San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number

Entries in California Law (20)

Wednesday
Aug242016

California Ballot 2016: Pros and Cons of Props 51-56

Litigation Los AngelesEnvironmental Litigation  

Stephen T. Holzer
818.907.3299

 

Californians must decide on 17 initiatives in the November election this year, and those are just the proposed measures of state-wide concern. Never mind the many local initiatives affecting counties and neighborhoods. The state props cover a range of topics like porn, drugs, guns, and death. Then there are the more tedious but still critical initiatives regarding bonds, legislative transparency, education, etc.

That’s a lot to think about, so we thought we’d break it down with a quick ballot reference guide. You’ll find a brief description of each measure, and then a who’s for, who’s against, and why section – with reference links for more information. (If you want the full text of each prop, click on the title for each measure.)

We begin the first segment in our 2016 Election Guide series: California Propositions 51-56, below. (Click Props 57-61 or Props 62- 67 to read about the others.)

Proposition 51: California Public Education Facilities Bond Initiative 

Should the state issue $9 billion in bonds for constructing or improving public schools educating students from Kindergarten through community college? The proposed funds generated would be allocated as follows: 

  • $3 billion to build new schools
  • $3 billion to modernize existing schools
  • $2 billion to buy, build, and improve community colleges
  • $500 million for charter schools
  • $500 million for technical education facilities 

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 51?

Proponents of Prop 51 claim the state’s schools are deteriorating to the point of becoming unhealthy and unsafe for students; and that California’s last school bond initiated 10 years ago is now out of money. They also claim a current $2 billion backlog of improvement projects for seismic renovations, other safety concerns and technology needs.

Both the California Democratic and Republican parties, the California Chamber of Commerce, numerous school districts and state elected officials have endorsed this bill.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 51?

The opposition to Prop 51 describes its organization as a coalition of supporters of California taxpayers and educators opposed to sprawl and developer abuse. Their Facebook page posts links to more opposition from The Mercury News, East Bay Times, among others. Both articles cite Governor Jerry Brown who calls the referendum a “blunderbuss effort that promotes sprawl and squanders money that would be far better spent in low-income communities.”

The opponents also cite a need for better planning by local school districts, and for developers to foot their fair shares of the costs, noting that this initiative was bankrolled by the construction industry. 

Proposition 52: California Medi-Cal Hospital Reimbursement Initiative 

In order to receive federal Medicaid funding, the states must contribute their own money. California does this partly through the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee (HQAF) assessed on both public and private hospitals since 2009 – resulting in about $3 billion in federal funds disbursed annually for Medi-Cal programs. Some of the HQAF monies however, have been diverted into California’s general fund over the years. Prop 52 aims to make it harder for the state to divert hospital fees by requiring 2/3 voter approval before doing so.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 52?

The Yes on 52 Campaign says the hospital fee program is set to expire in 2018. The program generates about $3 billion in federal money for Medi-Cal (about $18 billion over seven years), which primarily benefits children, seniors and working families. Citing the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Yes on 52 further claims the program will save California $1.5 billion in costs for children’s health care by 2020, and increases support to local public hospitals. The state legislature will need voter approval to dip into the program.

Support for Prop 52 include the California Children’s Hospital Association, the California Association for Nurse Practitioners, both the Los Angeles and California Chambers of Commerce and various elected officials of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 52?

Those who oppose Proposition 52 seem to be less organized but include the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, according to Kaiser Health News. The post cites SEIU-UHW’s director of governmental relations:

…SEIU-UHW supports the arrangement in principle but that the legislature is the most appropriate venue for deciding how to use the money raised. Lawmakers can respond to an evolving health care system, but if Californians vote directly on the hospital proposal, their decision would be harder to undo later…

Proposition 53: No Blank Checks Initiative 

Should bond projects that cost more than $2 billion require voter approval? Government projects of that amount or more that are billed to the state’s general fund already require voter approval – but revenue bonds do not. This initiative targets state over-spending by giving voters the right to greenlight or stop big ticket projects, and prevents large projects from being broken down into smaller jobs to get around voter approval requirements.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 53?

