Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Brian Mathias Law
1 follower
1 follower
Brian Mathias Law's posts

Post has attachment

Do You Make Under $47,476? Read This.

If you make less than $47,476.00, you may be entitled to a substantial amount of unpaid overtime by your employer due to a change in California and federal employment law.

For legal background, there are two employee classifications in California: exempt employees and non-exempt employees.

Exempt employees are not entitled to overtime for any hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week, meal breaks every five hours, rest breaks every four hours, and other protections. A non-exempt employee could work 100 hours per week and not be entitled to anything but their regular salary (ie. $60,000 per year). A properly classified non-exempt employee must be paid a minimum salary of $47,476 beginning December 1, 2016, and must spend 51% of their time performing non-exempt job duties, such as supervising of other employees or perform high-level office work, like accounting or human resources.

Non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime, breaks, and many other protections. For example, a non-exempt employee would be entitled to 20 hours at 1.5 times their regularly hourly rate if they worked 60 hours per week. Statistically, most employees are non-exempt, even employees that spend some time managing other workers or who perform non-manual office work.

Employers regularly misclassify employees as “exempt” to avoid rigorous obligations to pay overtime and provide breaks. However, there is a common misperception among workers and employers that an employer simply needs to pay an employee a flat salary, rather than an hourly wage, in order to classify an employee as “exempt” from overtime. Payment of a salary rather than an hourly wage is just one of many factors in determining whether an employee is properly classified.

Moreover, beginning December 1, 2016, all exempt employees must be paid a minimum salary of $47,476 in order to be properly classified as exempt. This means that any worker paid under $47,476 must be paid overtime and be provided with rest breaks beginning December 1, 2016.

The new law means that many exempt employees will be getting a pay raise to $47,476 or more beginning December 1, 2016, or will be converted to hourly-paid employees. However, many employers may not change their policies in light of the new law.

Are you a Santa Cruz or Monterey County salaried employee and paid less than $47,476.00? If so, call the Law Office of Brian Mathias for a free consultation.

Ready to stand up for your rights?

Post has attachment

Five Common Mistakes for Landlords to Avoid

Each and every landlord-tenant issue will pose a unique challenge or novel issue. However, most landlords can avoid legal problems by learning from these top five most common landlord mistakes.

1. Preparing your own 3-day, 30-day, or 60-day notices

Landlords should never draft and serve their own pre-lawsuit notices. This can be a time consuming and costly mistake.

For background, a landlord is required to serve a pre-lawsuit notice on the tenant in the event of a failure to pay rent or other breach. These are commonly referred to as a “3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” or a “30-Day Notice to Quit”. The notice must meet highly technical requirements in order to survive an unlawful detainer or eviction.

The problem is that landlords often prepare these forms incorrectly. This results in the notice having to be re-served and the landlord having wait another three days, another 30 days, or even another60 days to enforce legal rights in court. Landlords should always have an attorney prepare a pre-lawsuit notice.

2. Not asking for a security deposit

Landlords should always require a security deposit of at least one-month’s rent, or even more. Legally, a landlord may require a security deposit of up to two-months’ rent for an unfurnished property and three-months’ rent for a furnished property.

Collecting a security deposit is often a landlord’s only opportunity to collect money from the tenant in the event of a failure to pay rent. As an illustration, in the event the tenant refuses to pay rent, a lawsuit called an “unlawful detainer” must be initiated. That process, if successful, can take 30 days or longer to complete. During that entire time the tenant is typically not paying any rent.

3. Not promptly objecting to late rent payments or other contract breaches

A common problem occurs when landlords fail to promptly object to late payments of rent or other breaches of the rental contract. This is problematic for landlords because the tenant may successfully argue that the landlord “consented” to the breach.

As an illustration, take the case of Jared who rents an apartment in Capitola and his landlady, Laurel.

Jared started off as a very good tenant from Laurel’s perspective and always paid his rent on the first of each month. Then Jared gradually starts paying the rent a few days late. He never pays a late fee. Secretly Laurel is highly annoyed with Jared for paying the rent late, but she never says anything to Jared about the problem. After 8 months of receiving the rent late, Laurel is fed up and wants to evict Jared for failing to pay rent on time and failing to pay a late fee.

