be overlooked. For a free consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff in the recently decided case is a woman who was employed by the City of Sacramento for approximately 20 years. Around 2014, the plaintiff became disabled and took several leaves of absence from her job to have treatment on her ankle. The plaintiff was allotted six months of medical leave, after which she would need to return to work in order to keep priority for her position. After having surgery on her ankle, the plaintiff was not cleared to return to work by the doctor within the six-month medical leave period. Because she wanted to maintain her insurance coverage, the plaintiff decided to retire from her job.

After her retirement, the plaintiff sued the city for disability discrimination, claiming that the city did not make reasonable accommodations for her to continue her job working with her disability. The city responded that they offered the plaintiff 6 months of medical leave as an accommodation for her disability. Furthermore, the city responded that the plaintiff could have requested modified work duties instead of seeking retirement. A jury heard the plaintiff’s claim and sided with the defendant, finding that while the plaintiff could have continued her job with reasonable accommodation, the defendant did not refuse to offer such accommodation, and was not liable for disability discrimination as a result.

California disability discrimination claims can be complex, and anyone considering bringing a claim against their employer should work with an experienced Los Angeles employment attorney.

How Can You Challenge Disability Discrimination in California?

If you or a loved one is being discriminated against at a California job because of a disability, you may have a legal claim against your employer. Employers have a duty to make reasonable accommodations to allow disabled employees to complete their jobs, and an employer’s failure to do so could result in financial liability. If you have been discriminated against, finding an experienced California employment law attorney to handle your claim will increase your chances of success. The qualified California employment lawyers at the Nourmand Law Firm have experience handling disability discrimination cases. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

In the recently decided case, the plaintiff is a woman who had been employed by the defendant, the City of San Francisco, for over 15 years when she developed a vision problem. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff’s vision problem resulted from a disability that developed in response to excessive computer use through the plaintiff’s career with the city. Upon the advice of her medical providers, the plaintiff requested to be reassigned to a job with limited computer use as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. After several months without a new work assignment, the plaintiff retired on July 30, 2016.

After leaving her post, the plaintiff sought administrative relief for her discrimination claim through the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Although she started the complaint process in February of 2016, the DFEH did not prepare a complaint for her to sign and submit until July 2, 2017. After completing the regulatory process through the DFEH, the plaintiff filed a civil claim in state court against the defendant, alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability.

Under the law in effect at the time of the plaintiff’s filing of her complaint, the plaintiff must have exhausted all administrative remedies to a discrimination claim within one year of the most recent discriminatory action in order for the claim to be heard by the courts. Because the plaintiff’s complaint was not submitted until July 3, 2017 (one year and three days from the plaintiff’s retirement), the defendant asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim. The Court found that the plaintiff’s complaint was not timely filed on its face, and refused to consider her claim. The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the state Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the high court was sympathetic to the plaintiff’s arguments. Not only did she start the administrative complaint process nearly 6 months before the deadline, but she was told by the DFEH her complaint was progressing properly and she would be able to file with the courts within the deadline. Because the plaintiff did her due diligence and any delay was not her fault, the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint was reversed, and her discrimination claim will see its day in court. Between the time of the plaintiff’s retirement and today, the California legislature has modified the requirements for filing a discrimination lawsuit, giving plaintiffs three years from the date of the last violation, and starting the clock when the plaintiff first submits a complaint, not when the Department responds with a complaint to sign.

Do You Want to Learn How to Pursue an Employment Discrimination Claim?

Although the specific laws that gave the plaintiff such difficulty in this recent case have since been modified to make it easier for employees to make discrimination claims, such claims still face difficult procedural hurdles. Failure to properly follow the procedures on the first try could prevent an employee from obtaining the relief they deserve. If you have been discriminated against at work because of a disability, your race, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or another characteristic, you may have a claim for employment discrimination. The experienced California employment law attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm understand the procedures that must be followed to obtain our clients relief as quickly and easily as possible. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.