#employement law
Text
We assist in several areas like probate litigation, trust litigation, commercial litigation, & more. Contact Us!
#legal service#law firm#civil litigation#litigation#wills and trusts#employement law#Probate litigation#personal injury lawyer
0 notes
Text
Executive position femme domme in skirt and heels x butch secretary in suit.. is that anything??
#Sorry this is soo unethical but I'm in employment discrimination law lecture rn thinking about a butch subordinate kneeling under my desk#Getting a bj while I work 😵💫🫣🤧🫢#femme dom#femme dom hours or whatever >:)
71 notes
·
View notes
Text
I'm rewatching all the Marvel Defenders shows on Netflix and as much as I mock the MCU now, I need non-Marvel fans to understand that I was and still am a fan of "Daredevil fighting the gentrifying assshole who bought out the police force because ACAB both as a lawyer and vigilante of the community" and "Jessica Jones fighting the man who mind controlled her into doing unspeakable things and forming a community of fellow survivors and allies while dealing with PTSD in a range of both healthy and unhealthy ways" Marvel. God I love these idiots they carried so hard
#vio.txt#mcu#marvel#jessica jones#daredevil#also the two of them induced so much bi panic in me. also gender envy. jessica jones is one of the few women i get gender envy fron#the iron fist and luke cage shows were...more mid but still leagues above current marvel shows#like. yes be anti-mcu but these were masterpieces#and yes this is why i was so pissed about them putting daredevil in she hulk and trying to make him iron man 2.0#like! yes hes suave and charming but thats bc its his lawyer job!! he works in a law firm he and his friends started to serve his community#he is NOT 'i am rich and better than u' charming. he is 'i learned how to talk fancy for my degree and i have empathy' charming#and not bringing the other guys over either???? bruhhh#marvel really cancelled the best things they did on the screen#matt murdock my original red and black round glasses wearing sadboy what did they do to you#also!! can i mention that these shows had such better representation than nowadays marvel#murdock's actor doing extensive research on blind motility for the role#jessica and trish's friendship and how trish immediately believes jess about kilgrave#the whole!!! unique community feel of harlem and in luke's bar#hogarth whos both jessica's employer and foggy's boss in later seasons being a lesbian and having Real Marriage Issues#and also being a conplex and kinda shitty person#iron fist was....eh but that's why it was the worst one lmao#OH YEAH HOW COULD I FORGET MY GIRL KAREN#karen page getting a whole storyline in s1 about her dealing w ptsd and then getting fleshed out backstory and her own adventures#like ok it was kinda weird in daredevil that she dated like every guy bc she was the female lead 💀#but even then foggy and matt and her figuring their shit out like adults. like they shot their shots and it didnt pan out. still besties th#disney would never allow such good writing in current times#but a boy can wish
111 notes
·
View notes
Note
I was recently reminded that Harry in his second year THREW A FIREWORK into an active potion across the classroom so that Hermione could steal rare and expensive ingredients. Any Chemistry teacher would’ve had him out on his ear for doing the same thing in a lab, never to return - stunts like that with chemicals could kill someone! Snape had some unfair (if realistic) reasons to dislike Harry, but a couple of extremely reasonable ones lol.
you're right and you should say it, anon. harry is a menace in that classroom.
this is, i think, one of the main reasons why any reading of snape by adults needs to engage properly with the genre conventions which govern his characterisation. because snape's exaggerated meanness is completely necessary to the role he plays in the story - and adult readers really need to treat that contextually, rather than foaming at the mouth about how upsetting a character in a children's story is for them - but, when he's looked at outside of those conventions... the man is having a nightmare at work.
child readers see things like harry yeeting a firework into a big bowl of chemicals and find it heroic and funny, as the story requires them to do, which means - as a result - that they find snape's reaction to him (and, especially, to neville, who is also a danger in the classroom, no matter what else we can say about snape's treatment of him) ridiculous and unfair.
but, obviously, as adults we can see things through a slightly more health-and-safety-focused lens and... yeah, as you say, if any of us had fucked about in chemistry at school like harry and ron fuck about in potions we would not have remained in the classroom for much longer...
all of the hogwarts teachers seem to have hellish jobs with no personal lives. and so we can all guess what the lesson is there...
join a union, kids.
