Hunter Pyle Law

Hunter Pyle Law Hunter Pyle Law assists in basic employment rights in the workplace, including the right to privacy, Berkeley) in 1997. In 2014, Mr. Fewer than 1% of U.S. Ms.
(1)

Hunter Pyle Law is committed to representing those who most need representation. Our professional philosophy is to provide the best possible legal services to our clients and to do so in the most ethical manner. The attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law have wide-ranging professional experience. This experience enables us to provide a broad array of legal services, ranging from multi-party and class action

cases to personal consultations regarding a single transaction. We will discuss your case with you in plain language and manage your case so that you are positioned for the best possible outcome. Each of the lawyers at Hunter Pyle has been recognized by Super Lawyers in 2017. Tanya Tambling and Chad Saunders have been designated as Rising Stars. That award is limited to the top 2.5 percent of lawyers under 40 in California. Hunter Pyle has been designated as a “Super Lawyer” every year since 2011. That designation is limited to the top 5 percent of attorneys in California. ATTORNEYS
Hunter Pyle:
Hunter Pyle graduated from Boalt Hall School of Law (U.C. In 2007 he was named “one to watch” in the Daily Journal’s “Top Northern California Law Firms.” In 2009 and 2010, he was recognized as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers. This award is limited to the top 2.5 percent of lawyers under 40 in California. Every year since 2011 he has been recognized as a “Super Lawyer.” This designation is limited to the top 5 percent of attorneys in California. Pyle joined both the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum of the Top Trial Lawyers in America. Membership in those organizations is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. lawyers are members. In addition to practicing law full time, Mr. Pyle is a Lecturer at Berkeley Law School where he teaches the Employment Law course to second and third year law students. He has also been a faculty member of the Stanford Law School Trial Advocacy Workshop for several years. Tanya Tambling:
Ms. Tambling joined the firm in 2012. She dedicates her practice to fighting for the rights on employees and victims of personal injuries in both state and federal court. Tambling represents employees in wrongful termination, wage and hour, retaliation, medical leave, discrimination, harassment, and whistleblower disputes. She works tirelessly to hold employers accountable for wage and hour violations and discriminatory practices in the workplace. Tambling is also a zealous advocate of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians who have been victims of an accident. She has helped her clients obtain significant awards even when they have been hit by uninsured motorists. Tambling received her Juris Doctorate from the University of California at Davis. During law school, she participated in UC Davis’ Immigration Clinic, competed on a regional level with King Hall’s Negotiations Team, externed at Solano County Superior Court, and received the King Hall Certificate in Public Service. Tambling is admitted to practice in California, and the Northern and Eastern District Courts of California. She is also a member of the California Employment Lawyers Association, the Contra Costa County Association Labor/Employment Section, and the Alameda County Bar Association. Prior to attending law school, Ms. Tambling was an English language instructor nationally and internationally for fourteen years. The daughter of immigrants, Ms. Tambling speaks German, and is conversant in basic Portuguese and Russian. In 2016, Super Lawyers recognized Ms. Tambling as a “Rising Star.”

STAFF
Miriam Leticia Paez - Office Manager/Intake Coordinator
Leticia Paez was born in East Los Angeles and raised in Riverside, California. She graduated from UC Riverside with a Bachelor of Arts in Latin American Studies. While attending school, Ms. Paez worked for the City of Riverside, Mayor’s Office and was liaison to the Chambers of Commerce as the Clean Community Systems Program Coordinator where she coordinated an anti-litter campaign program visiting elementary schools in Riverside educating students about keeping their city clean. She was then hired as the Family Student Housing Coordinator at UC Riverside. After graduating from UC Riverside, Ms. Paez moved to Venezuela where she worked at Colegio Internacional de Carabobo (CIC) as the Music and Kinder ESL teacher. Paez moved back to California and worked at UC San Francisco as the Program Coordinator for the Gender Equity Resource Center. From 2002 – 2010, Ms. Paez moved to Bern, Switzerland. During her years in Switzerland, she volunteered as the Talent Show Coordinator for l’Ecole Cantonale de Langue Française de Berne and volunteered at community centers throughout the Canton of Bern, helping refugees and immigrants from Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa with projects related to improving health and wellness, teaching civic responsibilities, enhancing political engagement, and helping families better their overall situation. Paez returned to her native California in 2011 and worked as the Arts Education/Outreach Coordinator at the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts until 2016. Her hobbies are playing the piano, painting, biking, dancing, literature, and yoga. Paez is fluent in Spanish.