Unfortunately for Laurel, and luckily for Jared, Jared may argue that Laurel consented to his practice of paying rent late and paying it without a late fee. He may argue that the long-standing practice of paying rent late modified the rental contract that called for rent on the first day of the month. Jared has a viable defense to an unlawful detainer.

Landlords should always promptly object to late payments of rent or other breaches of the landlord tenant agreement.

4. Allowing “tenant swapping” and “subletting”

It’s a bad idea for landlords to permit to “tenant swapping”. Tenant swapping occurs in multiple-occupant rentals when one tenant moves out, and the remaining tenants select a new tenant to take the old tenant’s place. Tenant swapping is prevalent in student-occupied housing at UCSC and CSUMB.

“Subletting” occurs when an existing tenant rents out the rental premises for a short period time. The original tenant then becomes a quasi-landlord. Subletting is common during the summer when college students leave Santa Cruz and Monterey at the end of the school year.

Tenant swapping and subletting are problematic for two reasons. First, much of the time tenant swapping and subletting results in the new tenant not signing a written landlord-tenant agreement with the landlord. Failing to have a written landlord-tenant agreement with each tenant creates complications with the security deposit and in the event of an eviction.

Second, tenancies that result from tenant swapping and subletting typically do not go through any basic screening and application process by the landlord. A basic screening process will disclose if the potential tenant has a history of evictions and not paying rent. Would you want a career squatter living in your property? Absolutely not!

5. Using free landlord-tenant agreements

Landlords also encounter problems by using free landlord-tenant agreements and leases from the internet. While some free landlord-tenant agreements may be fine, many are not tailored for California law. Free landlord-tenant agreements may also require the landlord to utilize an expensive arbitration or mediation process in the event of a failure to pay rent. Landlords should always use a landlord-tenant agreement from a trusted source that is based on California law.

Are you a residential landlord in Santa Cruz or Monterey County? Call the Law Office of Brian Mathias for a free consultation.

Ready to stand up for your rights?

Post has attachment
I'm Gonna Get You!! What is “Retaliation” in Employment?

Retaliation is a very misunderstood concept in employment law. Much like the terms “wrongful termination” and “harassment”, the legal definition of “retaliation” is narrower than the common definition.

As commonly understood, retaliation in employment means any form of employer-revenge as a result of the employee speaking out over any workplace issue.

Legally speaking, retaliation is only illegal if the employee engaged in “protected activity”. Not all activities are protected against retaliation. There are dozens of types of protected activities in employment law. The most common forms of protected activity are good faith complaints of unlawful discrimination based on the employee’s disability or health condition, requests for health accommodation, pregnancy, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and other legally protected characteristics.

As an example of un-protected activity, take the case of Julia. Julia has worked as a nurse for five years for Franciscan Hospital in Santa Cruz, California on it’s prestigious cancer treatment ward. Julia is passionate about treating patients with cancer. Unfortunately, Julia gets a new manager, Bob, who abruptly reassigns Julia to the hospital’s incredibly boring podiatry unit. Julia is miserable in the podiatry unit. She repeatedly complains to management and says that her work is “boring”, that it “doesn’t effectively use her skill set” and that “the job stinks”. Eventually, Bob gets tired of Julia’s complaints, and at the end of the year recommends that the hospital terminate Julia’s employment.

Unfortunately nurse Julia does not have a case for retaliation against the hospital. Did Bob the supervisor act morally and ethically in taking away her beloved job on the cancer ward? Probably not. Did Bob most efficiently apply Julia’s skill set at work? Nope. Was it vengeful, mean, and immature for Bob fire Julia after she complained? Absolutely. However, Julia still does not have a case for retaliation because she did not engage in protected activity.

As an example of activity that is protected against retaliation, let’s change the facts and imagine that nurse Julia suffers from diabetes. Nurse Julia has to take daily ten-minute breaks during work to take insulin and test her blood sugar to manage her diabetes. She must also regularly take time during the workweek to attend doctor appointments. Unfortunately, Julia’s new manager, Bob cannot stand Julia’s time away from work and issues her a poor performance review. Bob specifically gives Julia a one-star ranking in the categories of “attendance” and “teamwork” and writes “Julia should manage her health condition on her own personal time, not at work.”

