Articles Posted in Contract Litigation

Published on:

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 welcome 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

Published on:

Recently, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or DFEH, issued a revised “Workplace Harassment Guide for California Employers.” This essential publication should form the basis of every organization’s anti-harassment and retaliation policies. With the guidance of a qualified California employment attorney, most companies will be able to protect themselves from violating the guidelines described in the publication.

https://www.californiabusinesslitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/283/2016/05/boy.girl_.-equality.jpgThe Guide is particularly useful to employers because it clearly describes the necessary elements of any anti-harassment program in California. Employers are recommended to develop a written policy that is given to all employees and is discussed at least once a year if not more often at company meetings. The Guide also offers counsel on how crucial it is for members of management to model appropriate behavior and responses to harassment complaints. Training for managers and supervisors similarly is recommended, as well as education for personnel who will be charged with handling complaints.

One of the most important tenets espoused by the publication is the need for a proper reporting system, and a means of ensuring that every report is treated as a high-priority item. This makes it possible for the employer to determine whether or not a full, formal investigation is required. One of the new Guide’s more useful sections educates managers and supervisors about how to investigate a claim. A prompt, thorough and impartial investigation is frequently able to head off more serious problems like harassment and retaliation lawsuits.

DFEH’s revised Guide is essential reading for every employer in California. Its plain language and good coverage of relevant points make it the perfect resource for an anti-harassment and retaliation policy. A skilled California employment lawyer can help any company owner or executive put the finishing polish on the organization’s program. Too many companies make the mistake of not creating a written policy until it is too late.

Executives who want to improve the chances that their company will not become embroiled in costly, time-consuming litigation will want to discuss the Guide and how it can be used to craft an anti-harassment program specifically for their company with a qualified attorney.

The guide is only 9 pages long. If after reading it you have any employment law questions, feel free to contact me, Richard Oppenheim. I may be reached at 818-461-8500 or by using the “Contact Us” box in the right column.

Published on:

A robust network can help to open the door to new professional opportunities. Increasingly, professional networks are being created and maintained in a virtual environment. While it is becoming more common for colleagues and former co-workers to connect to each other via social media, it is vital for employers and employees to understand how various employment agreements that they are a party to may affect their interactions.

Scales-of-Justice-Digital-94824052-001This concept is at the heart of a recent case in Illinois. A branch manager for Bankers Life & Casualty Co. named Gelineau left his employment to accept a position with a competitor called American Senior Benefits, LLC. After Gelineau began working with his new employer, he sent LinkedIn invitations to three of his former co-workers at the Warwick, Rhode Island office of Bankers Life. The trouble is that Gelineau had signed a non-solicitation agreement with his former employer. As is common with these agreements, Gelineau had promised not to solicit other Bankers Life employees to seek employment with other companies.

Bankers Life sued American Senior because they believed that Gelineau had violated his non-solicitation agreement. However, the court did not agree. The judge ruled that the LinkedIn emails were “generic” and “did not contain any discussion of Bankers Life.” Moreover, the email did not contain a “solicitation to leave their place of employment.” Instead, the email was merely intended to provide an opportunity for the former co-workers to keep their professional network as robust as possible.

According to the court, if Gelineau had included some kind of hint or suggestion that the Bankers Life employees should leave their current place of employment in favor of American Senior, then the outcome may have been different. Bankers Life was concerned that a listing of open positions at American Senior was included in Gelineau’s LinkedIn home page. Nonetheless, the court did not feel that Gelineau could be held responsible for what visitors to his LinkedIn page did once they were there.

Non-solicitation agreements are standard in many industries. With the changing communication landscape, it’s important to recognize what these agreements do and do not cover.

Published on:

The embattled Fox News network now has another lawsuit to add to its list of legal woes. Employee Diana Falzone has filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court. In her complaint, she charges her employer with discrimination on the basis of gender and disability.

