Articles

2009 California Employer Update

by Roberta S. Hayashi and Kara L. Arguello
January 22, 2009

STATUTORY/LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

AB 10 Revisions to Computer Programmer Professional Exemption
Prior to the enactment of AB 10, all of the following were required for the computer professional exemption in that the employee had to be: (1) engaged in work that was intellectual, creative and required discretion and independent judgment; (2) primarily engaged in duties consisting of one or more of the following: (a) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications, (b) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications, or (c) the documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to the design of software or hardware for computer operating systems; (3) highly skilled and proficient in the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized information to computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering; (4) receives $36.00 per hour or “the annualized full-time salary equivalent of that rate, provided that all other requirements of this section are met, and that in each workweek the employee receives not less than thirty-six dollars ($36.00) per hour worked.”

Each of the former provisions remains in effect, with minor yet important modifications. First, the duties have been modified under Labor Code §515.5(1)-(3). Item number 3 has been changed from a conjunctive requirement (…systems analysis, programming and software engineering) to a disjunctive requirement (…systems analysis, programming or software engineering), thereby increasing the number of computer professionals eligible for overtime exemption than allowed under the prior interpretation. Second, compensation has been modified under Labor Code §515.5(4). Item number 4 is now clarified to exempt computer professionals paid an annual salary of $75,000 or greater, or at a rate of at least $6,350 per month rather than the more restrictive prior interpretation, which resulted in elimination of exemption status based upon overtime pay, which resulted in a rate of less than $36 per hour. This dramatically streamlines the recordkeeping process and reduces the risk of potential lawsuits arising from employees who worked more than 40 hours in one week causing the hourly compensation rate to drop below the $36 per hour level. Effective immediately, computer professionals may be exempt from overtime if they earn $36 per hour or an annual salary of $75,000 (or greater) for full-time employment paid in monthly amounts of not less than 1/12th their annual salary.

In addition to expanding the current definition of overtime exempt computer professionals and providing much-needed clarification to wage guidelines, AB 10 reduces administrative burdens since employers are no longer required to maintain hourly time records for salaried computer professionals.

AB 1825 Final Regulations
The Fair Employment and Housing Commission Regulations (CCR, Title 2, section 7288.0) have clarified AB 1825 (Gov. Code §12950.1). Employers with 50 or more employees are required to have its supervisors participate in two hours of interactive training on the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace once every two years, or within six months of the hiring of a new supervisor.

AB 632 Health Care Whistleblower
AB 632 amends Health & Safety Code 1278.5, a whistleblower protection originally intended for patients and healthcare facility employees. The legislation will make it easier for physicians who are subject to medical staff discipline to challenge that process without first exhausting administrative remedies. Among other consequences, it appears that in certain circumstances, physicians will be able to pursue a retaliation lawsuit while a peer review hearing is pending, something that until now was extraordinarily difficult for them to do.

AB 632 prohibits health facilities from discriminating or retaliating against a medical staff member because he or she has: (1) “presented a grievance, complaint, or report to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity;” or (2) “initiated, participated, or cooperated in an investigation or administrative proceeding related to the quality of care, services, or conditions at the facility that is carried out by an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility or its medical staff, or governmental entity.”

AB 650 EITC Notice
AB 650 requires employers to notify employees that they may be eligible for the federal EITC within one week of providing the employees their annual wage summaries. The notice must either be handed directly to the employee or mailed to the employee’s last known address. AB 650 provides recommended language for the notice and requires that the notice contain instructions on how to obtain any notices made available from the Internal Revenue Service for the purpose of obtaining the necessary forms to file for the EITC; the notice must clarify that those who received the EITC do not necessarily jeopardize governmental benefits, such as Medicare and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF”) payments. Finally, the bill requires that every employer process, at the request of the employee and in accordance with federal law, the Form W-5 for the advance payment of the EITC. The requirements of AB 650 apply to all companies that have employees in California.

SB 101 Social Security Number Protections
This law prohibits an employer from including more than the last four digits of an employee’s social security number or other identification number on the employee’s itemized statement furnished at the time of payment of wages to the employee.

AB 1298 Expansion of Breach Notification Law
AB 1298 will add “health information” and “medical insurance information” to the categories of “personal information” protected by the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. “Health information’ includes “any information regarding an individual’s medical history, mental or physical condition, or medical treatment or diagnosis by a health care professional.” “Medical insurance information” includes “an individual’s health insurance policy number or subscriber information number, any unique identifier used by a health insurer to identify the individual, or any information in the individual’s application and claims history, including any appeals.” These provisions do not apply just to medical providers, but to any business which maintains computerized employee benefits or other health data.