The Stop Blank Checks’ first priority is to keep elected officials from creating new debt to pay for multi-billion dollar projects, at the cost of California taxpayers. The Pro-Proposition 53 website says California’s debt exceeds $330 billion – the third worst of all the states. It also cites the cost of California’s high-speed bullet train: nearly $10 billion was approved by voters for the project, but costs are now estimated at $68 billion, which may be paid for through revenue bonds.

Dean and Joan Cortopassi – owners of large food and agri-businesses based in Central California, are the initiative’s primary supporters.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 53?

The opposition is much bigger than the support so far. The No on Prop 53 faction claims the initiative will take away local government’s ability to issue revenue bonds to make improvements. For example, voters in Northern and Central California could theoretically vote against raising funds to improve the sewer system in Encino, if it comes with a price tag of over $2 billion. On a larger scale, can Los Angelenos wait up to two years to vote on I-405/US 101 interchange repairs after a devastating earthquake? (Presumably the federal or state governments would provide emergency funding in such a scenario.)

The opposition to Prop 53 include the Association of California Water Agencies, State Sheriff’s Association, League of California Cities, California Chamber of Commerce, California Hospital Association and others. 

Proposition 54: California Legislature Transparency Act 

If this initiative is approved, the legislature would be required to publish every bill (except some regarding emergency measures) in print and online at least 72 hours before a legislative vote; and to record public proceedings to be posted online within 24 hours of the proceedings. Members of the public may also record these public proceedings. All recordings, whether made by legislators or private persons, may be used for any legitimate purpose.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 54?

This one gets bipartisan support. The Yes on Prop 54 coalition cites a need to rein in special interest groups who have a history of getting 11th hour revisions made to bills benefitting themselves – without giving lawmakers an opportunity to read, or the public an opportunity to comment on those changes. The audiovisual recordings stipulations provide a record of proceedings, since most members of the public are unable to attend those proceedings and thus have no opportunity to comment.

The bill is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California State Conference of the NAACP, and the state’s League of Women Voters, among others.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 54?

There is a group pushing for a no vote, for the same reason, believe it or not: to deny special interest groups. The No On Proposition 54 alliance says the bill will hinder legislators in developing bipartisan solutions; 72 hours gives special interest groups more time to launch a counter-attack, and it will be more difficult for lawmakers to take action in emergencies.

The group counts the state’s Democratic Party, Labor Federation and others among those who want to defeat the initiative. 

Proposition 55: California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016 

About $6 billion per year was raised when voters approved Proposition 30 back in 2012, through increased taxes imposed on those earning more than $250,000 per year, and through an increased sales tax. The money benefitted K-14 education (11 percent to community colleges; the remaining to grade, middle and high schools). Under Prop 30, the personal income tax increase will expire in 2019, and the increased sales taxes will expire the end of this year.

Prop 55 maintains the current tax rate on high-income individuals and couples for an additional 12 years. (The sales tax is not addressed in this measure and will presumably sunset on December 31st.) Additionally, the measure will allocate up to $2 billion to healthcare programs for children and their families in certain years.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 55?

The Yes on 55 Help Our Children Thrive website claims the reversion to a lower income tax rate on high earners will cost California schools about $4 billion per year, and that all taxpayers will benefit when the sale tax increase (0.25 percent) expires.

Yes on 55 is chiefly supported by the Association of California School Administrators, California Federation of Teachers, and the California Medical Association.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 55?

An organized opposition force doesn’t seem to exist at this time, but the California Chamber of Commerce recommended a no vote on Prop 55 last May. The Chamber doesn’t like the virtual permanency of what was supposed to be a temporary tax increase, and cites a state surplus of $3 billion, a proposed balanced budget by Governor Jerry Brown, and the volatile nature of personal income tax revenues. In short, the Cal Chamber characterizes the higher taxes as unnecessary. 

