Law Office of Jonathan T. Dawson

10/14/2021

New business cards. What do you think?

04/14/2017

Are you a business owner or do you perform human resource functions for your company? If yes, you may be interested in taking a look at this free webinar put on by CalChamber. It is full of good information to help keep you in compliance with some of California's most complicated labor laws. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly.

[email protected]&Version=EM2&utm_campaign=53850306&utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=Email&spMailingID=53850306&spUserID=ODYxNTI2MjYxOTcS1&spJobID=1142189406&spReportId=MTE0MjE4OTQwNgS2" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://www.calchamber.com/hr-california/Pages/free-hr-training.aspx?tsource=EM2&Email=[email protected]&Version=EM2&utm_campaign=53850306&utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=Email&spMailingID=53850306&spUserID=ODYxNTI2MjYxOTcS1&spJobID=1142189406&spReportId=MTE0MjE4OTQwNgS2

Running a small business is tough, and managing your compliance with California and federal employment laws isn't always easy. There's a lot to know.

03/11/2015

Got Sick Leave? If not, you soon will... A new California law will require employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees, effective July 1, 2015.

Click on the article/link below and take a look.

http://www.jtdawson.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=60:paid-sick-leave&Itemid=134

Got Paid Sick Leave??? If not, you soon will... All employers and employees must be aware of a drastic change in California Labor/Employment Law perta...

04/16/2014

In Bad Faith? Employees, are you filing a wage-claim lawsuit against your employer? Employers, are you on the receiving end of a wage-claim suit? The California Legislature’s passage of State Bill 462 last summer made it a bit less intimidating for an employee to file their lawsuit.

Prior to August 2013, California state law required a court to award lawyer’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in a claim for wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions. Which, evidently, may have had a chilling effect on an employee’s desire to pursue such a claim… Until the California Legislature stepped in. Senate Bill 462 changed the law to allow an employer to recover attorney’s fees and costs only when there is a finding that the employee filed the law suit in bad faith.

04/05/2014

Get ready small business owners and not-so-small business owners, you may want to make sure you get ready for some changes...

Coming your way, courtesy of the California legislature, is a 12.5% increase in the minimum wage employers are required to pay employees. Effective July 1, 2014, Assembly Bill 10 raises the minimum wage from $8.00/hr to $9.00/hr. Effective January 1, 2016, the minimum wage will increase again, this time to $10.00/hr.

And, to all my employers out there, make sure your payroll system is updated to reflect the changes effective July 1, 2014 because Assembly Bill 442 provides for "liquidated damages" in addition to the already existing penalties for violations of California minimum wage law.

One little mistake can cost you a lot of money... If you have any questions regarding the changes to minimum wage law or any other issue affecting the employer/employee relationship, please fee free to give me a call or shoot me an email.

04/05/2014

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is official. On April 15th, I will be opening up an office in Brentwood at 12100 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor. The location is incredible with quick access from both I-405 (Wilshire exit West) and I-10 (Bundy exit North). Come by and say hello!

06/26/2013

A couple cases came down from the U.S. Supreme Court this week that affect Title VII discrimination claims. Vance sets out the liability of an employer for the acts of supervisors and employees, and Nassar sets forth a heightened "but-for" causation standard by which Title VII retaliation claims are to be judged.

First, Vance v. Ball State University et al., changed the way a court is to determine whether an employer is liable for the acts of its employees.

The Supreme Court held that an employer is to be held strictly liable for the acts of a supervisor, that is, someone that has control over the terms and conditions of a worker's employment.

The employer may, however, assert an affirmative defense if: (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior; and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that the employer provided.

As for the acts of a co-worker, an employer is only liable if it is negligent in the control of the working conditions.

Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Medical Center v. Nassar - In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court held that Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to a heightened "but-for" causation standard - not the lessened causation standard previously used under §2000e–2(m). This change may drastically affect claims made against an employer in that, the employee must show that, absent the protected category, the adverse employment action would not have been made. Significantly raising the bar from the previous standard that the protected category was "a factor".

For more on Vance and Nassar, click the links below.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/university-of-texas-southwestern-medical-center-v-nassar/

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/vance-v-ball-state-university/

06/20/2013

Abercrombie seems to have backed itself into a corner with this one.

A Muslim employee was fired for wearing her hijab. In their motion for summary judgment, Abercrombie's attorney said the wearing of the hijab hurt the store's sales. Unfortunately for Abercrombie, nobody seems to have any evidence supporting these claims. The judge in the case is less than impressed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/abercrombie-headscarf-hani-khan-hijab-lawsuit_n_3466226.html

Abercrombie & Fitch is having a hard time proving in court that the Muslim headscarf worn by an employee who was fired in 2010 hurt the clothing company's sales, Law360 reports.

06/18/2013

In February, the California Supreme Court ruled that a jury in a mixed-motive case alleging unlawful termination should be instructed that it must find the employer's action was substantially motivated by discrimination before the burden shifts to the employer to make a same-decision showing, and that a same-decision showing precludes an award of reinstatement, back pay, or damages.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2013/03/mixed-motive-discrimination-upends-price-is-right-models-win.html

This week, a ‘Price is Right’ model’s $7.7 million discrimination judgment slipped from her grasp like the elusive... - Employment Law