Kowalski Employment Law Corporation

Kowalski Employment Law Corporation Kowalski Employment Law Corporation was founded over a decade ago in order to serve its clients with


5.0 stars
Posted by anonymous
June 21, 2023

So far so good! I owe a big thank you to Brian here. My manager to make a long story short terminated my brother and suspended me for calling out some serious safety concerns in our work environment and said the reasons for the discipline were unrelated. And its been quite a challenge to find anyone that will at least hear my brother and I out, until I came across Brian. Not only was he willing to hear me out he also provided guidance on how to tread in these tricky waters. It's attorneys like this that give decent hard working people like us the support we need and the motivation necessary to fight back when companies think they can smile in our faces one day then send us packing the next. Whatever our outcome we give Brian and his law firm a huge thanks for looking out for the right people.

Thumbtack 2021 Top Pro

Thumbtack 2021 Top Pro

Member of Labor & Employment Law Panel for Community Legal Aid SoCal

Member of Labor & Employment Law Panel for Community Legal Aid SoCal

City of Corona Chamber of Commerce

City of Corona Chamber of Commerce

Top Pro on Thumbtack ⚖

Top Pro on Thumbtack ⚖

Officially a Member of the San Bernardino County Bar Association and Lawyer Referral Service

Officially a Member of the San Bernardino County Bar Association and Lawyer Referral Service


Trouble in Hollywood. Arbitration agreements always a topic of discussion, especially in employment law.

Mortiz v. Universal City Studios LLC

Over the course of approximately 16 years, respondents Neal Moritz and Neal H. Moritz, Inc. worked for appellants, Universal City Studios LLC, rendering services as a producer for the film The Fast and the Furious (Universal Pictures 2001) and several sequels thereto (collectively, the Fast & Furious franchise). The lawsuit underlying this appeal involves a “spin-off” of the Fast & Furious franchise, a project ultimately released as Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (Universal Pictures 2019) (Hobbs & Shaw), on which Moritz allegedly worked as a producer pursuant to an oral agreement with Universal. Moritz named Universal, as well as appellant Jimmy Horowitz, president of Universal City Studios LLC (collectively, appellants) as defendants in the suit. Appellants moved to compel arbitration of the suit based on arbitration agreements in written producer contracts regarding Moritz’s work for Universal on the Fast & Furious franchise. The court concluded that these arbitration agreements did not apply to the Hobbs & Shaw dispute, and denied appellants’ motion.



Incorporated as Kowalski Employment Law for 1 year 🎉🏆


Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc. (9th Cir. 18-15135 3/19/20)


Herrera relied on another California case published in 2019, Ward v. Tilly's, Inc., 31 Cal.App.5th 1167 (2019), that decided a strikingly similar issue.

The panel followed Ward’s controlling interpretation of state law, and affirmed the district court with respect to the reporting time pay claim. Following Ward, the panel concluded that, under subsection (5)(A) of California’s Wage Order 7, a requirement that employees call their manager thirty minutes to one hour before a scheduled shift constitutes “reporting for work.”


California Court of Appeal held in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., No. B280151, that employees scheduled for “on-call” or “call-in” shifts may be entitled to reporting time pay, even when they do not physically come to work. While this is the California Court of Appeal’s first published decision on this issue, it does not come as a surprise. In recent years, this issue has garnered increased attention—and differing opinions—in the federal courts.

According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Tilly’s scheduled its employees for a combination of regular and “on-call” shifts. Both regular and on-call shifts had fixed beginning and end times. But while employees were always expected to show up for their regular shifts, they were required to contact their stores by phone two hours before the start of their on-call shifts to find out whether they would need to come in.

Member of CLA - Employment Law Section

Member of CLA - Employment Law Section

Officially a Member of Corona Chamber of Commerce

Officially a Member of Corona Chamber of Commerce

Officially a member of RCBA

Officially a member of RCBA

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6201The Senate passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Ac...
H.R.6201 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Families First Coronavirus Response Act


The Senate passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, an economic stimulus plan aimed at addressing the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on Americans and introducing paid sick leave and an expanded family and medical leave act to the nation’s employers.

Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act

Reasons for Paid Sick Leave
This portion of the new Act also significantly changed since we first saw the House pass its prior version. This Act now allows an eligible employee to take paid sick leave because the employee is:
subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns;
experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking medical diagnosis;
caring for an individual subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order or advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns;
caring for the employee’s child if the child’s school or place of care is closed or the child’s care provider is unavailable due to public health emergency; or
experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor.
Of note, caring for another who is subject to an isolation order or advised to self-quarantine as described above is no longer limited to just family members.

Paid Leave

Another big change from the prior version passed from the House is the reduction of the unpaid period of Emergency FMLA. Now, the first 10 days (rather than 14 days) of Emergency FMLA may be unpaid. During this 10-day period, an employee may elect to substitute any accrued paid leave (like vacation or sick leave) to cover some or all of the 10-day unpaid period. After the 10-day period, the employer generally must pay full-time employees at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate for the number of hours the employee would otherwise be normally scheduled.

Summary of H.R.6201 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Families First Coronavirus Response Act


Upending the longstanding practice of employers including no-rehire clauses in agreements resolving employment disputes, California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a new law that will prohibit such provisions in employment settlement agreements. Under AB 749, with limited exception, all no-rehire provisions in employment settlement agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2020 in California will be void as a matter of law.

AB 749 creates new Code of Civil Procedure section 1002.5, which provides:
An agreement to settle an employment dispute shall not contain a provision prohibiting, preventing, or otherwise restricting a settling party that is an aggrieved person from obtaining future employment with the employer against which the aggrieved person has filed a claim, or any parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate, or contractor of the employer.

AB 749 does not eliminate an employer’s and current employee’s ability to enter into a severance agreement. Additionally, the law does not require that an employer rehire prior employees if the employer has made a good-faith determination that the person signing the release engaged in sexual harassment or committed sexual assault, or if there is a legitimate non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reason for terminating the employment relationship or refusing to rehire the person. AB 749 does not, however, provide guidance as to how it will be determined if such a legitimate, non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reason exists.

1 year after the US Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems, another bad ruling for employees.Arbitration agreements wi...
Supreme Court Doubles Down on Enforceability of Class Arbitration Waivers

1 year after the US Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems, another bad ruling for employees.

Arbitration agreements with your employer must clearly provide for class action arbitration, or it will be an individual arbitration.


The United States Supreme Court today ruled that arbitration agreements must explicitly provide for class arbitration for that process to be invoked, bolstering the Court’s 2018 decision in 


Ramos v. Super. Ct.
(CA1/1 A153390 11/2/18)

Constance Ramos, an experienced litigator and patent practitioner with a doctorate in biophysics, was hired as an “Income Partner” at the law firm Winston & Strawn, LLP (Winston). After allegedly being denied recognition for her work, excluded from opportunities for career advancement, evaluated based on the success of her male colleagues, and denied compensation and bonuses to which she was entitled, Ramos sued Winston, asserting various causes of action under state law for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and anti-fair-pay practices.

Winston moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the partnership agreement Ramos signed shortly after joining the firm. In opposing the motion, Ramos argued she was an “employee” of Winston, not a partner, and therefore Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 (Armendariz) applied to the arbitration agreement. Ramos further argued the arbitration provision in the partnership agreement failed to meet the minimum requirements set forth in Armendariz for arbitration of unwaivable statutory claims. The trial court disagreed, finding Ramos was “in a partnership relationship” for purposes of the motion to compel. The trial court severed provisions of the arbitration agreement related to venue and cost-sharing, and granted Winston’s motion. Ramos sought a writ of mandate, and we granted review.

We conclude the trial court erred in compelling Ramos to submit her claims to arbitration. Under the framework set forth by our Supreme Court in Armendariz, we find the parties’ arbitration agreement is unconscionable. Further, because we cannot remove the taint of illegality by severing the unlawful provisions without altering the nature of the parties’ agreement, we must void the entire agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for Ramos to proceed with her claims in superior court.



Happy NFL season!! .....

Unfortunately, the NFL is dealing with another controversy this season.