110 notes
·
View notes
Text
What to do when something illegal happens at work
When your boss does something illegal at work, it's common to freeze up because you're not sure what to do. Here are a few tips for how to handle those situations during and after:
While it is happening:
Keep yourself safe. In the moment, your first priority is always to keep yourself and others from physical harm and out of danger as much as possible. If any other advice I give you conflicts with that, your safety takes priority.
Make sure you know where you are. If you think your safety might be at risk, getting your bearings can be critically important. Take note of potential exit routes, hazards, the flow of traffic (both vehicle and foot traffic), cameras, and any safe areas you know of. Later, knowledge of your exact location may be very important in reconstructing events.
Check the time. Knowing exactly when something happened, and how long it took, will be extremely valuable.
Look around for witnesses, and try to bring some over if possible. Witnesses will both reduce the likelihood of more outrageous behavior and help you to take action afterwards. Do your best to remember who was there.
Say "please let me finish" every time you're interrupted, and count the number of times it happened. Bullies love to interrupt people at the first sign of disagreement, and then later they'll claim that nobody disagreed with them when instead nobody could get in a word edgewise. Saying "please let me finish" calls out the fact that they were interrupting, and a count of the times you were interrupted will help you protect yourself from being misinterpreted later.
Avoid agreeing to anything or signing anything if possible. You have the right to review any document that you're asked to sign, which usually includes taking the document and having it examined by an attorney. If you're being threatened with serious consequences if you don't sign immediately, write "signed under duress". If they're asking for a verbal agreement, try to get them to accept a "let me think about it/check my to-do list/etc" rather than a hard "yes". Even if the thing you'd be agreeing to is something you're okay with, it's still important not to agree to things when you don't feel like you're allowed to say "no"; in stressful situations, our judgment can be seriously compromised, and allowing yourself to be bullied into saying "yes" will set a bad precedent for further interactions.
After it's over, as soon as you're in a safe place:
Complete the WTWFU checklist
Send a follow-up email summarizing your understanding of what was communicated. It can be as simple as "just to ensure we understood each other, what I got was that you were telling me/us that [we'll be disciplined if we discuss our wages/contacting a union is a fireable offense/our pay will be docked if anyone submits a complaint to OSHA/etc], is that correct?". If there is information that protects you, such as a health condition or pregnancy you need accommodation for or a prior agreement that is being violated, include it in your email even if the company already knows. CC HR and any coworkers who were present and BCC your personal email*. Forward any responses to your personal email as well*.
Rescind any agreements you made. Either in the same email as step #2 or in a separate email, depending on what you think is appropriate, say "I didn't feel like I could safely say 'no' in that situation, so I'd like to rescind my earlier agreement until I've had some time to reconsider." If it's something you think you'd have otherwise agreed to, try to offer a time frame for an actual decision. CC HR and BCC your personal email*.
Collect any evidence you can, and make note of any evidence that exists but isn't accessible to you. This includes emails about the issue, any photos that were already taken or that you can safely and legally take,
If something illegal was done or hinted at, contact the applicable regulatory agency as soon as possible with all of the information above.
Consider arranging a consult with an employment law attorney -- consults aren't the same as retainers, they're considerably cheaper (or sometimes free, depending on your income and the possibility of a lawsuit) and can either turn into ongoing representation or just be a one-time service.
* Don't include information that you have a legitimate duty to safeguard, such as customer data, protected health information, or non-public market-affecting information. This does not include any information pertaining to working conditions, your compensation, regulatory compliance, or workplace safety -- the company isn't allowed to demand that you keep those a secret. Either try to get the point across without including the specific information that's being safeguarded, or censor it by replacing it with two underscores per replacement with generic descreptors as necessary (i.e. 'I have safety concerns about the release of our secret robotics project on January 10' becomes 'I have safety concerns about the release of our __[project]__ on __[date]__').
37 notes
·
View notes
Text
Republicans are lying when they say they care about the safety and wellbeing of children.