Proposition 56: California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 

This is a proposal to raise cigarette taxes by $2.00 per pack to fund healthcare, tobacco use prevention, tobacco-related medical research and law enforcement. Other tobacco products and nicotine e-cigarettes will be similarly taxed. The current tax on tobacco is $0.87 per pack – the lowest in the nation.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 56?

The Yes on 56 organization says the tax will reduce youth smoking, help fight cancer, and only target tobacco and nicotine users. Citing studies, they claim 90 percent of smokers start using tobacco as teenagers, and that flavored e-cigarettes are targeting that age group. Additionally, Yes on 56 says every ten percent increase on cigarette costs has a direct correlation to reduced teen smoking – a seven percent drop.

Yes on 56 is endorsed by the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, as well as various other health, dental and business groups.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 56?

A few websites by tobacco and vaping, or e-cigarette concerns are showing opposition to this measure, and a Sacramento Bee article reports a $17 million effort to defeat Prop 56. An organization called Not Blowing Smoke has taken to social media, particularly Instagram, to make their points, including: 

  • Government and pharmaceuticals will lose money when smoking rates decline;
  • The bill is full of loopholes – revenues could be used to fund other projects not related to tobacco use;
  • Over 9 million smokers in the U.S. have traded in their cigarettes for less harmful vape products – but a nearly 70 percent tax increase could hinder those transitions. 

A seemingly more organized effort to defeat the tobacco tax encourages voters to “follow the money” – claiming it’s the health insurance companies and special interest groups will benefit financially. The Stop the Special Interest Tax Grab is fronted by Phillip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and a “coalition of taxpayers, educators, healthcare professionals, law enforcement, labor and small businesses.”

Check back with us: we’ll tackle initiatives to regulate felony parole, bilingual education, campaign finance, pornography and prescription drugs – Props 57-61 next.

Stephen T. Holzer is the Chair of our Environmental Practice Group and a business litigation attorney. 

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Tuesday
Jun282016

Rocket's Red Glare: Burns & Other Injuries From Fireworks

Injury Attorney Los AngelesDefective Product Attorney

 

by David B. Bobrosky

(818) 907-3254

 

According to the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), about 230 people are rushed to an emergency room daily between June 20th and July 20th each year, because of serious fireworks injuries. More than half of these ER patients suffer serious burns, mostly to hands, eyes and faces. Some suffer fatal injuries.

Many accidents caused by fireworks are the consumer’s fault, primarily due to inattention, inebriation, or the taking of unnecessary risks.

Just remember what happened to New York Giants’ defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul in 2015. His inattention to which firework he was actually lighting, and an attempt to light it seven times (the wind kept blowing out the flame) nearly cost him his hand, as well as his pro-football career. He spent nearly three weeks in the hospital recovering from burns, an amputated finger and other injuries.

Many times though, fireworks manufacturers are to blame because of defects in design or a lack of sufficient warning or instruction on the packaging.

Fireworks Liability & Negligence

Sometimes, a number of individuals or entities may be found negligent. The responsible party may be a homeowner hosting a party, a fireworks manufacturer, pyrotechnic company hired to set off the fireworks, or the city that hires these companies. Even the importer may be held liable, as the company buying and selling fireworks in the U.S. has a responsibility to provide safe fireworks.

For example, a serious fireworks accident injured dozens of people in Simi Valley, California in 2013. Several injury lawsuits were filed against the Rotary Club of Simi Valley which hosted the July 4th festivities, the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District, the City of Simi Valley, Ventura County and the pyrotechnics company, Bay Fireworks of New York.

The family of a pyrotechnic professional killed in 2014 filed a suit earlier this year against the pyrotechnic employers as well as six Chinese companies that designed, manufactured, packaged and sold a truckload of fireworks that prematurely exploded and killed four people in Texas.

California Health and Safety Code regulates the manufacture, transport, storage, sale and use of fireworks through California’s State Fire Marshall. The County of Los Angeles has its own set of regulations with classifications, which may be more stringent than state code. Click state and county fireworks code for more information, including definitions for which pyrotechnics are considered dangerous, exempt or “safe and sane”.

