March 13, 2015

David Copperfield Prepares to Settle Wage Dispute

Illusionist David Copperfield is poised to settle a wage dispute with employees. For the last several years, Copperfield has performed a magic show at the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino. The Las Vegas show is a major tourist attraction and requires services from support employees. However, some of those employees have alleged that Copperfield and four of the companies he controls did not adequately compensate them for overtime for a period extending from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013.

Magician%2052964406-001.jpgThe employees, who were mainly stagehands and employees of Copperfield's magic lab, joined together in February 2014 to bring the suit. The complaint alleged "a system of coercion and deception aimed at denying employees their rights to overtime pay."

Copperfield's camp seems determined to bring a swift end to the action as his legal team has proposed a $552,282 settlement. According to a spokesperson for Copperfield, the illusionist made the decision to settle so that the employees might have an opportunity to benefit from the settlement. Otherwise, the case might have been mired in a several years' long legal battle that would have cost both sides a great deal more money.

Under the agreement Copperfield and his companies admit no wrongdoing. The $552,282 will be broken down into several parts with $268,089 going to plaintiffs in the action, another $140,600 for other potential plaintiffs who may opt in and about $143,600 in lawyer's fees. The breakdown means that each of the employees will receive a little more than $6,000, a fairly significant amount when compared with the settlements of other class action suits.

The settlement must still be approved by the U.S. District Court. Judge Gloria Navarro has already approved a motion that defines who is included in the settlement. An additional hearing in May of 2015 will decide the fairness of the proposed settlement.

Copperfield's decision to settle the matter early seems like a prudent one that is likely to be satisfactory to all involved. Such a strategy not only minimizes legal costs, but also allows plaintiffs and defendants to move forward.

February 27, 2015

37 California School Districts Agree to Settle Lawsuit Regarding Elementary School Physical Education Requirements

In a post in August, 2014 (HERE), the California Business Litigation blog wrote about a lawsuit filed by Cal200. That suit alleged that many school districts in California were failing to meet the elementary school standard for PE of 200 minutes for every 10 school days. Among the districts named in the suit were Los Angeles Unified, Riverside Unified, San Francisco Unified and Palm Springs Unified.

school%20bus%20%26%20child%2044980077-001.jpgThe update is that 37 school districts have agreed to a settlement. The settlement requires all elementary schools in the districts to prove they are providing at least the minimum amount of physical education required by California law.

Elementary school teachers for grades 1 through 6 will be required to document how many minutes of physical education students receive. Further, that documentation must be made available to the public.

The lawsuit was filed because PE teachers, the California State Legislature and public health advocates have had little success in getting school districts to comply with the state requirements. The requirements were rarely enforced and essentially “had no teeth”.

The attorney for Cal200 stated “We think it’s a huge accomplishment and it’s going to benefit public health in California”.

Continue reading "37 California School Districts Agree to Settle Lawsuit Regarding Elementary School Physical Education Requirements " »

February 20, 2015

Los Angeles Unified School District Attorneys to Help Students Facing Deportation

Immigration issues are nothing new in the U.S. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, officials and teachers have long dealt with students who may not have been in the country legally. The LAUSD is the second largest school district in the nation. This fact, coupled with California's high immigrant population, means that there are thousands of students in the city who are at risk for being deported.

Many of these youths are no longer under the care of their families. The parents may have already been deported or some tragedy has befallen that casts the child adrift. With limited resources, these children face immigration courts without the benefit of adult guidance and certainly without legal counsel.

A new resolution passed by the LAUSD is aimed at addressing this. The general counsel's office for the school district proposed offering students free legal help with deportation issues. Interested lawyers are permitted to represent one student at a time. They are limited to providing between one and three hours each week to the student. Thus far, 10 attorneys employed by the district have expressed interest in joining this strictly volunteer endeavor. The school district would require the lawyers to make up any work time that they devote to providing free legal services.

The resolution passed, but not without dissent. Some board members expressed concern that so much focus was being given to one legal issue when families within the school district could easily be facing many other troubling legal situations without benefit of counsel. Moreover, there are so many students in the LAUSD who are facing deportation, that it seems certain that the 10 involved attorneys can't possibly address all of their needs.

Nonetheless, the need for these minors to have legal representation is clear. Statistics suggest that nearly three quarters of students who have legal counsel and are facing deportation are allowed to remain in the country. Only 15% of children who do not have a lawyer receive permission to stay in America. This new program is an important step in protecting the legal rights of students attending L.A.'s public schools.

February 13, 2015

Florida Court of Appeals Makes Social Media Discoverable

In January of 2015, the Florida State Court of Appeals delivered a ruling that may prove to be a landmark. Within the context of a personal injury case, the court ruled that social media posts made by the plaintiff were discoverable even though maximum privacy settings were used.

Social%20Media%20Magnified%2044298834-001.jpgThe plaintiff was shopping at a Florida Target store when she allegedly suffered a serious slip and fall. She claimed that her ability to enjoy life was forever diminished. Moreover, she was asking the corporation to compensate her for lost earnings. In the course of the lawsuit, lawyers for Target attempted to review the plaintiff's Facebook account. She had set her privacy settings at the highest standard. Nonetheless, attorneys could see that she had posted more than 1,000 photographs since the time of her injury.