The EEOC’s Guidelines on an Employer’s Duty to Provide Reasonable Accommodation - Tanya Tambling Under Title I of the Am...
05/03/2022

The EEOC’s Guidelines on an Employer’s Duty to Provide Reasonable Accommodation - Tanya Tambling

Under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), individuals with disabilities are entitled to changes in the work environment, also known as “reasonable accommodations,” that allow them to enjoy the same opportunities in the workplace as individuals without disabilities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued enforcement guidance on reasonable accommodations under the ADA in order to address the rights and responsibilities of employers and individuals with disabilities regarding reasonable accommodations. Highlights from the guide are set forth below.

Employers are under a statutory duty to provide a reasonable accommodation in order to remove barriers that could prevent individuals with disabilities from performing jobs they might otherwise be able to do. These barriers might be physical or procedural. However, an employer does not have to provide personal use items that an employee needs both on and off the job as a reasonable accommodation. Examples of this include wheelchairs and hearing aids. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/04/the-eeocs-guidelines-on-an-employers-duty-to-provide-reasonable-accommodation/

Retaliation against Employees for Requesting Disability Accommodations: Your Rights under California Law-Hunter PyleSect...
04/13/2022

Retaliation against Employees for Requesting Disability Accommodations: Your Rights under California Law
-Hunter Pyle

Section 12940(h) of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides that it is illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has opposed any practices that violated the FEHA. Section 12940(m)(2), enacted in 2015, further provides that it is illegal for an employer to retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting accommodation for a disability.[1] That protection applies regardless of whether the request for accommodation was granted or not.

Pursuant to these sections, employers violate California law if they retaliate against an employee who requests an accommodation. That is true both in cases where the employer grants the accommodation and in cases where the accommodation is denied. If the employee has a reasonable belief that the way in which her request for accommodation was handled was unlawful, and complains about it, and is retaliated against for doing so, that is also a violation of the FEHA. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/03/retaliation-against-employees-for-requesting-disability-accommodations-your-rights-under-california-law/

Disability Harassment in California — Your Rights at Work- Hunter Pyle California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEH...
04/13/2022

Disability Harassment in California — Your Rights at Work
- Hunter Pyle

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employers[1] from harassing employees, applicants, unpaid interns, and volunteers because of their “physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, [or] genetic information,” among other things. Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1). It separately provides that employers are liable when they fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring. Gov. Code, § 12940(k).

Employers are strictly liable for disability harassment committed by their agents or supervisors.[2] State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1034. Employers may be liable for harassment committed by employees who are not agents or supervisors if the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known about the conduct and failed to take “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1). Employers are also responsible for the acts of nonemployees who engage in disability harassment when the employers, or its agents or supervisors, know or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Ibid. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/03/disability-harassment-in-california-your-rights-at-work/

Meal Break Violations in California: The First 5 Hours Rule and the Importance of Time Keeping Records-Hunter PyleThis p...
04/13/2022

Meal Break Violations in California: The First 5 Hours Rule and the Importance of Time Keeping Records
-Hunter Pyle

This post explores two questions that arise with respect to meal break laws in California: What is the “first five hours” rule, and what role do an employer’s time keeping records play in meal break lawsuits. As explained below, the California Supreme Court has resolved these questions in a way that protects workers and ensures that they get the meal breaks that they are entitled to underGear and Gavel law.

