Employment Law, Workplace Discrimination Attorney
Ask Your Questions
YOUR INQUIRY AND OUR RESPONSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
Tri-Valley/ East Bay 925.264.1212
Silicon Valley 650.798.5252
San Jose 408.228.3515
EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR EMPLOYEES
Name
Client's Claims Litigated
The Law Offices of THOMAS C. WALKER
Your Question
Email
email:
Legal Claims for Wrongful Termination, Discrimination, Harassment, Unpaid Wages, Hostile Work Environment, Breach of Employment Contract, Civil Rights Act, Disability & Medical Leave Law Violations
Wrongful Termination, Employment Discrimination Attorney for Employees
The Law Offices of THOMAS C. WALKER Attorney and Counselor at Law
all rights reserved
 | ||||
| ||||
Wrongful Termination
Breach of Good Faith & Fair Dealing Covenant
Sexual Harassment
Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination Based on Religion
Unlawful Forfeiture of Commissions
Discrimination Based on Disability
Retaliation Due to Medical Leave
Breach of Implied Contract
Infliction of Mental & Emotional Distress
FEHA (EEOC) Violations
Retaliation Due to Whistleblowing
Violation of Public Policy
Violation of Cal. Constitutional Rights
Separation and Severance Agreements
Negotiation, Coaching & Document Review
Your employer typically has significant experience and legal resources for negotiating contracts, separations, release agreements and ongoing duties between you and them. It's fairly likely that you don't have this same experience. To balance the scales, this practice offers consultative engagements to assist you in understanding the options, strategy and preferred outcomes of these negotiations.
The majority of these engagements focus on objectives such as:
- Strategy in advance of starting the Separation discussion
- Maximize the Severance package
- Gain future protections within an Employment Contract
- Avoid the Restrictive Covenants & claw-backs
- Void a Non-Compete clause and/or agreements
- Avoid a Liquidated Damages "pay-back" clause
- Find leverage and a right voice for Negotiations
- To better understand the implications of employment termination, EDD unemployment insurance, reference checks, COBRA subsidy, ongoing disability insurance, pension, etc.
Notable Employment Law Cases & Quotes of the Last Decade
The legal information contained in this site is of a general resources nature and may have been superseded; it is not a substitute for legal advice in any particular situation. You should consult a licensed lawyer who is knowledgeable about the area of law in question before you take action to address your rights. Don’t delay; you may lose your rights.
Wrongful Termination & Discrimination Claims
Civil Litigation, EEOC DFEH DLSE ORM EDD CUIAB
This law practice has taken on some of the Bay Area's & Silicon Valley's most prominent employers in seeking recompense and restitution for our clients: current and former employees, those wanting to be hired or promoted, employees mis-classified as independent contractors, ...from blue collar to the CEO. If you have been harassed, discriminated against, terminated or feel your rights, benefits, privileges of Employment have been denied - this firm would like to talk with you.
The majority of our cases appear to emphasize one of these claims:
- Gender Discrimination and/or Sexual Harassment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Disability Discrimination
- Race and/or National Origin Discrimination
- Age Discrimination
- Violation of Protected Medical Leave Laws
- Breach of Implied Contract
- Failure to Pay Commissions & Wages
PANTOJA V. THOMAS J. ANTON, ET AL., No. F058414 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2011) ….evidence of the employers alleged gender bias in the form of harassing activity against women employees other than the plaintiff [“me too” evidence] …. should have been admitted as evidence of a discriminatory or biased intent or motive under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b).
ROBY V MCKESSON, NO. S149752 (2009) - .. therefore, discrimination and harassment claims can overlap as an evidentiary The critical inquiry when a court is deciding whether the evidence ismatter. sufficient to uphold a verdict finding both discrimination and harassment is whether the evidence indicates violations of both FEHA prohibitions, but nothing prevents a plaintiff from proving these two violations with the same (or overlapping) evidentiary presentations.
AVILA V CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, 165 CA 4TH 1237-CFRA(2008) - …plaintiff was not required to invoke CFRA to request leave. If Continental required further information as to whether the information was a request that the absence be treated as a CFRA-qualifying leave, the burden was on Continental to inquire of plaintiff as to his condition and situation, whether the information constitutes a request, and to determine whether plaintiff's leave was CFRA-qualifying leave.
FAUST V CALIF.PORTLAND CEMENT CO., 150 CA 4TH 864 - CFRA (2007) - …the undisputed evidence shows Faust provided sufficient information to the employer to notify it of his need for leave pursuant to the CFRA, and thatthe employer did not advise Faust of his right to leave under the CFRA.
YANOWITZ V L'OREAL USA,INC., 36 CAL. 4TH 1028 (2005) – [continuing violations doctrine] …we believe the better rule is to allow application of the continuing violations doctrine in retaliation cases if the requisite showing of a continuing course of conduct has been made. Thus, we reiterate that in a retaliation case, as in a disability accommodation or harassment case, the FEHA statute of limitations begins to run when an alleged adverse employment action acquires some degree of permanence or finality.
HUMPHREY V MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSN., 239 F.3D 1128 (9TH CIR. 2001) - …once an employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation, that employer has a mandatory [and continuing] obligation under the ADA to engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations.
BARNETT V U.S. AIR, INC., 228 F. 3D 1105 (9TH CIR. 2000) - …an appropriate reasonable accommodation must be effective, in enabling the employee to perform the duties of the position.
JENSEN V. WELLS FARGO BANK NO. B134875(2000) …holding a job open for a disabled employee who needs time to recuperate or heal is in itself a form of reasonable accommodation and may be all that is required where it appears likely that the employee will be able to return to an existing position at some time in the foreseeable future.
GUZ V BECHTEL, 24 CAL. 4TH 317 (2000) – {FN 18] We do not suggest the covenant of good faith and fair dealing has no function whatever in the interpretation and enforcement of employment contracts. As indicated above, the covenant prevents a party from acting in bad faith to frustrate the contract's actual benefits. Thus, for example, the covenant might be violated if termination of an at-will employee was a mere pretext to cheat the worker out of another contract benefit to which the employee was clearly entitled, such as compensation already earned.
and
COTRAN v. Rollins Hudig Hall, 17 C4th 93, (1998) – [concurring & dissenting opinion]:…In my view, when it has been ascertained that an implied good cause condition does not require actual employee misconduct but instead allows the employer to discharge the employee based on the employer's determination of misconduct, the interpretation of that condition that best comports with community standards of fairness and sound policy is as follows: the employer may discharge the employee based on its own determination of employee misconduct only if (1) the employer conducts a reasonable investigation, notifies the employee of the charges, and gives the employee a reasonable opportunity to respond to those charges; (2) the employer's investigation discloses substantial evidence that the employee 115*115 committed the misconduct; and (3) as a result of its investigation, the employer reasonably believes that the misconduct took place.