After receiving the poor performance review, Julia submits a written complaint to Bob and the hospital’s CEO about Bob’s comments and states, “I’m being discriminated against because of my diabetes…” and “I will need periodic breaks from work to manage my diabetes.” After receiving the complaint, the hospital CEO fires Julia because he does not want a “complainer” working for him.

Julia has a great case for unlawful retaliation. Julia engaged in protected activity by complaining about Bob’s discriminatory conduct and by requesting a reasonable accommodation to manage her health condition. Julia would be entitled to reinstatement, economic, and emotional distress damages under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Are you an Aptos, Santa Cruz, Watsonville, or Monterey County employee experiencing retaliation at work? Call the Law Office of Brian Mathias before you are terminated for a free consultation.

Ready to stand up for your rights?

Post has attachment
Can I take breaks at work?

All “non-exempt” employees are entitled to legally protected work breaks. A non-exempt employee is typically a non-managerial level employee, an employee who performs a physical job, or any employee who earn less than $41,600 per year. In contrast, an “exempt” employee will typically work in management or have a higher or specialized background. An employee may earn much more than $41,000 per year still be considered “non-exempt.”
Numerically, most employees are non-exempt and are entitled to take protected breaks. An employee’s “classification” as exempt or non-exempt is a very fact-intensive analysis that depends on what the employee spends the majority of his or her time doing.

Employers regularly misclassify their employees. Employers have a financial incentive to classify employees as “exempt” to avoid the obligation to provide legally required breaks and to avoid paying overtime. And many employers simply do not know how rigorous their obligations are under California law. For these reasons, many employees are not provided with rest and meal breaks when they should be.

What are protected rest and meal breaks?

There are three types of protected breaks in California: rest breaks, meal periods, and recovery periods.

Rest Breaks:

Rest breaks are the most common form of legally protected break. All non-exempt employees are entitled to one, paid 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked. Most importantly, the rest break must be “duty-free”. A duty-free rest break means that the employee is not doing any work for the employer.

Meal Periods and Lunch Breaks:

Meal periods or lunch breaks are the next most common type break. One unpaid, half-hour meal period must be provided for every five hours worked. Like rest breaks, the employee must be given a realistic and meaningful opportunity to take a “duty-free” meal period. This means that employees must be permitted to leave work and be completely free of any work obligations. Employees who are required to take their lunch break at their desk are not being provided with a duty-free meal period.

Recovery or Cooldown Periods:

California also requires employers to provide five minute recovery periods or “cooldown periods” or “shade breaks” to employees who work outside in high temperatures. The purpose of this type of break is to prevent heatstroke illness. Recovery periods are the least most common form of protected break because they only apply to employees who work outdoors and in the heat, such as construction workers, agricultural workers, and landscaping employees.

What happens if an employee is deprived of their breaks?

Employers owe their employees penalties if the employee is deprived of the opportunity to take legally protected breaks. One such penalty is called a meal or rest break premium—equivalent to one additional hour’s pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for missed breaks, up to two hours per day. These penalties can add up to thousands of dollars, especially for employees who have been deprived of their breaks for a long period of time.

As an illustration, take the case of José the bartender. José works as a bartender at a popular bar in downtown Santa Cruz. José works five nights per week from 4:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. and is paid $15.00 per hour. José works with one other bartender, Mike. Mike and José are the only employees on site at the bar. The bar is very popular among UCSC students and patrons are lined up at the bar waiting to buy drinks all night long. José has been repeatedly told by the bar’s owner, Jared, under no circumstance should any patron wait longer than 5 minutes at the bar for a drink.

Given the bar owner’s instructions to José about customer wait times, the bar’s popularity, and the understaffing, Jose never has the opportunity to take a duty free break at work.

Unfortunately, José is abruptly terminated after he presses the wrong button on the credit card machine, resulting in a loss of hundreds of dollars to the bar.

José does not have a case for wrongful termination. However, he does have a great case for failure to provide rest and meal breaks. Since José worked ten hours per shift, he should have received two duty-free half hour meal periods and two duty-free 10-minute rest breaks. José can get the maximum penalty of two hours additional pay for every day that he was deprived two or more breaks; $30.00 per day. That totals $7,800 per year going back up to four years, or $31,200.

After unpaid overtime, interest, and state penalties are factored in, José’s damages are in excess of $100,000.

Are you a Santa Cruz, Monterey, or Salinas employee who can’t get a break at work? Contact the Brian Mathias Law. Se habla español.

