California Business Litigation Blog

Before Gary Ross was hired by Raging Wire Telecommunications Inc., he was honest about his off the job use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. He even provided Raging Wire a copy of his doctor’s note. Days after he started, Raging Wire fired him, citing his off site drug use.

Since the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was passed, California employers have been confused about how the act applied to employment laws. In a 5 to 2 decision, the California Supreme Court finally provides clarity.

The Court concluded that the Compassionate Use Act gives gives medical marijuana users a defense against criminal prosecution in state court -- but provides no additional rights under employment law.

After affirming that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal law, majority author Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act "does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs”.

Justices Carlos Moreno and Joyce Kennard issued a joint opinion that concurred on some points but mostly dissented.

The bottom line is that this opinion by the California Supreme Court was very pro business and provided long overdue clarity for California employers. Here is Raging Wire’s Press Release about the decision.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court Gives OK to Fire Medical Marijuana Users" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Law

Bookmark:

American Apparel CEO Dov Charney is accused of taking meetings in his underwear, verbally disparaging women and generally creating a hostile work environment according to the lawsuit plaintiff Mary Nelson. Based on this msnbc story, calling Charney a colorful character would be an understatement. Photo of Charney is courtesy of American Apparel.

Charney contends that he has built a workplace where freedom and creativity are critical to the success of American Apparel. He admits to running around his office in underwear while designing a new line, and even to being his own underwear model.

But Mary Nelson’s lawsuit is not his first. Which brings me to the topic of this post.

Sexual harassment is wrong, and it is clearly against the law. If your company has had one harassment lawsuit, that is one too many. Every employment lawsuit filed against a company makes it easier for any employee to file the next one, and the next one and the one after that.

Every problem related to harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment, etc. needs to be addressed and resolved promptly. Next, steps must be taken to insure that the problem never happens again to any employee.

Lawsuits will happen to every employer. Maybe you don’t take meetings in your underwear but if your company is doing anything else which might be inviting lawsuits, today would be a good day to make some changes.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Law

Bookmark:

On behalf of Californians implanted with Sprint Fidelis leads, counsel for Rasheed Hunter announced the filing of a class action lawsuit. The leads are the wiring connecting an implanted defibrillator to the heart. Medtronic suspended use of the product on October 15, 2007 after 5 patient deaths were associated with the failure of the leads.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Hunter seeks to hold Medtronic responsible for all diagnostic and medical charges as well as possible (corrective) surgical expenses caused by the faulty devices.

Medtronic believes that the risk is small. From their letter to patients: “Patients with a Sprint Fidelis lead are more likely to experience complications from removal than from a problem with a Sprint Fidelis lead.” They go on to suggest that reprogramming might serve to further mitigate the problem in their letter to physicians.

According to the Medtronics website, there have been over 268,000 Sprint Fidelis leads implanted to connect the life saving defibrillators to patients’ hearts.

Sadly this is truly a no win situation for everyone involved. Medtronic acknowledges the small failure rate and the deaths linked to it. They further acknowledge that they concur with the opinion of the Independent Physician Quality Panel which believes it is inappropriate to prophylactically remove Sprint Fidelis leads except in unusual individual patient circumstances.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation

Bookmark:

Orange County Superior Court Judge David T. McEachern Monday approved a $5 million settlement, stemming from a 2004 investigation by the state's consumer agency that investigates complaints against automobile repair shops. The settlement also includes 5 years probation, and closed circuit cameras allowing waiting customers to watch service being performed on their vehicles.

In 2003 KNBC/TV in Los Angeles conducted undercover investigations at numerous EZ Lube locations in Southern California. Some of its undercover video has even turned up on You Tube. In 2004 the California Bureau of Automotive Repair started its own investigation.

There is currently a statement on the EZ Lube website (click on Main Menu, Company Info then select Press & News) dated 9/27/2006: “You may have seen recent news reports that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR has charged EZ Lube with violations of the Automotive Repair Act). We are writing to assure you that the BAR’s accusations are wrong and that our commitment to our customers is unwavering.”

According to EZ Lube’s press release dated 12/31/07 (courtesy of KNBC) EZ Lube is implementing a $6 Million Plan for Customer Assurance.

It was over 4 years between the KNBC investigation and the resolution which calls for a $5 Million settlement. Additionally there is the $6 million customer assurance plan, 5 years probation and more than 4 years of bad press on TV, in newspapers and on the internet. This is an illustration of how NOT to handle legal problems in a business.

Most business legal problems do not improve with age. EZ Lube should have started on resolving this problem in 2003. Their statement of 9/27/2006 could indicate that they were still trying to fight the government agencies at that time when they should have been well on the way to resolution.

Continue reading "EZ Lube Settlement Allows Customers to Watch Car Repairs" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation

Bookmark:

In this California Court of Appeals case last month, the court ruled that although not everything hanging from a rear view mirror in your car is illegal, a tree shaped air freshener is illegal. As such, it gives police a valid reason to stop you.

The only reason this is posted on the California Business Litigation blog is this:
none of us want to invite a traffic stop.

Throw the air freshener under the seat and have a great new year!

- Richard Oppenheim

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark: