2017 Rising Star Selection
For the second consecutive year, Srourian Law Firm founder Daniel Srourian has been selected as a Southern California Rising Star!
Rising Stars is a research-driven, peer influenced rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. It is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of licensed attorneys in the State of California. To be eligible for inclusion in Rising Stars, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger or in practice for ten years or less.
The results of the survey will appear in Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine in July 2017.
Srourian Law Firm congratulates Daniel on his selection as a Rising Star!
Does California Law Require A Day Of Rest? California Supreme Court Set To Weigh In
So much for free will.
On February 7, 2017, the California Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. [S224611. (9th Cir,. No. 12-57130; 778 F.3d 834, Central District of California; 8:10-cv-00109- CJC-MLG.)] The California Supreme Court will decide on the number of consecutive days an employee may legally work without running afoul of the state's so-called "day of rest" statute. The issue arose when two employees of Nordstrom claimed the employer required them to work for more than six consecutive days without a day off, in violation of the law.
Per the Court's official Calendar, the questions presented are: “(A) California Labor Code section 551 provides that ‘[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.’ Is the required day of rest calculated by the workweek, or is it calculated on a rolling basis for any consecutive seven-day period?
(B) California Labor Code section 556 exempts employers from providing such a day of rest ‘when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof.’ (Emphasis added.) Does that exemption apply when an employee works less than six hours in any one day of the applicable week, or does it apply only when an employee works less than six hours in each day of the week? (C) California Labor Code section 552 provides that an employer may not ‘cause his employees to work more than six days in seven.’ What does it mean for an employer to ‘cause’ an employee to work more than six days in seven: force, coerce, pressure, schedule, encourage, reward, permit, or something else?”
The lower Ninth Circuit said it found the interpretations proffered by both sides plausible, discovered no useful legislative history, and unearthed no California appellate law to provide a guide, so it turned to the California Supreme Court with "the obligations of thousands of California employers, and the rights of tens of thousands of California workers … at stake." Nicely done.
The amicus brief is a must read! You can read it by clicking here.
Detailed discussion
In 2009, Christopher Mendoza filed suit against his former employer, Nordstrom. According to Mendoza, during his tenure as a barista at a Nordstrom espresso bar and a sales representative in the cosmetics department, the national retailer violated Sections 551 and 552 of the California Labor Code, the so-called "day of rest" law.
Section 551 provides that "[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven," while Section 552 states that "[n]o employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven." California Labor Code Section 556 exempts an employer from the day of rest requirement "when the total hours [worked by an employee] do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof."
Mendoza claimed that he worked more than six consecutive days on three occasions, one time working 11 days straight (although working fewer than six hours on two of those days), seven straight days another time (with fewer than six hours on three days), and eight consecutive days (five with fewer than six hours). On each of these occasions, Mendoza was not originally scheduled to work more than six consecutive days but did so after being asked by a coworker or supervisor to fill in for another employee.
A second employee, Megan Gordon, joined the suit in April 2011. She worked as a fitting room attendant at a Nordstrom Rack store for more than six consecutive days on one occasion, although on two of those days she worked fewer than six hours.
After a two-day bench trial, a California federal court judge sided with Nordstrom.
Section 551 applies on a rolling basis to any consecutive seven-day period rather than a workweek as defined by an employer (such as Nordstrom's Sunday-to-Saturday schedule), the court said. While that would appear to mean the defendant violated Sections 551 and 552, Labor Code Section 556 exempted Nordstrom from liability because each plaintiff worked fewer than six hours on at least one day in the consecutive seven days of work. And even if the exemption did not apply, Nordstrom did not "cause" Mendoza or Gordon to work more than seven consecutive days because they voluntarily chose to waive their rights and work extra days, the court added.
"The day of rest statutes only prohibit an employer from requiring or causing an employee to work more than six consecutive days," U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote. "An employee can waive that protection if he or she wants to, which is exactly what Mr. Mendoza and Ms. Gordon did here."
