What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

The Parkman Law Firm

Home
United States
San Diego, CA
The Parkman Law Firm

We provide a free initial consultation of your legal matter.

Our firm can assist you with civil litigation, construction law (mechanics liens, stop notices, payment bonds, Miller Act claims, extra work), business law (Corps & LLC), wills and trusts.

08/29/2026

Construction projects carry significant risks, from personal injury and property damage to construction defects and costly disputes. The right contract and insurance provisions can help allocate those risks before a claim arises.

Key risk-management tools include:

• Contractual indemnity: Allocates responsibility for losses, damages, and defense costs arising from a party’s work or conduct. The scope of indemnity matters, particularly because state anti-indemnity laws may limit what can be transferred.

• Prevailing-party attorneys’ fees: Can allow the prevailing party to recover attorneys’ fees and litigation or arbitration costs, but parties should consider whether available insurance will actually cover those amounts.

• Insurance requirements: Construction agreements should clearly identify required coverage, including general liability, builder’s risk, professional liability, bonds, and other project-specific coverage.

• Additional insured coverage: Simply requiring insurance may not be enough. Contracts should specify the required additional insured coverage and whether it extends to ongoing and completed operations.

• Deductibles and self-insured retentions: Contracts should address who is responsible for satisfying these amounts when a loss occurs, particularly in projects using wrap-up insurance programs.

• Early ADR: Mandatory meet-and-confer and mediation provisions can provide an opportunity to resolve disputes before litigation or arbitration increases costs and disrupts the project.

Effective risk transfer requires more than inserting standard provisions into a construction contract. The contractual allocation of risk should be carefully drafted and coordinated with the insurance coverage actually available.

Need help managing risk on a construction project? Contact The Parkman Law Firm to discuss your construction contracts, risk-allocation provisions, and dispute-avoidance strategies.

08/22/2026

A recent California Court of Appeal decision provides an important reminder for employers facing PAGA claims: the statutory maximum is not necessarily the final number.

In Taduran v. Glidewell, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a significant reduction in both PAGA penalties and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff sought approximately $55.9 million in civil penalties, but the trial court awarded approximately $516,000, an amount representing less than 1% of the requested penalties. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The decision confirms that, under Labor Code section 2699(e)(2), trial courts have broad discretion to award a “lesser amount” of PAGA penalties when the maximum statutory penalties would be disproportionate. Courts are not required to use a particular formula and may consider factors including:

• The nature and technicality of the violations
• The actual harm suffered by employees
• The amount of unpaid wages involved
• The employer’s good-faith efforts to comply
• Prompt remediation and corrective action
• The proportionality of the requested penalties to the underlying violations

The court also upheld a substantial reduction in attorneys’ fees, emphasizing the relative simplicity of the claims, the limited recovery compared to the amount sought, and other factors supporting a reduced fee multiplier.

For employers, Taduran underscores why the response to a PAGA notice matters. Promptly investigating allegations, correcting identified issues, documenting compliance efforts, and evaluating available cure or other protections under the 2024 PAGA reforms may not only address ongoing violations, but may also become important evidence when challenging disproportionate penalties later in the litigation.

The practical takeaway: PAGA exposure is not necessarily determined by multiplying the maximum statutory penalty by the number of employees and pay periods. Employers’ compliance efforts, remediation, and the actual circumstances surrounding the violations can matter significantly.

08/17/2026

California employers should think carefully before taking employment action based on an employee’s arrest or other criminal justice records, even when the employee works outside California.

In Saberin v. Alation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal considered whether Labor Code section 432.7, California’s “no-arrest-record” statute, applied to an employee who lived and worked in Utah.

The employee was arrested in Florida while on vacation. After the employer learned of the arrest, it terminated his employment based on the arrest and his dishonesty about his absence. Although the employer was headquartered in California, the termination decision was made by employees in Illinois, with input from an employee in California.

The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the arbitration award in the employer’s favor, finding that the connection between the alleged unlawful conduct and California was too tenuous under the circumstances.

But the decision offers an important caution for employers:

• California law may apply to employment decisions involving employees who work outside California.
• Courts will look at the specific facts and the connection between the conduct at issue and California, rather than relying solely on where the employee lives or works.
• The location and role of the individuals involved in an employment decision can matter.
• Arrest records and other criminal justice information can implicate California protections, including restrictions concerning arrests, diversion programs, and other protected records.

With remote work and multistate workforces now commonplace, employers should carefully evaluate which state’s employment laws may apply before relying on criminal justice information in making an employment decision.

08/07/2026

When Is Commute Time Compensable Under the FLSA?

Two recent U.S. Department of Labor opinion letters provide new guidance on when travel time for non-exempt employees must be paid, particularly in hybrid and field-service settings.

The key distinction? Who controls the travel and what happens immediately before and after it.

The DOL concluded that:

• Employee-chosen mid-day commuting generally is not compensable. If an employee voluntarily splits the workday between home and the office to avoid traffic or accommodate personal circumstances, the commute can remain an ordinary, non-compensable commute, even though it occurs during the workday.

• Employer-directed travel may be compensable. Travel can become compensable when the employer controls the timing and manner of the travel and requires the employee to perform substantial work immediately before and after the commute.

• The same analysis can produce different results. The DOL applied the same primary-beneficiary framework to both scenarios, but the level of employee choice and employer-directed work surrounding the travel changed the outcome.

This guidance may be particularly relevant for employers with hybrid employees, field service workers, traveling employees, or take-home work policies.

Employers should also keep in mind that state law may impose stricter requirements than the FLSA when it comes to compensable travel time.

Understanding when a commute becomes compensable can help employers structure flexible work arrangements while reducing wage-and-hour risk.