Gender-Discrimination-105366239-001Falzone was employed as a host of programming on FoxNews.com. In January 2017, she published an article that chronicled her battle with endometriosis. This difficult condition affects millions of women across the U.S. Falzone wrote and published the article at the encouragement of the medical team that treats her, feeling that sharing the story of her struggle might provide support to other women with the condition.

Falzone alleges in her complaint that her employer knew about and approved the article prior to its publication. However, three days after publishing her article, Falzone was called in to talk to her supervisor. He told her that senior Fox executives had ordered him to tell her that she would never again host her own shows and that she was no longer permitted to appear on FoxNews.com. Additionally, senior executives forbade her from conducting interviews, appearing on the Fox television network and doing voiceover work for the station.

Falzone alleges that she demanded to know several times why her activities were being restricted, but never received a cogent answer. A formal discrimination complaint filed through the 21st Century Fox hotline did not yield results. That was when Falzone hired a lawyer and filed a lawsuit.

Falzone contends that Fox executives believed that the public disclosure of her illness “detracted from her sex appeal and made her less desirable,” thus leading them to ban her from maintaining her public role with the network.

Fox News has made headlines several times over the last year, mostly with regard to various discrimination and harassment lawsuits as well as the ouster of network chief Roger Ailes. Though their example may seem a bit extreme, it still serves as a crucial reminder to organizations in all industries to ensure that they are complying with all laws related to workplace discrimination and harassment.

Published on:

Technology giant IBM is on the receiving end of a lawsuit by the State of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the Department of Labor and Industry, is in response to what the government says is a failed update to its outmoded unemployment compensation system.

Computer-bug-63136248-001The story began in 2006 when the State of Pennsylvania and IBM signed a $109.9 million contract. According to the agreement, IBM was going to overhaul the state’s system for distributing unemployment compensation and collecting unemployment insurance taxes. The Department of Labor was using systems that were outdated and consisted of several programs that were not compatible. IBM was supposed to replace this with a streamlined substitute that would be more efficient and cost-effective in the long run.

A completion date of February 2010 was established by the contract. However, that deadline came and went without a working system being installed at the Department of Labor. Various delays stretched the deadline out to September of 2013, by which time the state had paid $60 million in excess of the agreed-upon sum. The government alleges that even after numerous delays and the extra payments, the computer system at the Department of Labor had still not been updated.

Both sides assert numerous reasons why the project was not completed as agreed upon. Turnover at IBM, and the re-assignment of various employees, caused delays, miscommunication and complications. IBM argues that at least some of the fault lies with the government, citing their failure to appoint personnel to manage the project.

It is safe to say that this case will not be resolved quickly or easily, considering the amount of money and the reputations that are at stake. However, this situation provides a useful reminder of how imperative it is for governments, companies and individuals to be exceptionally cautious when it comes to signing contracts. A well-drafted agreement is the key to a successful project, while one that is poorly written merely opens the door to numerous costly legal battles. Accordingly, it is wise to have all contracts reviewed by a business attorney before signing on the dotted line.

Published on:

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston has ruled that Walmart truck drivers are not entitled to an additional $80 million in a class action lawsuit settlement. The complaint was filed in 2008 with hundreds of California truck drivers claiming that they did not receive at least minimum wage for performing certain tasks. Although the judge denied the plaintiffs’ claim to the $80 million, Walmart will still have to abide by the initial $54 million settlement that was awarded in an earlier jury decision.

walmart-truckclose-up-side-view_129821854433586541-001Walmart asserts that its truck drivers are among the best paid in the industry, with many of them earning between $80,000 and $100,000 per year. Moreover, their attrition rate is low, and the judge commended them for taking rapid action to comply with evolving compensation laws. The drivers argued in their lawsuit that their employer compensated them only based upon miles driven and specific activities rather than hours worked, which constituted a violation of state law. Accordingly, the drivers claimed that they did not receive adequate compensation for tasks like washing and inspecting trucks. They further argued that they were not appropriately paid for mandatory 10-minute breaks and 10-hour layovers.