21 notes
·
View notes
Text
This AEW disciplinary committee shouldn't exist. AEW should just hire a fucking HR department. Sure, the lawyers are fine, but at no point should an active wrestler be doling out discipline to anyone. That's super sketchy from an employment law side of things.
It's a lawsuit just waiting to fucking happen. Those two lawyers SHOULD KNOW THAT.
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
*gets promoted to a position where i no longer have to wear a uniform*
*my coworkers suddenly start asking if im a they*
#you know for the longest time i wondered if i dressed like a queer person#it feels good that the answer is yes#*note i am fortunate enough to live in a place where there are still laws to protect me#**double note ive had issues with past employment and being out so i did not officially come out at this job but if ppl ask i dont lie#conspiracy lvl: text
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSRvVv8c4/
#elon musk#twitter#chief twit#employment law#uk#uk employment law#uk law#law#redundancies#elon done fucked up
187 notes
·
View notes
Text
Work Expenses: Who Pays?
There are all sorts of work-related expenses out there that an employee might have to face, from the cost of their work uniform to the cost of cleaning their work uniform to bills for the cell phone they use for work calls to the cost of that laptop used for working from home.
The question is, under the law, when is the employer mandated to pay for such expenses, rather than leaving them to the individual employee to bear?
Summary: Under federal law, the only requirement is that expenses not bring employees' pay under minimum wage.
California and Illinois say the employer must cover "necessary expenditures and losses" including remote work equipment.
Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota also say the employer must cover all the employee "expends or loses" due to work.
Washington D.C. says the employer must pay for required tools.
Iowa, New York, and New Hampshire require that the expenses be "authorized" by the employer or that employer and employee have an "agreement" beforehand for the employer to be liable for the costs. Iowa says such costs must be reimbursed within 30 days.
Minnesota requires that employee-paid work expenses be limited to $50 a month, and that the employer reimburse such costs at the end of the employee's employment.
Massachusetts requires that employers pay transportation expenses and the cost of uniforms specifically.
Federal law says only that if the employee's paying for expenses, that can't be used to effectively bring their wages below minimum wage level. So, if you're making minimum wage at a McDonald's, your employer can't then take the price of your work uniform out of your first paycheck, because then you'd effectively be making less than minimum wage.
This doesn't just apply to expenses directly paid to the employer, either; the statute specifically says that if the employee is required to buy their own tools required for a job, they have to be reimbursed if that would mean their pay going below minimum wage after deducting the cost of the tools from their pay.
But this only comes into play in connection to minimum wage. If your pay is high enough that your work expenses would still leave you above minimum wage, federal law doesn't say anything else making your employer liable for the cost.
But that's federal law. US law in general, and especially labor law, often has more specific restrictions within certain states, and this is no exception.
California law says that the employer has to pay for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties". In other words, if it's necessary for the job, under California law, the employer should be footing the bill. What counts as a "necessary expenditure or loss"? Excellent question. No definition is given for this in the statute, so it's all open for debate... though a recent court case suggests it includes remote working equipment, including for jobs that are normally in-person but went to remote work during the lockdown.
Illinois state law uses similar wording, with the employer paying for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee within the employee's scope of employment and directly related to services performed for the employer." Illinois' statute does actually give a bit more definition to what counts as "necessary" here, however, and a 2023 amendment included specific factors to weigh when determining whether an expense is "necessary" and therefore should be paid by the employer. Like California, Illinois has specified that remote work equipment counts here.
Montana is similar as well, using the wording "all that he necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of his duties", as long as it's not "in consequence of the ordinary risks of the business in which he is employed." North Dakota's wording is nearly identical, with "all that the employee necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee's duties as such" unless it's tools or equipment "also used by the employee outside the scope of employment". South Dakota also has similar wording, "all that the employee necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee's duties".
Washington, D.C. law has the employer paying "the cost of purchasing and maintaining any tools required of the employee in the performance of the business of the employer."
Iowa's version is stricter, saying that the expense must be "authorized by the employer", but also sets a timetable, saying that such expenses must be reimbursed within thirty days' time. Similarly, New York says that the issue arises after there is an "agreement" between employer and employee about the expenses, and New Hampshire says that it must be "at the request of the employer".
