Firm News

Three attorneys at San Diego employment and consumer rights firm Haeggquist & Eck have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America_© 2021.

• Partner Alreen Heggquist was selected by her peers for inclusion in the Best Lawyers in America_© 2021 in the field of Consumer Protection Law;
• Partner Amber Eck was included in the Best Lawyers in America_© 2021 for her work in Securities Litigation; and
• Associate Ian Pike received a 2021 Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch recognition for Labor and Employment Law – Employee.

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers_® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 108,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and we have received over 13 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. For the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America_©, 9.4 million votes were analyzed, which resulted in more than 67,000 leading lawyers being included in the new edition. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed.

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

San Diego – (Businesswire): Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, a leading shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, is investigating whether Care.com, Inc. (“Care.com”) (NYSE: CRCM) violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements beginning approximately

May 8, 2018.

Care.com, based in Waltham, MA, operates a website designed to help consumers find child care, senior care, and other services. During the Class Period, Care.com emphasized the strength of its business model and reliability of its ongoing revenue and earnings growth, causing its stock price to trade at fraudulently-inflated prices, reaching a Class Period high of $25.67 on March 1, 2019. CEO Sheila Lirio Maracelo sold approximately 325,000 of her shares for more than $6.6 million in proceeds.

In fact, on March 8, 2019, The Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) published the results of a detailed investigation into Care.com – “Care.com Puts Onus on Families to Check Caregivers’ Backgrounds – With Sometimes Tragic Outcomes.” According to the WSJ, over the past six years, caregivers on Care.com allegedly committed crimes while caring for children or seniors, including child abuse, sexual assault, and murder. On this news, the stock price plummeted more than $5 per share – a decline of 20% from its Class Period high. Then, this week on April 1, 2019, the WSJ published a second report disclosing that rather than having “hundreds” of unlicensed daycare centers on the Care.com website, there were actually thousands, and that Care.com had removed about 72% of them, or about 45,594 businesses. On this news, the stock fell another $1.31 per share, or more than 6.6%, to close at $18.45 per share on April 1, 2019.

What You Can Do

If you purchased shares of Care.com stock between May 8, 2018 and March 29, 2019, you may have legal claims against the Company. If you wish to discuss this investigation, or have questions about your legal rights, please contact attorney Amber Eck. There is no cost to you. Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law and has helped shareholders recover more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. This release constitutes attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

CLICK TO VIEW OR DOWNLOAD PRESS RELEASE

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

Welcome to 2019!  While some of us are struggling through our New Year’s resolutions, the State of California has once again resolved to implement new employment laws.  Here is a list of some of the more notable changes:

Another Step Forward For A Living Wage

This year, the California minimum wage jumped to $11 an hour for companies with 25 employees or fewer, and $12 an hour for companies with more than 25 workers. Keep in mind that under a 2016 ordinance, the City of San Diego’s minimum wage is now $12 an hour.*

2018 – A Year For Women

Women won more than just a record 84 seats in the House of Representatives this year!  As of January 1, Employers must make reasonable efforts to provide a place for a woman to breastfeed, or pump their milk, in a space that is not in a bathroom.

All California public companies are also required to have at least one woman on its board of directors. This change in the law is discussed in detail in our Blog Post from October 2018.**

And the #MeToo movement has led to several important changes in state law concerning sexual harassment, assault, and discrimination.

Sexual Harassment Training is No Longer Just For Big Business

Managers of companies with 5 or more employees must complete two hours of sexual harassment training, and non-managers must complete one hour of sexual harassment training by January 1, 2020, and every two years thereafter.   In other words, smaller businesses are held to the same obligation as larger companies when it comes to sexual harassment training.  This training must also address harassment on the basis of sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, discrimination, retaliation, and abusive conduct.

Relieving the “Practical Obstacles” of Sexual Assault Lawsuits

As we all saw on the national stage last fall, it is never easy for sexual assault survivors to come forward.  Fortunately for victims, the state of California enacted Assembly Bill 1619, expanding the time limit to bring a civil claim for sexual assault.  The new law increases the statute of limitations for a civil sexual assault claim up to 10 years after the alleged assault or 3 years after the victim discovered the injury, whichever is later.  Marc Berman, a California Assemblyman who authored A.B. 1619, stated, “it is clear that significant time is needed to recover and overcome the many practical obstacles that prevent sexual assault survivors from civil recourse.”

Freedom To Report Harassment

Civil Code Section 47 was amended to protect victims of sexual harassment who make complaints to administrative agencies from defamation claims.  Because the bill protects sexual harassment complaints by employees and also permits the employer to question interested parties, it received unanimous, bipartisan support.  Finally, something everyone can agree to!

