Lowell Steiger's Los Angeles Law Blog

California Wage and Hour Violations - Does Your Boss Owe You Back Pay?

Follow me on Twitter

http://twitter.com/steigerlaw

Answers to Questions About Your Wage & Hour Rights

Do you wonder if you have a claim against your employer for failure to pay you proper wages?  The Law Offices of Lowell Steiger and the Law Offices of Steven Waisbren would like to provide answers to some of the more common questions, and we are happy to discuss your particular situation at your convenience.

Question -

What is the general rule about payment of overtime wages?

Answer -

Under California law, a “nonexempt” employee 18 years of age or older shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday, or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless he or she receives 1½ times his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday, over 40 hours in the workweek, or more than six days in any workweek.

An employee is entitled to double his or her regular rate of pay if he or she works in excess of 12 hours in any workday, and for all hours worked in excess of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.

Question -

What is an exempt employee?

Answer -

An exempt employee is one to which the overtime wage protections under the California Labor Code do not apply.  If an employee is truly exempt, they are not entitled to overtime wages, regardless of the number of hours he or she works.

Question -

How do I know if I am an exempt or nonexempt employee?

Answer -

There are a number of exemptions which exist, and may apply to your particular situation.  For the most part, these would include the administrative exemption, executive exemption, and the professional exemption.  Generally, the existence of these exemptions depends upon numerous factors, including the amount of independent judgment and discretion given to the employee on significant matters, the extent of supervisory or managerial duties the employee performs, and, most importantly, whether the employee performs exempt duties more than 50% of the time.  Of course, there are a number of other considerations which must be analyzed.

A determination of your exemption classification should be made only after consultation with an attorney since there are many reasons that an employee may be nonexempt under the law .

Question -

What if my employer has classified me as an exempt employee?  Am I bound by that classification?

Answer -

Absolutely not!!  Many employers will misclassify employees either mistakenly, or in an effort to avoid paying the employee overtime wages to which he or she is entitled.  Don’t assume that your classification is correct.  You may be entitled to many years of back wages, interest, and other damages.

Question -

Can I be fired for making a claim for overtime wages?

Answer -

No.  California law specifically prohibits an employer from doing so.

Interesting Facts About Wage & Hour Claims

·     An employer is obligated to pay you overtime even if the overtime hours were not authorized. The employer can discipline you for working unauthorized overtime hours, but the employer must still pay overtime wages for those hours.

·     Discretionary bonuses or monies paid as gifts on holidays are generally not included for purposes of determining the employee’s regular rate of pay.  Therefore, such bonuses are not computed in the calculation of overtime wages.

·     Even if an employee is paid a salary, they are still entitled to overtime wages as long as they are not exempt (See discussion in Q & A section).

·     As long as overtime wages are paid, an employer may require an employee to work overtime hours.  The  employee may be disciplined for refusing to do so.

·          Any agreement signed by an employee to waive entitlement to overtime wages is not enforceable.  The employer is still obligated to pay overtime.

·          The burden of proving that an employee is “exempt” is on the employer.  The worker is always presumed to be entitled to overtime compensation.

The Law Offices of Lowell Steiger Has Expanded Its Practice 

to Represent You for Your Wage and Hour Claims

    The Law Offices of Lowell Steiger, working in association with the Law Offices of Steven Waisbren, is happy to provide you with a free consultation, including a full analysis of your entitlement to overtime wages, minimum wages, and other back pay and damages.  Give us a call, and we will set up an appointment for you to meet with one of our qualified and experienced attorneys.

Follow me on Twitter

http://twitter.com/steigerlaw

If you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

Denial of Proper Overtime Pay: A Real Problem With a Real Solution

Follow me on Twitter

http://twitter.com/steigerlaw

Denial of Proper Pay for Employees is Rampant

THE PROBLEM - 

     With the economy on a persistent downturn, and the business community feeling the impact, employees are increasingly being denied proper compensation for the work they perform.  This either arises because employers mistakenly believe that their employees are not entitled to compensation guaranteed by the California Labor Code or mislead their employees with respect to such entitlement.

