Employment

employment

Plaintiff nanny sues employer parents for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on father’s videoing of Plaintiff in shower.

Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, sues for multi-million dollar share of sales proceeds of business.

Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually harassed for years by supervisor/fellow employee. Defendant claims that employee’s actions were consensual and that when they were notified of the harassment by plaintiff, the employee was terminated.

Plaintiff claims that he was harassed and discriminated against by his supervisor based upon his national origin, and that their employer wrongfully terminated him. Defendant claimed that he was neither harassed nor discriminated against and that he quit and was not terminated.

Plaintiff claims that he was harassed and discriminated against by his supervisor based upon his tribe, which was different from the supervisor’s own, although they were from the same African country. Defendant denied that he was harassed or discriminated against by any of its employees.

Plaintiff claims that he was entitled to a 50% share of income from business he brought into defendant company, and that he was not paid either this commission or overtime for hours he worked. Defendant asserts that no such agreement was ever made and Plaintiff was correctly compensated for all work he performed.

Plaintiff worked as a sushi chef and claimed that he was entitled to overtime for his work. Defendant claimed that he was an exempt employee and that in any event he did not work more than 40 hours a week.

Plaintiff worked as a grounds caretaker and was required to live in premises provided by the employer, and claimed that he was entitled to be paid for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on a minimum wage basis. Defendant claimed that he was an exempt employee, that he only entitled to be paid for hours he was actually working and that he had been paid properly.

Plaintiff claims that she was wrongfully terminated and discriminated against by defendant based upon her disability, caused by a work accident, and also claimed that defendant failed to accommodate her disability and failed to properly interact with her. Defendant alleges that it only terminated plaintiff after she refused to return to work after being sent home for being insubordinate to her supervisor, and that it properly handled her disability.

Plaintiff college administrator sued defendant college for wrongful termination. College defendant claimed that plaintiff’s separation from employment was proper and then went out of business, leaving insurance to cover claims.

Plaintiff sued defendant hospital for wrongful termination, which he claimed was retaliation for whistle-blowing about unsafe conditions in the hospital. Defendant claimed that termination was proper and based upon poor performance.

Plaintiff sued LAPD for retaliating against her for discovering and reporting that an LAPD officer should have been investigated for a cold case murder of the wife of another LAPD officer. Defendant denied that it had retaliated against her or otherwise caused her damage.

Plaintiff alleged wage and hour violations by defendant spa which paid her only for time actually performing massage services during a 12-hour daily shift. Defendant claimed that it was entitled to pay plaintiff only for work performed.

Plaintiff sued her employer, a county department, for discrimination, harassment, retaliation failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to provide reasonable accommodation, arising from a medical disability. Defendant denied that it acted improperly in handling her medical issues.

Action for injunctive relief and damages relating to enforcement of non-competition provision in employment/stock purchase contracts. Main issue is enforceability in California and Illinois of different contract provisions which appeared to be subject to different states’ laws. Dispute involved two of the largest insurance brokers in the country, and had a parallel action in state court in Illinois.

Plaintiff was an employee of a major nonprofit advocacy group, asserting physical and personal injuries arising from her employment and right to severance payment. Settlement involved significant insurance coverage issues and negotiation of division of settlement among claims.