News & Articles

At ILG Legal Office, we are dedicated to fighting for justice for employees who face discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. We want to extend our sincere gratitude to The Korea Times for their thorough and impactful coverage of the lawsuit filed by our client, Andrew Mo, against Samsung Research America (SRA). This case alleges wrongful termination in retaliation for reporting racial discrimination, as well as broader patterns of bias within Samsung’s corporate structure.

As The Korea Times reported, Mr. Mo courageously reported a deeply troubling remark allegedly made by a Samsung executive. Instead of addressing the issue, Samsung terminated Mr. Mo’s employment. The evidence we have gathered—including testimony from multiple witnesses—suggests a pervasive culture of racial bias and retaliation, reaching beyond SRA to Samsung Electronics America and Samsung headquarters in Korea.

A former facilities planner at SRA testified that a Black job candidate was rejected explicitly because of his race, and that non-Black, non-white employees were preferred for lower-level positions while Koreans were favored for leadership roles. A senior HR director at Samsung NEXT further testified that racial discrimination was common and that employees who spoke out were often fired in retaliation. The testimony of these witnesses reinforces what Mr. Mo has argued all along—this is not an isolated incident but a systemic issue.

The court has already rejected Samsung’s attempt to force this case into private arbitration, ensuring that the facts can come to light in a public forum. We are currently seeking to add Samsung Electronics America and Samsung Electronics to the lawsuit as joint employers, given their direct involvement in shaping corporate policies and employment practices.

Mr. Mo previously worked for Google’s Research and Artificial Intelligence division as Chief of Staff, and held additional leadership roles in the domains of AI/machine learning, software engineering, and large-scale data systems. In May 2021, Mo left Google to accept a job at Samsung in the executive management role of “Lab Head” for SRA’s Visual Display Intelligence Lab (VDIL) as a Senior Director and Principal Engineer. VDIL is one of the largest “labs” within SRA’s portfolio, a part of the “Digital Media Solutions” (“DMS”) organization. VDIL’s teams and projects include technology product research and development for consumer electronics segments involving Samsung “Smart TVs” and other smart home products, data and intelligence systems associated with Samsung “Smart TV” usage, and data applied toward Samsung product marketing and Samsung’s advertising subsidiary, “Samsung Ads.”

Calling on Witnesses to Come Forward

If you are a current or former Samsung employee who has experienced or witnessed discrimination or retaliation, we urge you to come forward. Your voice can help expose unlawful employment practices and bring about much-needed change. Confidential consultations are available, and you can reach us at:

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 415-580-2574

Speaking out against workplace injustice is never easy, but it is essential for holding corporations accountable. No one should have to choose between their career and their dignity. If you have any relevant information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We once again thank The Korea Times for their commitment to investigative journalism and for giving this important case the attention it deserves. We look forward to continuing our fight for justice and ensuring that all employees—regardless of race—are treated with the respect and fairness they deserve.

ILG Legal is proud to announce a significant win in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, which has granted our motion to lift the stay on discovery in the ongoing case of Andrew Mo vs. Samsung Research America, Inc. This decision marks a critical milestone in the employment law case against the tech giant.

Andrew Mo, a former Senior Director of Software at Samsung, reported discriminatory behavior within the company, only to be terminated in retaliation. ILG Legal took on his case and brought claims for unlawful retaliation, wrongful termination, and discrimination and harassment against one of the world’s largest tech companies.

The case’s complexity increased when Samsung sought to compel the case to arbitration, citing a clause in the employment agreement. However, the Court, after careful consideration, denied Samsung’s motion to compel arbitration, emphasizing that the agreement, as part of the employment terms, mandated adherence to California law—not just in the narrow scope of arbitration but in a broader interpretative context.

This denial was subsequently appealed by Samsung, leading to a stay of proceedings. However, the California legislature’s recent amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure section 1294(a) has shifted the legal landscape. This amendment was designed to prevent corporations from using appeals as a stalling tactic, thereby enabling cases to proceed without an unnecessary delay. The Court’s latest order cites this new legal framework, allowing discovery to continue despite the ongoing appeal. This is not just a procedural win, it’s a victory for all who are victims of corporate delay tactics in litigation.

ILG Legal’s persistence in advocating for Mr. Mo’s rights and strategic legal maneuvering have been instrumental in this outcome. The Court’s decision to allow discovery to move forward acknowledges the importance of allowing an investigation to proceed in a timely fashion. This victory underscores our resolve and readiness to confront challenges, no matter how formidable the opponent. At ILG Legal, we don’t just represent clients; we fight for what is right, ensuring that each victory paves the way for a fairer, more just system.

ILG Legal Office PC has secured a major victory for its client, The Guild Law School, Inc., by successfully obtaining a summary judgment in a wrongful termination lawsuit. The case, brought by a former employee, was dismissed by the court on the grounds that the lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations. This ruling underscores ILG Legal’s dedication to providing exceptional legal representation, including in its pro bono work.

A Commitment to Justice
ILG Legal took on this case pro bono, demonstrating the firm’s unwavering commitment to serving clients in need, regardless of their ability to pay. The firm approaches every case with the same level of diligence and strategic precision, ensuring that justice is served fairly and effectively.

The Case: Statute of Limitations as the Key Issue
The lawsuit stemmed from an employment dispute in which the plaintiff alleged wrongful termination by The Guild Law School, Inc. However, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, citing that the lawsuit had been filed beyond the legally permitted timeframe.

According to the court’s order, the plaintiff was terminated on October 15, 2019. Under California law, the statute of limitations for wrongful termination is three years, meaning the plaintiff had until October 15, 2022, to file a complaint. Due to COVID-19 emergency tolling measures, the filing deadline was extended by 178 days to April 11, 2023. However, the plaintiff did not file her complaint until April 14, 2023, missing the deadline and rendering her claims time-barred.