AB 1298 also expands the CMIA to provide that any business maintaining medical information for use by individuals or health care providers in managing that information or receiving or providing medical diagnoses or treatments is subject to the general requirements imposed on “providers or health care” by the CMIA. This amendment subjects such businesses to the civil and criminal penalties prescribed by the CMIA for improper uses and disclosures of medical information.

Amendments to FMLA
On November 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of Labor issued its long-awaited final revisions to the regulations that implement the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The final regulations take effect January 16, 2009. Some of the changes include:

Serious Health Conditions. The final regulations maintain the six definitions of “serious health condition” and elaborate. For leave involving incapacity of more than three consecutive, full calendar days, the employee must receive two treatments by a health care provider within 30 days of the first day of incapacity or one treatment that results in a regimen of continuing treatment, with the first treatment in either case occurring in the first seven days. In the case of chronic serious health conditions, at least two visits to a health care provider per year are required.
Eligibility. The final regulations clarify how to count employees’ past service toward the requirement that they be employed by the covered employer for at least 12 months, since the 12 months of service are not required to be consecutive. Under the final regulations, any employment before a break in service of seven years or more is not counted. There are exceptions for military service and certain rehire agreements. Intermittent Leave. The final regulations allow employers to limit leave to the shortest increment of time used to account for absences or leaves, provided that increment is one hour or less.
Designation Notice. Employers now have five days within which to obtain enough information to determine whether leave is being taken for an FMLA-qualifying reason and use this notice to tell the employee whether the leave will count as FMLA leave, rather than two days.

Additional Protections for Members of the Military and Their Families
In 2008, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which provides for two new types of workplace leave to protect members of the military and their families: Qualified Exigency Leave and Military Caregiver Leave. The new FMLA regulations address both types of leave.
Qualified Exigency Leave provides that FMLA leave is available if a spouse, son, daughter or parent is called to active duty or deployed and time away from work is needed due to:

Deployment on seven days (or less) notice; leave for this purpose can be used for up to seven calendar days
Military events (e.g. deployment or returning soldier events)
Childcare or school arrangements
Financial and legal arrangements
Counseling for the military member, or his/her child, or for the employee to spend time with a recuperating soldier
Post-Deployment activities including funeral and burial arrangements

Military Caregiver Leave of up to 26 weeks in 12 month period is now available to designated next of kin, as well as spouses, children and parents, of members of the military who are injured in the line of duty. This leave is coordinated with FMLA leave (not given in addition to FMLA leave). “Next of Kin” may be a blood relative beyond just a parent or child. A servicemember can designate only one next of kin.

CFRA Regulations
The new FMLA regulations also affect the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission is responsible for promulgating CRFA regulations, and with a few exceptions, has incorporated by reference the FMLA regulations to the extent the federal regulations are not consistent with California law. The CFRA regulations currently in effect require compliance with the FMLA regulations issued in 1995. As of January 16, 2009, California employers attempting to administer leaves running concurrently between the FMLA and CFRA may have to decide whether to continue to follow the 1995 regulations as specified in the CFRA regulations, or to follow the 2009 regulations and ignore the FEHC’s reference to the 1995 regulations.

ADAAA Changes
On September 25, 2008, President Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the “ADAAA”), which expands the scope of The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) coverage for cases arising on or after January 1, 2009. In enacting the ADAAA, Congress expressly overturned several U.S. Supreme Court cases that limited the physical and mental problems that rise to the level of a “disability” under the ADA. In passing the ADAAA, Congress also had a primary objective of changing the focus of ADA claims from whether or not a person’s impairment rises to the level of a disability, to the employment actions at issue and whether or not the employer complied with its obligations.

The ADA defines a “disability” as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity of an individual. Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have narrowly construed this definition and have interpreted “substantially limits” to mean “prevents or severely restricts.” While the ADAAA does not alter the statutory definition of disability, the ADAAA rejects the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “substantially limits.” The ADAAA states that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals. The ADAAA also makes clear that Congress intended to apply a less demanding standard than that applied in the courts. Finally, the ADAAA tasks the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (the “EEOC”) with promulgating new regulations regarding the definition of a “disability,” consistent with the ADAAA.

