Wrongful termination settlements is said to have occurred when an employer has fired/laid off an employee in direct violation of their existing legal rights. If the wrongful termination law has been violated, the terminated employee can file his/her wrongful termonation settlements employment termination complaint with the government agencies. Alternatively, a private lawsuit can also be filed with the help of a wrongful termination Settlements lawyer.

The “At-Will” concept

All states have now adopted the doctrine of employment “at-will” to a certain degree. This means that employees can typically leave their jobs at any given time without any cause or advanced notice. In addition, it means that the employer can also typically fire / lay-off their employees at any given time without a specific reason. In many instances, employers legitimately ask employees to sign certain agreements or contracts that effectively document & enforce all the terms of this “at will” employment and this shows up in the company’s policy manuals.

The Exceptions

Of course, there are certain exceptions to the rule. Employees as well as employers are not permitted to breach the employment agreements/ contracts or even violate regulations, laws, constitutional provisions/ public policy when they are terminating employment. Exceptions such as intentional emotional distress, breach of implied contract and reliance on an employment offer do exist. “At will” employees can also be fired for certain job-related problems/ non-job-related reasons like personality conflict or the boss not liking the employee’s jokes.

These employees who have been wrongfully terminated have gone ahead and challenged the rules in court and won wrongful termination settlements and compensation. Though there is no fixed figure that can be attached to this kind of a settlement, it can sometimes be substantial. This settlement covers the lost wages and attorney’s fees & punitive damages are covered only under certain circumstances

The Right Legal Help

If a person has been wrongfully terminated and wishes to file a lawsuit against the employer, he/she will have to hire the services of a wrongful termination settlements lawyer. The person will provide the litigant all the details of this kind of filing and help with all the technicalities and legalities. Having a good lawyer can also result in a higher termination settlement and they will also be able to guide the person through the legal system. Since there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to winning a wrongful termination settlements, having the right legal help is top priority.

Call the Law Office of Stevens & McMillan Today (800) 738-3353 to get you the highest Wrongful termination settlements!

Unfortunately, sickness or injury can strike anyone at any time.  Fortunately, there are a number of laws which protect an Orange County Employee benefits attorney and allow him or her to take of time for health related issues.  Some of these laws include:

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) – An Orange County Employee benefits attorney may take twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job.

California Family Rights Act (CFRA) – An Orange County Employee benefits attorney may take twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for a serious health condition including illness, injury (including on-the-job injuries), impairment, or physical or mental condition.

Pregnancy Disability Leave Law – An Orange County Employee benefits attorney disabled by pregnancy is entitled to up to four months disability leave. If the employer provides more than four months of leave for other types of temporary disabilities, the same leave must be made available to women who are disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) – Employers must treat pregnancy disability the same as any other disability and offer the same leave and/or accommodations that are offered to persons with other disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities Act – Subject to certain restrictions, a leave of absence may be required as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability.

Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) – Like the ADA, FEHA may require an employer to give a leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability.

Workers’ Compensation Act – An Orange County Employee benefits attorney who suffers a work-related injury and needs time off to recover may be entitled to a leave of absence.

If you have taken a leave of absence under one of these laws and feel like you have been discriminated or retaliated against for doing so, then please contact Stevens & McMillan at (800) 738-3353 for a free consultation. This article has only touched on the general scope of the law and is for information purposes only. This article is not intended to give legal advice.

Wyatt J. Holtsclaw | Attorney

Stevens & McMillan, Orange County Employee benefits attorney

335 Centennial Way

Tustin, CA 92780

714/730-1000

714/730-1067 Facsimile

The law is an ever-evolving entity in a symbiotic relationship with its citizens; it shapes us, and we shape it. Here is the list of the most prominent court cases in the United States that have, inevitably so, shaped our lives for years to come. The Law Offices of Stevens & McMillan are forever indebted to such cases, and work to honor them everyday! For all your Employee Rights needs, give us a call at (800) 738-3353.

• Brown v. Board of Education

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously declared state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional, saying they had a detrimental effect on minority children. Though the decision helped spur the civil rights movement and paved the way for integration, it was not welcomed overnight. In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus used the National Guard to block nine black students from entering Little Rock High School. In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace personally blocked a door at the University of Alabama to prevent two black students from enrolling. In both cases, the incidents resulted in interventions from the highest level — in Little Rock, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division to integrate the school, while in Alabama, President John F. Kennedy sent in the National Guard to remove George “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” Wallace from the university doorway.

• Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade divided the country into those who believed in an unborn child’s right to life and those who believed in a woman’s right to choose. It raised issues of morality and privacy and is still hotly debated today. In the early 1970s, Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) was a single Texas mother. Pregnant for a third time, McCorvey decided she did not want to bear a third child, but Texas state law prevented her from having an abortion. On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The decision came too late for Roe, who was impregnated in 1969 (she had the child and gave it up for adoption), but it guaranteed the right of women nationwide to terminate unwanted pregnancies through abortion by obliging all 50 states to legalize the divisive medical practice.

• Miranda v. Arizona

That most television-friendly of Supreme Court cases,Miranda v. Arizona, was decided in 1966. Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court determined 5 to 4 that the police had to follow certain procedures to ensure the protection of a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The ruling included the stipulations that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say could be used against them and that they have the right to an attorney. Without these Miranda warnings, the court deemed, prosecutors could not use statements made by defendants under interrogation. The decision reversed the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who had been found guilty of kidnapping and rape in Arizona after he had confessed during police questioning without being informed of his rights.

• Marbury v. Madison

Before vacating the Oval Office in March 1801, John Adams appointed a number of Federalists to judicial openings in an attempt to handicap President-elect Thomas Jefferson’s incoming Democratic-Republican Administration. But because Adams’ Secretary of State, John Marshall, failed to deliver all of the appointees’ commissions, and because Jefferson subsequently directed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the remaining notices — a number of employees were unable to assume their new positions.

One frustrated appointee, Federalist William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court to force Madison to deliver his commission. On Feb. 23, 1803, the court handed down a unanimous decision that Madison was not required to deliver the agreement because the law requiring such action — the Judiciary Act of 1789 — conflicted with a piece of the Constitution. Marshall, by that time Chief Justice, argued that the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and therefore void, thus establishing the basis for judicial review and solidifying the role of checks and balances in American government.

• District of Columbia v. Heller

It had been 70 years since the Supreme Court had last tackled the central conundrum of the Second Amendment: Does the right to bear arms apply only to militias? This 2008 case specifically challenged Washington, D.C., gun-control legislation that generally prohibited carrying a pistol without a license and also required that all firearms be kept unloaded. In a split decision, the often conservative-leaning Roberts court concluded that the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. It was possibly the most important government statement regarding guns in the U.S. since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In January 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the right of corporations to spend money influencing political campaigns, ruling that these entities ought to have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to engage in “political speech.” The historic — and, in some quarters, infamous —Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision fell to a tight 5-to-4 vote. Its implications are huge: superseding earlier understandings, the court deemed corporate money, funneled by lobbyists and special-interest groups into politics, equivalent to any individual donation — even though, by many people’s reckonings, a corporation with its resources and focused agenda is hardly the same thing as an individual person. President Obama, for one, was scathing about the verdict, saying “this ruling strikes at our democracy itself.” But such prominent First Amendment advocates as Floyd Abrams — often associated with defending journalists’ rights — argued vociferously that the court did the right thing by preserving the guarantees of the amendment.

• Plessy v. Ferguson

Long before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, Homer Plessy refused to move to a “blacks-only” railway car. Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth African American, was arrested in accordance with Louisiana’s Separate Car Act. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled the law did not contradict the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause. And while the majority opinion didn’t include the exact phrase “separate but equal,” that’s the concept it sanctioned. According to the court, the Constitution guaranteed legal, but not social, equality: segregation was constitutional. There was just one dissenting opinion, from Judge John Marshall Harlan, who wrote, “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” More than half a century would pass before the Supreme Court ruled on “separate but equal” in Brown v. Board of Education.

• Bush v. Gore

In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decided one of the closest presidential elections ever. With both former Texas governor George W. Bush and Vice President Albert Gore needing to win Florida to claim the presidency, polls closed with just 537 votes separating them. The closeness of the race merited a machine recount of ballots under Florida law. Due to highly-publicized controversy over whether the design of the ballots confused voters or whether machines would miscount incorrectly completed ballots, the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in several counties. But the U.S. Supreme Court immediately ordered these recounts halted the following day, declaring that counting certain ballots by different methods than others violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The Court found that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was invalid, and that no alternative recount could be performed within the state’s legal time limit. On 12 December 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the original Florida results would stand, effectively naming Bush the next President of the United States.

• Lawrence v. Texas

In a landmark decision for the gay rights movement, 2003’sLawrence v. Texas declared unconstitutional a Texas law prohibiting sodomy. The case arose when police, after receiving a tip of a domestic disturbance, arrested two men found engaged in homosexual activity. When the case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court, the 6-3 decision also struck down similar sodomy laws in 13 other states, thus legalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity in all U.S. states and territories. On behalf of the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy maintained that the right to privacy protected such sexual acts, overruling the Court’s previous view that had resulted in the opposite verdict over a similar 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that states should be able to legally enforce moral opposition to homosexual conduct. But only two fellow justices backed him, and the case soon became an iconic victory for gay rights activists across the nation.