Ready to stand up for your rights? 

Post has attachment
Employment Law 101: Unemployment Benefits & What You Need to Know

What are Unemployment Benefits?

Unemployment benefits are offered through California’s Employment Development Department (called the “EDD”). Employers pay a tax to the EDD for every one of their employees. That tax covers, in part, unemployment insurance benefits paid to eligible terminated employees. The purpose of the tax is to provide the employee with some compensation while unemployed.

How much do benefits pay?

Benefits do not pay as much as you earned at your old job. Benefits range from $50.00 per week to $1,129.00 per week. It all depends on the amount paid while employed. High-wage earners get paid more than minimum wage earners. Benefits last up to one year. Benefits are now paid to the employee through an individual debit card at Bank of America, not by check.

Can I get benefits if I was fired “for cause”?

In most cases, yes. Unemployment benefits are not paid to employees fired for “misconduct.” However, the legal definition of “misconduct” is narrow. Misconduct is more similar to deliberate and obvious wrongdoing. Examples may include drinking on the job, falsifying records, stealing from an employer, fighting with other employees, and insubordination. Ordinary poor performance, employee mistakes, and most “for cause” terminations do not justify a denial of benefits.

As an illustration, Arnie is a construction worker for Wave City Construction in Santa Cruz. Arnie is assigned the job of digging post holes for a residential fencing job. Arnie is clearly and repeatedly told by his boss, Gilbert, to not break any underground water and gas pipes. Arnie is even provided a metal detector to locate the pipes in advance. Unfortunately, Arnie ruptures a water line. The customer is very upset and terminates its large contract with Wave City Construction. Arnie truthfully admits to his mistake, but Gilbert fires Arnie on the spot.

Was Arnie fired for cause? You bet. Did Arnie make a very expensive mistake? Sure. Did Arnie deserve to get fired? Probably. However, Arnie would still be eligible for unemployment benefits because his poor performance does not sink to the level of misconduct.

What does the employee need to do to receive and keep getting benefits?

First, an employee must apply for benefits, which can be done online. Then an employee must actively look for a new job and be “able and available” to accept work. An employee’s job search efforts are tracked by the EDD through a form provided by the EDD that needs to be completed and signed every week.

It is critical that employees honestly and accurately document their efforts to find a new job and that they timely return any information to the EDD.

If an employee locates “suitable employment” in his or her customary line of work, the employment benefits cease.

What should I do if my benefits are denied?

Even though most employees are eligible to receive benefits, benefits are sometimes denied by EDD. There are typically three reasons behind the denial of benefits. First, the EDD is the perhaps the largest, busiest, and most unruly bureaucracy in California. The first line employees at EDD will often spend just a few minutes on a case before deciding to approve or deny benefits. The employees at EDD can make mistakes leading to a denial of benefits.

Second, vindictive or cheap employers will often contest an employee’s right to benefits. Some employers will provide false information to the EDD about poor performance or misconduct to cause a denial of benefits. Employers also have a financial incentive to contest your benefits.

Third, the denial could have been legitimate. For example, benefits could be properly denied if an employee voluntarily quits their job.

If benefits are denied, you should immediately contact an employment law attorney to help you. In the process of answering your questions about unemployment benefits, an employment law attorney may be able to identify valuable claims for wrongful termination or unpaid overtime that you never knew you had.

Employees have thirty days to appeal a denial of benefits. Employees will then have an opportunity to present their case in-person to an administrative law judge in a mini-trial. The trial is held in an office-like environment at one of the many EDD facilities, including one in Salinas (for Monterey-based employees) and one in San Jose (for Santa Cruz-based employees).

Are you a Monterey, Salinas, San Benito, or Santa Cruz County employee who has been terminated? Contact the Law Office of Brian Mathias for a free consultation.

Ready to stand up for your rights?

Post has attachment
Landlord-Tenant Law 101: Common Eviction Questions

The basic facts behind an eviction lawsuit are simple. A landlord and a tenant enter into an agreement. The landlord promises to provide a habitable property. In exchange, the tenant agrees to pay timely rent. But what happens if a tenant stops paying rent and refuses to leave?

The answer is that the landlord must file a lawsuit to evict the tenant, called an “Unlawful Detainer”.