      Unfortunately, most employees are unaware that they were, or are, entitled to additional compensation under California law until either well into their employment, or until after their employment has ended.  California law provides employees with considerable remedies, and subjects employers to substantial liability for violating state law. Denial of proper compensation gives rise to possible legal action against the employer, and potential damages include back pay for overtime, minimum wages, meal and rest breaks, interest, penalties, and attorney’s fees.

THE MISCONCEPTION -

      Many workers are uninformed about their rights to compensation as an employee, thereby giving employers the opportunity to take advantage.  For example, while the concept of minimum wage is generally understood, most employees assume that if they are a manager or supervisor, they are “exempt” employees not entitled to overtime compensation.  Oftentimes, this is not true.  In fact, the employee’s job title is irrelevant.  A “manager” may still be entitled to overtime compensation, as well as other damages, against an employer, regardless of contrary information provided by the employer, and regardless of the specific job designation or title given to the employee.

THE SOLUTION -

      If you have worked overtime hours, or been paid less than the minimum wage required by state law, you should consult an attorney to determine your rights.  Even if you believe that you are not entitled to overtime compensation, or other  wages, an attorney can provide you with a detailed analysis, and advise you whether such a claim is viable.

Interesting Facts About Wage & Hour Claims -

·    An employee who prevails in a wage and hour claim can claim attorney’s fees as part of his or her damages.  However, the employer cannot.

·    A worker’s job title (i.e., “manager”) means nothing as to whether overtime compensation is due.  The true test is the actual duties performed by the worker.

·    A worker who is classified as an independent contractor may still be eligible for overtime compensation and other benefits.

·    A worker who receives a salary may still be entitled to payment of overtime compensation.

·    To prove an overtime claim, a worker does not need any supporting documentation; only his or her testimony showing a “reasonable estimate” of the number of hours worked.

·    The burden of proving that an employee is “exempt” is on the employer.  The worker is always presumed to be entitled to overtime compensation.

The Law Offices of Lowell Steiger Has Expanded its Practice To Include Wage & Hour Claims

      Due to the increased incidence of improper payment  of overtime and minimum wages, the Law Offices of Lowell Steiger and the Law Offices of Steven D. Waisbren are proud to announce their association to represent the rights of California workers to be paid proper compensation under the Labor Code.    We are happy to provide you with a free consultation, including a full analysis of your entitlement to overtime wages, minimum wages, and other back pay and damages. 

Follow me on Twitter

http://twitter.com/steigerlaw

If you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

Time Off to Vote: A State by State Guide

Time Off to Vote

Must your employer give you time off to vote?  See the chart below for a state by state analysis!

