Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP

Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP We provide experienced and client-focused representation for workers in employment law conflicts.

Employers are subject to strict federal and state regulations regarding wages, work conditions and discriminatory practices. If you are involved in a dispute over violations of employment and wage and hour laws, you have the law on your side. At the law offices of Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP, we provide experienced and client-focused representation for workers in employment law conflicts. Operating

since 1998, our attorneys are experienced litigators with a proven background for providing effective client service both in and out of the courtroom. We understand employment law and work closely with clients to develop a range of strategies to resolve your case positively. We can pursue your claim in state or federal court, and have developed the knowledge to be effective with a strong reputation for dependable representation. We offer a free consultation and handle all employment litigation cases on a contingency basis. You only pay attorneys fees if we help you recover money damages for your claim.

Virus Protection Program Aims To Help U.S. WorkersA new program aimed at helping to protect “high risk” workers from con...
04/01/2021

Virus Protection Program Aims To Help U.S. Workers

A new program aimed at helping to protect “high risk” workers from contracting COVID-19 was announced this week by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The “national emphasis program” is designed to aid in safety enforcement efforts and comes after President Joe Biden issued an executive order about protecting worker health.

At target in the program are those employers that put “the largest number of workers at serious risk of contracting the coronavirus,” the agency announced Friday. What’s more, there are built-in safeguards to help those workers who file complaints about unsafe working conditions.

"This deadly pandemic has taken a staggering toll on U.S. workers and their families. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to protect workers, especially for the many who have no other protection," said Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Jim Frederick. "This program seeks to substantially reduce or eliminate coronavirus exposure for workers in companies where risks are high, and to protect workers who raise concerns that their employer is failing to protect them from the risks of exposure."

Inspections through the national emphasis program, or NEP, will take place at worksites visited in 2020 and are to “enhance” the agency’s previous coronavirus enforcement efforts. It’s set to remain in place for a year, though OSHA can change or cancel the program if the pandemic subsides.

"With more people being vaccinated and the number of infections trending down, we know there is light at the end of the tunnel. But until we are past this pandemic workers deserve a Labor Department that is looking out for their health," added Frederick.

States like California are encouraged to adopt the NEP laid out and must notify OSHA within 60 days if they decide to do so.

Coronavirus Pandemic & Employment Law: Worker Blames Remote Work Request For FiringA California-based food supplier comp...
04/01/2021

Coronavirus Pandemic & Employment Law: Worker Blames Remote Work Request For Firing

A California-based food supplier company is being sued in Georgia federal court by a former employee who claims he was fired for requesting to work remotely during the pandemic.

Alan Varnadoe, 66, filed the suit March 8. He was a scheduler for one of the plants owned by Golden State Foods in Georgia who suffers from an inflammatory lung disease — and survived lung cancer— so thus is at increased risk of complications from the coronavirus, should he get infected. He had worked for the company since 1994, promoting through multiple positions.

According to the complaint, Varnadoe was told that he and other employees could work remotely in March 2020— but were called back into the office about a month later.

Due to his medical issues, the worker asked to continue working from home. Days later, he was terminated.

Though told that the firing was related to the pandemic, no other remote workers he had worked with were let go. What’s more, the food supplier started hiring for a new location in Conyers, Georgia.

According to the complaint:

"After eliminating Varnadoe, GSF [Golden State Foods] has advertised the availability of, and hired for, multiple jobs at its Conyers facility including managerial positions at levels comparable to Varnadoe's former position… Though Varnadoe requested the accommodation of continuing to work remotely, he told Warner [one of his supervisors] he would return to working in person if defendant deemed it necessary."

The supervisor mentioned above, Dawn Warner, allegedly told Varnadoe that he could keep working from home until she could speak with human resources, according to the complaint. However, come April 17, 2020, he was ultimately told he was being let go because of job reductions related to the pandemic, he said.

The former employee is now seeking unspecified damages related to lost compensation, lost benefits, emotional harm and attorneys fees.

Golden State Foods bills itself as “one of the largest diversified suppliers to the foodservice industry” and is headquartered in Irvine.

Judge Drives Uber Suit Out, Says It’s ‘Clear’ What California Voters WantIn case Uber drivers in California didn’t get t...
04/01/2021

Judge Drives Uber Suit Out, Says It’s ‘Clear’ What California Voters Want

In case Uber drivers in California didn’t get the message in November, a federal judge is helping drive home the message: "The will of the voters is clearly against” a group trying to sue for employee misclassification.

The drivers, represented by Ronald L. Zambrano of West Coast Trial Lawyers APLC, were pushing to continue with their suit at a videoconference hearing in February. The hearing was related to a motion to dismiss filed by Uber in light of the passing of Proposition 22-- the most expensive ballot measure in U.S. history that allowed app-based drivers an exemption from California’s gig labor law, or AB5.

"The landscape of this case has certainly changed," U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton

told Ronald L. Zambrano of West Coast Trial Lawyers APLC, according to Law360.com. "The will of the voters is clearly against your clients' interest in this particular lawsuit."

Among the reasons Zambrano provided for why the claims should indeed proceed in Nicholas et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc was that the drivers have federal claims not impacted by Prop. 22. He also noted that Prop 22 is not retroactive.

The drivers originally sued back in December of 2019, nearly a year before Proposition 22 was passed by California voters. They claimed that because they were “misclassified” as independent contractors -- the very matter that the proposition settled -- they lost out on minimum wage and overtime pay. They also claimed they’d missed out on things like proper wage statements, which come with hefty fines in California.

The drivers have been taking a windy road to this point in time: many of the 48 were sent to arbitration in July, some filed another amended complaint in December and then again in January.

Through it all, Hamilton said the drivers were lacking information and support for their arguments.

Read More... https://www.lmlfirm.com/judge-drives-uber-suit-out-says-its-clear-what-california-voters-want/

Address

11801 Pierce Street, Suite 200
Riverside, CA
92505

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

Telephone

+19513201444

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP:

Shortcuts

Share

Category