The First Five Hours Rule:

The first five hours rule is pretty simple. Under normal circumstances, if an employee works more than five hours in a workday, an employer must provide a 30 minute, uninterrupted meal break. In the seminal case of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1042 (Brinker), the California Supreme Court clarified that this meal period must occur within the first five hours of work. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/03/meal-break-violations-in-california-the-first-5-hours-rule-and-the-importance-of-time-keeping-records/

What’s in a Name? An Analysis of California Wage Statements and the Requirement that an Employer Provide both its Name a...
04/13/2022

What’s in a Name? An Analysis of California Wage Statements and the Requirement that an Employer Provide both its Name and Address
- Natalia Ramirez Lee

“What’s in a name?” That was the question asked by the California Court of Appeal in Noori v. Countrywide Payroll & HR Solutions, Inc. (2019) 43 Cal. App. 5th 957, 964. California Labor Code Section 226(a) requires employers to provide wage statements that list “the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer” each pay period. “Name” is undefined in Section 226(a). The California Labor Code further provides that “[a]n employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information as required […] and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone […] the name […] of the employer.” Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(2)(B)(iii).

Section 226(a) seeks to avoid confusion by employees regarding the identity of their employer so that employees may quickly identify their employer when grievances arise out of wages, for unemployment insurance purposes and for income tax and pension purposes. Mejia v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co., No. 217CV00570TLNKJN, 2018 WL 3198006, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (citing Paul D. Ward, bill mem. to Governor Brown re Assem. Bill No. 1750 (1963–1964 Reg. Sess.) June 24, 1963). Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/03/whats-in-a-name/

Individual Liability under California Labor Code section 558.1: Some guidance from the courts of appeal-Hunter PyleUntil...
04/13/2022

Individual Liability under California Labor Code section 558.1: Some guidance from the courts of appeal
-Hunter Pyle

Until relatively recently, an employee could not recover damages for unpaid wages and other wage and hour violations from an individual owner or officer of the employer unless the employee could prove some other legal basis for liability such as alter ego liability. However, alter ego liability is generally difficult to prove and has been described as an extreme remedy that is sparingly used.

As a result, even if an employee obtained a judgment against a corporate employer, it was often difficult to collect that award for a number of reasons: the employer could have “hidden their cash assets, declared bankruptcy, or otherwise become judgment-proof.” See Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 588 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) as amended July 1, 2015, p. 4; accord, Sen. Com. on Labor & Industrial Relations, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 588 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5-6 [“the vast majority of wage theft victims received nothing, and those that received anything received little of what they were legally due”]. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/02/individual-liability-under-california-labor-code-section-558-1-some-guidance-from-the-courts-of-appeal/

Independent Contractor or Employee? Why It Matters-Hunter PyleIn 2018, the California Supreme Court adopted the ABC Test...
04/13/2022

Independent Contractor or Employee? Why It Matters
-Hunter Pyle

In 2018, the California Supreme Court adopted the ABC Test for determining whether workers are independent contractors in the seminal case of Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. That test, generally speaking, is more favorable for workers because it requires hiring entities to prove that a worker (A) is free from the control and direction of the hirer; (B) performs work outside of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Otherwise the worker must be classified as an employee.

In adopting the ABC Test, the Dynamex Court noted that misclassification of workers as independent contractors is a very serious problem that, if unchecked, would “depriv[e] federal and state governments of billions of dollars in tax revenue and millions of workers of the labor law protections to which they are entitled.” That statement could not be more true, and this blog post explores just why that is so. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2022/01/independent-contractor-or-employee-why-it-matters/

12/11/2021
12/01/2021

NEWS

Hunter Pyle to speak about PAGA at Bridgeport’s 2021 annual wage and hour conference on December 10, 2021.