This conclusion was consistent with the regulatory history of the "day of rest" law and was also confirmed by the California Supreme Court inBrinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, where the court found that employees could waive their right to a meal break, the court explained.
Gordon and Mendoza appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A panel of the federal appellate court considered the issue and, finding no controlling California precedent and an ambiguous statutory text, turned to the California Supreme Court for help.
The panel certified three questions to the state's highest court:
(A) California Labor Code section 551 provides that "[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven." Is the required day of rest calculated by the workweek, or is it calculated on a rolling basis for any consecutive seven-day period?
(B) California Labor Code section 556 exempts employers from providing such a day of rest "when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof." Does that exemption apply when an employee works less than six hours in any one day of the applicable week, or does it apply only when an employee works less than six hours in each day of the week?
(C) California Labor Code section 552 provides that an employer may not "cause his employees to work more than six days in seven." What does it mean for an employer to "cause" an employee to work more than six days in seven: force, coerce, pressure, schedule, encourage, reward, permit, or something else?
Srourian Law Firm Delivers $1.04 Million Jury Verdict In Los Angeles Superior Court
On August 4, 2016, a Pasadena, California jury awarded over $1 million in economic and non-economic damges to a client of Srourian Law Firm following a three-day jury trial.
The case titled William Deloney v. Esmarelda Martinez, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC508736, alleged personal injuries to 69-year-old William Deloney of Los Angeles, California, after an August 12, 2012 motor vehicle accident that occured on the 110 South Freeway.
The top offer from Defendant's insurance carrier to Srourian Law Firm on the eve of trial was $20,000.00, despite Deloney incurring over $42,000.00 in unpaid medical bills. After four years of litigation, the matter proceeded to trial in Los Angeles Superior Court Pasadena Courthouse on August 1, 2016.
Teaming up with Pejman Ben-Cohen, Esq. of Beverly Hills-based Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley LLP, Srourian Law Firm attained justice for William Deloney with an award in excess of $1 million.
Judge Grants Final Approval For Hotel Workers Class Action
Srourian Law Firm announces that the Hon. William F. Highberger of the Los Angeles Superior Court has granted approval of the $850,000.00 settlement achieved in Joseph Sylvester v. Starwood Hotels. Srourian Law Firm was appointed as lead counsel in early 2016, and has vigorously litigated the case for nearly three years.
At a fairness hearing held on Tuesday, Judge Highberger signed off on the settlement, which is estimated to provide a net benefit of about $1,090 to each of about 440 former and current employees of the W Hotel in Hollywood, California.
You can read more about the approval by clicking here.
New Changes To The Private Attorney General Act
On June 15, 2016, the California Legislature passed SB 836, which contained numerous amendments to The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). PAGA authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state of California for Labor Code violations. While not all of the original proposed amendments were enacted, SB 836 makes several significant changes to PAGA. These changes, to go in effect on June 27, 2016, provides:
• The Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), the agency which coordinates workforce programs by overseeing seven major departments that serve California businesses and workers now has 60 days to review a notice under Labor Code § 2699.3(a). Prior to the amendments, the LWDA had 30 days to review. Additionally, the time for the LWDA to investigate a claim is extended to 180 days (it was 120 days);
• A Plaintiff cannot file a civil action until 65 days after sending notice to the LWDA (previously 33 days);
• The LWDA must be provided with a copy of any proposed settlement of a PAGA action at the time it is submitted to the court;
• A copy of the court’s judgment and any other order that awards or denies PAGA penalties must be provided to LWDA;
• All items that are required to be provided to the LWDA must be submitted online, including PAGA claim notices and employer cure notices or other responses;
• A $75 filing fee is required for a new PAGA claim notice and also for any initial employer response to a new PAGA claim notice. The filing fee may be waived if the party on whose behalf the notice or response is filed is entitled to in forma pauperis status; and
• When a plaintiff files a new PAGA lawsuit in court, a filed-stamped copy of the complaint must be provided to LWDA. This requirement only applies to cases in which the initial PAGA claim notice was filed on or after July 1, 2016.
