• 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

October 9, 2019

The Dynamex “ABC” Test Applies to Misclassified Contractors, Not Claims Of Joint Employment

In Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, the Court clarified which employment test applied to which situation. The Court noted that the ABC test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court addresses claims that workers have been misclassified as independent

Employment,  Litigation

October 2, 2019

Court Clarifies Standard For Retaliation Claim

In Nejadian v. County of Los Angeles, the Court looked at the standard for prevailing on a retaliation claim.  A jury found in favor of plaintiff against his employer, defendant County of Los Angeles, on his causes of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and for

Employment,  Litigation

October 2, 2019

Franchisor (McDonald’s) Is Not The Employer Of Franchisee’s Workers

In Salazar v. McDonald’s Corporation, the Court held that a franchisor (McDonald’s) cannot be classified as an employer of its franchisees’ workers, and also is not an agent of a franchisee who can be held liable for wage-and-hour violations under an ostensible-agency theory.  The plaintiff class

Business Litigation,  Employment,  Litigation

September 27, 2019

Court Permits The Use Of Comparator Evidence

In Gupta v. Trustees of the California State University, the Court looked at when comparator evidence may be used. The Court first noted that comparative evidence is “evidence that the plaintiff was treated differently from others who were similarly situated” but are outside the plaintiff’s

Employment,  Litigation

September 11, 2019

Defendant Can Waive Its Right To Force Arbitration Through Its Conduct, Including Delay.

In Spracher v. Paul M. Zagaris, Inc., the Court addressed whether a party waived its right to compel arbitration.  The Court noted that unreasonable delay in seeking arbitration may, standing alone, constitute a waiver of a right to arbitrate. It noted that a party’s actions are inconsistent with a

Alternative Dispute Resolution,  Employment,  Litigation

August 28, 2019

Arbitration Agreement Language Can Be Broad Enough To Include Disputes Arising Before The Agreement Was Entered Into By The Parties.

In Franco v. Greystone Ridge Condominium, the Court addressed whether a dispute was subject to an arbitration agreement. In March 2018, defendant Greystone’s employees, including plaintiff, were presented with, and asked to sign, an agreement requiring that each employee agree to submit to final and

Alternative Dispute Resolution,  Employment,  Litigation

August 23, 2019

ERISA Claims Can Be Arbitrated

In Dorman v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, the Court ruled that ERISA claims could be subject to arbitration. A class action suit was brought by a former participant in an ERISA retirement plan, alleging that defendants violated ERISA and breached their fiduciary duties by including certain

Employment,  Litigation

August 22, 2019

Obesity Is Not A Protected Category Under The ADA

In Valtierra v. Medtronic Inc, the Court ruled that obesity was not protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The plaintiff claimed that he was terminated from his employment due to his morbid obesity. He claimed that it was disability discrimination in violation of the ADA. The

Employment,  Litigation

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • 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