CONTACT OUR LAW OFFICE
Free Consultation | No Win No Fees












Template Pages



LAW FIRM REVIEWS

 

“Class Counsel displayed skills beyond those that might be expected of attorneys of comparable expertise or experience.”

- Honorable Jeffrey Hamilton, Jr.

 

“The stipulated class has been adequately represented by competent class counsel from the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.”

- Honorable Nancy W. Stock

 

“Class counsel has extensive experience in class action matters.”

- Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez

 

“If You Feel You’re Being Cheated By You’re Current Or Former  Employer This Is Law Firm For You. I Submitted An Email Too There Website  And Within A Few Short Hours I Got A Response… Its Nice To Know In Theses Troubling Times There’s A Law Firm Like Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik That Will Stick Up For The Rights Of The Blue Collar Worker. Thanks Again ”

 

- David LaRue

 

“My experience dealing with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik was fantastic. They understood the nature of my complaint, they had experience in dealing with similar cases and were extremely helpful and quick to respond throughout the process. I would not have wanted to go through this without having someone like AJ Bhowmik on my side.”

 

- Former Client DWalsh

 

“When I first emailed Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, I did not expect a response that same day… They have been extremely responsive to my complaint and is moving forward in a timely manner.”

 

- Former Client MartinH

 

This area does not yet contain any content.
PPC LANDING PAGES
Monday
Jul142014

Preliminary Approval on Uncapped Settlement of Another NFL Concussion Lawsuit

U.S. District Court Judge Anita B. Brody rejected the previous $765 million concussion settlement between the NFL and former players with head trauma who were suing the league, but she offered preliminary approval of the more recent settlement produced saying the NFL would uncap the payments to former players suffering debilitating systems. The first settlement was thrown out because Judge Brody felt that the $765 million would be insufficient to cover the lifetime of the 65 year settlement. Her preliminary approval of the new settlement left the former players another step closer to receiving payment from the NFL. 

The plaintiffs are pleased with the preliminary approval and state that the settlement for retired NFL players and their families is extraordinary. It would apply to those suffering from neuro-cognitive illnesses today to any who suffered head injury without current signs of major damage, but who fear serious symptoms could develop in the future. The settlement would provide guaranteed benefits and long-term security. They look forward to finalizing the agreement.

The NFL’s response was to offer gratitude to Judge Brody for her guidance and thoughtful approach to the serious issues being addressed. They state that they will work with the plaintiffs’ counsel in order to implement the terms of the settlement as per the Court’s final decision.

According to the terms outlined for the compensation program, funds would be established and retired players would qualify to use the funds if they were to develop a qualifying neurocognitive condition. The plaintiffs now have 90 days to opt out or challenge the settlement. At that point in time Brody will be able to give her final approval of the settlement agreement.

For additional information or to ask questions regarding employment law please contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Wednesday
Jul092014

California Supreme Court and Questions Defining “Employers” Liable for Wage Violations

Ramifications of Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers could result in changes for California workers. The California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a Court of Appeal decision that reversed the denial of class certification in the independent contractor misclassification case. Judge Werdegar, Justice Baxter and Justice Chin all concurred that the Court of Appeal correctly reversed the trial court decision that denied certification in the case of Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers. In the case, Newspaper delivery workers filed against a daily newspaper. They were classified as independent contractors and as such, were denied minimum wage payment, overtime pay, minimum rest and meal period premiums, as well as employer contributions toward Social Security.

The trial court held that there were too many individual inquiries necessary in order to determine how the various newspaper delivery workers handled their day to day operations, but the Supreme Court felt that the trial court missed the point of the case: whether a common law employer/employee relationship exists dependent upon the degree of the hirer’s right to define/control the relationship or how the end result is actually achieved. The Supreme Court further explained their decision by pointing out that while there was evidence of variation in work habits between newspaper carriers, which supports claims made by Antelope Valley’s position that they didn’t control their carriers’ work, this fact didn’t negate the actual question at hand. How much right does the employer (Antelope Valley) have to control what their carriers’ do?

This case reinforces the common proof method that turns to governing contracts: a common method used to determine the answer to the independent contractor vs. employee question. The Court has pointed out that at the certification stage, the form contract’s importance is not particularly in what it says, but in what degree of control it defines and whether it is uniform across the class.

Countless California workers are misclassified as independent contractors even though their employers retain control of their working conditions. If you are one of these California workers and you’d like to join with fellow workers to address the issue of misclassification claims, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. There’s precedence in the legal system that empowers you to raise your wage claim.