November 10, 2021 HTTPS://BRIDGEPORTCE.COM/BRIDGE2017/LIVE-EVENTS/2021-WAGE-HOUR-LITIGATION-AND-MANAGEMENT-SAN-FRANCISCO

The conference description is as follows:

The Wage and Hour landscape continues to shift, with major developments in federal and state law this year thanks to seismic decisions from the U.S. and California Supreme Courts, along with new legislation and administrative guidance. Bridgeport’s annual conference explores and explains in-depth, the critical and changing aspects of Wage & Hour law litigation. Expert panelists will discuss up-to-the-minute topics such as PAGA; Wage & Hour litigation relating to Remote and Teleworkers as well as Low Wage Workers, Dynamex and its implications for the gig economy; individual, franchise and joint employer liability; exemptions; and more. Successful trial counsel will share strategies for taking wage and hour cases across the finish line and winning. Panelists will also discuss the rules and approaches you can use to successfully mediate and settle cases, and how to make sure those settlements stick. The unique format for the conference will feature an explanation and then discussion of the aforementioned topics.

Is Your Employer Paying You Properly for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks? Only If it Includes Nondiscretionary Pay in Your R...
12/01/2021

Is Your Employer Paying You Properly for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks? Only If it Includes Nondiscretionary Pay in Your Regular Rate of Compensation. - Hunter Pyle / November 27, 2021

The California Supreme Court has clarified that employers must include both hourly wages and all nondiscretionary payments when calculating the regular rate of pay for the purposes of compensating employees for missed meal and rest periods. See Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 858. The Court further held that this decision applies retroactively. Read on to see whether your employer might have been paying you the wrong rate for your missed meal and rest periods.

In Ferra, the issue was whether the defendant had properly calculated the amount of pay that was owed to employees who did not receive proper meal or rest periods. Under California law, when an employer does not provide an employee with a meal or rest period, as required by law, the employer must pay the employee one additional hour of pay “at the employee’s regular rate of compensation.” See Cal Lab. Code § 226.7(c). Loews Hollywood Hotel interpreted that phrase narrowly, and paid its employees for missed meal and rest periods according to their base hourly rate. It did not include any “nondiscretionary pay” in that calculation. Continuing reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/11/is-your-employer-paying-you-properly-for-missed-meal-and-rest-breaks-only-if-it-includes-nondiscretionary-pay-in-your-regular-rate-of-compensation/

A WIN FOR WORKERS IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL-Hunter Pyle / October 19, 2021The attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law ...
10/19/2021

A WIN FOR WORKERS IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
-Hunter Pyle / October 19, 2021

The attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law (HPL), along with co-counsel Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow (FJWW) recently received a favorable decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a case called Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (September 30, 2021, Case No. G057836). HPL and FJWW represent Isabel Garibay, a worker who intervened in the Uribe case because the defendant in that case was attempting to engineer a “reverse auction”-a strategic move whereby a defendant tries to settle the case by appealing to the lowest bidder. HPL and FJWW were able to block that settlement, returning the case to the trial court where they will seek justice and victory on behalf of the workers.

The underlying facts in Uribe are as follows. In 2015, HPL and FJWW filed a class action in Alameda County called Gama v. Able Services, et al. The Plaintiff in that case sought to represent a class of 20,000 janitors who were forced to use their cell phones for work-related purposes. (As a point of reference regarding the value of the case, HPL and FJWW had certified a class and subsequently resolved a similar case against another janitorial company for over $5 million.) Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/10/a-win-for-workers-in-the-fourth-district-court-of-appeal/

Hunter Pyle to present at Stanford Law School 2021 Trial Advocacy WorkshopHunter Pyle will be helping to teach the Civil...
10/05/2021

Hunter Pyle to present at Stanford Law School 2021 Trial Advocacy Workshop

Hunter Pyle will be helping to teach the Civil Trial section of the Stanford Law School 2021 Trial Advocacy Workshop again this fall. Mr. Pyle will be assisting with the Civil Trial portion of the Workshop, at which second and third year law students present their cases to a judge and mock jury.

