danielchammasattorney

[danielchammasattorney]

Employment Law Wage Changes for 2025 in California

Several California employment law increases will become effective January 1, 2025.

First, the minimum wage will increase to $16.50 per hour, although less than the $18 per hour sought under the rejected Proposition 32. However, employers still face higher minimum rates according to local ordinances in counties like Los Angeles and municipalities like San Francisco.

Next, computer software employees may be exempt from Labor Code section 515.5 overtime requirements if they earn above defined salary thresholds. The Department of Industrial Relations adjusted these thresholds for 2025 to a $56.97 minimum hourly rate, $9,888 minimum monthly salary, and $118,657 minimum annual salary.

Lastly, on April 1, 2024, AB 1228 went into effect, increasing minimum wages for California employees of fast food chains with more than 60 US locations. The existing $20 per hour rate remains tied to the US Consumer Price Index (CPI), and the Fast Food Council will adjust to the current CPI in 2025.

[danielchammasattorney]

FordHarrison DEIA Group Ahead of Movement to Dismantle DEI Programs

An employment law practice, FordHarrison not only represents clients facing these legal issues, it also is proactive in helping companies nationwide protect their DEI initiatives. The firm’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Audit (DEIA) Taskforce helps employers develop and maintain programs that support diversity in the workplace through legal guidance.

Established by FordHarrison’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Practice Group, the DEIA Taskforce was launched in November 2023 to guide employers who have incorporated DEI initiatives on how to strengthen these programs to align with legal mandates. The DEIA audit analyzes employer DEI programs to see if they are in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. The taskforce then assists companies in bringing the programs into compliance.

The development of the taskforce comes on the heels of the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard lawsuit seen before the U.S. Supreme Court, which involved the esteemed university being sued for race-based admissions practices. The argument was that the practice violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it favored white students over Asian students. Ultimately, the court sided with Harvard.

While employment and school admissions are two separate issues, DEI and the programs that support diversity in higher education and the workplace are essentially the same. SFFA v. Harvard set the stage for attacking DEI initiatives, even in the workplace. As it stands, the American Alliance for Equal Rights has sued a minority-focused venture capital fund and several law firms across the country for their DEI policies.

The DEIA Taskforce is designed to help employers create policies that comply with legal mandates. For more information on this program, please visit fordharrison.com.

[danielchammasattorney]

FordHarrison - A 2025 Best Lawyers’ Best Law Firm

FordHarrison LLP is a litigation firm with expertise across labor and employment law. In a November 2024 press release, FordHarrison announced that it had been selected to the 2025 Edition of Best Lawyers’ Best Law Firm list, receiving ranking in Tiers 1-3.

The Best Lawyers ranking has become one of the most reputable guides on legal excellence. The ranking is based on a peer-reviewed survey of over 55,000 leading lawyers who vote on the abilities of lawyers in other practices as well as clients. Firms are evaluated based on responsiveness, their understanding of the business and its needs, cost effectiveness, whether they would refer the firm, and whether they consider the firm a competitor. This particular ranking focuses on 75 national practice areas and 127 metropolitan-based practice areas.

This ranking is unique in that attorneys do not have to pay a fee to be included in the ranking. Those named to the list have exhibited that they not only have legal expertise, but also belong to a quality law practice.

FordHarrison ranked in Tier 1 in labor law management, labor and employment litigation, and employment law management. They also received 28 Metropolitan Tier 1 rankings in 15 cities, 13 Metropolitan Tier 2 rankings, and seven Metropolitan Tier 3 rankings in cities nationwide. For more information on this FordHarrison accolade, please visit www.fordharrison.com/.

[danielchammasattorney]

Defending Against Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Claims

California's PAGA lets employees sue their employers for labor code violations on behalf of the state, other employees, or themselves. Successful PAGA claims cost the affected employers 100 dollars per affected employee in civil penalties per pay period for the initial violation and 200 dollars per employee in subsequent violations. Affected employers also have to pay attorneys' fees and court costs.

Three types of labor violations can lead to a PAGA claim. One is a violation of the California Labor Code covered by the PAGA statute. Another is a violation of California's health and safety regulations, and the third is any other violation of California's labor laws. An aggrieved employee who has suffered harm due to an employer violating a California labor code provision covered by the PAGA statute can make a PAGA claim. Employers can take some steps to protect themselves from PAGA claims.

A defensive strategy employers use to mitigate PAGA claims involves implementing arbitration agreements. These agreements, containing class action and PAGA waivers, mandate that employees pursue any claim against the employer in their capacity. Employees can only proceed with a PAGA claim if the arbitration decision is in their favor. Employers should ensure that their arbitration agreements are updated with current law.

Keeping up-to-date digital records is another good strategy for defense in case of PAGA claims. Employers should work with employment lawyers to ensure their work records contain relevant information when involved in PAGA cases. A good employee handbook with well-stated policies and procedures that align with state regulations will also protect employers from PAGA claims.