Minnesota's got a different take on it--employers can make employees foot the bill, but once the employment ends, the employer has to pay the employee back for uniforms, equipment, supplies, and travel expenses that aren't just regular commuting. Also the initial out-of-pocket cost to the employee for such things can't be more than $50 a month. Although there's some weird exceptions and additional specifics for employees of motor vehicle dealers...
Massachusetts law specifically requires payment of "transportation expenses" and uniforms by the employer, with a definition given for what does and does not count as a uniform. The cost of uniform cleaning is covered if it requires "dry-cleaning, commercial laundering, or other special treatment".
Note that this is all assuming the employee would pay directly; laws vary somewhat if it is instead the employee charging (real, believed, and/or fraudulent) work expenses to a company card or account directly.
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
Nothing like stressing about losing your job for having to call out for throwing up.
#its the law#can't work if im throwing up#but we're also an at will employer state#but like...i was throwing up on the drive through from my mom's car.#i have to call back to talk to a manager in like 40 minutes#really hope this doesn't end with being fired after two days.#tw throwing up#✡ / °. • °. jj. . . . 𝙿𝚄𝙵𝙵 𝙿𝚄𝙵𝙵 𝙿𝙰𝚂𝚂.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
talking to able bodied people about being disabled is exhausting lol
#like having to explain to my friends that no I can’t just find another better job right away because the only way if found employment where#they don’t break the law and ignore my disability accommodations#is by going through the adrc#and it takes at least 6 months and sucks ass the whole time#and then when I finally do get the job it’s like a 40% or less chance#that it’s gonna be a moderately good fit#I’m actually so fucking tired#I can’t do this anymore
11 notes
·
View notes
Text
Tinn ripping the check apart and throwing it at Charn : get the fuck out
Charn : I desire you carnally
#laws of attraction the series#laws of attraction#girl please keep it in ur pants#tinn : u are evil and the scum of the earth u and ur employers#charn : thats so hot
53 notes
·
View notes
Text
in the kim mesa verda x doc review portion of my BCS rewatch and genuinely is this even legal? kim is a 4th year associate and she's being stuck with like what interns? students? doing work way way below her training grade for an indefinite amount of time, completely dependent on the arbitrary and capricious whims of her boss, fundamentally to punish her for the actions of a DIFFERENT lawyer at a DIFFERENT firm? actions for which kim is 0% responsible for???? jimmy's right she should sue their asses into oblivion!!!
#better call saul#like i know america's employment law leaves a lot to be desired and probs even moreso in 2003 but. SHE'S KIM WEXLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!#literally said out loud to myself howard should be killed with a gun before going hmm. well. nevertheless!
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
Employment Law Thought Exercise | 9-1-1 on Fox and the Season 3 Lawsuit Arc
There has been a lot of discussion and debate among fans of the hit tv show regarding this particular plotline. Today, we’re going to talk about Disability Discrimination laws and Reasonable Accommodations and how they are explored on the show.
*This is not meant to be any kind of legal advice or even as serious as our articles. It’s just for fun! Not only does fiction not always line up properly with reality, but also our firm does not handle government employees. This is just going off of standard federal and California employment law. Anyone with more information on city employees or specifically the real LAFD, feel free to join in!*
Buck was injured on the job
He went on leave, and when he was cleared by his doctors to go back, he had a right to be reinstated to his previous position or one equal to it.
Due to the nature of his job, his employer required him to undergo recertification. It appeared to be the same standard type of qualification test that all trainees undergo to ensure they are qualified for the job. He passed, and he was reinstated.
So far, so good
Then, before returning to work, he experienced a pulmonary embolism and was put on blood thinners indefinitely. He was deemed unable to return to his previous position and was offered the choice to go back on leave or take a temporary light duty position. At the time, he tried to quit. He is very lucky for many reasons that Bobby did not take that seriously.
Light duty is considered a reasonable accommodation. In fact, the fire marshal position would likely have paid better than a firefighter position. But Buck wanted to be a firefighter again, and so he argued that there must be some kind of reasonable accommodation to put him back in the field.
