Steven G. Pearl Recognized as a "Super Lawyer"

Steven G. Pearl has been selected as a Super Lawyer for 2011. Super Lawyers recognizes the top five percent of lawyers based on independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations.

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers ... who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

The Pearl Law Firm is very pleased to receive this recognition from its colleagues.

Pearl Law Firm Associate Leonard H. Sansanowicz Prevails in Trial

Congratulations to Pearl Law Firm associate Leonard H. Sansanowicz, who recovered more than $155,000 in wages for an individual who worked as a repairman in a jewelry shop and was treated as an independent contractor. Mr. Sansanowicz conducted a two-day bench trial before Hon. Luis Lavin in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Department 13. Mr. Sansanowicz now will move to recover our client's attorney fees.

Mr. Sansanowicz focuses his practice on wage and hour litigation, class actions, and unfair competition. Mr. Sansanowicz earned his law degree at Loyola Law School, where he served as a Senior Articles Editor of the Loyola Law Review of Los Angeles, was a member of the nationally ranked Byrne Trial Advocacy competition team, and served as a board member of the Jewish Students Law Association, La Raza, and the Public Interest Law Foundation.

Pearl Law Firm Wins Summary Adjudication of Independent Contractor, Exemption Defenses in Nursing Case

On March 25, 2010, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Conrad R. Aragon granted summary adjudication in favor of two licensed vocational nurses (LVNs) represented by The Pearl Law Firm. The Court found that the undisputed evidence showed that the LVNs were neither independent contractors nor exempt employees.

The action alleges that the employer, a home health agency, failed to pay the LVNs overtime and missed meal and rest period compensation, failed to provide them with timely and accurate wage and hour statements, and failed to pay them all earned wages on separation. The defendant asserted in its answer that the LVNs were either independent contractors or exempt employees.

The Court first held that the LVNs were not independent contractors as a matter of law. The Court held that the employer had not only the right to control the LVN's work, but also the duty to do so under California's home health agency regulations. Further, the Court found that the employer exercised control over the LVNs "on a pervasive, continual basis throughout their employment." As such, the LVNs were employees, not independent contractors.

The Court also held that the exemption defense did not apply for several reasons. First, the employer paid the LVNs on an hourly basis, not a salary. Second, the Court held that the LVNs were not engaged in a "learned or artistic profession" within the meaning of the exemption. Instead, the Court found that the LVNs were "primarily engaged" in work that "either required no particular skill and knowledge, such as bathing and changing diapers, or that required only the limited education and clinical training of an LVN [high school diploma, plus one year of combined classroom instruction and clinical rotation]." Third, the LVNs did not "customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment" as defined in the regulations. Instead, they "applied [their] knowledge in following prescribed procedures." As such, they could not be exempt employees.

The Court's ruling on summary adjudication establishes liability against the employer. The case will now go to trial on damages.

Steven G. Pearl Offers Services as Mediator

Steven G. Pearl announced today that he will offer his services as mediator. In more than 17 years of legal practice, Mr. Pearl has litigated and resolved thousands of lawsuits involving wage and hour and employment law, class actions, unfair competition, consumer protection, personal injury, professional malpractice, business litigation, and real estate litigation.

Mr. Pearl is a recognized authority on wage and hour law and a co-author of California Wage and Hour Law and Litigation, published by Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB). He also authors the California Wage and Hour Law Blog and the Mediation and Negotiation Blog.

To retain Mr. Pearl's services as mediator, please contact The Pearl Law Firm at (818) 995-8300.

Pearl Law Firm Associate Leonard Sansanowicz Wins $110,000 Judgment

Congratulations to Pearl Law Firm associate Leonard Sansanowicz, who won a $110,000 judgment on behalf of a man employed at a market. The judgment includes minimum wage and other compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and $50,000 in attorney fees. The case is Estrada v. Rivera, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC388388, before Hon. David L. Minning.

Mr. Sansanowicz was admitted to the Bar in 2008, and this is his second "first chair" trial.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Overturns District Court Order Denying Class Certification in Wal-Mart Assistant Manager Class Action

Ninth Circuit Gives Plaintiffs Permission to Appeal Denial of Class Certification in Wal-Mart Assistant Manager Class Action

A two-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a motion filed by three Wal-Mart assistant managers (AMs) that will allow the AMs to file an appeal from a District Court order denying class certification of the AMs' overtime, meal period, and rest period claims.

District Court Judge Dale Fisher denied class certification of the action on May 5, 2006, and the AMs asked the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal that decision. Today, the Ninth Circuit agreed to allow the AMs to appeal. Chief Judge Mary Ms. Schroeder and Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt signed the order.

"This is a tremendous victory for our clients and all of Wal-Mart's employees," said the AMs' attorney, Steven G. Pearl of The Pearl Law Firm in Los Angeles. "We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will reverse the decision to deny class certification, and this case will go forward as a class action on behalf of all AMs employed in California."

Assistant Store Managers File Wage and Hour Class Action Against Wal-Mart

Three assisant managers (AMs) employed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., have filed suit against the world's largest employer, alleging that it should pay overtime compensation, meal period compensation, and rest period compensation to all of its California AMs.

The law suit alleges that Wal-Mart routinely requires its AMs to work more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per week, but fails to pay the AMs overtime compensation. The law suit also alleges that Wal-Mart routinely fails to provide the AMs with the meal and rest periods required by California law, and fails to pay the AMs for their missed meal and rest periods. The law suit seeks compensation, interest, and penalties on behalf of all AMs employed by Wal-Mart in California at any time since January, 2000. It also seeks to force Wal-Mart to change its compensation policies, so that AMs are paid for their overtime hours.

The AMs are represented by Steven G. Pearl of The Pearl Law Firm in Los Angeles. "California law requires employers to pay their employees overtime wages, even if they are on salary," Mr. Pearl said. "Wal-Mart calls our clients 'assistant managers' and pays them a salary, but the reality is that they spend almost all of their time doing the same routine tasks that the hourly employees do. Unless Wal-Mart is going to give its AMs real administrative or executive authority, it needs to provide them overtime compensation, meal periods, and rest periods, like its other non-exempt employees."

Additional information is available from The Pearl Law Firm at (818) 995-8300

Software Engineer Files Overtime Class Action Against Citicorp

A computer software engineer for Citicorp Development Center has filed a class action law suit against his employer, alleging that he and his co-workers have not been paid the overtime compensation owed to them.

"California law requires employers to pay software engineers overtime as long as they make less than $89,000 per year, even if they are on salary," said the plaintiff's attorney, Steven G. Pearl. "Our client is like most software engineers. He consistently works more than 40 hours per week, but his employer refuses to pay him time-and-a-half."

The law suit seeks recovery of overtime wages for all software engineers employed by Citicorp Development Center, Citibank Service Corporation and Salomon Smith Barney in California over the last four years.

"California employers must comply with California law, which is more strict than Federal law. Under Federal law, software engineers earning more than $57,000 per year are exempt from the overtime requirements. But in California, you are only exempt if you earn $89,000 per year or more," Mr. Pearl explained. "The majority of California's software engineers are owed overtime, and their employers are going to have to start paying them for it."

Additional information is available from The Pearl Law Firm at (818) 995-8300.