The Court’s Ruling
The court granted ILG Legal’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety. The court also granted the defendant’s request for judicial notice, further strengthening the legal position of The Guild Law School, Inc.

This decisive ruling highlights ILG Legal’s expertise in employment law and procedural litigation. By meticulously analyzing the timeline and applicable tolling rules, the firm successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff’s claims were untimely and could not proceed.

Excellence in Pro Bono Representation
ILG Legal believes that every client, whether a paying client or a pro bono client, deserves top-tier legal advocacy. The firm’s victory in this case reinforces its reputation for fighting vigorously on behalf of all clients, ensuring that legal processes are followed and that justice prevails.

For organizations and individuals facing complex legal challenges, ILG Legal’s track record of success proves that they are a trusted ally in the courtroom. This recent win is yet another example of the firm’s dedication to upholding the law and delivering results.

If you or your organization need legal representation, whether in employment law or other areas, ILG Legal Office PC is ready to provide the same level of commitment and skill that led to this victory for The Guild Law School, Inc.

In a landmark June 28, 2024 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overruling the long-standing Chevron deference, a doctrine that has significantly influenced the landscape of administrative law and, by extension, employment law. This decision marks a pivotal shift in how courts may now approach statutory interpretation, especially in the context of employment regulations governed by federal agencies.

This may affect litigation of an employment lawsuit any time an administrative agency issues guidance about how to interpret a law. Thus, it could come into play for wrongful termination lawsuits, retaliation claims, discrimination, harassment, or any wage and hour claim. The old and the new approach have nuances that an experienced employment attorney can help navigate. Below we have summarized the case and how it may affect employment claims and the determination of legal rights.

Case Analysis

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the National Marine Fisheries Service had expanded definitions under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which were previously upheld under Chevron’s deferential framework. The Supreme Court, however, found this expansion inconsistent with the Act’s text as interpreted through the courts’ independent assessment. The decision emphasizes that even well-reasoned agency interpretations must align with the judicial understanding of the statute.

The End of Chevron Deference

For over four decades, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., established a two-step process for reviewing agency interpretations of statutes they administer. Under Chevron, courts first determined whether Congress had directly addressed the issue in question. If not, courts deferred to agency interpretations deemed “reasonable,” thus granting agencies significant leeway in areas of ambiguity.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo explicitly overturns this framework. The ruling reasserts that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), it is the court’s duty—not the agencies’—to interpret ambiguous statutes. This seismic shift reemphasizes the court’s role in statutory interpretation, underscoring that agencies cannot receive deference simply based on the ambiguity of a statute.

Implications for Employment Law

The decision has profound implications for employment law, particularly in how employment-related statutes will be interpreted and enforced. Federal agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) have historically issued rulings and guidelines interpreting ambiguous language in laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

With the elimination of Chevron deference, courts are now required to undertake a more rigorous judicial review of these interpretations. This means that previous agency interpretations, which might have expanded or restricted employment rights under a broader interpretation of the law, may no longer hold unless they align closely with the judicial reading of the statute.

What This Means for Employers and Employees

1.   Employers and employees may face a period of uncertainty as lower courts re-evaluate existing agency interpretations that were previously upheld under Chevron. Legal standards that were once considered settled may now be subject to challenge.
2.   Potential for More Litigation: As agencies lose the ability to interpret statutory ambiguities definitively, there may be an increase in litigation as parties challenge the applicability and interpretation of regulatory provisions. This could lead to more frequent and varied judicial interpretations of the same statute, potentially leading to a patchwork of standards until higher courts resolve the inconsistencies.
3.   Impact on Agency Guidance: Agencies might become more cautious in issuing guidance that stretches statutory boundaries. This could lead to more conservative interpretations that stick closely to the text of the law, potentially limiting the scope of regulatory protections.
4.   Long-Term Effects on Employment Practices: Employers must stay vigilant and possibly reconsider employment practices that were based on agency interpretations, which might no longer be viable. Compliance strategies may need to be adjusted in response to new judicial interpretations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo represents a fundamental realignment of the power dynamics between the judiciary and administrative agencies. For employment law, the decision introduces a new era of statutory interpretation that prioritizes judicial readings over agency discretion. Employers, employees, and their legal counsel must closely monitor how this shift affects regulatory compliance and enforcement. As the landscape of federal employment law enters this new phase, staying informed and adaptable will be key to navigating the challenges ahead. Because California law sometimes borrows from federal law, employees and employers will want to seek assistance from experienced employment attorneys like those at ILG Legal Office, PC.

At ILG Legal Office, P.C., we understand how challenging it can be to navigate the complexities of employment law, especially when ending a job. One area where employees must be vigilant is in understanding the severance agreement process. Under California Government Code 12964.5(b)(4), specific protections are put in place regarding the waiting period for severance agreements, designed to ensure that employees have adequate time to review and consider the terms being offered. Here’s what you need to know:

What is the Waiting Period?

The waiting period is a crucial time frame that California law provides to employees before they can be required to sign a severance agreement that includes a release or waiver of rights. Specifically, California Gov Code 12964.5(b)(4) sets a mandatory waiting period of at least five business days. This period allows employees the necessary time to review the severance agreement thoroughly and consult with legal counsel to ensure the terms are fair and in their best interest.

Note that other waiting periods may be triggered depending on the specific circumstances at issue. This article outlines the bare minimum waiting period applicable to a severance agreement in California. Details about the worker, such as age, may trigger longer waiting periods. Similarly, other circumstances regarding the termination may trigger additional waiting periods. Check out our other posts for more information on longer waiting periods that may apply.

Why is the Waiting Period Important?