Today before kickoff, The Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco granted the Plaintiffs' (NFL players) complaint against the NFL for negligence and violation of statutes for distribution of controlled substances and prescription
drugs that led to permanent injuries on and off the field. The Court found that the players' claims are not preempted from the CBA or the Labor Management Relations Act.

The case will now be remanded to the Federal District Court for a hearing on the merits.




Ehret v. WinCo Foods, LLC (CA4/2 E067575 8/13/18) Meal Breaks/Collective Bargaining Waivers

Plaintiffs Kristina Parker and Elmer Gillett (collectively the Employees) were employees of WinCo Foods, LLC and/or WinCo Holdings, Inc. (collectively WinCo). They do not dispute that they were subject to a collective bargaining agreement which at least purported to provide that an employee who works a shift of not more than six hours is not entitled to a meal break.

The Employees filed this action claiming, among other things, that WinCo was violating Labor Code section 512, subdivision (a). This statute provides that an employee who works more than five hours is entitled to a meal break, “except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.” The trial court ruled that the collective bargaining agreement waived the Employees’ statutory right to a meal break whenever they worked more than five but not more than six hours.

The Employees appeal. They contend that the trial court erred because the waiver in the collective bargaining agreement was not “clear and unmistakable,” as required by federal law. We will hold that the waiver was clear and unmistakable, because it specifically mentioned meal breaks and it was irreconcilable with the statutory right to a meal break during a shift of more than five but not more than six hours. Hence, we will affirm.



- Case Settlement -

Client was former employee of insurance company here in Southern California. Plaintiff alleged that she was wrongfully terminated, retaliated, and discriminated against for physical and mental disabilities, and that the defendant employer interfered with client's family medical leave. Successful settlement reached for client at mediation.


"First, I tried calling several attorneys but I was turned down. All of them saying, " that my case is not that strong." Only Attorney Brian Kowalski at that time believed in me and really cared. As a result, Attorney Brian and his partner Attorney Sandeep Shah represented me. They were there for me every step of the way. I felt intimidated and overwhelmed by the whole legal process at first, but Attorney Brian and Attorney Sandeep made it simpler and easier for me. They handled my case with most professionalism and with passion to help people like me, who was wrongfully terminated by an employer. I couldn't be any happier with the positive result we got for my case and for these excellent attorneys I had! Thank you both for everything you did for me. Anyone in the same situation like me or anyone needing help with regards to employment law cases, I highly recommend Attorney Brian Kowalski and Attorney Sandeep Shah."
- Rachel

Meeting In Orange County with a client after being terminated from her employment. (May 2016)

Meeting In Orange County with a client after being terminated from her employment. (May 2016)

California Raises Minimum Wage to $15 Per Hour and Increases Minimum Salary for Exempt Employees...


On April 4, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 3, which will increase California’s minimum wage annually, reaching $15 per hour for employers with at least 26 employees by January 1, 2022. This bill enacts the highest statewide minimum wage in the nation, on par with New York, which enacted a…


In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014) (discussed here), the California Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement "requiring an employee as a condition of employment to give up the right to bring representative PAGA actions in any forum is contrary to public policy" and unenforceable. In Fowler v. CarMax (Cal.App. unpub. 1/25/15), the California Court of Appeal affirmed in part a trial court order enforcing a class action waiver and compelling arbitration of individual wage and hour claims, but followed Iskanian in holding that the trial court erred in compelling arbitration of PAGA claims.

On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari of the decision in Fowler.


The Kowalski Law Firm provided exceptional legal skill, compassion, and service throughout the entirety of the process. Brian was not intimated by the size of the corporation, or the size of the law firm that was defending the case. I had complete trust in the Kowalski Law Firm to deliver an impressive result, and I was not disappointed.

Scott D.


Mr. Kowalski was my counsel of choice for all my legal matters, especially for employment law. He is an experienced attorney who is level headed and has a good rapport with the community here in Southern California.

David T.


15642 Sand Canyon Avenue #50111
Irvine, CA


Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Kowalski Employment Law Corporation posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Kowalski Employment Law Corporation:


Other Lawyers & Law Firms in Irvine

Show All