Hunter Pyle to teach Wage and Hour Course at Berkeley Law SchoolHunter Pyle will be teaching a seven week California Wag...
10/05/2021

Hunter Pyle to teach Wage and Hour Course at Berkeley Law School

Hunter Pyle will be teaching a seven week California Wage and Hour class to second and third year law students at Berkeley Law School in the Spring of 2022. The course will cover current issues and trends in wage and hour law. In addition to reading the critical cases, the students will also hear from leading practitioners and gain an understanding of what it means to be a workers rights attorney in the real world.

This is the sixth time that Hunter has taught at Berkeley Law. It is always an honor and a privilege to return to the law school from which he graduated more than 20 years ago.

Immigration Status Discrimination is Prohibited under California Employment Law - Natalia Ramirez Lee / October 4, 2021C...
10/04/2021

Immigration Status Discrimination is Prohibited under California Employment Law - Natalia Ramirez Lee / October 4, 2021

California law provides that employment law protections are extended to all workers “regardless of immigration status.” Cal Civ. Code § 3339. Furthermore, under California law, “a person’s immigration status is irrelevant to the issue of liability” and in a proceeding to enforce a person’s employment rights, “no inquiry shall be permitted into a person’s immigration status unless the person seeking to make this inquiry has shown by clear and convincing evidence that this inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law.” Id.

California’s Anti-Discrimination laws extend to immigrants, including undocumented immigrants. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11028. On July 1, 2018, new regulations from California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council (“FEHC”) clarified that discrimination based on immigration status is prohibited under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11028. In particular, through the 2018 regulations, the FEHC sought to make clear that immigration status discrimination is a subset of discrimination based on national origin.

Under FEHA, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” due to their national origin. Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(a). The 2018 regulations explicitly state that under FEHA the “national origin” protected category encompasses an employee’s immigration status. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11028(f)(3). An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant due to immigration status, must demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that such discrimination is “required in order to comply with federal immigration law.” Id. Additionally, citizenship requirements that are a pretext for discrimination or serve the purpose of discriminating against employees or applicants on the basis of national origin or ancestry are unlawful. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11028(h). Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/10/immigration-status-discrimination-is-prohibited-under-california-employment-law/

Pay for Reporting Time under California Law: Do On-Call Shifts Count? - Natalia Ramirez Lee / October 4, 2021California ...
10/04/2021

Pay for Reporting Time under California Law: Do On-Call Shifts Count? - Natalia Ramirez Lee / October 4, 2021

California law requires employers to pay employees for “reporting time” under the following circumstances:

(1) when employees are required to report for work, (2) do report but (3) are either not put to work or provided less than half of their usual daily shift or scheduled shift. See Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders 1-16, Section 5; Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. (2019) 31 Cal. App. 5th 1167, 1171.

Under IWC Wage Orders 1-16, reporting time pay amounts to two to four hours of pay at an employee’s regular rate, as follows:

(A) Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.

(B) If an employee is required to report for work a second time in any one workday and is furnished less than two (2) hours of work on the second reporting, said employee shall be paid for two (2) hours at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/10/pay-for-reporting-time-under-california-law-do-on-call-shifts-count/

Hunter Pyle Law would like to introduce Natalia Ramirez Lee, our newest attorney at HPL. Natalia Ramírez Lee received he...
08/30/2021

Hunter Pyle Law would like to introduce Natalia Ramirez Lee, our newest attorney at HPL.

Natalia Ramírez Lee received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Pace University, graduating with honors and received her Juris Doctor degree from Berkeley Law. Her practice is focused on employment litigation, including wage and hour class actions, as well as individual sexual harassment and discrimination matters. Prior to working at Hunter Pyle Law, Natalia litigated wage and hour class PAGA and individual claims, as well as discrimination, wrongful termination and other claims in tort at Mallison & Martinez, a Plaintiff-side firm in Oakland. Natalia is passionate about advocating for her clients. She aims to pursue clients’ claims diligently and to treat each client with consideration and respect.