The waiting period serves several essential purposes:

• Protection from Pressure: It protects employees from being pressured into signing an agreement quickly without having the opportunity to understand the implications.
• Legal Consultation: It provides the opportunity to consult with an attorney who can provide advice on the severance agreement’s contents, including what rights are being waived and the benefits being received.
• Consideration of Alternatives: Employees can consider whether negotiating for better terms is possible or even necessary.

Your Rights During the Waiting Period

During the waiting period, you, as an employee, have the right to:

• Seek Legal Advice: You are encouraged to use this time to consult with an employment law attorney who can provide guidance specific to your situation.
• Negotiate Terms: If you believe the terms are not favorable, this is the time to discuss potential changes with your employer.

Exemption from Minimum Waiting Period

There are two exemptions that commonly arise regarding this mandatory waiting period for severance agreements: (1) Very small companies with less than five employees and (2) agreements to resolve formal complaints.

• (1) According to FEHA, an “employer” includes “any person regularly employing five or more persons, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly ….” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926(d). See Rohm v. Homer, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1285 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Thus, if an employer has one to four total employees, this rule does not apply.
• (2) This waiting period does not apply to agreements negotiated after a formal claim has been submitted. This means that the minimum waiting period discussed herein does not apply if you sign a settlement agreement after filing a formal claim in court, arbitration, or before an administrative agency like the federal EEOC or California’s Civil Rights Department (previously named the Department of Fair Employment and Housing). The exemption also has a vague reference indicating that this severance agreement waiting period does not apply if the employee filed a claim “through an employer’s internal complaint process.”

How ILG Legal Office, P.C. Can Help

At ILG Legal Office, P.C., we specialize in employment law and are committed to ensuring that employees fully understand their rights and options. If you are presented with a severance agreement, our experienced attorneys can help you review and negotiate the terms to ensure they meet your needs and reflect your contributions to the company.

Understanding your rights under California Gov Code 12964.5(b)(4) is vital in ensuring you make informed decisions about your employment transition. If you find yourself needing to negotiate a severance agreement, do not hesitate to reach out for professional legal support.

For more information or to schedule a consultation, please contact us at ILG Legal Office. Our team is here to help guide you through every step of the severance agreement process, ensuring your rights are protected and your future is secured.

“Transparency, fairness, and accountability” might sound like universal principles, but these are not merely aspirational values—they are rights that every employee deserves. This ethos is at the core of our ongoing representation of Mr. Leilei Shan in his lawsuit against Google LLC, a case with grave allegations that highlight concerns over the company’s internal practices. This case alleges a pattern of behavior that undermines the ethical standards we expect of a tech behemoth like Google.

As you may recall from our previous post, Mr. Shan, a former senior manager of corporate engineering at Google, has alleged a concerning series of events where he alleges that he was pressured to comply with unethical demands because of his Chinese heritage, under the guise of “loyalty.” This included being coerced into justifying unwarranted vendor relationships and participating in deceitful practices, all of which he courageously refused.

Disturbingly, the lawsuit highlights how an apprenticeship program, purportedly aimed at helping underprivileged youths, was manipulated. Instead of serving its stated purpose, the program reportedly funneled benefits to children of affluent Silicon Valley professionals, including those of a Google vice-president and other high-ranking executives. Mr. Shan’s objections to these practices marked the beginning of a series of retaliatory actions that culminated in his termination, despite his previous exemplary performance reviews.

Recent coverage of the case from media outlets like SFGate, LAW360, and Mountain View Voice paint a bleak picture of how deep-rooted bias and retaliatory culture permeates the tech giant. This is not just about one individual; it is about holding a corporate titan accountable and ensuring such grievances lead to substantial change.

Stay tuned for updates on this significant case, which serves as a reminder of the importance of corporate accountability and the impact it has on real lives.

For further information, visit our website or contact our office directly. Your rights matter, and we are here to defend them.

Once upon a time, “Don’t be evil” was Google’s corporate motto. It may be due for a revisit, as an employee was fired in retaliation for bravely speaking out against deceitful and unlawful practices.

ILG Legal Office is representing former Google employee Leilei Shan in his lawsuit against Google LLC. Mr. Shan’s complaint alleges serious misconduct within the tech giant’s ranks. His case brings to light claims of deep-rooted discrimination and fraud that not only affected his career but also deceived charitable donors and compromised the integrity of Google’s apprenticeship programs. This case underscores the importance of upholding ethical conduct within major corporations and protecting employees who call out unethical practices.

Leilei Shan’s tenure at Google was marked by exceptional performance and dedication. Having climbed the ranks over nearly 14 years to become a Senior Manager of Corporate Engineering at the company, his career trajectory took a nosedive following his complaints about unethical practices within Google’s apprenticeship program. According to Shan, the program was manipulated to favor the children of certain high-ranking executives at the expense of deserving candidates, under the guise of promoting diversity and inclusion.

Shan alleges he was coerced into showing “loyalty” and participating in unethical practices, which he steadfastly refused. His complaints to human resources about these practices were seemingly ignored, and his once stellar career at Google began to deteriorate rapidly. According to Bloomberg Law, “Shan says he complained to Google’s human resources department multiple times in summer 2023 about [a Google executive’s] demands of loyalty based on his race and her alleged bias against him for his age. The complaint says this unlawful bias meant that his performance was no longer measured by objective work indicators but by degree of loyalty.”

The Daily Journal further elaborates on the misuse of the charity Innovantre, where executives allegedly manipulated donations to benefit their own families under the guise of supporting diversity. “[The Google executive] also failed to clarify the nonprofit’s association with Google’s Apprentice Program, all the while collecting cash donations on Innovantre.org and Google’s internal charity donation website,” the article highlights, painting a troubling picture of deception at the expense of genuine philanthropic efforts.