Can landlords lock out tenants who are not paying rent?

Absolutely not. California has very clear laws that prohibit landlords from locking out their tenants if they fail to pay rent. Other prohibited “self-help” remedies include shutting off utilities or other actions short of an actual lockout that essentially require the tenants to move.

The law is clear: if a landlord wants to evict a tenant, they must use the unlawful detainer process. The landlord needs to go to court and get a judgment ordering the tenants to leave.

How long does an unlawful detainer process take?

An unlawful detainer typically takes between 20 and 30 days to complete. The total amount of time depends on the case’s complexity and how quickly the court schedules a trial. To a landlord, this can be an excruciatingly long time because the tenant will have typically already been in default of rent a week or more before the legal process is initiated.

As an illustration, take the case of Linda the landlord and her tenant, Tim. Tim fails to pay Linda $2,000.00 in rent on the first of May (the due date). Linda repeatedly asks Tim when he will pay, but two weeks go by and Tim still doesn’t pay rent.

Linda must initiate an eviction by serving a legally compliant “3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit”. Tim the tenant will have three days to pay rent, or move out of the property. If Tim fails to pay $2,000 or move out, Linda may file a lawsuit. Tim will have five days after being served with the lawsuit to respond or “answer.” The court is then required to set a trial in 20 days or less. A part-day trial will then take place. Assuming Linda wins the trial, the Court Clerk will issue a Writ of Possession. The Writ of Possession is then served on Tim who will have another five days to move out. At the end of the fifth day, the Sheriff will forcibly remove Tim from the property. Only then does Linda get the property back.

That’s 33-days total. Delays in service of process, court holidays, or other complications will extend the timeline even further.

How much does an eviction cost?

Evictions can cost several hundred to thousands of dollars. It completely depends on the complexity of the underlying facts of the case.

There are two components to the cost of an eviction. The first component of costs are fixed fees charged by the court system, process servers, and the Sheriff’s Office. Those fees will typically cost around $550, including $245 to file the underlying lawsuit.

The next component of costs is attorney-fees. The total attorney fees in any eviction are entirely dependent on the complexity of the case and how much work needs to be done.

Do I need an attorney to file an Unlawful Detainer?

Yes. Landlords are not legally required to have an attorney represent them in court or file legal documents. However, they should be discouraged from doing so. Unlawful detainers are highly technical and it’s often better in the long run to get advice through an attorney from the outset to avoid long delays.

For legal context, a judge will only evict a tenant if the landlord can demonstrate strict legal compliance with all procedural requirements. In other words, one slip up can result in the landlord having to re-start the entire process.

The laws and rules surrounding unlawful detainers are very technical. As an example, what if your tenant owed $2,000 in back rent, $150 in late fees, and $200 in utilities? Would you know to serve two separate notices, a 3-Day to Pay Rent or Quit and a 3-Day to Perform a Covenant or Quit? Would you know the difference between the notices? The rules can be complicated. It’s often better to talk to an attorney rather than face a delay.

Are you a Monterey, Salinas, or Santa Cruz County landlord with additional questions about an unlawful detainer? Contact the Law Office of Brian Mathias for a free consultation.

Ready to stand up for your rights?


Post has attachment
Employment Law 101: What's a Severance Agreement?

Terminated employees in California are often handed multiple documents from their employer upon termination. These papers will commonly include a three to ten-page “Severance Agreement”. Understanding the ramifications of a Severance Agreement, especially in the emotional blur of a termination, is very difficult without help.

So what is a Severance Agreement?

In plain English a Severance Agreement is a contract between an employer and a soon-to-be terminated or an already terminated employee. In the contract, the employer agrees to pay the employee money in exchange for a promise from the employee never to sue the employer. That’s the basic idea.

The amount of money offered—or negotiated—between the employer and the employee may range from several thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars. The amount offered depends on the employer’s actual or perceived exposure to a lawsuit from the employee, the employee’s salary, their length of employment, as well as other factors.

For legal background, no California law requires private employers to offer a Severance Agreement. Unless previously obligated under contract, employers are legally permitted to fire employees and offer them $0.00 in Severance.

So then, why would employers want to pay more money to an employee that they have already decided to fire? Well, because it requires employees to give up something very valuable in return: the right to sue.