In November 2016, a jury of seven agreed with the drivers, awarding them approximately $54 million in back pay. This latest decision came in response to the plaintiffs’ request for an additional $5.8 million for restitution, $54.6 million in liquidated damages and $25.6 million in penalties. The judge went along with the request for $5.8 million in restitution, but denied the other claims, saying that there is not sufficient evidence that Walmart acted in bad faith or with “dishonest and wrongful motive.”

It’s possible that Walmart may still appeal the decisions by the judge and the jury. However, they scrapped their former driver-compensation package in 2015 in favor of a new one that is in compliance with California law. Because compensation laws change periodically, it is only sensible for all business owners to have their compensation practices reviewed by an employment attorney on a regular basis. This may prevent a company from finding itself involved in a similar class action lawsuit.

Published on:

Ownership of some of the most well-known Beatles songs has been on a tortuous path for decades. Sir Paul McCartney, a former Beatle and writer or co-writer of many of the group’s biggest hits, is taking legal action to reclaim the rights to his creations. It’s an ongoing odyssey with no end in sight.

Beatles-Imagine-2902823-001McCartney is the author of many famous Beatles songs. Sometimes collaborating with John Lennon, he wrote tunes like “Love Me Do” and “Yesterday.” However, the rights to those songs were often immediately signed away. Most of the rights were lost between 1962 and 1971. Various publishers snapped up the rights, but by the 1980s, publisher ATV owned most of them. When an Australian businessman who owned a controlling share in the songs put them up for sale in 1984, Michael Jackson notoriously outbid Paul McCartney to become the owner of the Beatles’ catalog.

In fact, Jackson and Sony formed Sony/ATV, with the Beatles’ works being among the company’s major assets. The Jackson family sold their share of the company to Sony after Michael Jackson’s 2009 death. Now that Sony/ATV can claim sole ownership, McCartney is suing them to regain ownership of his work.

The lawsuit, which was filed in New York, is based on a facet of the 1976 Copyright Act, which stipulates that any creative works made prior to 1978 be returned after 56 years to their originators. McCartney’s filing is timely considering that he and Lennon first began writing together in 1962, precisely 56 years before 2018. Accordingly, a court could decide that McCartney may reclaim the lucrative rights to his songs as early as next year.

McCartney has been trying to reclaim those rights for many years. Thus far, Sony/ATV is unwilling to accommodate his request. They cite a long-term relationship with McCartney, and express disappointment that the musician filed the lawsuit, which they call unnecessary and premature.

The battle over the rights to the Beatles’ catalog is likely to continue for many years, which only highlights the need for individuals and companies to protect their intellectual property rights.

Published on:

A heated lawsuit between 21st Century Fox and Netflix reveals a great deal about the inner workings of Hollywood while also providing useful insights for employers in California and across the country. This high-profile case is a helpful reminder about the necessity of consulting with employment attorneys to cement formal contractual agreements with workers.

Employment-Contract-44108074-001

The lawsuit was filed by Fox in September 2016. In their complaint, they cite a “brazen campaign” by Netflix “to unlawfully target, recruit, and poach valuable Fox executives.” Mainly at issue are two former Fox employees who now work for Netflix. One of these employees is Marcos Waltenberg, a 10-year veteran at Fox who was a vice president of promotions. The other was Tara Flynn, a vice president of creative affairs who was hired by Fox in 2012.

Waltenberg is a legal alien who needed employer sponsorship to maintain his green card status. In 2012, he asked his supervisor at Fox for a raise. The human resources department responded by saying that they were not required to sponsor Waltenberg’s green card renewal. When Waltenberg dropped his request for a raise, Fox helped him get his green card.

Flynn says she was pressured to take a three-year contract at $75,000 per year even though the compensation was well below the $250,000 annual salary that was typical for her position. She knew that her salary was well below that of two male executives who formerly held the job. When Netflix approached her with a better offer, she let her supervisors know that she was leaving, and that’s when things got ugly.

Waltenberg and Flynn were under contract with Fox when they gave notice. In a response to the complaint, defendants argue that the contracts that are forced on rank-and-file employees at Fox are too reminiscent of the studio era when the lives of actors were micromanaged by executives. The response further contends that these contracts unlawfully constrain employee mobility.