Serious Burn and Explosion Injuries

The problem with serious burns and other injuries sustained around explosive devices like fireworks is the long-term recovery needed. They usually require multiple skin grafts and come with a high risk of infection. Long-term physical therapy may be needed to recover the use of limbs or hands.

Fireworks accidents in particular may require intensive psychological treatment as well, as victims may be severely traumatized when attending a public event or celebrating a holiday that so seriously goes wrong. Heavy scarring or disfiguring injuries that can’t be fixed through plastic surgery may also take a psychological toll.

Treatment, whether physical or psychological, takes time and financial resources – impacting work, family and lifestyles.

Fireworks Safety

To reduce the risk of being burned or suffering other injuries from explosions, follow these safety tips: 

  1. Purchase fireworks approved for consumer use only. If wrapped in brown paper, they’re probably meant for professionals who have the proper safety gear and training, according to the CPSC.

  2. Obey local ordinances – many cities in California will ban all pyrotechnics displays, especially in very dry seasons. (See LA County fireworks info.)

  3. Keep water on hand – buckets of it are good, garden hoses are better.

  4. Don’t let children play with fireworks.

  5. Supervise children with sparklers – festive as they may be, sparklers can burn at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit – enough to cause serious burns when mishandled.

  6. Follow the lighting instructions carefully.

  7. Don’t modify the fireworks or experiment with homemade devices.

  8. Don’t light fireworks near homes, dry brush, or other fireworks.

  9. Light only one firework at a time.

  10. Don’t hover over the explosives. When lighting fireworks, try to do so at arm’s length.

  11. Don’t light fireworks inside metal or glass containers.

  12. Once lit, step away. The farther away you can get, the better.

  13. Don’t throw fireworks at another person. Even if you’re expecting a small explosion merely meant to scare someone, you never can predict how badly things may go awry.

  14. Just like a gas barbecue grill, don’t try to relight fireworks that didn’t light properly the first time – soak the duds in water and then throw them away. (In the case of a gas grill, turn off the gas, open the lid to allow accumulated gas to disperse for at least five minutes before attempting to relight.) 

Whether attending a city sponsored show, or just lighting up sparklers in the back yard, always be aware of the safety risks involved with fireworks, as well as who can be held liable for negligence.

The Kardashians found this out the hard way last year, when they set off fireworks and local tempers in Marina del Rey. According to TMZ, a disgruntled neighbor attempted to sue Khloe Kardashian for a permitted, eight minute pyrotechnic display at midnight that allegedly traumatized both him and his dog. When push came to shove though, the plaintiff failed to appear in court.

The lesson goes without saying: a little common sense and a lot of precaution can keep you and your loved ones safe, and out of court as either plaintiffs or defendants.

David B. Bobrosky is a Defective Product Attorney in our Personal Injury Practice Group. 

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Wednesday
May182016

Wage & Hour: DOL Doubles Down on Salary Threshold 

Lawyer for EmployersAttorney for Employers

 

by Tal Burnovski Yeyni

818-907-3224

 

White Collar Overtime ExemptionConsidering all of the political movements regarding minimum wage, equal pay and other wage and hour concerns over the past few years, most employers could read the handwriting on the wall regarding overtime rules. That handwriting has now become official:

The Department of Labor Final Rule regarding the minimum salary level required for the exemption of executive, administrative and professional employees was released today.

In the event of a conflict between federal and state laws, employers must comply with the rule most favorable to employees.  Prior to today’s Final Rule, an employee designated exempt under Federal law must have made at least $455 per week ($23,660 annually). This amount is substantially lower than the minimum salary required for exemption under California law, thus requiring California employers to comply with the state salary level test for exemption.

Here are the key changes: 

  • DOL Final Rule: Effective December 1, 2016, the "standard" salary level will increase to $913 per week (equivalent to $47,476 annually for a full-year employee), nearly double the current federal weekly threshold.  The DOL launched a Frequently Asked Questions page here.


  • California Employers: In this state, the current threshold is $41,600 ($3,466.67 monthly; $800 weekly), so California employers must comply with the higher Federal salary level (for exemption purposes) as of December 1st.  


