All employees have rights, including but not limited to: the right to a safe workplace that is free from harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; the right to take medical leave; the right to minimum wage; the right to take breaks and lunch; and the right to be free from adverse actions (e.g., termination, demotion, etc.) because the employee reported illegal misconduct in the workplace to the employer.

Here are some examples of claims I typically pursue:

• California’s Labor Code, section 1102.5, prohibits employers from taking adverse actions (e.g., termination, demotion, etc.) against an employee because the employee reported misconduct in the workplace the employee reasonably believed was illegal, or, because the employee refused to participate in activity that was actually illegal.

• California’s Labor Code, section 6310, prohibits employers from taking adverse actions against an employee because the employee reported a workplace safety issue.

• The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) is California’s state law equivalent of the federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on “protected class”, such as race, color, gender, sex, and national origin. But the FEHA is substantially stronger than Title VII, includes more lenient filing deadlines and additional “protected classes”, notably, including disability, age (over 40 years), gender identity, and others. FEHA and Title VII prohibit an employer from taking adverse actions (e.g., termination, demotion, etc.) against an employee because the employee is a member of a protected class.

• California case law prohibits an employer from taking an adverse action against an employee in violation of various “public policies”, which somewhat, but not entirely, overlap with the labor code, FEHA, and other statutes. This claim, known as a “Tameny” or “Adverse Action in Violation of Public Policy” claim can be useful where typical retaliation statutes (like Labor Code section 1102.5) are not viable, but the California state legislature has declared a public policy in regulating conduct of the nature the employer engaged in. Examples include failure to pay due wages or bonuses and various types of medical whistleblower protection, some of which are not otherwise actionable by statute.

• The California Whistleblower Protection Act (Government Code section 8547 et seq.) allows employees of the State of California to file a claim for retaliation if they report “waste, fraud, or abuse” to their employer and are subsequently punished.

Northern California, and Sacramento in particular, are hubs for prominent hospitals, doctors’ groups, clinics, imaging centers, and other businesses within a gigantic healthcare industry ecosystem. Most individuals in healthcare genuinely want to do good, but sometimes companies elevate unqualified managers, sycophants, and others who promote profits over patients. This puts employees who witness unsafe patient practices in a quandary: the employee morally knows a practice is wrong, but is afraid to speak up and tell the employer it is making potentially dangerous mistakes. If the employee does speak up, and gets punished for it, they may have a case for medical whistleblower retaliation.

If you are currently employed and dealing with a situation at work where your employer may be violating your rights, or other laws such as the False Claims Act (e.g. Medicare fraud), you may want to retain me to provide you a stream of advice beyond an initial consultation. Depending on the circumstances, I may be able to help guide you on how to keep documentation, how to effectively communicate complaints to your employer regarding any concerns you may have (i.e. how to be a whistleblower), and what you can expect from your employer. Generally, your employer may react with gratitude (“thanks for exposing this potential legal violation we’ve had ongoing that we have been missing!”) or with hostility (“you made us look bad, so now it’s time to talk about performance issues of yours…”). You may be surprised how much effort I will spend in order to prevent future litigation, but it is in your interest to learn how to be prepared if worst comes to worst.

Employers, even those who are well-meaning and not malicious, frequently mess this up. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) protects employees who are disabled, potentially disabled, and/or perceived as potentially disabled—meaning, practically anyone could be considered “disabled.” “Disability” means an employee has a condition that limits a “major life activity”, which can include working, walking, and breathing. A disabled employee may request a “reasonable accommodation”, which is a change or adjustment to a job or work environment that will allow a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of the job. Reasonable accommodations may include providing equipment, job restructuring, modified work schedules, or other job modifications.

If a disabled employee requests a reasonable accommodation, the employer is required to provide the requested accommodation, unless the request would result in an “undue hardship” to the employer. “Undue Hardship” means the accommodation is too expensive, would hinder the employer’s operations in some way, or would somehow negatively impact the employer’s business. Many employers refuse to accommodate employee disabilities for other, i.e., unlawful, reasons, such as “we did not want to give the accommodation because then everyone will ask for it.” Under the FEHA, an employer may be liable if they fail to accommodate and, in particular, if they fail to meet in good faith and explain their decision making process, which could give rise to an entirely separate claim for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process.

I also represent victims in personal injury cases, which can mean car accidents, premises liability, intentional torts like assault and battery, and more. These cases are often heavily reliant on expert witness testimony, such as treating physicians, for proving the full extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Fortunately, I have an extensive network of friends and experts who can help if called upon.

If an employer and employee entered into a contract, the employee will have additional rights and obligations as proscribed in the contract. If your employer fails to live up to its end of the deal, such as failure to pay salary, bonus, or benefits, you may have a claim for breach of contract.

Defamation is an unprivileged publication of a false statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation. Slander is oral defamation, and libel is written defamation. An employer may be liable for defamation if its employees and managers fabricate a false story in order to justify disciplining an employee. This commonly happens when a manager wants to get rid of an employee for some (potentially illegal) motivating reason but does not have adequate grounds in order to get HR to authorize termination. If the manager is desperate to terminate, they might make false statements to obtain the desired result. False statements may be independently actionable in addition to other potential claims such as retaliation or discrimination

Insurance is a highly regulated industry in California caused by a long history of insurance companies taking advantage of customers and refusing to honor claims where a customer should be entitled to compensation. If an insurance customer has a valid insurance policy, the customer makes a claim to his or her insurer, and the insurer refuses to pay, the customer may have a legal claim for bad faith, and/or breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing.

California law prohibits a company or individual from taking financial advantage of persons older than 65 years of age. Taking financial advantage can mean taking, hiding, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining property of the elderly person. If a company takes financial advantage of an elder for a wrongful/illegal purpose, or with an intent to defraud, or by undue influence, the elderly person, or their surviving estate, may have a claim for elder abuse.