State	Time Allowed to Vote	Paid or Unpaid	Applicable Statute
Alabama	The necessary time off shall not exceed one hour and if the hours of work of the employee commence at least two hours after the opening of the polls or end at least one hour prior to the closing of the polls, then the time off for voting as provided in this section shall not be available.	Unspecified	2006 Alabama Laws Act 2006-545 (H.B. 141)
Alaska	Sufficient time to vote, unless the employee has two consecutive hours in which to vote, either between the opening of the polls and the beginning of the employee's regular working shift, or between the end of the regular working shift and the closing of the polls.	Paid	Alaska Statutes § 15.15.100
Arizona	Three hours, unless polls are open three hours before or after shift.	Paid	Arizona Revised Statutes §16-402
Arkansas	Employer shall schedule sufficient time on election days so that employees may vote.	Unspecified	Arkansas Code § 7-1-102
California	Two hours at the beginning or end of the regular working shift.	Paid	California Election Code § 14000
Colorado	Two hours unless polls are open three hours before or after regular working shift.	Paid	Colorado Revised Statutes §1-7-102
Connecticut	None
Delaware	None
Georgia	Two hours unless polls are open two hours before or after regular working shift	Unspecified	Georgia Code §21-2-404
Florida	None
Hawaii	Two hours, unless polls are open two consecutive non-working hours.	Paid, with proof that vote is cast	Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-95
Idaho	None
Illinois	Two hours.	Unpaid	10 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/17-15
Indiana	None
Iowa	Three hours, unless employee has 3 consecutive hours non-work time when polls are open.	Paid	Iowa Code Annotated § 49.109
Kansas	Up to two hours.	Paid	Kansas Statutes Annotated §25-418
Kentucky	Up to four hours.	Unpaid	Kentucky Revised Statutes § 118.035
Louisiana	None
Maine	None
Maryland	Employees who do not otherwise have two hours of continuous off-duty time when the polls are open may take up to two hours of leave to vote.	Paid with proof of voting	Maryland Code, Election Law, § 10-315
Massachusetts	Voters employed in mechanical, manufacturing or mercantile businesses allowed time off during the first two hours after the polls have opened only if an application for absence has been submitted.	Unspecified	Massachusetts General Laws Annotated 149 § 178
Michigan	None
Minnesota	Employees are allowed to take time off during the mornings of election days.	Paid	Minnesota Statutes Annotated  § 204C.04
Mississippi	None
Missouri	Employees may take up to three hours off to vote on Election Day during the times the polls are open if a request for time is made prior to Election Day and the polls are not open for three successive hours when the employee is not at work. The employer may specify any three hours when the polls are open during which employees may take time off to vote.	Paid	Vernon's Annotated Missouri Statutes 115.639
Montana	None
Nebraska	Employees are entitled to up to two hours to vote if the employee does not have two consecutive non-work hours to vote while the polls are open. The employee must request time off to vote prior to the Election Day, and the employer may specify when during the working day employees may take time off.	Paid	Nebraska Revised Statutes § 32-922
Nevada	Employees are allowed one to three hours on election days to vote if they do not have "sufficient" free time outside working hours, depending on the distance between work and the polling site. Employees must apply for time prior to Election Day. Employers may designate the specific time employees may take.	Paid	Nevada Revised Statues 293.463
New Hampshire	None
New Jersey	None
New Mexico	Employees may have up to two hours, unless they have two free hours before work or three free hours after work while the polls are open. The employer may designate the hours to be taken, but it may not include lunch or rest hours.	Paid	New Mexico Statutes § 1-12-42
New York	Employees are allowed to take "sufficient time" on Election Day as is necessary to allow them to vote, if four consecutive non-working hours are not available while the polls are open. Employers may designate whether the time is to be taken at the beginning or end of the shift.  Employees must notify employers of the need for time off not more than 10 days and not less than 2 days before the election. Employers must post a conspicuous notice of employee rights at least ten days before Election Day.	Paid up to two hours	McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York § 3-110
North Carolina	None
North Dakota	The law encourages employers to provide time off to vote when an employee's regular work schedule conflicts with the times polls are open. NOTE: The recommended policy is voluntary.	Unspecified	N.D. Cent. Code § 16.1-01-02.1
Ohio	Employers are prohibited from firing an employee who takes a reasonable amount of time to vote.	Paid for salaried employees.	Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.06
Oklahoma	Every employer must allow its registered voters up to two hours off to vote on Election Day, during the time when the polls are open.	Paid	Okla. Stat. Ann. § 26-7-101
Oregon	None
Pennsylvania	None
Rhode Island	None
South Carolina	None
South Dakota	Employees are entitled to be absent from work on Election Day between the time the polls open and when they close, if the person does not have a period of two consecutive hours during the time the polls are open in which he or she is not required to be at work.	Paid	S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 12-3-5
Tennessee	An employee may be absent for a reasonable time, not to exceed three hours, without penalty to vote during the time the polls are open in the county where the employee resides. If the tour of duty of an employee begins three or more hours after the opening of the polls or ends three or more hours before the closing of the polls of the county where the employee is a resident, the employee may not take time off under this section. The employer may specify the hours during which the employee may be absent. Application for such absence shall be made to the employer before noon of the day before the election.	Paid	Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-1-106
Texas	Unless the polls are open for voting for two consecutive hours outside of the employee’s working hours, employers must give employees leave to vote without penalty.	Paid	Tex. Code Ann. Election  Code § 276.004
Utah	Employers must provide employees up to two hours off between the time the polls open and when they close, unless the employee has at least three non-working hours during the time the polls are open. The employer may specify the hours during which the employee may be absent.	Paid	Utah Code Ann. § 20A-3-103
Vermont	None
Virginia	None
Washington	Employers are required to arrange employee work time on the day of an election so that each employee has a reasonable amount of time available for voting if the employee would not otherwise have two hours free (not including meal or rest breaks) to vote while the polls are open.	Paid	RCWA 49.28.120
West Virginia	Maximum of three hours time off to vote must be granted upon written demand made at least three days prior to Election Day.	Paid	W.Va. Code § 3-1-42
Wisconsin	An employee is permitted time off to vote for a period not to exceed three successive hours while the polls are open. The employee must notify the employer before Election Day of the intended absence. The employer may designate the time of day for the absence.	Unpaid	Wis. Stat. § 6.76(1)
Wyoming	At the employee's convenience, the employee may take one hour between the opening and closing of polls to vote.	Paid	Wyo. Stat. § 22-2-111
Washington, D.C.	None

