California Employment Contracts Legal Questions

Whether a worker is properly classified as an employee or an independent contractor depends on the extent to which the business exercises control and authority over its activities.  Very generally, when a newspaper tells a writer what to cover and when, and pays the writer weekly, that writer is more likely to be considered an employee than if the writer chooses for him or herself what to write about and when, and is paid only if the paper decides to publish his/her article.  It's not an exact science, but a sliding scale.  Obviously, there are many advantages to a business which wishes to classify its workers as independent contractors, but it could get into a lot of trouble, with tax and other government authorities, if it does so improperly.  some things to think about - will the security officers be free to turn down an assignment?  Will you issue htem uniforms, weapons, and/or other equipment?  Will you have procedures that they will have to follow in their work?  How much discretion will they have in their jobs?  Will you require that they work exclusively for your company?  How much supervision will the company provide?  Most likely none of these factors is dispositive by itself, but these are some of the things you may want to consider when deciding how you want to structure  your relationship with the officers.... Read More

Usually not very..such agreements are generally unenforceable and are viewed to be in restraint of trade..however, this is a very general answer to a very general question and I would caution you to provide all of the facts..for instance there could be an issue of misuse of trade secrets which may well be enforceable.......Stephan Math Esq, smesq1@aol.com... Read More

You are not bound to accept your new employer's interpretation of what "good reason" means, and can sue to enforce your rights.  However, if you do so, you risk losing, and not getting anything, instead of the settlement proposed by your employer, i.e. to work until January, 2017 and then to leave and collect your severance package.... Read More

Based on the short summary you provided you may have a viable claim for negligent misrepresentation given that there was a specific offer and reliance by you to your detriment, i.e., the loss of an existing employment. I would be happy to review any documentation you may have in connection with this issue...Stephan Math Esq., smesq1@aol.com... Read More

I don't know if we can help you based on the information provided. If you would like us to review your matter for you please provide us with a detailed account of all of the facts so that we can properly evaluate whether or not you may have an actionable claim. You may provide it directly to us by email. Stephan Math Esq., smesq1@aol.com... Read More

Based on your general description of your job it sounds like the employer exercised sufficient dominion and control over you and your duties and provided the means for the performance of those duties. Not mentioned is the fact that apparently you were also not provided with pay stubs setting forth all proper deductions....this is also in and of itself a violation of California law.....to the extent you were improperly paid and taxes were not paid that would appear to be a possible case of wage theft and/or a failure to pay full promised wages...finally, there is also an issue of misrepresentation of the terms and conditions of the employment..with regard to the latter issue it would be helpful to know if you turned down another position when you took this one, left another position when you took this one or moved from one location to another when taking this position.........there are specific statutes covering those types of facts..........Stephan Math Esq.... Read More

I would advise you to contact the Labor Commissioner's office and have them take a look at it....if you were misclassified they may well represent you to collect overtime pay etc....Generally, whether or not you should have been dealt with as an employee depends on a number of factors in order to determine whether the employer exercised dominion and control over you in the performance of your duties. This usally means amongst other things, looking at whether they provided the place at which the duties were to be performed, the tools or means with which you were to perform those duties, the hours and times such duties were to be performed...Stephan Math Esq... Read More

Sounds to me that there is a question here as to whether you truly are contractors or in fact misclassified employees......that depends on the facts, generally if the employer controls the means and methods of the employment and provides the tools and /or the site at which duties are to be performed and controls the hours of the employee then there is a good chance that you are misclassified.....you may want to run this by the California Labor Commissioner's office for a review by them.......Stephan Math Esq.... Read More

It would appear to me that by refusing to pay for arbitration that they are in breach of their own arbitration policies and more importantly probably provides you with the option of going to court rather than arbitration where you could argue that by refusing to participate and pay as agreed that they have waived their right to arbitration. I believe that if you wanted to enforce the arbitration agreement you would have to file a motion in court to compel arbitration. This would be a very unusual situation only because it is normally the employer rather than the employee who seeks to compel arbitration given that most employers and attorneys view the arbitration process as being more beneficial to the employer than the employee.......If I were handling this case I would file the matter in court and let the bank move to compel arbitration and defend against that by contending that they have waived their right by their refusal to participate in arbitration and pay the fees as agreed...Stephan Math Esq.... Read More

In my experience most offers of employment are contingent. In other words they are usually conditioned on passing a background check or drug test or the like. However, if this was not the case and you have an unqualified offer of employment and in reliance have turned down other written offers of employment then you may have a claim for misrepresentation. It would be important for us to review the offer made to you in order to be more certain in our evaluation. Stephan Math Esq.... Read More

The clause you described is certainly quite broad and would likely result in this company having a claim to any intellectual property that you create during the term of the agreement.  Are you actually an employee or just a contractor?Typically, even with employees there are carveouts in these types of clauses that protect you when you create something totally independently (i.e. not on employer's time or using resources from employer) of your employment.   Let me know if you would like to discuss this. Thanks, Jon... Read More

Do you have a contract (either individual or union) which requires that you be kept employed at the old wage?  If not, and if the new employer is applying the same cuts across the board, not discriminating against particular groups based on race, gender, etc., I see no basis for any claim.  If you don't want to work for the wages offered by the new employer, you have to find another job.... Read More

While California has a very strict statute prohibiting restrictions on the competitive activities of FORMER employees, to the best of my knowledge it doesn't stretch to cover CURRENT employees.  Frankly, I think it would be ridiculous if the law required an employer to continue to employ someone who was also competing or working for a competitor at the same time, but I am not a California attorney and could be mistaken.... Read More

It is true that, while most jurisdictions look closely at non-compete provisions in employment and refuse to enforce them if they are deemed overbroad, California prohibits them altogether except in circumstances which do not seem to apply to you.  It can even be considered wrongful under California law to include one in an employment contract - your employer could get in trouble, apart from not being able to enforce the provision.  Frankly, I doubt very much whether any jurisdiction in the country would enforce a covenant which prohibits a intern from working in the event planning industry for 5 years.  However, regardless of the contract, you could not use any trade secrets belonging to your employer, any you owe your employer a duty of loyalty while employed by her.... Read More

Non-competes are legal in California, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the non-compete in your agreement is enforceable. Non-competes that are unreasonably restrictive may at times be thrown out and if your contract was cancelled the non-compete may not survive either. I would need to review the contract and get a  bit more detail to give you clearer guidance about your situation. Thanks, Jon... Read More