Srourian Law Firm Leads The Way In Attaining $850,000.00 Settlement For California Labor Code Violations
A California wage and hour employment class-action led by Srourian Law Firm lawsuit reached an important milestone one week ago when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger approved a settlement of $850,000.00 for claims centered on the deprivation of overtime pay, meal periods, rest periods, and various other California Labor Code violations.
The California wage and hour lawsuit (Joseph Sylvester v. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC536399, in Central District of Los Angeles) was filed in 2014 by named plaintiffs Joseph Sylvester and Anthony Wiktor. The settlement benefits all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Starwood at the W Hotel in Hollywood who worked from February 14, 2010 through the date of settlement approval.
On Monday, March 28, Judge Highberger granted preliminary approval of the $850,000.00 settlement. The next step in the process comes later in the year, when Judge Highberger will hear arguments for a final fairness and approval hearing on August 3, 2016.
2016 Rising Star Selection
Srourian Law Firm founder Daniel Z. Srourian has been selected to the 2016 Southern California Rising Star list.
Rising Stars is a research-driven, peer influenced rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. It is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of licensed attorneys in the State of California. To be eligible for inclusion in Rising Stars, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger or in practice for ten years or less.
The results of the survey will appear in Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine in July 2016.
Srourian Law Firm would like to congratulate Daniel on his selection as a Rising Star!
Srourian Law Firm Files Lawsuit Against Marriott LAX Hotel For Violating The California Labor Code
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current employees of the Marriott LAX Hotel in Los Angeles, California. The lawsuit alleges the hotel violated various labor code provisions, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay minimum wage, among several other violations.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit alleges that the Marriott's conduct violates California’s labor laws. The suit seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, in addition to penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Marriott LAX. If you or someone you know works or has worked for The Shore Hotel, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Read a copy of the filed lawsuit here.
Srourian Law Firm Files Lawsuit Against The Shore Hotel In Santa Monica For Violating The California Labor Code
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current employees of The Shore Hotel located in Santa Monica, California. The lawsuit alleges the hotel violated various labor code provisions, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay minimum wage, among several other violations.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit alleges that The Shore Hotel's conduct violates California’s labor laws. The suit seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, in addition to penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against The Shore Hotel. If you or someone you know works or has worked for The Shore Hotel, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Read a copy of the filed lawsuit here.
Women and Equal Pay: It’s about Time
California took a major step last month toward closing the lingering wage gap between men and women, as Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 358, one of the toughest pay equity laws in the nation. California and the federal government already have laws banning employers from paying women less than men for the same jobs. The new California Fair Pay Act broadens that prohibition by saying bosses cannot pay employees less than those of the opposite sex for “substantially similar work,” even if their titles are different or they work at different sites.
Women in California who work full time are paid substantially less — a median 84 cents for every dollar — than men, according to a U.S Census Bureau report this year.
Women have been struggling for years with the idea of unequal pay compared to their male counterparts. Ever since women entered the workforce on the greatest scale during World War II while the men went off to fight, they have been forced to do those jobs at a fraction of what the men were paid. Then, to add insult to injury, they were told to go back home where they belonged once the war ended and men returned to the workforce, displacing the female workers in the factories and other positions. Why would women want to go back home and clean house, not earning anything, when they could be working and helping their families more working alongside the men? Thus, the move towards women’s rights began.
It’s taken years for women to be seen as capable of jobs typically meant for men because of the physicality of the position. Men scoffed at the very notion that women could hack it at jobs based in the fields of construction and public service, such as police and firefighting. As women moved more and more into the different areas where men once dominated, women fought and struggled to just be accepted at first, not worrying about the fact they made less. The most important thing was to change men’s perceptions of what women could do besides making a home the man’s sanctuary after a hard day’s work or gracing the workplace in roles that women were relegated like secretaries and nurses. While these could be fulfilling for some, these few positions weren’t going to satisfy all.
