• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Wagner Legal Group, P.C.

Wagner Legal Group, P.C.

  • ABOUT
    • ATTORNEYS
      • MARK H. WAGNER
      • OUTSIDE CO-COUNSEL
    • AREAS WE SERVE
    • ARTICLES
    • RESOURCES
    • RESULTS
    • CLIENT REVIEWS
    • VIDEOS
  • EMPLOYMENT
    • DISCRIMINATION
      • AGE DISCRIMINATION
      • DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
      • GENDER/SEX DISCRIMINATION
      • PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION
      • RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION
      • RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
    • EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND SEVERANCE REVIEW
    • HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
    • NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
    • RETALIATION/
      WHISTLEBLOWER
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • UNEMPLOYMENT
    • WAGE/HOUR
    • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
    • BUSINESS LITIGATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
    • PERSONAL INJURY
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US

Employment

May 28, 2015

Court Rejects Forum Selection and Choice Of Law Clauses In Employment Contract, Ruling For California Employee

In Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P., the Court rejected a forum selection clause and choice of law clause in an employment contract. There the plaintiff filed an action in California. The company filed a motion to stay based on a forum selection clause in her employment agreement. The clause designated

Employment,  Litigation

January 9, 2015

Security Guards Are Entitled To Compensation For All “On-Call” Time

In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that on-call security guards employed to provide security, who were required to spend time on active patrol and then spend night hours on call at the worksite and to respond to issues, if necessary, were entitled to

Employment,  Litigation

September 12, 2014

California Adopts Paid Sick Leave Law

The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 provides that an employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days for prescribed purposes, to be accrued at a rate of no less than one

Employment,  Litigation

August 27, 2014

Court Rules FedEx Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors

In Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., the Court ruled that the FedEx drivers were employees. A group of individuals who drove delivery routes for FedEx Ground and FedEx Home in California sued wage/hour violations, alleging that they were employees, rather than independent contractors.

Employment,  Litigation

June 30, 2014

California Supreme Court Chimes In On Defenses Concerning Illegal Immigrants Working In California

In Salas v. Sierra Chemical, the Court held that SB No. 1818, which extends state law employee protections and remedies to all workers “regardless of immigration status,” is not preempted by federal immigration law except to the extent it authorizes an award of lost pay damages for any period after

Employment,  Litigation

June 26, 2014

Landlord Entitled To Credit Rental Value For Resident Manager

In Von Nothdurft v. Steck, the Court ruled that when a defendant landlord hired the plaintiff to work as a resident manager, and the contract provided he would get free rent while the manager, this was sufficient and the landlord was entitled to a credit or the rental value of the apartment against

Business Litigation,  Employment,  Litigation

May 29, 2014

California Supreme Court Clarifies Methods Of Proof In Class Action Cases

In Duran v. US Bank, N.A, the California Supreme Court clarified the methods of proof permitted in class action cases. There, loan officers for the bank sued for overtime, claiming they were misclassified as exempt employees under the outside salesperson exemption. The case went to trial. The trial

Employment,  Litigation

December 7, 2013

Plaintiff Can Recover Substantial Attorneys’ Under the FEHA, Even If Jury Recovery Is Limited

In Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an award of nearly $700,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff, even when the jury only awarded her $27,280 in damages for violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. It ruled that despite the clear

Employment,  Litigation

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 11
  • Page 12
  • Page 13
  • Page 14
  • Page 15
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 18
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

(310) 857-5293

Free Consultation

SCHEDULE

Practice Areas

  • EMPLOYMENT
    • DISCRIMINATION
      • AGE DISCRIMINATION
      • DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
      • Gender/Sex Discrimination
      • Pregnancy Discrimination
      • Race/National Origin Discrimination
      • Religious Discrimination
    • EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND SEVERANCE REVIEW
    • HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
    • NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
    • RETALIATION/WHISTLEBLOWER
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • UNEMPLOYMENT
    • WAGE/HOUR
    • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
    • BUSINESS LITIGATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
    • PERSONAL INJURY

ARRANGE A FREE CONSULTATION

consult

Footer

  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • EMPLOYMENT LAW
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT
(310) 857-5293

2601 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 208, Santa Monica, CA 90405

Wagner Legal Group P.C.

Copyright © 2025 · Business Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

© 2023 WAGNER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. | Legal Disclaimer ● Privacy Policy ● Sitemap