07/29/2021

Jake Darin presents at CLE “COVID-19 in the Workplace: Managing in the New Normal”

On May 25, 2021, Jake Darin presented as part of the Alameda County Bar Association’s CLE, “COVID-19 in the Workplace: Managing in the New Normal.” The CLE covered current Cal-OSHA regulations related to COVID-19 and was facilitated by Chris Noma, of Wendel Rosen LLP. Tierra Piens, an attorney at Orrick, presented the defense perspective; and the latest science was presented by Environmental Consultant Mike Posson.

The CLE was recorded and is available for viewing on the County Bar’s online portal at: https://acbanet.prolearn.io/.

Hunter Pyle Law case featured in USA Today Article - July 9, 2021One of Hunter Pyle Law’s cases was recently featured in...
07/29/2021

Hunter Pyle Law case featured in USA Today Article - July 9, 2021

One of Hunter Pyle Law’s cases was recently featured in an article in USA Today. The case, LeGarie v. Nurse, is brought in the Northern District of California against Nick Nurse, the head coach of the Toronto Raptors basketball team.

The article can be found here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/raptors/2021/07/09/agent-sues-torontos-nick-nurse-seeking-commission-rich-new-deal/7904214002/.

In the case, Hunter Pyle Law represents Warren LeGarie, a prominent agent who represents NBA coaches and executives. Mr. LeGarie represented Mr. Nurse for many years until Mr. Nurse breached his contract with Mr. LeGarie.

Hunter Pyle, quoted in the article, gave the following statement: “Warren LeGarie has successfully represented numerous NBA head coaches and executives for more than two decades. He represented Nick Nurse for over seven years and successfully negotiated several contracts for him pursuant to the same agent agreement that is the subject of this lawsuit. Mr. LeGarie employed his considerable experience and relationships in the NBA to help advance the career of Mr. Nurse as he progressed from an assistant to the head coach of the Toronto Raptors. The lawsuit speaks for itself as to the facts and law on the matter. I have nothing more to say about the case at this time.”

The article describes the main claims in the case as follows:

“Among other things, Defendant Nurse failed to abide by the terms of the representation contract, failed to pay Plaintiffs the amounts due under the representation contract, and failed to disclose to Plaintiffs the amount of the employment contract he entered into with the Toronto Raptors for the 2020-2021 through 2023-2024 NBA seasons, thus denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to be paid for commissions wed on Defendant NURSE’s employment contract for the 2020-2021 through 2023-2024 NBA seasons.”

Hunter Pyle Law is honored to represent Mr. LeGarie in this matter.

Warren LeGarie has filed suit claiming he's owed commission for negotiating a portion of Nick Nurse's contract extension signed in September

07/29/2021
My Company Went Out of Business and Owes Me Wages: Successor Liability in California (2021)-Hunter PyleWorkers who are t...
04/28/2021

My Company Went Out of Business and Owes Me Wages: Successor Liability in California (2021)
-Hunter Pyle

Workers who are the victim of wage theft can bring claims either in court or at the Labor Commissioner to recover their unpaid wages, damages, and penalties. Those claims, if successful, result in a judgment against the workers’ employer. But what if the employer goes out of business to avoid liability, and reforms a short time later under a new name? This type of shenanigans can make it very difficult for the workers to recover the money that they are owed, even if they have a final judgment against their employer that cannot be appealed. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/02/successor-liability-for-unpaid-wages-in-california-2021/

Joint Employer Liability in California Wage and Hour Cases-Hunter PyleWorkers who sue for unpaid wages in California oft...
04/28/2021

Joint Employer Liability in California Wage and Hour Cases
-Hunter Pyle

Workers who sue for unpaid wages in California often find that their immediate employer has no money to pay them. Fortunately, California has a broad joint employer doctrine that allows workers to sue entities other than their immediate employers-including both businesses and individuals-for such wages.

