EMPLOYMENT

Representative Cases

Successfully mediated this wage and hour class action claim brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and 440 other seasonal, piece rate field workers (strawberry pickers) against their employer, a sharecropper strawberry grower. Plaintiff, alleged violations of the California Labor Code for failing to provide piece rate workers who work six or more hours in a workday, but less that eight hours, with a second rest period. He asserted violations of LC section 226.2 (failure to pay wages for rest period); LC section 226.7 ("premium wages"); and derivative claims for civil penalties for inaccurate wage statements (LC section226(e)(1), and failure to pay all earned wages at time of termination (LC section 203. The case was resolved before the commencement of discovery, based on the parties' informal exchange of time sheets and payroll records.

This case involved two female medical assistants suing a county health center for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under FEHA and Labor Code section 1102.5. Plaintiffs alleged inappropriate comments, nicknames, and text messages from the Health Center Manager, as well as retaliation after they complained. The county argued Jane Doe 1 engaged in mutual flirtation and only complained after her hours were adjusted for legitimate reasons, while Jane Doe 2’s claim involved a single, isolated message that was neither severe nor pervasive. The case settled after a second mediation session, four months before trial.

This wage and hour class action involved a warehouse driver alleging the employer failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in calculating overtime pay, violating Labor Code sections 203 and 226, and seeking PAGA penalties. Defendant admitted the error but argued it was unintentional and that many bonuses were discretionary and properly excluded. It also claimed good faith reliance on an internationally renowned payroll service, which assured compliance but was cross-complained against for the miscalculation. The payroll provider did not participate in the mediation. The case settled before formal discovery began.

Successfully mediated dispute arising from the claims of wrongful termination and breach of contract asserted by a former member and employee of a large agribusiness. The claimant asserted that he was wrongfully terminated from his employment with the company, wherein he managed thousands of employees and earned a substantial salary, and as a result of which, he withdrew his seven-figure membership interest in the company. The company contended that claimant could be terminated without cause, and even if cause was required, claimant's serial acts of "gross negligence" justified his termination. It also argued that after his lawful termination, the claimant voluntarily withdrew his membership position. All of the claims asserted were settled at mediation, prior to the commencement of costly litigation.

Mediated employment disability discrimination claims brought against a public entity in case involving long and complex history of repeated on-the-job injuries, surgeries, and temporary disability claims, alleged failure to accommodate disabilities during periods back at work, and instead giving lesser assignments on modified duty that would have resulted in loss of higher pay rate, and wrongful insistence on periods of unpaid leave, leading to constructive termination. The public entity strongly opposed each claim. Nevertheless, following extended and well-timed mediation, achieved settlement of all claims.

Successfully mediated an employment disability discrimination case brought against a public entity water district. During his ten years of employment, Plaintiff suffered a series of work-related injuries to his forearms, elbows, shoulders, knees, hips and back. Surgery was required to repair both elbows and the right knee. He had multiple periods of being temporarily totally disabled for which he received workers compensation benefits. Plaintiff alleged that on each occasion when he was released to work, with physician-imposed restrictions, defendant failed to properly engage in the statutorily required interactive process, failed to accommodate his restrictions, and retaliated against him by placing him on an unpaid leave of absence after he refused to work on modified duty that would have resulted in loss of his supervisor pay rate. Plaintiff alleged constructive termination because the accumulated time on unpaid leave made it impossible for him to continue his employment and he was forced to seek new employment. He asserted causes of action arising under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Cal. Labor Code. Defendant asserted that it was Plaintiff who failed to reasonably engage in the interactive process, that he refused reasonable modified duty plans, that whenever he returned to work he re-injured himself performing routine tasks, that he was unable to perform at least one of the essential duties of his job even with reasonable accommodations, and that he was not subjected to any adverse employment action, rather he voluntarily resigned to pursue a better opportunity in the private sector.