Like all fifty states, California has a law or statute that applies to wrongful death (§ 377.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In California, surviving loved ones may recover damages when a family member dies because of another person’s wrongful negligent, reckless, or intentional act. Wrongful acts that may underlie a claim for wrongful death include, but are not limited to, the following acts: Motor vehicle accidents “Slip-and-fall” accidents Medical malpractice Child abuse or neglect Murder or manslaughter Pedestrian accidents Elder abuse or neglect Assault and battery In most cases, a wrongful death action must be brought within two years of injury or death. All claimants with potential claims must join in a single wrongful death action. California law requires that there may only be one lawsuit against a defendant. The following persons may file a wrongful death action in California: The decedent’s surviving spouse, The decedent’s domestic partner, The decedent’s children, and issue…Read More
As 2021 ends and 2022 begins, COVID-19 continues to significantly impact all aspects of life, including the workplace. Paid sick leave (PSL) and workplace safety are once again at the forefront of the effects. *Paid Sick Leave For many California workers, the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated time away from work. Under state law at the time that the pandemic began, workers had only three days of paid sick leave available. Senate Bill 95 and federal tax credits expired on October 1st. SB 95 provided workers with two weeks of PSL if they were infected with the virus or needed to care for relatives or children who were infected. A California Division of Occupational Safety and Health emergency rule, renewed December 16th, allowed some workers to be paid for 10 days if they become infected with or were exposed to the virus. However, this rule did not apply to leave to care for sick relatives or children. Also, coverage…Read More
As employers throughout the country experience crippling labor shortages, some are turning to former employees, at least, temporarily to solve the problem. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has facilitated this process by removing obstacles that may have prevented employers from rehiring retirees and discouraged workers from continuing to work after reaching retirement age. The IRS recently provided guidance with Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) on two issues that relate to the payment of retirement benefits to employees who continue to work after reaching retirement age or when rehired after retirement. The first issue clarified by the IRS in this guidance occurs when an employee retires and begins to receive retirement benefits from a qualified pension or other retirement plans. IRS rules for plan qualification generally require that the worker’s retirement is a bona fide retirement for the individual to receive retirement benefits. These rules apply to plans that do not permit in-service withdrawals of retirement benefits, Some…Read More
In October 2021, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked the Supreme Court not to overturn the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of a lawsuit initially filed by Northwestern University workers. The Chamber said that reviving the lawsuit would increase the recent upsurge of lawsuits under ERISA. In April Hughes v. Northwestern University, Northwestern University retirement plan participants filed a class-action lawsuit charging the school with mismanaging their retirement savings. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Council of Life Insurers, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Business Roundtable, ERISA Industry Committee, Professional Liability Underwriting Society, and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association joined in the amicus curiae brief in the Hughes case. In the brief, the groups claimed that ERISA suits have substantially increased in the last two decades and that the Supreme Court should only allow class actions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to proceed to the discovery phase if they contain credible allegations. "What…Read More
In 2019, Governor Newsom signed AB 5 into law in September of 2019. It added § 2750.3 to the California Labor Code which adopted and broadened the common law "ABC Test." This test determines how to classify an "employee" under the California Labor Code the California Unemployment Insurance Code, and for purposes related to Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. The law became effective on January 1, 2020. However, different timeframes apply depending on the circumstances. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about independent contractors under California law. Why is the Classification of Workers Important? An independent contractor has different legal rights and obligations than an employee. The distinction may have extensive consequences for workers and business enterprises. Employees are entitled to minimum wage, overtime pay, business expense reimbursements, and other vital benefits. Employers that misclassify workers as independent contractors avoid paying wages and overtime premiums, as well as providing meal and rest breaks.…Read More
In personal injury cases. an at-fault party may avoid liability, in whole or in part, by asserting certain defenses. The following is a list of defenses in personal injury cases. *Comparative Fault Comparative fault, also known as comparative negligence, is a defense that apportions damages based on the parties’ percentage of fault for the accident. For example, a party who is only 20% at fault for causing the accident will only be liable for paying 20% of the damages. Comparative fault replaced contributory negligence as a defense in California. Contributory negligence mandates that a plaintiff who is even the least bit negligent is not entitled to any recovery. A few states still use contributory negligence, but the remainder uses some type of comparative negligence system. California uses a pure comparative negligence system. This means that personal injury plaintiffs may still recover some portion of damages even if they are 99% at fault for the accident.…Read More
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act” or “Act”) was enacted on August 4, 1988, and became effective on February 4, 1989, to protect American workers. The Act offers protection to workers, their families, and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. Employers are legally required to provide this notice to either affected workers or their representatives, such as a labor union, to the State dislocated worker unit, and to the appropriate unit of local government. Employers are covered by the WARN Act if they have 100 or more employees. This number does not include employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and employees who work an average of fewer than 20 hours a week. Employees entitled to notice under the WARN Act include hourly and salaried workers, as well as supervisory and managerial employees.…Read More
In California, lawyers are prohibited from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unconscionable or illegal fee. There are many types of fee arrangements that are used by lawyers, some by choice and some that are mandated by law. Contingency fees are one type of fee arrangement used by attorneys. The amount of the fee a lawyer receives is contingent upon the result the lawyer obtains and often on the phase of litigation in which the dispute settles. Contingency fees are based on a percentage of any award received by a client and derived from a successful jury verdict or settlement. If the case is unsuccessful, the client is not required to pay the lawyer any fees except for the costs of litigating or trying to settle the case. Although contingency fee percentages may vary, one-third (33 1/3 %) has been the common percentage used for several decades, especially for personal injury cases. Ethical…Read More
California law in Labor Code § 351 prohibits employers and their agents from sharing or keeping any portion of a tip or gratuity left for or given to one or more employees by customers. it is also illegal for employers to make wage deductions from gratuities, as well as illegal to use them as direct or indirect credits against an employee's wages. A "gratuity" is defined by the California Labor Code as a tip, gratuity, or money that has been paid or given to or left for an employee by a patron of a business over and above the actual amount due for services rendered or for goods, food, drink, articles sold or served to patrons. Under California law, tips or gratuities are the sole property of the employee to whom they are given. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about the law related to tips and gratuities. *What is a tip or gratuity? A tip is…Read More
The statute of limitations represents the window of time that a plaintiff is permitted under the law to bring a lawsuit in a civil court. (Criminal proceedings also have statutes of limitation.) The California Code of Civil Procedure contains the time limitations for initiating most types of civil claims. A person who fails to file a lawsuit within the statutory period prescribed for a specific type of claim is forever barred from bringing the claim in the future. *Personal Injury Against Private Individuals or Entities Most personal injury claims fall under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 CCP and must be brought within two years. These include “an action for assault, battery, or injury to, or the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.” This statute applies to personal injury accidents, wrongful death, assault, battery, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful act, or negligent act. *Personal Injury Claims Against the…Read More
