We are proud to have been featured by the Daily Journal in an article discussing our employment law practice. We feel very fortunate to do work that allows us to make a difference in our community, and we are grateful for our partnership. A copy of the article is available here. ***** Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. is a boutique employment law firm in Los Angeles specializing
Last October, the Los Angeles Times article titled “Rampant recycling fraud is draining California cash,” available here, exposed one of the latest scams sweeping across California–and discussed one man’s effort to nip this fraud in the bud, at least to the extent that it involved his former employer. Specifically, in a lawsuit filed in August 2009, Brian McVeigh alleged that after he complained to his employer
The Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) entitles certain employees of companies with at least 50 employees to take job-protected leaves of absence of up to 12 weeks for the following reasons: • incapacity due to pregnancy, prenatal medical care or child birth;• to care for the employee’s child after birth, or placement for adoption or foster care;• to care for the employee’s spouse, son,
In Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., — Cal. App. — (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District held that California employers’ obligations as to employees requiring medical leaves of absence caused by pregnancy-related disabilities do not end at allowing a four-month leave of absence–and can instead include permitting employees suffering from pregnancy-related disabilities significantly more leave time. In
Despite the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, discussed in detail Here, in which the Court stated that plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases must prove discrimination was a “substantial factor motivating a termination of employment, and when the employer proves it would have made the same decision absent such discrimination, a court may not award damages, backpay, or an order of reinstatement,”
In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, — Cal. — (Feb. 7, 2013), the California Supreme Court held that under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, “when a jury finds that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating a termination of employment, and when the employer proves it would have made the same decision absent such discrimination, a court may not award damages, backpay, or an
The content of this website is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained in this website for legal advice. Viewing or using this website is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. Emails or other forms of communication that you transmit to the firm will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. makes no representation, warranty or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this website or in links to other websites which is provided “as is,” nor about the outcome or result of any legal representation that might be undertaken by the firm. Your use of this website is at your own risk. You may use this website and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. nor anyone acting on its behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind, including, without limitation, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, arising from the use of this website.
© 2023 Bernstein & Friedland, P.C. All rights reserved