Why men didn’t see this revolution coming, no one knows. If men had been told they could only hold two positions, they’d been knocking down doors and beating their way to more equality. It would be the accepted response, but women doing the same thing was just unthinkable. So, women pushed and pushed until they reached at least the acceptance of the majority as they took positions like doctors, pilots, lawyers, and more. Women built themselves up and worked their way to the top of the corporate world, breaking the glass ceiling holding them back. This glass ceiling had been their ultimate triumph. Or so they thought.
As women worked their way up to some of the top positions, they also began to notice something that was just as disturbing as not being allowed to work in the first place. Men with less seniority, less experience, and less education, but in the same position as a woman was getting paid the full dollar compared to women getting just 84% of that dollar. How this possible? What makes men believe they deserve more for less work or at least less entitlement? They haven’t put in the requisite number of hours with the company or the time they need to have the same education. As women, we’re trained to do all we can just to “keep” up with a man, which usually means putting in more hours and more results to prove they’re just as good as men. Why shouldn’t men do the same? With the way the economy bounces up and down, jobs aren’t as secure as they once were. Why should men do less and still get paid more? They shouldn’t.
This belief has finally come to pass with the laws passed within recent years that force companies to pay their employees the same wages, no matter their gender or how good they look in a skirt. These laws have helped women to close some of the pay gaps they’d been experiencing. However, with every law man has created, there’s a loophole somewhere where the company’s lawyers have found to keep women on the lower pay scale. They were safe because employees aren’t allowed to speak about their wages. No matter the rules, employees are going to talk, and they did. Guess what women found out? The biggest, though not really, shock of all is that women are still not paid the same wages as men. While the law had helped women bridge the gap when they shared the same exact position as men, that law had some loopholes indeed.
Come to find out, the law didn’t specify that these men and women had to have the same wages if they were in different locations within the company from different departments to different job sites. They also didn’t have to pay the same wage if the fields were similar, but not the same. For example, a housekeeper and a janitor could be paid differently even though their jobs are essentially the same. One manager could be paid more at one location compared to another manager in another city even if they had the same training or the woman had more training than the man. These loopholes worked well for the company because they could save money by having this inequality continue and there weren’t any consequences to say differently.
Well, now women have the best recourse for themselves in the state of California coming to them on January 1, 2016. This new law will make these loopholes punishable by the court system. It’s holding these companies accountable for their injustices against women in their ranks. Those loopholes are no longer sacred because employees are now free to discuss their salaries and compare them to others within the same ranks as them. This is going to lead to some major shifts within the companies’ policies or they’ll have to face the consequences that’ll cost them more. Women are now able to say that the janitor in the lobby and their housekeeping positions deserve the same pay rate.
With this new law, women have the newest right to stand up and speak out against the pay gap that still exists without fear of punishment from the company. The company can’t take their right to speak up away from them any longer. The company has to stand up and admit to the pay gap or prove that the gap is there for a reason that doesn’t pertain to gender. If they can’t prove it, women now have the right to sue for the damages done by the company and the wages that are due for these women. Just because a woman has the same title and works in a different department or at a different location within the city or state, it doesn’t mean she isn’t entitled to the same pay as the man with the same position or role within the company. On January 1st, she can stand up for herself and speak out against this.
While there are some fears that this is going to cost California because companies are going to leave or just not build locations within the state, the notion that this will hurt in the long term is short sighted. Sure, it may hurt in the beginning since some companies may do just as the scenario is laid out, but as more states push through this type of legislation, companies are going to be forced to change sooner or later. It’s just the way the times are continually changing. The important thing to remember is that this is a momentous occasion in the fight for women’s rights everywhere.
So, if you, as a woman, believe that your company hasn’t been paying you what you deserve while the men within the company in similar positions are earning more, you should reach out to a local law office and fight back. You deserve the right to be paid the same. You put in the effort, the time, and received the training and experience you need for your position. Don’t just stand back and allow men to continue making more when you deserve the same as them. You have a voice and that voice should ring out against this injustice, against the pay gaps that still exist, and most of all, against the inequality that these companies are still perpetuating. Make them accountable. Hold them to the new higher standard of this law.