Attorneys for Target filed discovery demands with the plaintiff's attorney, seeking an opportunity to view the photographs. The plaintiff objected, believing that such discovery violated her rights to privacy. The court of appeals did not agree.

Judges at the court released an 11 page opinion regarding their decision to allow discovery of the social media photographs. They argued that the images might be "powerfully relevant to the damage issues in the lawsuit." Moreover, they argued that, "there is no better portrayal of what an individual's life was like than those photographs the individual has chosen to share through social media." In the court's decision, it was also pointed out that even the owners of Facebook make no guarantees regarding the privacy of its users. In fact, it is possible for friends on the social media website to copy images and redistribute them however they wish. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot expect to keep those pictures private in the face of a discovery demand.

This particular personal injury matter is still pending in the Florida court system. However, this ruling by the appeals court sets a powerful precedent for all civil and criminal matters in Florida going forward. It will likely become easier than ever for attorneys to gain access to social media accounts as they conduct legal research.

January 30, 2015

Owners of Executive Las Vegas Limo Service Fined $232K by U.S. Department of Labor

A Las Vegas limousine company is learning a lesson about how to calculate employee wages and tips. After conducting a lengthy investigation, the U.S. Department of Labor is fining Executive Las Vegas, which operates a limo and shuttle bus service, $232,000.

Limo%20Driver%2059486776-001.jpgThe fine is the result of an investigation that uncovered improper payroll deductions made by Executive Las Vegas prior to the end of 2014. Records showed that the company deducted certain expenses from employee paychecks for items like badges, drug tests, fuel and uniforms that should have been the responsibility of the employer. Moreover, officials from the Las Vegas division of the U.S. Department of Labor concluded that Executive relied on improper calculations to figure their minimum wage obligations. These errors meant that nearly 500 employees did not receive at least federal minimum wage for their work over the course of several weeks in 2014.

Federal law stipulates a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Because employees of Executive routinely receive tips as a result of the services they provide, the law permits the company to pay a minimum wage of $2.13 per hour as long as tips given are sufficient to add up to an hourly minimum of $7.25. The Department of Labor believes that Executive failed on numerous occasions to correctly calculate these numbers.

Jim Jimmerson, who is partial owner of Executive and an attorney, insists that the accounting errors were not intentional, but rather simple mistakes. He also points out evidence uncovered in the investigation which showed that employees tend to have "deliberately underreported their tips in order to create a false claim of entitlement to minimum wage."

Situations such as this one and others like it demonstrate how important it is for employers to have dependable legal counsel working for them. With the advice and guidance of an attorney, it's possible for employers to avoid costly mistakes like the ones committed by Executive.

January 22, 2015

We are Always Looking for One or Two More Good Clients . . . Even When Business is Great

One of the questions I hear frequently is about whether we are accepting new clients.

While the short answer is “Yes”, here is some additional information which many people find interesting.

Great%20Fit%20Gears%2039896521-001.jpgOur law firm, Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde is committed to client service and quality legal representation for each and every client. That means that we only accept clients who we feel are a good match for our expertise, experience and areas of practice.

I learned a long time ago that we can’t be all things to all clients, but we can be all things to some clients: and those are the ones we accept and serve in an exemplary manner.

The purpose of this blog is to provide helpful information to anyone who reads it. On our website, you will find another example of our “Be of Service” attitude by reading our Home Page Article “Eleven Questions to ask BEFORE Hiring a Business Attorney”. You will also find a list of our practice areas on that page.

Our clients tell us that they appreciate our honesty, accessibility and guidance. And we appreciate our clients.

Back to the question. The answer is: “Yes, we are always looking for one or two new good clients.” If you have a legal issue, I invite you to call and let’s find out whether we are a great fit for each other. I can be reached at 818-461-8500 or via the Contact form on this page.

Richard Oppenheim

January 16, 2015

Plaintiffs Accept Settlement in Silicon Valley Antitrust Employment Lawsuit

Big technology firms like Google, Intel, Apple and Adobe are used to being in the spotlight. Whenever any of these companies launches a new project, it's all over the media. Moreover, these Silicon Valley giants get a lot of press about being benevolent employers that offer competitive salaries and a great benefits package.

Man%20in%20suit.%20High%20Tech%2071199911-001.jpgThis hasn't stopped a group of 64,000 software engineers from filing a lawsuit against their employers. In the complaint, they allege that the major tech companies entered into an illegal agreement in which they each promised not to poach employees from the others. Members of the class say that this stifled their ability to earn and the incentive to seek employment elsewhere. What's more, the complaint alleges that the companies profited from this agreement.

Several months ago, the plaintiffs and the defendants almost reached an agreement to settle for $324.5 million. Although lawyers for the class had approved of the offer, the judge assigned to the case, Lucy H. Koh, rejected it out of hand. She felt it wasn't a sufficient amount and indicated disapproval that the counsel for the plaintiffs would settle for such a meager amount.