This case not only reveals Google’s internal practices but also raises critical questions about the broader tech industry’s responsibility to maintain fairness and transparency. At ILG Legal Office, we are committed to advocating for corporate accountability and supporting our client through this challenging journey.

We will continue to provide information and updates on this case, so stay tuned to our website for new developments.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC clarified whistleblower laws in the United States under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Court’s February 8, 2024 ruling addresses critical aspects of what whistleblowers must prove to establish retaliation claims. In this article, we will dissect this decision to highlight its implications for both employers and employees in California and beyond.

Case Background

Trevor Murray, the plaintiff, was a former employee of UBS Securities. Murray’s allegations centered around his claim that he was terminated as a direct result of whistleblowing activities. Specifically, he reported that two leaders of the UBS trading desk were engaging in practices he believed to be illegal and unethical. These reports, he argued, fell squarely under the protections afforded by the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which are designed to shield employees who expose fraudulent activities or violations of SEC regulations. The central issue in his case was whether whistleblowers must prove that their employers acted with “retaliatory intent” when they faced adverse actions after reporting wrongdoing.

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Second Circuit decision that had introduced the requirement for whistleblowers to prove retaliatory intent by their employers. The Court ruled that the statutory language of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not include such a requirement. Instead, the Court emphasized that a whistleblower only needs to show that their protected activity was a “contributing factor” to the adverse employment action. This standard is intended to be more accommodating to whistleblowers, easing their burden of proof in retaliation cases.

Implications for Employment Practices

This ruling has significant implications for employment law cases involving the Sarbanes-Oxley Act:

1. Easier Burden of Proof for Whistleblowers: Whistleblowers do not need to demonstrate that their employer had retaliatory intent, which lowers the evidentiary barrier for proving retaliation claims.
2. Review of Corporate Policies: Companies must ensure that their whistleblower policies and practices are robust and clearly documented to prevent any discriminatory actions that could be perceived as retaliation.
3. Training and Awareness: Employers should conduct regular training sessions with management and employees about the rights of whistleblowers and the legal repercussions of violating these protections.

Conclusion

The Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC decision reaffirms the protective measures intended by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for whistleblowers. It underscores the importance of a legal framework that supports employees in reporting wrongdoing without the fear of retaliation. At ILG Legal Office, we are dedicated to guiding our clients through these complex legal landscapes, ensuring that both employers and employees understand their rights and obligations under current laws.

Contact Us

For more detailed advice and legal support related to employment law and whistleblower protections, please contact ILG Legal Office. Stay informed and compliant with our expert legal guidance.

In a legal landscape where the preservation of attorney-client privilege is paramount, ILG Legal’s recent court victory underscores our commitment to defending this foundational principle of law. Our recent success on behalf of Kenneth Freedman against invasive discovery requests highlights the importance of protecting confidential legal communications.

The dispute originated from Plaintiff’s attempt to compel Mr. Freedman and his mostly retired firm to produce privileged documents and information pertaining to clients. Plaintiff’s demands were staggering in their scope: seeking privileged documents and information spanning over a decade. Plaintiff’s motion was based on the slender pretext that Mr. Freedman’s firm had once engaged a contract attorney who had also worked for Plaintiff’s firm. Complying with Plaintiff’s demands would effectively erode the attorney-client privilege that is vital to the practice of law.

Faced with this challenge, ILG Legal Office mounted a robust defense, emphasizing the sanctity of privileged communication and the baselessness of Plaintiff’s request. Our argument was vindicated in a ruling by the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, which recognized the excessive and improper nature of the discovery requests.

The court granted, in part, ILG Legal’s motion for a protective, significantly curbing Plaintiff’s demands. The court found the number of discovery requests to be excessive and that the attempt to uncover the identity of certain clients posed serious concerns. The court mandated the production of only a minimal set of information within very narrow parameters, focusing on non-confidential client details and only for a short timeframe. This ruling protected the confidentiality of the Mr. Freedman’s attorney-client communications, thus preserving the integrity of attorney-client privilege.

This victory is not merely a win for Kenneth Freedman and ILG Legal, but a win for all legal professionals and their clients. It reaffirms the critical importance of attorney-client privilege as the bedrock of our legal system and demonstrates our firm’s diligent effort and unwavering dedication to protecting our clients’ rights and interests.

At ILG Legal Office, we are inspired by this outcome and remain dedicated to upholding the highest standards of legal practice. We extend our deepest gratitude to our legal team and our client, Kenneth Freedman, for their trust and resilience throughout this process. Together, we have helped ensure that the confidentiality of legal communications remains inviolable.

On January 11, 2024, in federal court, ILG Legal Office, PC helped secure approval of a $1.89 million
settlement fund on behalf of approximately 16,577 current and former employees. Stephen Noel Ilg
appeared along with lead counsel Justin Marquez of Wilshire Firm, to argue in support of the settlement
that will end litigation that spanned almost six (6) years. In February 2018, ILG Legal Office, PC filed a
class action claim in the Superior Court in Oakland, California which Bank of America removed to federal
court. Around the same time, a similar lawsuit was filed by Wilshire Law Firm. The two law firms joined
forces and helped navigate a series of battles with the banking giant, including motions to dismiss and
for summary judgment.

Bank of America will pay $1.5 million to resolve the claims and may pay up to $1.89 million depending
on whether the final number of applicable employee pay periods worked during the relevant time
period is higher than the estimate provided during negotiations.

After years of discovery, motion practice, and even appellate briefs, the parties negotiated a resolution
of all class action and PAGA claims. The $1.89 million settlement resolves claims of 16,577 workers, and
the group appeared to support the class settlement in that zero workers objected to the deal and only
six (6) workers opted out of the deal.