Employees have a host of legal rights in California. These rights include the right to not be terminated for an illegal reason, such as a discriminatory or retaliatory reason (see my post on "Employment Law Myths--BUSTED!! Myth: If I’m paid a salary, I’m not entitled to overtime"). It also includes the right to be paid overtime in many situations (see my post on "What is a "Wrongful" Termination?"). Employers who violate employment laws face expensive and drawn out lawsuits. But not if the employer can get the employee to sign a Severance Agreement. That’s why an employer wants you to sign the Severance Agreement.

If offered a Severance Agreement, employees should not sign the agreement without knowing if they have a legal claim against their employer and the value of those claims. The only way to do that is to contact an employment law attorney. Plaintiffs’ employment law’ attorneys often provide a free or steeply discounted initial consultation to review Severance Agreements.

As a hypothetical but common example, let’s take the case of Ryan. Ryan works at a bustling restaurant in Monterey as a waiter. Ryan is given the job “Front House Manager”. Ryan regularly arrives at work at 10:00 a.m. and does not leave until 11:00 p.m. Despite Ryan’s title, Ryan spends just 10% of his time managing other employees. 90% of Ryan’s time is spent cleaning and waiting tables. Ryan is never paid overtime, despite working 13 hours per shift. Nor is Ryan provided the opportunity to take duty-free rest and meal breaks.

After a particularly long shift, Ryan asks the hotel owner about getting overtime pay. In response, the employer angrily tells Ryan, “You should be thankful to have a job at all! I’m not paying you overtime.” When Ryan shows up the next day, he is fired and is handed a Severance Agreement offering $2,500.

Luckily, Ryan immediately calls an employment law attorney. During a free initial phone consultation, Ryan is surprised to learn that he has three potentially large claims against his former employer: an overtime claim worth $45,000; a meal and rest break case worth $6,000; and a retaliation case for firing him in response to asking for overtime. After Ryan learns that he has a case worth $75,000, he refuses to sign the Severance Agreement.

Ryan may now negotiate for a greater amount of money in the Severance Agreement, or proceed with a lawsuit against his employer.

Are you a Monterey, Salinas, or Santa Cruz County employee who has been offered a Severance Agreement? Contact the Law Office of Brian Mathias for a free consultation.

Ready to stand up for your rights?

Post has attachment
Employment Law Myths--BUSTED!!

Myth: If I’m paid a salary, I’m not entitled to overtime.

Employers and employees frequently believe that if the employee is paid a salary, the employee is automatically disqualified from overtime. This is not the legal case at all.

For legal background, there are two methods of paying an employee. One is by salary, typically paid every two weeks, resulting in a set amount paid per year (ex: $60,000). The other is “hourly” where the employee is paid a wage for every hour worked (ex: $15.00 per hour).

Next, employees are placed into two legal categories or “classifications”. The first classification is called “non-exempt”. A non-exempt employee is entitled to time-and-a-half for any hours worked in excess of eight per day or forty per week and other protections. The second employee classification is called “exempt”. Exempt employees are not entitled to overtime. If a properly classified exempt employee works 60 hours per week, they are not entitled to an additional twenty hours of overtime pay.

The process of properly classifying employees as “exempt” or “non-exempt” can be legally and factually intensive. It depends on a variety of factors. Most important is the employee’s actual job duties and what the employee spent 51% or more of their time at work doing. Other factors include the employee’s level of responsibility, the amount of discretion given to the employee to perform their job, whether the employee performs manual labor, and whether the employee manages others. One factor is whether the employee is paid hourly or by salary.

Employers often oversimplify the process and only look at the salary requirement, and ignore the other factors when classifying employees.

As an illustration, let’s take the case of Ann. Ann is 5-year assistant manager at the Santa Cruz grocery store, Veggies-R-Us. Ann makes a salary of $45,000. Even though Ann averages 12 hours per day and 60 hours per week, she is not paid any overtime.

Ann spends the majority of her day stocking the shelves at Veggies-R-Us and working as a cashier. Ann’s job as an assistant manager requires her to supervise lower-level employees, which takes about 20% of her overall time. However, Ann has no authority or input in the hiring and firing process of the employees she supervises. One day, Ann is fired on the mistaken belief that she stole a box of broccoli. Ann then calls a lawyer complaining of wrongful termination.