The U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the group of people covered by the ADA by ruling that mitigating measures, such as medication or devices, are to be taken into account in determining whether or not a person is substantially limited in a major life activity. The ADAAA provides that the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures are not to be considered in determining whether an individual has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. However, the ADAAA carves out an exception for “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” that are “intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error,” which shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

The U.S. Supreme Court had held that a “major life activity” under the ADA, is an activity that is “of central importance to most people’s daily lives.” The ADAAA sets forth a non-exhaustive list of major life activities. The lists of major life activities includes: caring for one’s self; performing manual tasks; seeing; hearing; eating; sleeping; walking; standing; lifting; bending; speaking; breathing; learning; reading; concentrating; thinking; communicating; working; and major bodily functions including but not limited to functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

The ADAAA also clarifies that an impairment need only substantially limit one major life activity. Further, under the ADAAA an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if the impairment would substantially limit a major life activity when the impairment is active.

Under the ADA and previous case law, an individual was “regarded as” disabled if the individual could show that the employer perceived the individual as having a substantially limiting impairment. The ADAAA drastically expands the definition of “regarded as.” The ADAAA states that an individual is “regarded as” disabled if the individual “has been subjected to an action that is prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” The ADAAA does note, however, the “regarded as” definition does not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. The ADAAA defines transitory as an actual or expected duration of six months or less.

In addition, the ADAAA provides a safe haven for employers by further stating that an employer is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation to an individual who is covered only under the “regarded as” prong of the Act. Therefore, the newly expanded “regarded as” definition will likely be of most significance in cases where an adverse employment action has actually occurred.

The overall effect of the ADAAA will be that, under federal law, more employees will be deemed to be “disabled” and will qualify for reasonable accommodations and protections from alleged discrimination. This will likely give rise to an increase in the number of disability discrimination lawsuits under federal law. In addition, it is likely that the focus of ADA litigation will move from whether or not an individual meets the definition of “disabled” toward the questions surrounding the employer’s actions and the motivation for such actions.

Employers in California with five or more employees are subject to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”), which has historically provided broader protections to California workers than the ADA. Under the FEHA, disability is defined as an impairment that limits a major life activity. Unlike the ADA and ADAAA, no substantial limitation is required. According to California Government Code § 12926, a mental or psychological disorder or condition or physical disability limits a major life activity if it makes the achievement of the major life activity difficult and “limits” are to be determined without regard to mitigating measures. Further, major life activities are to be construed broadly and include physical, mental and social activities and working. Therefore, the passage of the ADAAA with the expanded definitions of disability and major life activity, and the admonition that mitigating factors shall not be considered in whether or not an impairment rises to a disability should not change California employers’ obligations. California employers should, however, monitor the promulgation of regulations and court decisions under the new ADAAA. Should such regulations and decisions further expand the protections afforded to individuals, employers should explore whether those regulations and decisions have broadened the protections beyond those required by the FEHA.

It appears likely that the ADAAA may provide broader protections for individuals than the FEHA in “regarded as” cases. As discussed above, under the “regarded as” prong of the ADAAA an individual is “regarded as” disabled if the individual “has been subjected to an action that is prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” Under the FEHA, an individual is “regarded as” disabled if that individual is perceived to be limited in a major life activity. Thus, the ADAAA could prove to require greater protections for individuals because the impairment does not have to limit a major life activity. However, as noted above, under the ADAAA employers need not provide reasonable accommodations to employees who are only covered under the “regarded as” prong making the expanded “regarded as” coverage most significant in cases where an adverse job action has occurred.

Assuming that the ADAAA provides more protection for individuals under the “regarded as” prong than the FEHA, California employers will be required to follow the ADAAA on that issue. To avoid an increase in the number of “regarded as” claims, to the extent possible, employers should attempt to shield employment decision makers from medical, health, workers’ compensation, family and medical leave, and other similar personal information about employees to avoid the implication that an employee was subjected to a prohibited action because of a perceived physical or mental impairment. Decision makers should also be trained about their responsibility to base employment decisions on legitimate factors other than a perception of mental or physical impairment.
Employers should review their current policies and practices to ensure that they are in compliance with the ADAAA by January 1, 2009. California employers already in compliance with the FEHA should train managers and employment action decision makers about the expanded coverage for individuals under the “regarded as” prong in adverse employment action cases.

Employers should expect that regulations and case law interpreting the ADAAA will be promulgated. Employers should also monitor the regulations and case law that will be forthcoming under the ADAAA. If the regulations and case law further expand the protections afforded to impaired individuals, employers will need to ensure that their policies and practices remain in compliance with the current interpretations of the new ADAAA.

New W-4 Forms
The Internal Revenue Service has new W-4 forms for use beginning January 1, 2009. These forms are available for download at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf.

Federal Minimum Wage Increase July 2009
Effective July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage will increase from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour. California’s minimum wage remains at $8.00 per hour.