If you, or someone you know, has been injured, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

California Wage and Hour Violations - Does Your Boss Owe You Back Pay?

Answers to Questions About Your Wage & Hour Rights

Do you wonder if you have a claim against your employer for failure to pay you proper wages?  The Law Offices of Lowell Steiger and the Law Offices of Steven Waisbren would like to provide answers to some of the more common questions, and we are happy to discuss your particular situation at your convenience.

Question -

What is the general rule about payment of overtime wages?

Answer -

Under California law, a “nonexempt” employee 18 years of age or older shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday, or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless he or she receives 1½ times his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday, over 40 hours in the workweek, or more than six days in any workweek.

An employee is entitled to double his or her regular rate of pay if he or she works in excess of 12 hours in any workday, and for all hours worked in excess of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.

Question -

What is an exempt employee?

Answer -

An exempt employee is one to which the overtime wage protections under the California Labor Code do not apply.  If an employee is truly exempt, they are not entitled to overtime wages, regardless of the number of hours he or she works.

Question -

How do I know if I am an exempt or nonexempt employee?

Answer -

There are a number of exemptions which exist, and may apply to your particular situation.  For the most part, these would include the administrative exemption, executive exemption, and the professional exemption.  Generally, the existence of these exemptions depends upon numerous factors, including the amount of independent judgment and discretion given to the employee on significant matters, the extent of supervisory or managerial duties the employee performs, and, most importantly, whether the employee performs exempt duties more than 50% of the time.  Of course, there are a number of other considerations which must be analyzed.

A determination of your exemption classification should be made only after consultation with an attorney since there are many reasons that an employee may be nonexempt under the law .

Question -

What if my employer has classified me as an exempt employee?  Am I bound by that classification?

Answer -

Absolutely not!!  Many employers will misclassify employees either mistakenly, or in an effort to avoid paying the employee overtime wages to which he or she is entitled.  Don’t assume that your classification is correct.  You may be entitled to many years of back wages, interest, and other damages.

Question -

Can I be fired for making a claim for overtime wages?

Answer -

No.  California law specifically prohibits an employer from doing so.

Interesting Facts About Wage & Hour Claims

·     An employer is obligated to pay you overtime even if the overtime hours were not authorized. The employer can discipline you for working unauthorized overtime hours, but the employer must still pay overtime wages for those hours.

·     Discretionary bonuses or monies paid as gifts on holidays are generally not included for purposes of determining the employee’s regular rate of pay.  Therefore, such bonuses are not computed in the calculation of overtime wages.

·     Even if an employee is paid a salary, they are still entitled to overtime wages as long as they are not exempt (See discussion in Q & A section).

·     As long as overtime wages are paid, an employer may require an employee to work overtime hours.  The  employee may be disciplined for refusing to do so.

·          Any agreement signed by an employee to waive entitlement to overtime wages is not enforceable.  The employer is still obligated to pay overtime.

·          The burden of proving that an employee is “exempt” is on the employer.  The worker is always presumed to be entitled to overtime compensation.

Prior Wage & Hour Posts of Interest

The Law Offices of Lowell Steiger Has Expanded Its Practice 

to Represent You for Your Wage and Hour Claims

         The Law Offices of Lowell Steiger, working in association with the Law Offices of Steven Waisbren, is happy to provide you with a free consultation, including a full analysis of your entitlement to overtime wages, minimum wages, and other back pay and damages.  Give us a call, and we will set up an appointment for you to meet with one of our qualified and experienced attorneys.