If your employer has failed to keep up to date and violated any of the above, you may have a case against your employer. For more information about your rights, and a free case evaluation, please call us at (619) 342-8000.

*Several other cities in California have established minimum wages that differ from the State minimum wage.  For example, the minimum wage in San Francisco is $15 /hour

**https://haelaw.com/california-sends-a-message-to-the-nation-women-must-be-represented-in-the-corporate-boardroom/

If you would like to discuss your employment law case, contact us today for a free consultation!

As we reach the end of February, it is safe to say that we are warming up to 2018. Rather than dwell on the fact that time has flown by remarkably fast, it is worth noting that the new year has ushered in favorable new legislation and court decisions for employees (and prospective employees)!

It’s Not Polite to Talk Finances at Dinner … Or During a Job Interview

Under the newly added section 432.3 to the California Labor Code, California employers are now prohibited from seeking an applicant’s salary history. In practice, this means you cannot be asked about your prior salary on a job application or during an interview. While you are free to voluntarily disclose this information during the hiring process, an employer may not use this information as a factor in determining whether to offer employment or what salary to offer you. Additionally, an employer must provide a pay scale for a position when an applicant reasonably requests one.

Ban the Box

California now prohibits employers with five or more employees from asking about or even considering, an applicant’s criminal conviction history during the application process, unless the employer has made a conditional offer of employment. Even if your employer factors your criminal history into denying employment, your conviction history must have a “direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying [you] the position.” Additionally, your potential employer is prohibited from considering information regarding a non-conviction arrest (with some exceptions), referral to a diversion program, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated. In other words, the mistakes you made in the past will not come back to haunt you when you are working hard to get back on your feet!

Breaking Through Gender Norms

California amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to now require employers with 50 or more employees to provide training once every two years to supervisory employees on harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. These employers are also required to prominently display a new DFEH poster regarding FEHC regulations on gender identity and expression.[1] Additionally, FEHA removed gendered terms from FEHA and added gender-neutral terms to ensure that FEHA applied to all California employees, including transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming employees.

Baby Bonding Expansion

California added Section 12945.6 to the Government Code to extend parental bonding rights to employees of smaller employers, by reducing the 50 or more-employee threshold to 20 or more employees. Furthermore, employers must provide qualified employees with a guarantee of reinstatement to the same or comparable position following their leave. This is great news for new parents!

Salespeople Need a Break Too!

In addition to the legislation that has come out of Sacramento, California Courts also worked hard last year to expand employee’s rights. In Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC, the California Court of Appeals held that employers must separately compensate employees for rest periods if an employee’s plan does not already include a minimum hourly wage for such time.[2] In Vaquero, the defendant furniture company argued that its commission plan still guaranteed sales associates would be paid more than $12 an hour; thus, effectively capturing rest period time. The Court of Appeal did not buy this argument and stated that an employer needed to separately compensate its employees for rest periods. Simply put, this decision effects commissioned employees where the employee’s commission plan does not provide separate compensation for non-selling time, such as time spent in meetings or rest periods.

Third-Party Problems

Your employer may be liable for failing to protect you from abuse/harassment from a third party. In M.F. v. Pac. Pearl Hotel Mgmt. LLC, a housekeeper sued her employer (a hotel) after a man who was not a guest of the hotel sexually assaulted her.[3] The California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff stated a claim under FEHA as to whether the employer had taken reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

Hugs Are Not Always Harmless in the Workplace

The Ninth Circuit held in Zetwik v. County of Yolo that hostile conduct over a twelve-year period, including unwelcomed hugs, and at least one unwelcomed kiss, was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute harassment in the workplace.[4]

“We Swipe Left, And Reverse”

Last month, the California Court of Appeal held that Tinder (a popular online dating app) engaged in age discrimination in pricing, because Tinder charged its consumers over 30 years old $19.99/month, but only charged $9.99 or $14.99/month for consumers under 30.[5] The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s ruling and held that the Unruh Act provides broad protection against age-based price discrimination. Notably, the Court stated, “[a]ccordingly, we swipe left, and reverse.”

If your employer is still living in the past and violated any of the above, you may have a case against your employer. For more information about your rights, and a free case evaluation, please contact us online or call us at (619) 342-8000.

[1] https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2017/11/DFEH_E04P-ENG-2017Nov.pdf.[2] Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC, 9 Cal. App. 5th 98 (2017).[3] M.F. v. Pac. Pearl Hotel Mgmt. LLC, 16 Cal. App. 5th 693 (2017).[4] Zetwik v. County of Yolo, 850 F. 3d 436 (9th Cir. 2017).[5] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1887382.html.