Which brings us to the phrase “Undue Hardship”
While on blood thinners, less severe injuries could be life threatening. When this is explained to him, Buck argues that if that happened, there would be multiple paramedics around him. The thing that he is not taking into account there is that those paramedics are there to attend to the civilians that they are rescuing in the first place.
We see this later in Season 6 when Buck is gravely injured, and Bobby has to call in another house to come take care of the fire they were fighting at the time. This example does also point out that yes, this is an accepted risk of the job and does happen from time to time.
The issue is the extremely increased risk of it happening when a firefighter is on blood thinner medication. And Bobby knowing how many risks Buck already takes on the job. Sure, Bobby knows that Buck knows his limits. But Buck is not taking into account that his limits are a lot lower while on those meds. (Which is something that seems to finally hit home in the following Halloween episode.)
Bobby is essentially arguing that accommodating Buck’s disability in the field would create an undue hardship to the team, splitting their resources and his own focus.
Illegal Discrimination
Buck tries to sue for Wrongful Termination, specifically Constructive Termination. He points out that several other members of his team have faced injury and hardship and were able to come back to work with no problem. This actually works against his argument a little bit, but one could argue that it was discrimination against the specific disability, as it was the medication itself that was the issue. However, it could then be argued that it was a valid concern. The motivation behind not allowing Buck back on the team yet was not that he was disabled, but that his disability created a very real and serious risk to himself in the field that could not be reasonably accommodated.
Does Buck have a case? Maybe. Is it a strong one?
His employer followed standard and reasonable protocol
His employer gave reassurances that his position would be held for him to come back when he was ready (and you know Bobby would have put that in writing if Buck had asked)
The medication Buck was on posed a real safety issue
His employer gave him a temporary light duty position that could even be seen as a promotion
Buck has a documented history of acting recklessly and disobeying orders in the field that would support Bobby’s concern
Would the city have settled so quickly and for so much in real life? Who knows.
Would any of this have gone down this way in real life? Who knows. That’s what happens when you mix fact and fiction. Procedurals often tend to start with truth and reality and then alter it to suit the story. It can be interesting to work it backwards and try to see how the story can be applied to reality. This brings up several questions such as:
Did Buck ever send a detailed discrimination complaint to Human Resources?
Did Buck ever call the chief after finding out it was Bobby’s decision not his?
Did Buck ever file a claim with the EEOC or CRD?
Did Buck ever file a grievance through his union?
Did Buck ever contact his union rep at all?
Does Buck even know that he HAS a union?
Could all of this have been avoided if Buck had just spent ten minutes researching California Employment Law?
Bonus Fun Fact!
For those who might not know, when the lawyer is first introduced, and Hen tells him “You might wanna wait until they’re in the ambulance before you start chasing it” she’s not just calling him out on doing something awful, she’s calling him out on doing something illegal. California is one of 21 states (including Texas for Lone Star fans who were wondering) that has laws against ‘ambulance chasing’ – when attorneys solicit clients at accident scenes or in hospitals. In the other 29 states, it is still considered unethical by the Bar Association.
California in particular has strict laws and regulations about when, where, and how attorneys are permitted to advertise. Which reminds me: If you are a California employee and were terminated after being injured at work, call Mesriani Law Group today for a free consultation.
#911 fox#Evan Buckley#Buck#Disability Discrimination#California Employment Law#Wrongful Termination#Constructive Termination#Employment Lawyers#California Attorneys
25 notes
·
View notes
Text
today a partner at my firm told me a report i drafted for him was "fantastic." also i've been doing some work for another partner and he keeps sending me new tasks so he must like my work.
i'm very happy about this because i'm coming from completely different areas of law and i'm proving that transferability of skills is a real thing and companies need to stop waiting for unicorns to come along!
#it's really frustrating when employers look for unicorns in law in particular#in law your skills are sooo transferable#like i get it that doesn't work for EVERY career field#like you can't just be idk a hematologist and one day decide you want to be a cardiothoratic surgeon#but in any profession that relies a lot on reading and writing skills there's sooo much transferability
8 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
baleysblog
Sin título
horonevi
Horon Evi
renerios29
Rene Feet
stickybonkhairdollama
Senza titolo
blockchainanalysis546
Untitled