The Court praised the attorneys involved for their superb professionalism during the lengthy class
action’s history. In granting the attorney fee award, the Court approved Stephen Noel Ilg work to be
paid at the rate of $750 per hour based on a series of legal accomplishments in employment law,
particularly in employment cases.

The class action case alleged that Bank of America violated a series of employment rules, which the Bank
denied. More specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that the Bank owed workers money for failing to pay
minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal periods, failing to authorize and
permit rest periods, failing to pay meal and rest premium payments at the correct rate of pay, failing to
timely pay final wages at termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements.
ILG Legal Office, PC thanks the Court for approving this excellent deal and applauds the Class
Representatives for their stellar work leading this complex case.

2023 Employment Trends: What You Need to Know

The employment landscape in the United States has gone through notable changes in 2023, vital for both employers and employees to understand. In August, the employment numbers hit a record high with over 161 million individuals employed. However, the overall employment rate experienced a slight dip to 60.20% in October from 60.40% in September. Furthermore, job openings increased to about 9.55 million by September’s end.

Implications for Employees and Employers

1. Understanding Employment Terms and Contracts: The rise in job openings means more people are entering new employment roles. For employees, it’s crucial to comprehend the terms of your employment and any applicable employment contracts. Employers, on the other hand, need to ensure their employment terms and contracts are clear, fair, and legally compliant. This mutual understanding can prevent future disputes and maintain a healthy workplace relationship.
2. Stable Yet Dynamic Job Market: Despite a steady unemployment rate, workplace challenges such as wrongful termination, discrimination, and harassment persist. Employees should be aware of their rights and seek legal counsel if they face such issues. Employers must be diligent in maintaining a fair and compliant workplace, understanding that preventive legal advice can safeguard against potential disputes.
3. Workplace Safety and Compliance: The previous year’s rise in workplace injuries and illnesses highlights the importance of workplace safety. Employers are responsible for providing a safe working environment and adhering to safety regulations. Employees should be aware of their rights regarding workplace safety and compensation in case of any injury or illness.
4. Adapting to Employment Rate Fluctuations: The slight fluctuation in employment rates signals the need for both employees and employers to be adaptable and informed. Employers should strategize for potential changes in the labor market, such as restructuring or downsizing, while ensuring compliance with employment laws. Employees, meanwhile, should stay informed about their rights and options during such transitions.

Conclusion

The employment trends in 2023 bring forth different considerations for employees and employers. From contract negotiations to maintaining a compliant and safe workplace, understanding these trends is crucial. At ILG Legal Office, we provide expert legal advice and support to both employers and employees, helping navigate the complexities of employment law. Whether you’re seeking to understand the terms of your employment, facing workplace issues, or needing guidance on legal compliance, our team is here to assist in fostering a balanced and legally sound employment landscape.

2024 is set to be a pivotal year for employment law changes in California. Whether you’re an employer or an employee, staying informed about the latest legal shifts is crucial. ILG Legal is here to guide you through the maze of new and updated laws affecting minimum wage, sick leave, reproductive rights, noncompetes, and more.

Minimum Wage: On the Rise for a Fairer Future

Starting in 2024, California’s minimum wage is set to increase to $16.00 per hour for all employers, regardless of size. This is an increase from California’s current minimum wage of $15.50 per hour and reflects California’s ongoing commitment to higher wage standards. Additionally, California Senate Bill 525 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2023, mandating an increase in the minimum wage for healthcare workers to $25 per hour by June 2026. This law also introduces a new salary threshold to determine exempt healthcare employees, who are not subject to overtime regulations. The legislation encompasses all healthcare workers across various settings, regardless of their employment status with the facility.

Impact on Overtime Exemption Test

The increase in the minimum wage in California also affects the minimum salary threshold for exempt employees. In California, to qualify for the overtime exemption, an employee must earn a minimum monthly salary equivalent to twice the state minimum wage for full-time employment. With the minimum wage rising to $16.00 per hour, the new minimum salary for exempt employees will be $5,546.67 per month (or $66,560 annually), up from the current threshold based on the $15.50 per hour minimum wage.

Additionally, California’s AB 1228 sets a $20 minimum wage specifically for workers in fast food establishments that are part of a national chain with more than 60 locations. The legislation defines these chains by their standardized branding, menu, and service models, which typically include ordering and paying before eating with limited table service. This wage increase aims to improve the earnings of fast-food workers in large, standardized restaurant chains across the state.

Sick Leave: Adapting to a Post-Pandemic World

The State of California has broadened the scope of paid sick leave with the passage of SB 616. This legislative move comes as a response to a wave of local Paid Sick Leave (PSL) mandates enacted by various cities across the state. On October 4, Governor Newsom approved SB 616, which enhances the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 by introducing several significant changes. These amendments carry far-reaching consequences as they extend to nearly all workers in California who spend at least 30 days working within the state annually. Given the extensive coverage of this law, it’s crucial for employers to prepare for and adapt to these new requirements promptly.

SB 365 Ends Automatic Stay of Litigation During Appeals on Arbitration Orders

With the enactment of SB 365, the automatic suspension of litigation throughout the appeals process is a thing of the past. Governor Newsom has signed off on legislation stipulating that proceedings in California trial courts will no longer be put on hold during the appeal of an order that dismisses or rejects a petition to compel arbitration. Set to take effect on January 1, 2024, this new statute grants courts the authority to determine if a case should continue during the pendency of an appeal.

Compassionate Leave for Reproductive Loss: Understanding SB 848

California Senate Bill 848 acknowledges the profound impact of reproductive loss on employees and mandates compassionate leave to grieve. This legislation entitles employees to take time off for the loss of a pregnancy, providing them with the necessary space to recover emotionally and physically without the added stress of work obligations. SB 848 is a significant step towards recognizing reproductive loss as a valid reason for leave, reflecting a growing awareness of its effects on employees’ well-being.

