 |
 |
October 2008 Newsletter |
 |
|
|
 | KP&A and Litigation Support Today
By CYNTHIA TRAMMELL |
|
Khorrami, Pollard & Abir is rapidly growing, fast becoming one of the nation's largest plaintiff's litigation law firm. KP&A's commitment to growth, and client satisfaction, has not left litigation technology in its wake. To the contrary, the firm is blazing a trail, setting high standards for plaintiff's practices by staying on top of the best litigation support technology available to the legal industry today.
[Read More]
|
|
| Yes We Can! So Why Haven't We?
By GALORAH KESHAVARZ, ESQ. |
|
An overarching political theme of this year has been the movement behind domestic change. Fueled by the message of hope, through the inspiring and uplifting slogan of "Yes We Can!", Americans have rallied together to break the heavy chains of conformity. Earlier this year - in May, the Media briefly reported on the six million children in Ethiopia who were at risk of malnutrition and serious dehydration. Media outlets momentarily covered the deplorable starvation of Ethiopian children, as devastating pictures of three year old children weighing less than 10 pounds were canvassed on the front page of the likes of CNN. com. As citizens of a global community, we are all responsible. Without having to see heart wrenching photographs in order to proactively get involved in a long term solution that helps eliminate one of the many pains that plague the lives of children throughout Africa, it is time that we not only say, "Yes We Can!", but more importantly, "Yes We Did."
[Read More]
|
|
| Wage and Hour Class Action Law Will Remain Unsettled
Absent Needed Guidance from the California Supreme Court
By H. SCOTT LEVIANT, ESQ. |
|
On July 22, 2008, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) injected a significant measure of chaos into the world of wage & hour class actions. In Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. Hohnbaum, et al. (July 22, 2008), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) held that:
- while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken;
- employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period;
- employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked;
- while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and
- while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so."
[Read More]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