Under California law, the definition of employer set forth in the Wage Orders governs who and what are liable for unpaid wages. See Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 64, as modified (June 9, 2010). Under that definition, to employ can mean three different things:

(a) to exercise control over the wages, hours or working conditions, or

(b) to suffer or permit to work, or

(c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.

Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/02/joint-employer-liability-in-california-wage-and-hour-cases/

Call 510.444.4400 - Hunter Pyle Law is dedicated to serving our clients with a range of Employment Law services.

Individual Liability for Wage and Hour Violations under California Law-Hunter PyleThis blog post explores several Califo...
04/28/2021

Individual Liability for Wage and Hour Violations under California Law
-Hunter Pyle

This blog post explores several California statutes that allow workers to sue individuals for unpaid wages and related claims. That scenario normally arises when workers are employed by a business entity such as a corporation, and that entity is unable or unwilling to pay the wages that it owes. As demonstrated by the Atempa case analyzed below, the issue of whether individuals can be held liable can become critical when a corporate employer files for bankruptcy in an effort to avoid its obligations to its workers.

The relevant statutes discussed are Labor Code sections 558, 558.1, 1197.1, and 351.
Labor Code section 558

Labor Code section 558 provides that an employer “or other person acting on behalf of an employer” who violates or causes a violation of the state’s applicable wage and hour laws shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: continue reading https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/02/individual-liability-for-wage-and-hour-violations-under-california-law/

04/28/2021

Alter Ego/Piercing the Corporate Veil in California Wage and Hour Cases
-Hunter Pyle

In any given week, approximately 25 percent of workers do not receive all of the wages that are owed to them.[1] As much as $50 billion per year in wages go unpaid nationally, with an estimated $26 million per week unpaid in Los Angeles County alone.[2]

Those workers who are brave enough to pursue their rights in court often find themselves with a defendant that is unable to pay what it owes. Sometimes that is because the employer is a corporation that has gone out of business and has no funds. In such cases, it is important to consider whether the workers can pierce the corporate veil and sue the individuals who created the corporation.

Specifically, under what is called the alter ego doctrine, when the corporate form is used to avoid paying wages, courts may ignore the corporate entity and deem the corporation’s acts to be those of the persons or organizations who actually control the corporation. In most cases, that means the owners.

The seminal case on alter ego under California law is Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523. There, the court explained the basic concepts underlying the doctrine as follows: continue reading https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/02/alter-ego-piercing-the-corporate-veil-in-california-wage-and-hour-cases/

Call 510.444.4400 - Hunter Pyle Law is dedicated to serving our clients with a range of Employment Law services.

Employee or Independent Contractor? The State of California Law in 2021 - Hunter PyleDetermining whether a worker is an ...
04/28/2021

Employee or Independent Contractor? The State of California Law in 2021
- Hunter Pyle

Determining whether a worker is an employee (EE) or an independent contractor (IC) under California law has become more complicated in recent years. However, in 2020 the California Legislature clarified that the ABC test (which is described more fully below) should be applied to all claims brought under either the California Labor Code or California’s wage orders.[1] The common law test, also referred to as the Borello test, is likely to govern all other claims.

The Borello Test

For many years, California courts seeking to determine whether a worker was an EE or an IC relied upon the common law test set forth in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello ). Under that test, “[t]he principal test of an employment relationship is whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.” Borello, 48 Cal.3d at 350. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/01/employee-or-independent-contractor-in-california-the-state-of-the-law-in-2021/

04/28/2021

COVID-19 FAQ
-Tom Nagel

The COVID-19 crisis has caused tremendous hardship for California’s workers. As businesses shutter or reduce their services and operations, employees face layoffs, heightened health risks in the workplace, and great uncertainty about their futures.