California Strengthens Worker Mobility with Assembly Bill 1076 Banning Noncompete Agreements

California Assembly Bill 1076, signed into law on October 13, 2023, strengthens the state’s prohibitions against noncompete agreements in employment contracts. The bill amends Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code to reflect the California Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, effectively making it unfair competition to include or enforce noncompete clauses in employment agreements. This legislative action underlines California’s commitment to safeguarding the free movement and trade of workers, ensuring that employees can pursue opportunities in their field without being hindered by previous employment contracts.

California Enacts SB 699 to Void Noncompete Agreements

Senate Bill 699, signed by Governor Newsom on September 1, 2023, is set to reinforce California’s stance against noncompete agreements, bolstering the state’s public policy that supports employee mobility and open competition. Effective January 1, 2024, this law makes it illegal for employers to enter into or attempt to enforce noncompete agreements with employees, rendering such agreements void across the board in California. This includes noncompete contracts made outside of California, ensuring that all such agreements are unenforceable regardless of the location where the employee worked or where the agreement was signed. SB 699 also introduces a private right of action for employees, allowing them to seek legal remedies, including attorney fees, against employers who attempt to impose unlawful noncompete agreements.

Strengthening Employee Protections: California’s SB 497 Bolsters Anti-Retaliation and Equal Pay Measures

Effective January 1, 2024, California’s Senate Bill 497, known as the Equal Pay and Anti-Retaliation Protection Act, amends various sections of the California Labor Code to bolster protections for employees engaged in legally protected activities. The Act specifically aims to protect employees who file complaints, participate in investigations, or exercise their rights under labor laws from discrimination or adverse actions by employers. SB 497 introduces higher civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation against employers who retaliate in such contexts. Furthermore, it reinforces the principles of equal pay for substantially similar work and safeguards employees from retaliation related to wage transparency—ensuring they can freely disclose, discuss, or inquire about wages without fear of employer retribution.

Staying Ahead of the Curve with ILG Legal

Navigating these changes can be complex, but ILG Legal is here to help. We offer expert legal advice and compliance strategies to ensure you’re ahead of the curve. Whether you’re revising company policies or seeking to understand your rights, our team is ready to assist.

The year 2024 brings significant changes to California’s employment laws, reflecting the state’s progressive values and its commitment to worker rights. From minimum wage increases to strengthening worker mobility, these changes underscore California’s role as a leader in employment law reform. Stay connected with ILG Legal for the latest insights and guidance in this dynamic legal landscape.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice.

In a landmark move, California has recently signed a new bill that will significantly impact both employers and employees in the state. Effective January 1, 2024, the mandatory paid sick leave in California will be expanded from three days or twenty-four hours to five days or forty hours. This article will provide an overview of the new legislation, its implications, and what steps businesses should take to comply.

Key Changes in the New Bill

The new bill, set to take effect at the start of 2024, brings about the following key changes:

• Expansion of Paid Sick Leave: The mandatory paid sick leave will be increased from the current three days or twenty-four hours to five days or forty hours.
• Accrual Rates: The bill also addresses the rate at which employees accrue paid sick leave, offering more flexibility.
• Carry Over: Employees will be allowed to carry over unused sick leave to the next year, up to a certain limit.

These changes are implemented by Senate Bill 616 which amends Labor Code sections 245.5, 246, and 246.5. For a detailed understanding of the bill, you can refer to the official California Legislative Information website.

Implications for Employers

Employers need to be proactive in adapting to these changes. Here are some steps to consider:

• Update Policies: Review and update your company’s sick leave policies to align with the new regulations.
• Employee Training: Educate your employees about the changes to ensure smooth implementation.
• Record-Keeping: Maintain accurate records of sick leave to avoid any legal complications.

Implications for Employees

Employees stand to benefit significantly from this expansion:

• Increased Leave: More days off means better work-life balance and health.
• Flexibility: The new accrual rates offer greater flexibility in how you can use your sick leave.
• Reference the Statute: If your employer has not yet updated its policies, you may point management to the statutes referenced above, particularly Labor Code section 246.

How to Prepare for the Changes

• Review Current Policies: Both employers and employees should review their current sick leave policies to understand what changes need to be made.
• Consult Legal Advisors: Given the complexity of employment law, consulting a legal advisor is often beneficial.
• Stay Updated: Keep an eye on updates from official California government websites.

Conclusion

The expansion of mandatory paid sick leave in California is a significant step towards employee welfare. Both employers and employees need to be well-informed and prepared for these changes. Stay tuned for more updates on California employment law.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice.

ILG Legal Office has recently filed a wrongful termination lawsuit on behalf of Cindy K. Hernandez against automaker Tesla in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Ms. Hernandez, a former advisor at Tesla, has come forward with allegations of racial and age-related discrimination during her employment at the company. Legal news site law.com reported on the case here.

In her role at Tesla, Ms. Hernandez was responsible for guiding customers through showrooms, assisting with vehicle sales, and providing customer service. Despite her dedication and professionalism, she was subjected to multiple instances of harassment and discrimination from her manager and coworkers. Tesla employees made various comments about her age, including questions about her retirement plans and remarks about her continuing to work at her age.

The lawsuit also brings attention to the behavior of Ms. Hernandez’s direct manager, who made unprovoked and embarrassing statements in front of customers she was assisting. Furthermore, the manager also made inappropriate comments about Ms. Hernandez’s physical features and cultural background. Tesla’s general manager for North America, did not intervene during these incidents and even joined in the laughter, contributing to a hostile work environment.

In addition to the claims of racial and age-related discrimination, Ms. Hernandez also suffered unlawful retaliation. Tesla terminated her employment on false grounds of “stealing company property,” despite having received proper authorization from a manager to take a company car overnight. Ms. Hernandez is seeking a jury trial, penalties against Tesla, and various forms of damages and compensation.