Now the employers are offering $415 million, and the plaintiffs have again accepted. The matter must still go before Judge Koh before it can be considered settled. If the case goes to trial, as it is scheduled to do in the spring of 2015, it's possible that the damages awarded by a jury could reach to multiple billions.

It may be best for all involved to take the agreed upon settlement amount. Going to trial involves considerable risks for both sides, and is expensive regardless of which side ultimately prevails. Lawyers for the tech giants are wisely trying to avoid a trial that would expose their clients to negative publicity and may put them on the hook for a judgment that could reach up to several billion dollars.

Judge Koh will soon render a decision on the $415 million settlement. If she does not accept it, then the matter is likely to go to trial in a San Jose courtoom.

Continue reading "Plaintiffs Accept Settlement in Silicon Valley Antitrust Employment Lawsuit " »

January 9, 2015

Walgreens Lawsuit May Set Troubling Precedent for Employers

The Court of Appeals in Indiana has upheld a $1.4 million dollar verdict against the Walgreens Company. This decision sets a troubling precedent for employers who work in the health care industry, as it holds the company responsible for a HIPAA violation committed by an employee.

Prescription%2049644238-001.jpgThe trouble began when Walgreens pharmacist Audra Withers accessed the confidential prescription records of a client named Abigail Hinchy. Withers was not specifically authorized to access the personal records. Moreover, her subsequent sharing of that information with her husband constituted a clear violation of Hinchy's rights to privacy under HIPAA.

The story becomes even more tangled because at the time, Withers was married to Davion Peterson. Peterson happened to be the ex-boyfriend of Abigail Hinchy, and the two had a child together. Apparently, Withers accessed Hinchy's prescription records to prove that Hinchy had not filled her birth control prescription during the time when she became pregnant with Peterson's child.

Peterson and Hinchy had an argument during which he informed her that he had information that she had deliberately not filled her birth control prescription during the time in which she conceived their child. Upon investigation, Hinchy discovered that her pharmacist was married to her ex-boyfriend, and she accused Walgreens and Withers of violating her HIPAA rights.

Walgreens officials confronted Withers, who admitted she had wrongfully accessed and shared the records. She was disciplined and required to repeat HIPAA training while Hinchy sued Walgreens and the pharmacist.

The court found in Hinchy's favor, holding both the individual and the company at fault. Walgreens appealed, believing that they should not be held accountable for the actions of an employee who knowingly and willfully violated company policy. That appeal has now been lost, and Walgreens has placed a $1.4 million deposit into the court account. However, it seems certain that the company will file another appeal.

When it comes to an employee's violation of HIPAA regulations, it isn't always clear what sort of responsibility the employer bears. Whatever decision is ultimately reached in this case, it is likely to set a precedent for further HIPAA related lawsuits.

December 31, 2014

Happy New Year 2015

All of us at Sylvester, Oppenheim & Linde wish you . . .2015%20Happy%20New%20Year%2072445917-001.jpg

The Joy of Family

The Gift of Health

Great Friends and Business Associates


The Best of Everything in 2015 and Beyond

December 19, 2014

Happy Holidays


The Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde Team Wish You and Yours a Wonderful Holiday Season and a Happy, Healthy & Prosperous New Year

December 12, 2014

Zillow Sued Over Employment Practices

Online real estate company Zillow is the subject of several lawsuits that allege a hostile working environment. The latest was filed by former Zillow employee Jennifer Young, a 41 year-old single mother with two children. Young was employed at the Irvine, California office as a real estate agent. Recently, she retained the services of a law firm to sue her former employer because of a "pervasive culture of retaliation and harassment … that placed a premium on sales and a shortfall on human decency and basic employment rights."

Fired%2053061626-001.jpgEssentially, Young's claims are related to age discrimination. In her complaint, she alleges that a sales manager once asked her whether or not she was "too old to close." Young also asserts that she was admonished to "try and keep up with us."

Young alleges that her difficulties in the office were exacerbated after she was involved in a car accident that left her injured. Claims in her complaint say that she was forced to stand for several hours at a time and not permitted to sit. In October of 2014, Young's ongoing injuries caused her to seek hospitalization. She reached out to Zillow's human resources department, requesting accommodation for her injuries. However, Young claims that her sales book was assigned to another agent, one who was considerably younger. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Young was illegally fired for job abandonment when her doctors were not able to provide Zillow with a note explaining her absence when it was requested.

Zillow is the subject of three other lawsuits, each of them relating to the employment practices used at the Irvine location. Company management has already fired two individuals in relation to sexual harassment claims made in one of these suits.

Company representatives released a statement that says in part: "We take any allegation about our workplace very seriously and are investigating these claims." The statement goes on to say that, "Our people are our greatest asset."

Time will tell how Zillow ultimately handles this latest in a string of employment practice lawsuits.

November 25, 2014

Happy Thanksgiving from Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde

We at Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde would like to take a moment to wish our clients, family and friends (including our blog readers), a very joyous and happy Thanksgiving.

Whether you are celebrating with a small gathering, or preparing for what is shaping up to be dinner for a small country, we wish you and yours all the very best.

It also seems appropriate to quote John F. Kennedy.

"As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them."