***************************************************************************************************************************

If you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send me an e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

***************************************************************************************************************************

Attorney General Brown Cracks Down on Worker Abuses at Long Beach and Los Angeles Ports

California Attorney General Brown is clearly a friend of the wage & hour worker.  When people fear for their jobs, especially in our ever-declining economy, shark like employers step up their unreasonable demands and cheat employees out of their fair compensation by misclassifying them as "independent contractors" or "exempt employees."  These are terms that must meet certain legal criteria in order to be binding as to the worker.  Just because your boss says you're an "independent contractor" or are "exempt from overtime" doesn't make it so.  Read the press release below and e-mail me at lowell@steigerlaw.com if you have any questions OR feel that you need a free consultation to clarify your rights.

LOS ANGELES—On September 5, 2008 California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced a crackdown on trucking companies operating at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles that abuse their workers by denying them protections under state workers’ compensation, disability and minimum wage laws. These companies engage in cost-cutting schemes that take advantage of their workers and avoid California taxes. They unlawfully classify their workers as “independent contractors,” circumventing state employment taxes and labor laws that guarantee workers compensation and disability benefit and the right to a minimum wage.

“We are cracking down on these two companies and investigating several others that are taking advantage of their workers and cheating the state out of payroll taxes,” Attorney General Brown said. “These are low-paid truck drivers working long hours under onerous conditions who are not getting the benefits they deserve.”  (Story continues below)

***************************************************************************************************************************

if you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send me an e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

***************************************************************************************************************************

Beginning in February 2008, the Attorney General’s office authorized a task force to investigate trucking companies at Long Beach and Los Angeles Ports. The investigation uncovered numerous state labor law violations committed by several trucking companies operating at the ports. Two of the lawsuits were filed in Los Angeles Superior Court today and several more will be filed in the coming weeks.

The lawsuits allege that the trucking companies named in the suits have an unfair advantage over their competitors in violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200 by depriving employees of benefits and protections entitled to them under California law. These companies are also cheating the State of California out of thousands of dollars in state payroll taxes.

Jose Maria Lira, a fleet operator responsible for transporting cargo from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, controlled all aspects of his drivers’ work, yet classified his employees as independent contractors and made them sign documents stating that they were independent. Lira leased his trucks to drivers, requiring them to sign a lease agreement stating that the driver would pay Lira 50% of his gross earnings each month in return for use of the truck, plus an additional 10% for management fees.

In fact, Lira required them to claim independent contractor status contrary to their true status as employees. The drivers worked exclusively for Lira, working 60 hours or more per week, delivering cargo in Lira company trucks. Under these conditions, the drivers should have employee status with its legal protections and benefits under the law.

The second lawsuit filed today is against the Pac Anchor Transportation Inc. (“Pac Anchor”) and Alfredo Barajas. Brown asserted that Pac Anchor and Barajas engaged in a shell game in which Alfredo Barajas supplied Pac Anchor with 38 trucks and drivers. Pac Anchor directly paid Barajas’ truck drivers, providing them with 1099 tax forms at the end of the year. Barajas and Pac Anchor misclassified the drivers as independent contractors in order to keep operating costs down and to avoid paying the mandated taxes and benefits.


The investigation found that the drivers should be classified as employees because they do not own the trucks they drive, do not have a business independent of Pac Anchor or Barajas, have no real opportunity for “profit” other than compensation on a piecework basis delivering loads, and can be terminated at will.

Related Articles and Links

BNA Daily Labor Report: Port Drivers Not Contractors, Say Lawsuits  (Teamsters for a Democratic Union)

Pac Anchor Transportation Website

People of the State of California v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Alfredo Barajas (Read the Complaint)

People of the State of California v. Jose Maria Lira (Read the Complaint)

Attorney General Brown Cracks Down on Worker Abuses at Long Beach and Los Angeles Ports (Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO)

California Alleges Trucking Firms Improperly Avoid Workers’ Compensation Coverage (Workforce Management)

if you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send me an e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

Boss Can't Make You Lie About Your Hours!