07/31/2026

Cal/OSHA is moving closer to adopting its proposed “worker walkaround rule.”

On July 1, 2026, the agency released revised proposed regulations and opened a limited 15-day public comment period before signaling its intent to continue moving the rulemaking process forward.

The proposed rule would expand who may accompany Cal/OSHA inspectors during workplace inspections. While the latest revisions make only minor wording changes, they do not address many of the concerns previously raised by employers and business groups.

Among the issues that remain unresolved are:

• How third-party representatives would be selected, particularly in non-union workplaces.
• The lack of a clear process to challenge an inspector's decision regarding who may accompany an inspection.
• Questions surrounding confidentiality, trade secret protection, security protocols, and compliance with PPE requirements.
• The potential for representatives to engage in activities unrelated to the inspection itself.

Although the recent modifications are limited, Cal/OSHA's actions indicate that it intends to continue advancing the proposal on an accelerated timeline. If adopted, the rule could significantly affect how workplace inspections are conducted throughout California.

Employers should continue monitoring developments and review their inspection protocols to ensure they are prepared for potential changes.

07/24/2026

The EEOC has rescinded two affirmative action guidance documents that had been in place for more than 40 years, marking another significant shift in the federal government's approach to workplace DEI initiatives.

While Title VII itself has not changed, employers can no longer rely on these guidelines as a good-faith defense for voluntary affirmative action programs. The EEOC has also signaled increased scrutiny of workplace policies and programs that consider protected characteristics in employment decisions.

Employers should take this opportunity to:

• Review existing affirmative action and DEI-related programs.
• Ensure any policies are supported by current Title VII law and Supreme Court precedent, not rescinded EEOC guidance.
• Consult experienced employment counsel to evaluate potential legal risks under the current enforcement landscape.

This is more than a regulatory update. It reflects a broader shift in federal enforcement priorities that employers should not overlook.

07/17/2026

As employers continue to refine their return-to-office expectations, requests for remote work as a reasonable accommodation remain a complex ADA issue.

Recent decisions from the Fifth, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits reinforce that whether remote work is required is a highly fact-specific inquiry. Courts continue to focus on whether an employee can perform the essential functions of the position remotely and have made clear that temporary COVID-era telework does not permanently redefine a job or make full-time remote work a presumptively reasonable accommodation.

For employers, the key considerations include:

• Engaging in the interactive process in good faith.
• Evaluating the essential functions of the specific position, not just the employee's preference.
• Considering whether alternative accommodations may be effective.
• Clearly documenting the analysis and the reasons supporting any accommodation decision.
• Ensuring job descriptions accurately reflect when in-person attendance is an essential job function.

There is no blanket rule requiring or prohibiting remote work as an accommodation. Each request should be evaluated on its own facts, with careful consideration of the employee's limitations, the essential functions of the role, and the employer's operational needs. A thoughtful, well-documented interactive process remains one of the best ways to satisfy ADA obligations and minimize legal risk.

07/10/2026

Construction disputes are becoming more complex, and resolving them requires more than simply having a strong legal position.

Today's construction projects often involve numerous owners, contractors, subcontractors, design professionals, insurers, and consultants. When a dispute arises, the volume of documents, technical evidence, and expert opinions can significantly increase the time and cost required to reach a resolution.

Timing also plays a critical role. While early settlement is often desirable, attempting to resolve a dispute before the necessary facts have been developed can be counterproductive. In many cases, parties are better positioned to negotiate after completing key discovery, evaluating expert opinions, and fully understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each side's claims.

The resolution process is also shaped by practical business considerations. Many construction companies have longstanding relationships with the parties involved, making it important to resolve disputes in a way that preserves future business opportunities whenever possible. Arbitration can also offer a more private forum for resolving disputes involving sensitive business information.

Technology is beginning to influence dispute resolution as well. AI tools are increasingly being used to assist with document review and case analysis, and limited AI-assisted arbitration programs are emerging for smaller matters. However, complex construction disputes still require experienced professionals to evaluate technical issues, contractual obligations, and equitable outcomes.

Whether you are facing a delay claim, payment dispute, defect claim, or another construction-related conflict, developing the right strategy early can help position your business for a more efficient and effective resolution.

07/06/2026

Happy Fourth of July from The Parkman Law Firm! We hope you are enjoying the long weekend and watching a spectacular fireworks show. Where do you think the best place to watch the fireworks is in San Diego?

06/26/2026

Think the National Labor Relations Act only applies to unionized workplaces? Think again.

Protected concerted activity applies to most private-sector employers, regardless of whether a union is involved.

A recent federal court decision reinforced that non-union employees discussing wages and advocating collectively for better compensation may be protected under the NLRA. In that case, a software engineer earning $95,000 annually was found to have engaged in legally protected activity when he and his colleagues shared salary information and raised concerns that they were underpaid.

For employers, the lesson is clear: protected activity extends far beyond formal complaints about discrimination, harassment, wage violations, or workplace safety.

Employees may also be protected when they:

• Discuss pay, benefits, or working conditions with coworkers.
• Raise concerns on behalf of a group of employees.
• Organize or prepare for collective action regarding workplace issues.
• Advocate for changes that affect employees generally.

Importantly, these protections apply to many non-supervisory employees even in completely non-union environments.

Before disciplining or terminating an employee viewed as a "squeaky wheel" or "high maintenance," employers should carefully evaluate whether the conduct at issue could constitute protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

Understanding these protections can help employers avoid costly unfair labor practice claims and make more informed employment decisions.

Address

9845 Erma Road
San Diego, CA
92129

Opening Hours

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm

Telephone

+18584535033

Website

http://bit.ly/parkmanfirm

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Parkman Law Firm 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 The Parkman Law Firm:

Want your business to be the top-listed Law Practice in San Diego?