WRONGFUL TERMINATION ATTORNEY LOS ANGELES

Wrongful termination attorneys are needed once an employment termination occurs, or if an employee believes they need to quit their job due to intolerable working conditions. This means the employment must have been severed. If the employment has not ended, and is still occurring the only question is whether the employee has grounds to quit and sue. If an employee is uncertain whether their employment has ended, consultation with a wrongful termination lawyer might be appropriate. These situations often arise when the employee has not been assigned work for an extended period of time, or the employer will not permit the employee to return to work. Presuming an employee’s job has ended either through termination, an employer refusing to assign work, an employer who refuses to allow the employee to come back to work, the next question is whether the situation amounts to wrongful termination for which there is a legal remedy in California.

Wrongful termination exists under limited circumstances in California. These circumstances include an employee who is fired for complaining that their employer acted illegally, or suspiciously. It is important to allow an experienced employee lawyer determine whether conduct you complained of and may have been fired for is illegal. Job terminations due to protected characteristics such as age, cancer, disability, FMLA, medical conditions, pregnancy, race, or sex are also wrongful termination.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION LAWYER LOS ANGELES

Job terminations in violation of a non-pay employment contract may not be wrongful termination, but there may be other remedies a job lawyer can sue for including breach of contract. Additionally, many unfair reasons for a job termination are not wrongful termination. California is an at-will state. Employees can be fired for any reason even if it is a false reason as long as the real reason is not because the employee was a whistleblower about matters of public policy, or because the employment termination violates a protected right such as the right to work with pregnancy related medical conditions that an employer can accommodate without an undue burden.

Questions whether employees can quit their job and sue are delicate matters that must be made under the close advice of a highly experienced employee attorney. Intolerable working conditions that justify an employee quitting, like wrongful termination, must be conditions that are illegal or discriminatory based upon a legally protected characteristic. Serious thought must be given whether the condition has been sufficiently complained about to management before the employee quits. Being able to quit and sue in civil court is one issue. The other issue is whether quitting the suing will lead to a path in which an unemployment insurance claim is denied by the State of California.

CALL 1-877-525-0700 TO SPEAK TO A
WRONGFUL TERMINATION LAWYER
ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF BEING ABLE TO
QUIT YOUR JOB AND SUE

LOS ANGELES WRONGFUL TERMINATION LAWYERS

Our Los Angeles wrongful termination law firm goes back to 1993. Firm Head, Karl Gerber, began representing employees in the greater Los Angeles area in 1993. We have been in our Sherman Oaks office since 1999. Although we had an earlier downtown Los Angeles office we reestablished a downtown Los Angeles office in 2010. Following our downtown office we established an office in the South Bay, first in Gardena and then in Torrance at the end of 2017. The Employment Lawyers Group is proud to have represented thousands of employees, in Los Angeles, of all different races, religions, national origins, and ancestries. We have led the way in the field of Los Angeles wrongful termination lawsuits with the following published cases from the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles: Pinedo v. Premium Tobacco, 85 Cal.App.4th 774, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 435 (2000); Boonyarit v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 145 Cal.App.4th 1188 (2006); Young v. Exon, 167 Cal.App.4th 1467 (2008); Sparks v. Vista del Mar Child and Family Services, 207 Cal.App.4th 1511 (2012); Alamo v. Practice Management, 219 Cal.App.4th 466 (2013); Vasquez v. v. Franklin Management, 212 Cal.App.4th 819 (2013)

Our case results are not a prediction of future outcomes because each case is unique