Our team, led by attorney Stephen Ilg, is fully committed to representing Ms. Hernandez in this case. While the legal process is still ongoing, we are optimistic that this case will serve as a catalyst for positive change at the automaker, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment in the workplace for individuals of all ages and ethnicities.

We are steadfast in our commitment to justice and fair treatment in the workplace, and we look forward to keeping you updated on the progress of this important case. We are asking anyone with information about discrimination at Tesla to contact our office.

Arbitration agreements have found their way into the vast majority of employment contracts at high-profile companies, making arbitration a political hot topic. Although state and federal law are still pro-arbitration, ILG Legal Office’s current case involving Samsung Research America Inc. and Andrew Mo in Santa Clara County has shined a spotlight on how employees can still defeat such agreements to keep a dispute in a public courtroom. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at a recent court decision in the case and explore its implications for both employees and employers.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Andrew Mo, a former employee of Samsung Research America Inc., filed a lawsuit against the company for discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation. Mo had left his senior position at Google to join Samsung as a senior director and principal engineer. During the hiring process, Mo asked for the arbitration clauses to be modified or removed from his employment contracts. Samsung insisted they were non-negotiable.

Mo later reported instances of racial discrimination within the company, specifically by Samsung Research America’s vice president. Around a month later, Mo was terminated with the stated reason of “role elimination.” Mo initiated the lawsuit, and Samsung sought to compel arbitration based on the clauses in Mo’s employment contract.

THE COURT’S DECISION
The court, presided over by Judge Evette D. Pennypacker, denied Samsung’s motion to compel arbitration. The judge found the arbitration agreement “unconscionably one-sided” and thus unenforceable. A significant point in the court’s decision was that the agreement allowed Samsung to obtain injunctive relief against Mo for a breach of the company’s confidentiality agreement without needing to prove actual damages. In contrast, if Mo was to seek relief for claims he had against Samsung, he would be forced into private arbitration.

In a Daily Journal article that reported on the pivotal ruling, Stephen N. Ilg, of ILG Legal Office PC, who represents Mo in the case, praised the court for carefully scrutinizing unfair arbitration agreements forced on workers like Andrew Mo. Ilg emphasized that the ruling demonstrated that courts would not simply rubber-stamp a motion to force a public lawsuit into private arbitration.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS

For Employees:

• Equal Footing: The court’s decision reinforces the principle that both parties in an employment relationship should be on as equal footing as possible when it comes to resolving disputes.
• Access to Judicial System: The ruling shows that clauses aiming to restrict employees’ access to the judicial system, while maintaining the employer’s ability to seek relief in court, could be deemed unenforceable.
• Negotiation Power: This case demonstrates the importance of negotiating, or at least attempting to negotiate, the terms of arbitration agreements before joining a company.

For Employers:

• Contract Scrutiny: Companies should carefully review their existing employment contracts to ensure that the arbitration clauses are fair and enforceable.
• Transparency: To minimize legal risks, employers should strive for transparency in their contracts and clearly explain all terms to prospective employees.
• Legal Preparedness: Employers need to be prepared for the possibility that courts may not enforce an arbitration clause, making them subject to potentially expensive and public litigation.

CONCLUSION
The recent Santa Clara County court ruling is a significant milestone in the ongoing debate about the fairness and enforceability of arbitration clauses in employment contracts. The ruling emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that ensures both employees and employers are treated fairly. It’s an instructive case for both employees considering their legal rights and employers reviewing their contractual obligations. For any issues involving arbitration agreements, contact an attorney at ILG Legal Office who is ready to help you.

Stephen Ilg Was Named a Top Employment Attorney in California by the LA & SF Daily Journal in its annual list published on June 29, 2022. Congratulations to owner Stephen Ilg! The LA/SF Daily Journal is the largest legal newspaper in California-the most populous U.S. State. Each year, the Daily Journal identifies the most accomplished attorneys in different practice areas and profiles them in a special supplement; this year Stephen Ilg was honored with the prestigious award for Labor and Employment. Thank you to all of ILG Legal’s clients who allowed us to fight for your rights which gave our team the chance to showcase its knowledge and skills.

Severance agreements are contracts between departing workers and their employers. This article will review basic terminology, strategy, and tactics applicable to employees and employers considering a severance agreement. The following are not trade secrets; rather, these are fundamental concepts that all effective employment attorneys—whether representing plaintiffs or defendants—do, or should, understand.

Terminology: “Severance agreement” is a contract between a worker and an employer. This contract is often called a severance agreement, severance package, or separation agreement. Regardless of which term is used, this contract is a form of settlement agreement. Almost every severance agreement in California includes the following two basic deal terms: (a) the employer pays money and (b) the worker gives up the right to file a lawsuit against the employer.  Many other deal terms may be included, but the core function of this contract is that the employer pays something to avoid a lawsuit.

Practical Context: In private practice (i.e., ignoring governmental positions), most departing workers do not receive any severance offer. The vast majority of separations ILG Legal Office, PC has observed, including workers who were forcibly terminated and workers who voluntarily departed, involve zero offers of any severance payment with a few caveats. First, some companies—particularly, sophisticated technology companies—have an internal custom whereby many, most or all employees are offered a severance package; not many companies fit this description, but if you work at a company known to have offered several people severance packages, you have a greater chance of receiving a severance offer. Second, certain high-level employees have employment contract terms guaranteeing the right to a severance package if certain conditions are met. Thus, if you are an employer considering terminating a worker without a severance package or a worker being terminated without receiving any severance offer, you are within what we would characterize as the most common form of employment separation.