Hunter Pyle Law has compiled the FAQ below to help you understand your rights in the workplace during the COVID-19 era. We will continue to revise this FAQ and add additional articles to the firm’s blog as we receive further questions from workers. Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2021/01/covid-19-faq-2/

Call 510.444.4400 - Hunter Pyle Law has compiled the FAQ to help you understand your rights in the workplace during the COVID-19 era.

COVID-19 FAQJake Darin / October 22, 2020The COVID-19 crisis has caused tremendous hardship for California’s workers. As...
10/27/2020

COVID-19 FAQ
Jake Darin / October 22, 2020

The COVID-19 crisis has caused tremendous hardship for California’s workers. As businesses shutter or reduce their services and operations, employees face layoffs, heightened health risks in the workplace, and great uncertainty about their futures.

Hunter Pyle Law has compiled the FAQ below to help you understand your rights in the workplace during the COVID-19 era. We will continue to revise this FAQ and add additional articles to the firm’s blog as we receive further questions from workers.

If you believe your rights may have been violated, please do not hesitate to contact our office for an interview at (510) 444-4400 or [email protected].

We are dedicated to protecting the rights of all employees. Continue reading for FAQ: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2020/10/covid-19-faq/

10/22/2020
California Resident Managers’ Workplace Rights-Katherine Fiester / September 24, 2020Live-in resident managers face a un...
09/30/2020

California Resident Managers’ Workplace Rights
-Katherine Fiester / September 24, 2020

Live-in resident managers face a unique challenge: their bosses are often also their landlords.

California law requires an individual to live on the premises if a building has sixteen (16) or more units. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 25, § 42. These individuals are often referred to as resident managers. Resident managers carry out various job duties, including but not limited to, collecting rent, assisting tenants, facilitating repairs, and attending to emergencies in the building.

This makes resident managers especially vulnerable to workplace violations such as wage theft and retaliation. In most instances, when resident managers are fired, their landlord can evict them immediately. This is because housing protections that apply to tenants do not usually apply to resident managers, who are often considered to be “licensees.” Employers therefore often use the threat of losing one’s housing to keep resident managers from complaining about mistreatment at work. However, the law protects resident managers from this sort of retaliation.

Resident managers should be aware of the rights they have to be (1) paid correctly; and (2) protected from retaliation if they complain that they are not.

Resident Managers Should Keep Track Of All Hours Worked.

In the case of resident managers who are required to reside on the employment premises, “hours worked” means “that time spent carrying out assigned duties shall be counted as hours worked.” Wage Order 5 § (2)(k). For resident managers, “hours worked” does not include on-call time, but only “time spent carrying out assigned duties” for resident managers. Isner v. Falkerberg, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1393, 1399 (2008).

Although resident managers generally bear the burden of proving the hours they work, the burden shifts when the employer has failed to keep accurate records. Under California law, where the employer has failed to keep statutorily mandated time records, the burden then shifts to the employee for a best faith estimate of the hours they worked. Hernandez v. Mendoza, 199 Cal. App. 3d 721, 727 (1988).

Resident managers should keep track of all time they spend working, even if their employer does not require them to complete time records.

Employers Must Pay Resident Managers For All Hours Worked.

A resident manager must be paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. See Lab. Code § 1197; Wage Order 5 § 4. Resident managers may not enter into an agreement to work for less than the minimum wage. Lab. Code § 1194(a). Continue reading: https://hunterpylelaw.com/2020/09/california-resident-managers-workplace-rights/

Address

505 13th Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA
94612

Opening Hours

Monday 10am - 5:15pm
Tuesday 10am - 5:15pm
Wednesday 10am - 5:15pm
Thursday 10am - 5:15pm
Friday 10am - 5:15pm

Telephone

(510) 444-4400

Alerts

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

Contact The Business

Send a message to Hunter Pyle Law:

Share


Other Government Buildings in Oakland

Show All