Is your boss a Leona Helmsley type?  Hopefully not BUT, as hard as it may be to believe, some employers take advantage of, and abuse, their employees in a myriad of ways.  One way is by making them sign a release that states that they have been paid all of their owed wages and/or taken all of the breaks to which they are entitled before they will agree to pay them!!!  How angry does this make you?  Well, apparently it got Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's attention and he has attempted to right this egregious wrong by signing AB 2075 (details below).  The bill was sponsored by the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation whose mission is "Fighting For Justice and Changing Lives."  Although their focus is primarily to help low income families, this new bill will be of benefit to all California Wage Earners -- I applaud their successful efforts.  Please read the important information below and, of course, if you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send me an e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

New California Law: Limit on Wage and Hour Releases

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law AB 2075, which modifies California Labor Code Section 206.5. The new provision takes effect on January 1, 2009.Section 206.5 currently prohibits an employer from requiring the “execution of a release” of a claim or right on account of wages due, or to become due, or made as an advance on wages to be earned unless payment of those wages has been made. Consequently, an employer cannot condition payment of earned wages on an employee’s execution of a release, and an employee cannot waive wages owed by an employer, unless all wages have already been paid. A violation of Section 206.5 will invalidate the release agreement, be deemed a misdemeanor, and may also result in civil ramifications. The new Section 206.5(b) defines a “release.” For the purpose of the amended Section 206.5, “execution of a release” will now prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, as a condition of being paid, to execute a statement of hours that he or she worked during a pay period which the employer knows to be false.Employers should closely review their employee release agreements, time recording documents and processes in light of the soon-to-be-modified Section 206.5.

Sponsored by the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (photo: Executive Director Jose Padilla) whose justifiably employee-friendly rationale is written as follows:

According to the author's office, increasingly unscrupulous employers protect themselves from litigation over   underpayment of wages or meal & rest period violations by adopting false pay records and timekeeping systems.  In many instances, these employers have instituted a practice of requiring their employees to sign off on timesheets which do not reflect actual hours worked and which are created at the direction of the employer or his/her staff, and/or to sign declarations attached to their timesheets that they have received all their rest and meal periods when, in fact, they have not.  These statements are generally required to be signed before the timesheets are turned over to the employer and wages  are paid. Workers who question this practice are often retaliated against.

It took this great foundation to put the wheels in motion to strengthen the rights of California Wage Earners.   

If you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send me an e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

Wage & Hour Litigation Alert! $1.4 Million for Drywall Workers

Wage & Hour Violations are intolerable. Employees, often at the mercy of their employers are afraid to stand up for their rights because they fear the ultimate retribution: Being Fired. However, you as employees have rights. As discussed in a previous post, Attorney Steve Waisbren and I are aggressively pursuing claims for employees who have been cheated out of overtime pay, meal breaks and other compensation by their employers.

If you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

Apropos to my previous Wage & Hour post, I just read a News Release from the Office of the Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. where the headline reads "Attorney General Brown Announces $1.4 Million Restitution Settlement for Drywall Workers."  Please read the article below:

ORANGE COUNTY – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a settlement with an Orange County drywall contractor that will award $1.4 million in restitution to employees who were forced to work overtime and through state-mandated meal breaks without being fully compensated for their work.

“This settlement will right a wrong that’s been inflicted on the hard-working employees of Interwall,” Attorney General Brown said. “The company tried to increase its profit on the backs of its workforce, by denying employees meal breaks and overtime pay. With this agreement, Interwall will now be required to pay its employees a proper wage for every hour of work they performed.”

Brown sued Interwall Development Systems last January for engaging in unfair and unlawful business practices. The suit alleged that Interwall denied certain overtime pay, did not provide accurate itemized wage statements, and did not allow its employees to take breaks during afternoon shifts. Approximately 400 employees were affected by the company’s practices. The company slashed its labor costs in an effort to underbid competition for at least 150 drywall installation projects in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties.

The settlement, approved by the judge today in Orange County Superior Court, prohibits Interwall from circumventing the state’s labor laws. It will award just over $1.4 million to current and former employees of Interwall that were not properly paid for work they had done. Of the $1.4 million to be paid by the company, $674,396 will be applied to resolve unpaid overtime claims, $303,607 will resolve interest claims on the overtime, and $425,996 will be paid to compensate workers who had to work through state mandated break periods.