• Dred Scott v. Sanford

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. Instead, in 1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, the United States Supreme Court declared that all blacks — regardless of whether they were slaves or free men — were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also ruled that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The decision meant that slavery would be constitutionally permitted throughout the entire country and its territories.

Led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a staunch supporter of slavery, the court’s majority held that, because of Scott’s color, he was not a citizen and therefore had no standing to sue. Taney wrote in the Court’s majority opinion that the framers of the Constitution believed that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”

While the Declaration of Independence clearly includes the phrase “all men are created equal,” Taney argued that “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.”

Abolitionists were appalled by the court’s decision. However, some, including Frederick Douglass, hoped that the ruling would put a spotlight on the issue of slavery and would ultimately result in its destruction.

People usually ask

• How to ask for a demotion?
• Can my employer replace me while on medical leave?
• How long does an employer have to hold your job for medical leave?
• …

Currently, a majority of employees in California struggle with work-life balance. An individual may be striving for that promotion at work, finding time to go to their kid’s soccer game, praying they will finally pay off their student loans, and still finding a moment to hit the gym so they can stay in good health. The average Californian tries to do it all. But

• What happens when a serious illness gets thrown into the mix for the employee himself or an immediate family member?
• What if an employee is injured and needs surgery that will require time off from work to recover? and how to tell the boss you need time off for surgery.
• What if you take a leave of absence and as a result, you are fired?
• How to ask for a leave of absence 
• Can you be demoted for being off sick? 
• What to do when you are demoted?

Many laws have been passed over the years to protect workers from various causes. Even though many incidents have occurred in the workforce, Congress was able to pass these laws. However, it took several years to get some laws passed. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was only one of many laws that faced rejection after rejection before finally being passed in 1993. The Family and Medical Leave Act finally gave protection to families and women after nine long years.

Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act on February 5, 1993. The law allows eligible employees to take 12 weeks of unpaid time within 12 months for various reasons, such as the birth, adoption, or serious health condition of a family member or their health condition. In some cases, employees may be allowed to take 26 weeks of unpaid time in 12 months.

A leave of absence resulting in a termination might mean you were fired for an illegal reason. An Employment Lawyer is the type of lawyer who handles these types of situations. If you are thinking you may need an Employment Attorney, here are some points to consider that you may not have known.

7 things you didn’t know about medical leave of absence from work

• The number of employees is important
• Take care of family
• leave up to 12 weeks
• Get the best protection the law provides
• An employer can give the employee more time off than the law requires
• The employee can’t be replaced or demoted
• The employee can’t be fired or demoted because you took a leave of absence

let’s start at the top.

1. The number of people you work with may be important

It seems odd, but the number of people employed by the organization or company you work for may be a significant factor in whether you have a leave of absence claim. There is a 50/75 rule which means there need to be 50 employees at your job site, or 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of your job site. For example, you may work for a company that only has 20 employees in your building, which means you don’t meet the 50-employee standard. However, if the company has another branch 25 miles away from your job site and has 30 employees on-site, that may suffice to meet the requirement.  Here, the 50/75 rule is likely met because the branch is within the 75-mile radius requirement, and adding the branch’s employees equals 50 employees total.

It is important to note that the 50/75 rule does not apply to an employee who takes pregnancy disability leave.

2. Being sick or injured isn’t the only type of recognized leave

Aside from taking time off for their illness or injury, an employee may take leave to care for a member of the family who is seriously ill. Also, an employee may take a leave of absence because they are pregnant or for the initial receiving of an adopted or foster child.

3. Your leave may last up to 12 weeks

As an employee, you may have the right to take up to 12 work weeks for your leave of absence. The 12 workweek leave is permitted in a 12-month time frame. Keep in mind though, that your employer has some discretionary power over how the 12 months are measured.  For example, an employer can decide to measure it as a calendar year instead of measuring the 12- months starting on the day the employee took their leave.

4. You get the best protection the law provides

Multiple statutes overlap and protect an employee’s right to a leave of absence. Although multiple statutes covering leave complicate the process, the good news is that an employee who has taken or needs to take leave is entitled to utilize the statute that provides the best protection and most rights for their particular circumstances.

