EMPLOYERS MUST PAY THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE SERVICES THEY RECEIVED

Even if you do not have a formal contract with your employer to be paid you may be entitled to recover money from your employer for your efforts. The legal theories are called promissory estoppel, quantum meriut, and violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 on the basis the employer's practice was unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent. These types of cases are very factually intensive. It is best to let an experienced labor lawyer ask you the questions they think are relevant so the attorney can get to the bottom of whether you might have a claim.

CALL (323) 525-1600 FOR AN EXPERIENCED WAGE RECOVERY LAW FIRM

The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are ‘(1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) [the] reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.' [Citation.]” (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 887, 901, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 894; see Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 310, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 1 P.3d 63.), “ Flintco Pacific, Inc. v. TEC Management Consultants, Inc., 1 Cal.App.5th 727, 734 (2016).

“A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promise and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise,” Sheppard v. Morgan, 218 Cal.App.3d 61, 67 (1990) (quoting Rest.2d Contracts Section 90(1)).

“Although “promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine [and] courts are given wide discretion in its application” (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 902, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 894, citing C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co., supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 7–8, 151 Cal.Rptr. 323, 587 P.2d 1136), “[t]he existence of an estoppel is generally a question of fact for the trial court whose determination is conclusive on appeal unless the opposite conclusion is the only one that can be reasonably drawn from the evidence. [Citation.]” (Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297, 305, 61 Cal.Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245, italics added.) More particularly, whether the reliance was reasonable is a question of fact unless reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion based on the evidence, in which case the question is one of law, “ Flinto, at 734.

HOW TO GET A 4 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON WAGE CLAIMS AGAINST AN EMPLOYER

An employee bringing an action under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) may establish that a business practice is unfair by showing that it violates an established public policy. Because wage violations are considered violations of established public policies the four year statute of limitations may be used to bring a wage claim under California unfair competition law. This means the time in which to bring a claim for unpaid wages, meal breaks, rest breaks, commissions, bonuses, overtime, and double time is four years under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The rights under this law is different than the California Labor Code and does not provide all of the remedies the Labor Code provides.

CALL (323) 525-1600 TO START YOUR WAGE THEFT CASE TODAY BEFORE ANYMORE STATUTES OF LIMITATION LAPSE

SUE EMPLOYER FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES

Unfair practices are those that either offends an established public policy, or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers, McDonald v. Coldwell, 543 F.3d 498 (9th Cir. 2008).

A cause of action for unfair competition under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) may be established independent of any contractual relationship between the parties, McAdams v. Monier, 182 Cal.App.4th 174 (2010). However, a breach of contract may form the predicate for unfair competition claims provided it also constitutes an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practice, Puentes v. Wells, 160 Cal.App.4th 638 (2008). The determination of whether a particular business practice is unfair, as basis for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), necessarily involves an examination of its impact on its alleged victim, balanced against the reasons, justifications, and motives of the alleged wrongdoing, Langan v. United, N.D.Cal.2014, 69 F.Supp.3d 965, which sounds like a triable issue of fact. An unfair practice is any practice whose harm to the victim outweighs its benefits, Shroyer v. New Cingular, 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010).

Call (323) 525-1600 to talk to an experienced employment lawyer if you believe your employer owes you money, or your job termination was due to an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal job practice.