Additionally, Interwall will pay up to $131,000 in employer share payroll taxes that the company would have paid if it had adequately compensated its employees for their work.

Since the company violated provisions of the California Business & Professions Code on unfair business practices, it will have to pay civil fines in the amount of $200,000 to the state.

Investigators found that some Interwall employees worked Monday through Saturday, up to twelve hours per day, and received no overtime payments. Interwall also denied rest breaks to employees during their afternoon shifts. Under California law, workers are entitled to a ten-minute break every four hours and to overtime pay for working more than eight hours per day or forty hours per week.

To avoid paying overtime, Interwall set up a business operation with affiliate companies that paid employees, at regular pay rates, for the extra hours. In one case, an employee worked sixty-eight hours for Interwall, but was paid for forty hours by Felts Construction Company and twenty-eight hours by Cinco Construction.

Last December, Brown sued two janitorial companies, Excell Cleaning & Building Services and MO Restaurant Cleaning Services, for committing flagrant violations of California’s basic wage and hour laws. Brown also sued Brinas Corporation, a Southern California drywall contractor, found to be paying workers below minimum wage and also denying overtime wages. The state was awarded nearly $1.4 million in the Brinas case in June of this year. Brown also sued PacifiStaff, a company that was teaching construction companies how to avoid providing state mandated workers’ compensation benefits.

Attorney General Brown enforces California laws that require fair business practices in order to protect working men and women and ensure a level playing field where all businesses adhere to the same rules of conduct. His office has several ongoing investigations into employment, payroll and record-keeping practices of various businesses and construction companies across California.

If you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

Denial of Proper Overtime Pay: A Real Problem With a Real Solution

Denial of Proper Pay for Employees is Rampant

THE PROBLEM - 

     With the economy on a persistent downturn, and the business community feeling the impact, employees are increasingly being denied proper compensation for the work they perform.  This either arises because employers mistakenly believe that their employees are not entitled to compensation guaranteed by the California Labor Code or mislead their employees with respect to such entitlement.

      Unfortunately, most employees are unaware that they were, or are, entitled to additional compensation under California law until either well into their employment, or until after their employment has ended.  California law provides employees with considerable remedies, and subjects employers to substantial liability for violating state law. Denial of proper compensation gives rise to possible legal action against the employer, and potential damages include back pay for overtime, minimum wages, meal and rest breaks, interest, penalties, and attorney’s fees.

THE MISCONCEPTION -

      Many workers are uninformed about their rights to compensation as an employee, thereby giving employers the opportunity to take advantage.  For example, while the concept of minimum wage is generally understood, most employees assume that if they are a manager or supervisor, they are “exempt” employees not entitled to overtime compensation.  Oftentimes, this is not true.  In fact, the employee’s job title is irrelevant.  A “manager” may still be entitled to overtime compensation, as well as other damages, against an employer, regardless of contrary information provided by the employer, and regardless of the specific job designation or title given to the employee.

THE SOLUTION -

      If you have worked overtime hours, or been paid less than the minimum wage required by state law, you should consult an attorney to determine your rights.  Even if you believe that you are not entitled to overtime compensation, or other  wages, an attorney can provide you with a detailed analysis, and advise you whether such a claim is viable.

Interesting Facts About Wage & Hour Claims -

·    An employee who prevails in a wage and hour claim can claim attorney’s fees as part of his or her damages.  However, the employer cannot.

·    A worker’s job title (i.e., “manager”) means nothing as to whether overtime compensation is due.  The true test is the actual duties performed by the worker.

·    A worker who is classified as an independent contractor may still be eligible for overtime compensation and other benefits.

·    A worker who receives a salary may still be entitled to payment of overtime compensation.

·    To prove an overtime claim, a worker does not need any supporting documentation; only his or her testimony showing a “reasonable estimate” of the number of hours worked.

·    The burden of proving that an employee is “exempt” is on the employer.  The worker is always presumed to be entitled to overtime compensation.