Employers can reduce the risk of getting involved in PAGA action by ensuring that their practices, workers' classification, wages, and labor practices align with the law. They can conduct regular internal audits to identify and ratify lapses before they get dragged to court.

[danielchammasattorney]

Reasons to Engage Legal Professionals to Protect Trade Secrets

When companies develop trade secrets, they must protect them. Engaging with legal professionals who specialize in this area helps protect proprietary information.

Trade secrets give companies a competitive edge. It can include information on patterns, processes, techniques, formulas, programs, or compilations. Nonetheless, competitors can infringe upon or steal the secrets through several means, such as former employees, business partners, or industry rivals. In such situations, it's imperative to take such action to prevent further damage.

Lawyers specializing in business law can help companies develop and implement robust legal strategies to protect business assets and trade secrets. In addition, the legal team works to identify potential vulnerabilities and security breaches.

Finally, business lawyers can draft non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, and employment contracts designed to specifically address trade secrets protection. If a business must go to court, the legal team can handle filing the appropriate legal documents and argue the case as needed.

[danielchammasattorney]

A Brief Introduction to Wage and Hour Class Actions

Daniel Chammas has worked as an attorney at Ford and Harrison, LLP, in Los Angeles since 2016. In this position, Daniel Chammas defends numerous Los Angeles businesses against wage and hour class actions.

Wage and hour class actions occur when one or multiple employees take legal action on behalf of a larger workforce. These actions claim that all employees involved have been negatively impacted by their employer’s transgressions in one or more areas of labor law.

There are many types of labor law violations that provide workers with the grounds to file a wage and hour class action. A few of the most common grounds include minimum wage violations, misclassifying workers, failure to meet overtime standards, and demanding off-the-clock labor. Employers may also be found in violation of labor laws if they do not provide adequate meal options and work breaks throughout the day. It is not uncommon for an action to cite multiple grounds when making a claim.

There are two main reasons for employees to file a class action, as opposed to an individual lawsuit. To start, the more claims involved in a lawsuit, the greater the damages become, which can compel an employer to take the claim more seriously. Second, employees benefit from decreased attorney’s fees by hiring a single employment law firm.

Employees who feel they have been the victims of wage and hour violations should seek the counsel of an attorney versed in local labor laws, as should employers defending against false wage and hour claims.

[danielchammasattorney]

How Sexual Harassment Cases Work in California

Daniel Chammas graduated from Stanford Law with a juris doctor degree. Since then, he has gathered experience in the legal field by working as an attorney for various firms based in Los Angeles. In 2016, Daniel Chammas began a role at Ford & Harrison LLP, a law firm with offices in Los Angeles, California, where he represents clients on different legal issues, including sexual harassment cases.

Various types of events fall under the crime of sexual harassment in California. However, the two primary forms of sexual harassment prohibited in the state are quid pro quo and hostile work environment. According to the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act, actions like unwanted physical touches, derogatory comments, and unwanted sexual propositions are forms of sexual harassment.

In California, individuals found guilty of sexual harassment are personally liable for damages awarded to their victims. Employers would be liable if they are found guilty or if a supervisor or manager under their leadership is guilty. Also, employers who fail to take action after becoming aware of sexual harassment are liable for whatever damages the court awards to the victim.

However, the state's law also prevents victims from directly filing lawsuits after harassment occurs. Instead, they have to first bring the occurrence to the attention of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and get a right-to-sue letter from the organization.

If the alleged victim proves his or her claims by a preponderance of the evidence, the employee can seek remedies like damages for emotional distress, failure to promote, back pay, and reinstatement. In cases where the victim files a civil lawsuit, the court could also make the liable party responsible for the victim's legal costs, and sometimes the court could award the victim punitive damages.

[danielchammasattorney]

Handling Wrongful Termination Cases in California

Based in Los Angeles, Daniel Chammas maintains a corporate practice within Ford & Harrison, LLP, that defends clients in employment claims. Having represented clients in wide-ranging litigation, Daniel Chammas has extensive knowledge of wrongful termination matters.

There are many reasons for such cases, including firings alleged to be the result of discrimination, public policy violations, reporting work injuries, and whistleblower activities. The later cases involve the employer allegedly firing a worker for reporting an activity potentially in violation of state, local, or federal rules and regulations to a law enforcement or government agency.

These cases are often adjudicated through Labor Code section 1102.5, the state’s whistleblower protection law. It stipulates that employers do not have the right to retaliate against an employee who reports on the company’s suspected violation of law. In addition to government entities, such reports can be made to supervisors with the authority to look into and correct such violations. One defense in such cases is that the employee who engaged in whistleblowing was insubordinate, or that the firing was related to some attribute other than the act of whistleblowing (such as competency).