This lawsuit serves as a reminder to all California employers. Companies and HR departments need to regularly review their employment contract practices to ensure that they are keeping up with changing laws.

Published on:

With the passage of Proposition 64 in November, California became one of a handful of states to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. Many residents are thrilled with the outcome, but the new law is leaving employers wondering what their rights are.

Marijuana-legalization-94540729-001The good news is that the authors of Proposition 64 foresaw that marijuana legalization might pose a problem to numerous industries. That’s why there is a provision in the law that explicitly maintains the employer’s right to prohibit the use and possession of marijuana, particularly on any work sites. Accordingly, any company is perfectly within its rights to keep their drug-free workplace policies on track, though it does make sense to ensure that everything is in order.

Now is the perfect time to meet with an employment attorney to make certain that an existing company drug policy is sufficiently broad. If a drug policy is not already in place, then it is definitely time to craft one, a project that takes time and considerable legal expertise. Under the new law, employers are still permitted to require pre-employment drug tests, and they maintain the right to not hire candidates who test positive for marijuana. Even if the drug was obtained and used legally, the employer does not have to accept such use among their prospective employees. However, it is critical that any pre-employment drug screenings are conducted fairly and impartially, without any discriminatory element.

Under California’s new law, employers are also permitted to conduct drug tests among existing employees. Once again, it is crucial that this be done in a non-discriminatory manner. Moreover, companies may want to review their written drug policies with all employees to make it clear that marijuana use is not appropriate or acceptable. Management may also need to sit down with human resources staff to ensure that they are ready to field questions from employees.

California’s revolutionary Proposition 64 may have made recreational marijuana use legal, but it still allows employers to make important safety decisions. If you have any questions about how California’s new recreational marijuana law will affect you and/or your employees, feel free to contact me, attorney Rich Oppenheim at 818-461-8500. You may also use the form on the right side of this page.

Published on:

We regularly receive requests to explain the process of litigation, which we always communicate (using dialog NOT monologue) to prospective clients during our initial consultation. We hope you will find our lawsuit synopsis helpful. Feel free to forward it to others and remember to contact us with any questions about any business or employment lawsuit.

If your lawsuit or legal problem involves business issues, you may find it helpful to visit our website.  Once there you will find the following information: “Eleven Questions to Ask BEFORE Hiring a Business Attorney”.  It has always been one of our most visited web pages.

The litigation process generally involves four (4) phases. The length of each phase varies with the legal and factual complexities of each case.

DT%2019867194%20scale-001.jpgThe initial phase takes place before anything is filed in court. The attorney meets with the client to determine the facts of the claim being advanced by the client or the client’s defense to a claim brought by another. In either case, it is essential that the client meet with the attorney at the earliest opportunity as valuable rights may be lost by delay. Once the attorney meets with the client, the attorney will review any documents relevant to the matter, research the applicable law and possibly speak to witnesses in order to chart a course which is in the best interest of the client.

The next phase involves the filing of an initial pleading in court. Typically, this is the filing of a Complaint or an Answer to a Complaint. The discovery process begins, which may include serving the other side with written questions, called Interrogatories, obtaining evidence which may be in the possession of the adversary or some other party and taking depositions, the oral questioning of parties and witnesses.

Once this phase has been completed, the case is ready to be tried. A trial may be in front of a Jury or a Judge and can vary in length depending upon the number of witnesses and quantity of exhibits offered. Under our system of jurisprudence, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The plaintiff’s case goes first. The defendant then has an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s case with witnesses and evidence to support the defense. If the defendant has brought a Cross-Complaint, it is tried in the same manner. Otherwise, the plaintiff has an opportunity to put on a rebuttal case to counter the evidence offered by the defendant and, on occasion, a defendant may offer a sur-rebuttal to reply to the evidence offered by plaintiff in the rebuttal case.

The final phase of litigation involves the post-trial matters including motions to vacate or correct the judgment, appeals and efforts to collect on the judgment.
Continue reading