Ann would not have a case for wrongful termination. (See my other article “What is Wrongful Termination?”). However, Ann would have a great case for employee misclassification and for unpaid overtime.

Ann spent more than 51% of her time stocking shelves and working as a cashier, both non-exempt activities under the California Labor Code. Only a fraction of her overall time was spent supervising other employees. Additionally, Ann did not have any true discretion or “independent judgment” over how lower-level employees were hired or fired.

While it’s true that Ann’s job title is that of “assistant store manager”, job titles are irrelevant in determining employee-classification and whether overtime is owed. Ann was not a true manager.

Veggies-R-Us will correctly argue that Ann was a “salaried employee”. However, paying Ann on a salaried basis is just one of many factors in determining Ann’s correct classification. Ann does not fall within any of California’s recognized exempt classifications.
Ann has a great case for overtime. She is entitled for up to three-years’ overtime (time-and-a-half) going back three years. That would be about $32.00 per hour for each hour of overtime worked, or $96,000 for the last three years. Ann is also entitled to a host of penalties, money for missed rest and meal breaks, interest on unpaid overtime. Ann has a case in excess of $125,000.

Are you a Monterey, Salinas, or Santa Cruz County employee like Ann who works long hours but receives no overtime pay? Contact the Law Office of Brian Mathias for a free consultation.

Ready to stand up for your rights? 

Post has attachment
Woof! California dog bite law

Most Californians understand that if they are bit by a dog, some laws will apply. But what exactly does the law say?

California’s dog bite law is most clearly understood through California Jury Instruction Number 463. That jury instruction breaks down the four essential elements of dog bite law (called “prima facie” elements in legalese) into plain English.

California dog bite law is a breed of “strict liability.” Strict liability means that legal responsibility for harm does not require any showing of negligence or wrongdoing. Dog owners can be held responsible for the harm from a dog bite, no matter how carefully they guard or restrain their dogs. It does not matter if the dog was known to be dangerous. Nor does it matter if the dog was leashed.
The first element of California dog bite law is to establish that the defendant actually owned the dog that bit the plaintiff. People who are bitten by a stray dog or a dog with an unknown owner will not be able to recover under the law. If you are bitten by a dog, immediately ascertain who owns the dog. You should also immediately call animal control or the police to help you, if necessary.

Second, a plaintiff must establish that they were bitten while on public property or while lawfully on private property. Illustrated, if a dog bite occurs in the Aptos Polo Grounds Dog Park, on Its Beach in Santa Cruz, or on Alvarado Street in downtown Monterey, the plaintiff has established the second element of their case.

But what does “lawfully on private property” mean? Friends or guests who are invited into the dog owner’s home are “lawfully” on private property. There is no legal immunity for dog bites that occur within the dog owner’s home. (See California Civil Code Section 3342 (a).) UPS drivers, pizza delivery drivers, general contractors, and any others who come onto property to perform a service are also included under this definition. Burglars, trespassers, and others not “lawfully” on private property will not satisfy this statute.

The third element requires that the plaintiff was harmed by the dog bite. This does not require the dog bite to break the skin, draw blood, or cause a wound. (See the case of Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 173 [Swamp cooler repairman bitten on leg through trousers by a German Shepherd named “Timber”.]). Nor is there exclusion for little dogs that could conceivably cause no permanent or lasting injury. A nip from a Chihuahua will establish liability.  

Lastly, the bite must be a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiff’s harm. To be “substantial” the bite must merely be “more than remote or trivial” in causing harm. This requirement is usually easily established in the context of a dog bite. However, it can get complicated.

As an illustration, take the imaginary case of Sally. Sally has chronic arthritis in both wrists resulting in constant pain and a decreased range of wrist motion. One day, Sally is bitten on the wrist by Willi the German Shepherd at Its Beach in Santa Cruz. The long-term effects of the bite cause even more pain in Sally’s wrists and further decrease her already limited range of wrist motion.

It does not matter that Sally had a preexisting harm or condition with her wrists before the bite. Sally merely needs to establish that the bite from Willi the German Shepherd was more than a “remote or trivial” cause in aggravating her preexisting wrist condition. Sally still has a great case under California’s dog bite law.

For any questions on California dog bite law, please call Brian Mathias Law, serving both sides of the Monterey Bay. Ready to stand up for your rights?
Wait while more posts are being loaded