5. Your employer can give you more time off than the law requires and you can hold them to it

Your employer has to meet certain standards the law sets out for providing leave to employees. But, if your boss is generous, he or she is entitled to exceed those standards and you may be able to enforce what they promised. For example, Brad is an employee at a marketing agency and takes medical leave to have corrective surgery on his shoulder. Even though he was entitled to 12 weeks of medical leave by law, his employee handbook states that he has 14 weeks. After he took 14 weeks to leave for his surgery his boss replaced him and told Brad they no longer had a position for him at the agency. Here, even though by law was only entitled to a 12-week leave, because he was promised 14 weeks in the employee handbook, he may have a claim against his boss for violating the company’s standard.

6. In most situations, you can’t be replaced or demoted

If you take a medical leave of absence that is covered by the law, you are entitled to have your original position restored to you or another equal position. For example, Tammy was a full-time employee at a multinational package and delivery company working in the financial accounting sector.  She took a leave of absence to care for her child because he was suffering from a serious illness. Upon Tammy’s return, the head supervisor of the department told Tammy he had to replace her and now she must work in customer service as a customer service representative. Tammy was devastated by this news because this meant a huge pay cut for her in comparison to her position in finance. In addition, she was overqualified for the new position. Here, not only was Tammy replaced, but she was moved to a position that was considered a demotion from her original position and it was not equal in the payroll department. Tammy might have a claim against her employer for violating her right to take a leave of absence to care for her son.

There is an exception if the employee taking leave or did take leave was in a significant position such as a CEO or was high-up in management. In a situation such as this, an employer may not be required to hold the employee’s original position.

7. You can’t be fired or demoted because you took a leave of absence

After requesting or insisting on leave of absence or taking a leave of absence, your boss can not demote you or fire you because you took the leave. Mistreating you, singling you out, demoting you, or transferring you after you put a request in for taking a leave of absence may indicate retaliatory behavior.  This means your boss is not allowed to punish you or make your job more difficult specifically because you took a leave of absence. This may be considered retaliation which is prohibited by law in California.

Women had to risk their health before 1993’s FMLA became law. Women lost their jobs in childbirth and when their children were seriously ill. Men can lose their jobs too if they have to take time off from work to care for their sick children, or to care for themselves if they are very ill. Although the FMLA was approved in 1993, it took nine years to pass and provide employment security for families.

The Family and Medical Leave Act means that women don’t have to put their lives at risk by returning to work immediately after giving birth. Men also no longer have to fear losing their jobs if it is necessary to leave to care for their sick family members. Employers cannot terminate employees while they are on unpaid leave. This law gives job security.

The Family and Medical Leave Act was passed over two decades ago. It is the only law that prevents employers from firing employees for taking time off work for weeks if they are eligible and have a valid reason. It is the only law that allows for work-life balance. The FMLA had a huge impact on the country and provided job security for thousands of people, but it is not enough. The United States is the only industrialized country that doesn’t offer paid maternity leave or paid days off, as compared to other industrialized nations.

Workers who work five days per week in the UK have 28 days of paid leave, while the United States has 0 days. Most employers offer 10 days of paid vacation. Some countries around the world offer more paid vacations and days off than the United States. This is why the Family and Medical Leave Act, which was passed over two decades ago, is still not sufficient for American employees. Even though the act allows employees to take weeks off without having to risk losing their jobs, many employees don’t use those days off when they are most in need. Why? Because they are not paid. Even if they are necessary, many employees won’t take days off work. Many Americans are living on the streets and can’t afford to take days off work. They risk missing out on their monthly paychecks, so they have to keep showing up to work to care for their health or help a loved one.

The Family and Medical Leave Act will reach its full potential if the United States mandates a set number of paid days. They can take the time they need without risking their jobs and don’t have to worry about how they will pay for the month. Families will have fewer financial worries and be able to enjoy the FMLA benefits. This will allow them to benefit from the true purpose of FMLA, which is to provide job security and to help with work-life balance. Most of us are responsible for multiple responsibilities.

The Family and Medical Leave Act is a great activity that was passed to secure jobs and has had a huge impact on the workforce over the past 20 years. Although thousands have been able to reap the benefits of this act, there are still many who are not able to take advantage of it. It’s time to move forward and correct the problems that hold back FMLA-eligible employees who are unable to receive the benefits of the act due to financial reasons. Many families don’t have enough money to open a savings fund. Financial reasons should not be a reason for excluding any family. We Americans must leap forward and move in the right direction. All families should be able to participate in the Family and Medical Leave Act if they are eligible.

All families should be able to participate in the Family and Medical Leave Act if they are eligible. Financial reasons should not stop them from exercising a right they were granted more than two decades ago. It is time for a revolution and everyone deserves to be included in this country. It is what makes our nation great.

In taking all of these points into account, if you have an employment situation that involves issues with you taking a leave of absence, you should reach out to an Employment Attorney.

………………………………………..