Additional Leave under Military & Veterans Code §395.10
On October 9, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill which creates an additional leave of absence right for spouses of military personnel. The new law, California Military & Veterans Code §395.10, was designated as emergency legislation and went into effect immediately upon signing. It requires covered employers (those with 25 or more employees) to provide up to 10 days of unpaid leave to eligible spouses of deployed military personnel who are on qualified leave from military duty.
Only those employees who work an average of 20 or more hours per week are eligible for the leave. Spouses must be qualified members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserves who are deployed during a period of military conflict to an area designated as a combat theater or combat zone by the President. Eligible employees must notify employers of their intention to take leave within two business days of receiving official notice that the military spouse will be on leave from deployment. The employee also must submit written documentation certifying that the spouse will be on official leave from deployment during the time the employee is requesting leave. The unpaid leave may only be taken during a period of military conflict, defined as a period of war declared by Congress, or a period of deployment for which a member of a reserve component is ordered to active duty. Taking leave under Section 395.10 does not affect an employee’s right to other leave or benefits to which the employee is otherwise entitled.

Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act of 2007
This bill, which was introduced after the decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, was intended to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time such compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, rather than only the first time. The bill passed the House of Representatives on July 31, 2007, but had not been voted upon by the U.S. Senate at the close of the last two sessions, and so was cleared from the books. Hearings on this subject took place in September 2008, and it is possible that it could be reintroduced or that similar legislation will be passed later.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
On May 21, 2008, President Bush signed into law a bill forbidding insurance companies and employers from discriminating against an individual based on his or her genetic information. Advocates of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (the “GINA”), contend that it is “the first major civil rights act of the 21st century.” The provisions of GINA applicable to employers will take effect on November 21, 2009; however, the provisions governing insurance companies take effect in May 2009.

GINA expands Title VII, which already bans discrimination by race and gender, to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of “genetic information” in hiring, firing, and other activities. “Genetic information,” for the law’s purposes, not only includes tests that determine variations in a person’s DNA, but also information regarding family history of a particular disease. GINA also prohibits employers from collecting genetic information from their employees, except for rare circumstances such as testing for adverse effects to hazardous workplace exposures, and requires strict confidentiality of genetic information obtained by employers. GINA grants employees and individuals remedies similar to those provided under Title VII and other nondiscrimination laws, i.e., compensatory and punitive damages. It also provides that no person shall retaliate against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA. Currently, GINA does not prohibit discrimination once someone already has a disease.

Labor Code §201.3: Weekly Payments to Temporary Workers
Effective January 1, 2009, Labor Code §201.3 clarifies the payment of wages to temporary employees. Temporary employees should be paid at least weekly. If the assignment ends during the week, final wages are not due to the temporary employee on the last day of work, but may be made at the next regularly scheduled payday provided that it occurs during the following calendar week. Any employee who is hired for the day (whether directly or through an agency) must be paid at the end of each workday.

Labor Code §206.5: No certification by employee required as a condition to receiving paycheck if employer knows hours are falsely recorded
Effective January 1, 2009, Labor Code §206.5 will be amended to make it unlawful for a company to require, as a condition to receive a paycheck, an employee to state that the hours recorded on a time sheet or time card are accurate, if in fact the employer knows that the hours are falsely recorded.

ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

E-Verify
Effective January 15, 2009, federal contractors with prime contracts for more than 120 days and which have a value above $100,000, and their subcontractors who have contracts for more than $3,000, are required to use the federal government’s E-Verify program, created by Executive Order 12989. E-Verify is a program to verify the employment eligibility of applicants. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reported that 92,000 employers are currently using the program and approximately 6.6 million employment queries were run during FY 2008.

New EEOC Guidelines on Religious Discrimination and Harassment under Title VII
The new EEOC guidelines do not alter an employer’s responsibility to provide a workplace free of discrimination and harassment on the basis of religion under Title VII, but clarifies the EEOC’s position on religious discrimination and harassment. The following points were confirmed: (1) The definition of “religion” is broad and covers traditional, theistic concepts as well as non-theistic – but sincerely held – moral and ethical beliefs about right and wrong; (2) The prohibition on religious discrimination applies to all aspects of the workplace, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, scheduling, compensation and termination; and (3) Unlike other Title VII categories, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so imposes an “undue hardship.”
Further, the EEOC simultaneously set forth a number of “best practices” for employers on the topic of religious discrimination and harassment. The list includes (1) making sure the employer’s anti-harassment policy covers religion; (2) training managers to recognize and deal with religious harassment or discrimination; (3) exploring various options to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs or practices; and (4) consider offering flexible schedules or a system of voluntary substitutes or swaps to reduce conflicts between religious practices and work schedules. To view the complete text of the EEOC’s guidelines and recommendations, go to http://eeoc.gov/docs/best_practices_religion.html.

