CONTACT OUR LAW OFFICE


Free Consultation | No Win No Fees










 

PPC LANDING PAGES
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.
Friday
Aug282015

Independent Contractor’s Sexual Harassment Claim Against City

August 28, 2015 - Kimberli Hirst was an employee of American Forensic Nurses, Inc. During the course of her job she provided Phlebotomist services to the Oceanside Police Department. While providing these services, she claims an Oceanside Police Officer sexually harassed her. In response, she sued the City of Oceanside.In Hirst v. City of Oceanside, 236 Cal. App. 4th 774 (2015), a jury awarded Hirst $1.5 million. The trial court reduced the amount to $1.25 million.

The City filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) asserting that Hirst was not a City employee, a special employee or an individual providing services as outlined in a contract. The City’s JNOV motion was denied by the trial court and the Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling. They held Hirst was providing services as pursuant to a contract, according to California code (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(1)) even though she, herself, wasn’t an independent contractor, but an employee of a company who was hired on to provide services through a contract with the city.

If you have questions about your rights on the job regarding sexual harassment, contact the employment law experts of southern California at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wednesday
Aug262015

Are Interns Employees Under the FLSA? 

August 26, 2015 - According to findings in the course of Glatt et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. et. al., 2015 WL 4033018 (2d Cir. 2015), unpaid interns are not employees under the FLSA, so long as they are the “primary beneficiaries” of the relationship.

In this case, plaintiffs Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman were taken on as unpaid interns at Fox Searchlight for the film Black Swan. The plaintiffs interned at Fox’s corporate offices in New York City. Both sued for unpaid wages (due to alleged violations of both minimum wage and overtime law) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. Their representation moved to certify a class of unpaid interns both retained by New York locations and at various Fox corporate divisions across the nation.

Summary judgment was granted by the district court in favor of Glatt and Footman. It was concluded that they had been misclassified as unpaid interns instead of employees. Motions to certify class were also granted for New York interns and, conditionally, for a nationwide FLSA collective.

The district court decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They held that the appropriate question is whether or not the worker in question was the “primary beneficiary” of the relationship with the employer. In conclusion, they stated that in the specific context of unpaid internships, there should be a set of considerations used to define the reasonable expectations of both parties as well as training opportunities, any connections to the student/intern/worker’s formal educational program, the duration of the relationship with the employer, and more. The appellate court also reversed the certification of class and the FLSA collective, as they believed that their standards for determining class were misconstrued.

If you have questions regarding class certification and when common questions predominate over individual ones, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.