October 10, 2012–Seal Beach, CA–
The victim who lost her family and friends in the worst mass murder in Orange County history is suing the business insurance company who she says delayed paying her claim after the horrific shooting in 2011, according to the Orange County Register.
Continue reading →
The California employment lawyers at Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP noted a current case regarding uniform maintenance. If your employer requires you to wear a uniform to work, the employer usually must provide the uniforms for you. However, are you responsible for the cleaning bills for your uniforms? This is a question that the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California considered in the 2008 case of O’Connor v. Starbucks Corp.
The Court determined in this case that if an employee does not need to have a uniform professionally laundered or otherwise specially cared for, the employer is not responsible for paying for the uniform’s upkeep.
The case involved a Starbuck’s employee who claimed that his aprons required professional laundering or dry cleaning and wanted the company to pay these bills. The employee claimed that he had spent his own money to properly clean the Starbuck’s aprons and wanted the employer to reimburse him for these costs. The case proceeded to the U. S. District Court where it was heard under the umbrella of wage and hour litigation.
The U. S. District Court justices decided in this case that there was insufficient evidence to show that professional cleaning was required for the employee aprons. Specifically, the Court determined that the aprons could in fact be machine-washed. Because of this finding, the Court ruled that Starbucks was not responsible for paying for the cleaning needed for the aprons, and noted that when “routine care” was all that was required to clean uniforms, the employer should not be held responsible for the cleaning bills.
Continue reading →
The Supreme Court faces yet another assault on state consumer protection efforts. This time, states are trying to protect the rights of consumers to organize class action lawsuits in order to fight unruly corporations with unfair practices. These corporations have tried to thwart consumer protection efforts by requiring that customers sign away their rights to access the courts and prohibit them from using class actions to vindicate their rights.
A class action lawsuit allows a group to file a claim collectively against a defendant. Often, the defendant has treated the group of individuals in the same way, for example, by using the same business practices. Class actions are most valuable where the individual claims of the group members are small, such that filing a claim individually is too costly. By pooling their claims, consumers can increase the value of their case, making it easier to finance and secure representation.
Continue reading →
Consumers could be seriously affected by a case currently before the Supreme Court assessing the legality of adhesion contracts requiring mandatory arbitration. These forceful provisions have found their way into all kinds of consumer and employment contracts and have very serious impacts for the rights of the parties. The result is that consumers and employees can sign away their rights without ever even knowing it, and when disputes arise, they find themselves locked out of the courthouse.
Mandatory arbitration is the requirement that a party proceed to arbitration instead of the civil court system when a dispute arises as between the parties to a contract. Once a contract is signed, your right to access a judge in a state or federal courthouse is gone. Arbitration is the only option. Arbitration is a procedure wherein a neutral arbiter is chosen, usually a practicing lawyer, to hear the case and decide the dispute. After arbitration, one can file a civil suit, but there are only very narrow circumstances under which a court will review the judgment of the arbitrator.
Continue reading →
An Orange County jury recently awarded $1.2 million to a Newport Beach police officer because he endured on the job discrimination based on rumors and gossip that he was gay. According to an article in The Orange County Register, Sgt. Neil Harvey, a 27-year veteran of the department, also faced retaliation for flagging misconduct among his fellow officers and was passed up for promotions because of rumors about his sexual orientation.
Jurors have spoken out in no uncertain terms that they believe the Newport Beach Police Department has serious issues when it comes to treating their employees fairly. What do Harvey’s superiors have to say? They claim that his lack of progress in the department was his own fault – that he alienated his colleagues with his “hypercritical” style. Harvey’s resume includes advanced college education and a top award for bravery. A disturbing image of the Newport Beach Police Department has emerged as Harvey’s civil case against his own department progressed.
Apparently, Harvey endured constant gossip about him being a “fag” and comparisons to Lt. Dangle, a short-shorts-wearing gay officer on Comedy Central’s “Reno 911.” Jurors awarded Harvey $1.2 million for economic damages and enduring mistreatment.
Continue reading →
California Injury Blog