Strategy: Our law firm ILG Legal Office, PC handles severance agreement negotiations for both employees and employers (aka workers and companies). As explained above, most separations do not involve any severance agreement; this article does not discuss the decision of offering a severance agreement or not offering one; the following discussion is specific to situations where the employer has decided to offer something.

The basic strategic consideration governing severance negotiations is as follows: the greater the risk to the employer of an employment-related lawsuit, the larger the severance amount that would be justified. Factors that tend to increase the amount of the severance payment include but are not limited to: (1) Strong employment claims, (2) Large potential damages from employment claims, (3) Employer’s desire to avoid litigation, and (4) Worker’s inclination to file a formal claim.

For instance, if a particular worker has (1) strong legal claims, (2) with large damages, (3) against an employer that fears lawsuits, and (4) if the worker is comfortable litigating a lawsuit, each of those factors would tend to increase the amount of the settlement. To state the obvious, this is not always the case; rather, the point is that in general the four factors mentioned above tend to increase a severance payment while the lack of any of the four characteristics referenced above would tend to decrease the expected value of a severance payment.

Tactics: A worker or employer considering a severance offer have the following basic options: (a) accept the existing offer, (b) reject the existing offer and negotiate without a lawyer, (c) reject the existing offer and negotiate with a lawyer, or (d) reject the existing offer and cease negotiations. This decision is complicated, and we cannot recommend any of these options as a general default; instead, each decision is unique. We suggest you contact an experienced law firm like ours; our initial consultations are free, so please call us at (415)580-2574 if you are considering a severance agreement, severance package, separation agreement or any other contract wherein the worker is releasing any rights to file a lawsuit in conjunction with departure from a job.

In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court ruled that State and federal judges have been applying the wrong legal test to whistleblower employee claims. Stephen Noel Ilg, owner of ILG Legal Office, PC and a Professor of Law, authored an article on the topic which was published in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal.  The article is available online at the following link: DailyJournal.  Our firm congratulates Ilg on this published article. We have received great feedback including compliments from mediators and a retired California Appellate Court justice.

The crux of the ruling in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 2022 DJDAR 967 No. S266001, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022) is that whistleblower employees never need to prove that the employer’s stated reason for termination is a sham, which is generally referred to as “pretext.” For decades, State and federal courts have required whistleblower employees to prove their employer is lying even though the California statute on the issue clearly states that the claim is governed by a different test.

By its terms, Labor Code section 1102.6 describes the applicable substantive standards and burdens of proof for both parties in a Section 1102.5 retaliation case: First, it must be “demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence” that the employee’s protected whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” to an adverse employment action. Then, once the employee has made that necessary threshold showing, the employer bears “the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence” that the alleged adverse employment action would have occurred “for legitimate, independent reasons” even if the employee had not engaged in protected whistleblowing activities.

The attorneys at ILG Legal Office, PC are on the cutting edge of legal developments. We thank the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal for showcasing an article by a member of our team. The full link to the article is: https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/365880-ruling-ends-decades-of-improper-whistleblower-burden-shifting.

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC for Gender Discrimination

On November 22, 2021, our law firm filed a class action and collective action lawsuit against Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC alleging that females, including those who were designated female at birth and those who identify as female, suffer from systemic gender discrimination. Several media sources, including Forbes.com, are now covering the new case.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisakim/2021/11/23/former-sony-playstation-employee-alleges-gender-discrimination-in-lawsuit/?sh=3a3e8a4d6a79

Sony reports that forty-one percent (41%) of PlayStation owners are females (i.e., 41% of the owners of the two most recent consoles, the PS4 and PS5 consoles). Even though nearly half of PlayStation owners are females, a 2020 study revealed that Sony’s Executive Committee was 100% male. The report was prepared by “20-first Research” which analyzes “progress on gender balance in the top companies of a number of industries and countries, as well as across the Top 100 companies of the Fortune Global 500.” Sony received the worst possible rating, “Asleep” because Sony did not have any females in either Staff or Line leadership roles. There was no female representation at all on the Executive Committee.

Emma Majo seeks to represent a “California Class” and a “Nationwide Class” of individuals employed by Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC who are either (a) female or (b) identify as female, pursuing claims under California and federal Equal Pay Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Sony discriminates against females by: (i) denying work opportunities to female employees on the basis of gender, (ii) paying females less than their male counterparts in base compensation, (iii) failing to investigate or respond to evidence of discrimination in the workplace against female employees, and (iv) otherwise exposing female employees to differential treatment.

When Emma Majo spoke up about the gender discrimination at Sony, she was terminated. Sony claimed it was terminating her because it was phasing out a video on demand department, but Majo was not even a part of that department. She was part of the Financial Asset Management Department and was only temporarily helping with video on demand. Her lawsuit alleges that Sony’s stated reason to terminate her was a pretext and in, fact, Sony simply wanted to get rid of a worker who spoke up about gender bias in the workplace.

The lawsuit will attempt to correct the gender imbalance and recover compensation for female employees, including those who identify as female, who were paid less than their male counterparts.

The case is Emma Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-09054 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Latina Equal Pay Day — the day when Latina pay catches up to that of white, non-Hispanic men from the previous year — is being observed on October 21, 2021.

More than 50 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Latinas typically earn only 57 cents for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men and must work nearly 23 months to earn what white men earn in 12 months.

Indeed, given that this is the last “Equal Pay Day” observance of the year, Latinas must typically work longer than …everyone. This disparity hurts not only Latinas, but also the families and communities they support. And it is unacceptable. We need to act now and let everyone know that we support #LatinaEqualPay.

Join me at a virtual summit on #LatinaEqualPay Day run by the Equal Rights Advocates. Let’s take the lead from low-paid essential workers as we rebuild our nation’s labor & care structures. Hosted by @equalrightsadv @mujerxsrising @ParentVoicesCA  Learn more/register at https://bit.ly/WeAreEssentialSummit.