The Law Offices of Lowell Steiger Has Expanded its Practice To Include Wage & Hour Claims

      Due to the increased incidence of improper payment  of overtime and minimum wages, the Law Offices of Lowell Steiger and the Law Offices of Steven D. Waisbren are proud to announce their association to represent the rights of California workers to be paid proper compensation under the Labor Code.    We are happy to provide you with a free consultation, including a full analysis of your entitlement to overtime wages, minimum wages, and other back pay and damages. 

If you, or someone you know, have been a victim (or suspect you have been a victim) of Wage & Hour Abuse, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

Work Injuries Resulting From Negligent Third Party (Someone Other Than Your Employer)

Through California's Worker's Compensation Laws injured employees are able to recover from the limited benefits of their employer's insurance.  But what happens in cases where an employee has sustained an on-the-job injury caused by someone other than the employer? Simply put, in addition to filing a workers’ compensation claim, the injured employee may sue this third party (i.e., other person or entity) in tort law. Third party cases may fall into categories such as traffic accidents, slip & fall incidents, defective products, defective equipment or the exposure to toxic substances and any number of other situations.

If a worker suffers a significant injury, it is highly probable that they will not receive sufficient funds from a workers' compensation claim because workers’ compensation claims are not based upon fault whereas tort claims are based on fault and include monetary compensation for pain and suffering.  Therefore, pursuing claims against a negligent third party is critical to ensure maximum compensation for injuries or death.

           Every on-the-job injury should be evaluated by an experienced attorney to determine if a third party claim exists.

The personal injury component of a workers’ compensation claim is oftentimes overlooked.  Here are just a few examples of such cases that my office has successfully handled (all clients were on-the-job but we also sued a third party on their behalf):

·         Male bus driver rear-ended by automobile.  He suffered a knee injury which required arthroscopic surgery. Significant confidential settlement.

·         Female building maintenance person who slipped due to wet carpets when exiting the elevator of her office building.  At the time of the incident, a carpet cleaning company (third party) was cleaning the carpet and failed to post signs warning of the dangerous condition.  Serious knee injuries. Large 6-figure settlement against the carpet cleaning company.

·         U.S. Postal Worker who was in Los Angeles on business suffered severe burns to his left foot due to the hotel’s providing scalding hot water to the shower.  The client almost lost his leg due to complications.  Significant settlement against the hotel.

·         Male law firm investigator was rear-ended while in the field. He suffered injuries sufficient to require him to undergo neck and back surgeries. Policy limit settlement against the driver of the offending vehicle.

·         Female Cal-Trans worker was in a lift changing a street light when an the top of an 18-wheeler grazed the bottom of her bucket, throwing her several feet out of the bucket. She hung in the air by her safety belts.  The worker suffered severe physical and emotional injuries as a result. Significant 6-figure settlement against the trucking company.

The attorney handling the third party portion of the claim must work closely with the workers’ compensation attorney as well as with the workers’ compensation insurance carrier because of the unique legal issues presented in these situations.

If you have suffered a work related injury and have reason to believe that a third-party may bear some liability, please call or e-mail me to discuss your legal rights.

**********************************************************************************************************************

The Law Office of Lowell Steiger Represents Injured Victims

If you have suffered a Personal Injury, Call for a Free Consultation

Contact Attorney Lowell Steiger at (323) 852-1100

or via e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

www.steigerlaw.com

If you have suffered a Personal Injury, Call for a Free Consultation

Workplace Fairness

From their site: Workplace Fairness is a non-profit organization helping to preserve and promote employee rights. This website provides information about job rights and employment issues around the country and in all 50 states. It is for workers, employers, advocates, policymakers, journalists, and anyone else who wants to understand, protect, and strengthen workers' rights. Explore our site and help make the American Dream a reality for all working people.

This is a very comprehensive site, spanning the entire country and all 50 states.  Below is just a smattering of the links to topic areas:

Main Areas

• • Your Rights
• • Job Survival
• • The Issues
• • Features
• • Resources

These constitute just the tip of the iceberg in this incredibly user friendly, comprehensive website.

The Law Office of Lowell Steiger Represents Injured Victims

If you have suffered a Personal Injury, Call for a Free Consultation

Contact Attorney Lowell Steiger at (323) 852-1100

or via e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

www.steigerlaw.com