New EEOC Guidelines on Reasonable Accommodations, Job Performance and Accommodations to Meet a Performance or Production Standard
The EEOC explains that an employer can hold disabled and nondisabled employees to the same quantitative and qualitative requirements for performing a job’s essential functions. The same goes for production standards. However, a reasonable accommodation might be required to assist a disabled employee in meeting a performance or production standard. Ideally, employees will request a reasonable accommodation before performance problems arise, but often the first time an employee requests a reasonable accommodation is after a problem has occurred. In such a situation, the ADA doesn’t require an employer to tolerate or excuse the poor performance, withhold or rescind disciplinary action, or raise a performance rating. However, once the employer knows that a reasonable accommodation is required, it should engage in the interactive process with the employee to determine which type of accommodation will help him or her meet the performance or production standards going forward. Regarding conduct issues, the EEOC says that an employer can discipline an employee with a disability for violating a conduct standard. This is true even if the disability caused the violation (such as if a bipolar disability causes the person to yell at a coworker) as long as the conduct rule being enforced is job-related and consistent with business necessity, and other employees are held to the same standard. Read more about these guidelines at www.eeoc.gov/facts/performance-conduct/html.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s Joint Task Force Auditing Automotive Repair Industry
In the summer of 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger put together a coalition consisting of representatives from the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), Cal-OSHA, and the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR). The joint task force immediately began arriving unannounced at automotive repair operations in California to conduct inspections of the site, interview employees, and inspect payroll records, licenses, workers’ compensation and other employment documentation.

Cal-OSHA’s Heat Illness Regulations & Increased Enforcement/Fines under 8 CCR 3395
Following the death of an employee of Merced Farm Labor Contractor (“Merced FLC”) who had been working in a San Joaquin County vineyard for nine hours with little water and no access to shade, Cal/OSHA began investigating agricultural companies to ensure that they are providing a safe and healthful workplace for their employees.

Cal/OSHA issued citations and fines of $262,700 against Merced FLC – the largest assessed to an agricultural firm since the permanent heat illness prevention regulations were implemented in 2006 – and ordered Merced FLC not to operate until it can prove it is in compliance with the heat regulations. Citations were issued for failure to provide heat illness prevention training to employees and supervisors, failure to provide access to a shaded area for recovery periods of no less than five minutes, and failure to have procedures in place to respond to medical emergencies. Citations were further issued for failure to provide single-use disposable cups at water stations, failure to fully implement an illness and injury prevention program, failure to have written procedures for complying with heat illness prevention requirements, and failure to maintain a properly equipped first aid kit at the worksite. Under California law, employers are required to have a written heat illness prevention program, train all employees and supervisors about the dangers of heat illness, and provide adequate and access to shade and enough cool, accessible water for each employee to drink at least four cups per hour.

In 2008, Cal-OSHA:

Conducted 611 heat illness seminars compared to 284 for all of 2007.
Exceeded the number of heat illness prevention inspections, with 1105 heat-related inspections to date in 2008 compared to 1,018 for all of 2007.
Issued 459 citations since the summer began, primarily for failing to have written heat illness prevention plans. During heat waves, special compliance teams are dispatched to outdoor work sites to ensure workers are being properly protected.
Partnered with California growers to jointly conduct supplemental heat illness training sessions for farm labor contractors, and partnered with the California Department of Education’s Migrant Education Program statewide to educate students and their families about heat stress and their rights.

Payroll Debit Card Program
On July 7, 2008, the California Labor Commissioner’s office issued an opinion letter which allows companies to utilize payroll debit cards as one alternative manner with which to pay their employees. There are some requirements that must be met with a payroll debit card policy:

Participation in the payroll debit card program must be optional. Employees must still be able to receive their pay in the form of a live check or through direct deposit;
The payroll debit card must be backed by a bank which has a place of business in California;
A wage statement, either printed or electronic, must still be provided to the employee.

Attorneys in the Berliner Cohen Employment group will be pleased to provide further information regarding the matters discussed in this Alert:

Roberta S. Hayashi
roberta.hayashi@berliner.com

Christine Long
christine.long@berliner.com

Kara L. Arguello
kara.arguello@berliner.com

Kate Wilson
kate.wilson@berliner.com

####

©2009 Berliner Cohen. This article is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation for the formation of an attorney-client relationship and no attorney-client relationship is created through your use of the Berliner Site or your receipt of the materials. Attorneys in the Berliner Cohen Employment Group will be pleased to provide further information regarding the matters discussed in this article.

Site Search

Practice Areas

Employment Law

Employment Litigation