  • Use of Bonuses to Satisfy the Test: Nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) may be used to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary test requirement.

    Moreover, if an employee does not earn enough in nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) in a given quarter to retain their exempt status, the DOL now permits a "catch-up" payment at the end of the quarter. If the employer chooses not to make the catch-up payment, the employee would be entitled to overtime pay for any overtime hours worked during the quarter.


  • Automatic Updates: To ensure effectiveness of the salary level test, the DOL will update the standard salary compensation requirements every 3 years, with the first update taking effect on January 1, 2020.


  • Increase in California Minimum Wage Requirements: Note that last month, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill gradually increasing California’s minimum wage to $15.00 per hour by January 1, 2022 (for employers with 26 or more employees).  As the salary level for exemption is an extension of California’s minimum wage (two times the state’s minimum wage), employers must pay close attention to the automatic updates of the DOL and the increase in California’s minimum wage, to determine which salary test they must comply with for the exemption. 

Here’s California’s newly approved Minimum Wage Schedule:  

Wage and hour and other employment laws can become very confusing given how state and federal regulations can trump one another. Employers should seek the advice of experienced employment counsel to stay compliant.

Tal Burnovski Yeyni is an attorney in our Employment Practice Group

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Thursday
Feb112016

Mile Marker: Google Beginning to Clear Legal Hurdles for Self-Driving Cars (but many more ahead)

Personal InjuryPersonal Injury Attorney

 

 

by Andrew L. Shapiro

(818) 907-3230

 

Self-Driving-Cars

 

Can self-driving vehicles (SDVs) use the carpool lane? That may be a legal question for another day, as SDVs still have barricades to overcome before moving to the fast lane and becoming available commercially for consumers. 

But the Federal Government opened the door – by giving serious consideration to, and taking the first steps in expanding, the previously unambiguous term “driver” – to include the Artificial Intelligence (AI) operating Google’s Self-Driving System, along with human motor vehicle operators.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, or Administration) just responded to a November letter from Chris Urmson, Google’s Director of the company’s Self-Driving Car Project, which requested the interpretation of federal driving laws as they pertain to SDVs. Google hopes to make SDVs commercially available to the public by 2020, and that means making them compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

The NHTSA did grant some interpretations, but remains hesitant on others, citing a need for further Google SDV testing and further legislation in the future.

One reason for the Administration’s caution is that most FMVSS were written for vehicles of the past century, when all cars had human drivers sitting in the front left of a vehicle, with access to, and control of, steering and braking systems. The laws weren’t written to accommodate AI drivers or cars.

But the NHTSA did manage to favorably interpret some of Google’s questions re SDVs. They include:

1. Self-Driving Systems are drivers, in terms of certain operations like using turn signals and hazard signals; making transmission shifts; idling; parking and accelerating. 

2. Driver seatbelts may not be necessary, since the NHTSA interprets “driver” as the SDS in the case of Google’s proposed vehicle design: 

“It is possible that the provision as specifically written is not necessary for safety as applied to Google’s vehicle design, but Google has not demonstrated that in its present interpretation request.  FMVSS No. 208 would need amendment to clarify how a vehicle design like Google’s might comply with it.  One safety concern is that a human occupant could sit in any DSP [designated seating position], and that therefore the non-wearing of a seat belt by any occupant could create a safety risk.”  

3. Questions re Electronic Stability Control Systems (ESC) need further review, because the FMVSS mandate specific performance requirements for ESC systems. Though the NHTSA agrees that a Google-designed SDS is in fact the actual driver, the Administration feels a need to determine in future: 

“…how to evaluate the SDS control of the steering inputs, and whether and how to modify test conditions and procedures to address more clearly the situation of a vehicle with steering controlled entirely by an AI driver, with no mechanism for the vehicle occupants to affect the steering.”

A Futuristic Legislative Highway for Driverless Cars

Artificially Intelligent Vehicles

Self-driving test vehicles already cruise the streets. However, California DMV rules – where Google operates most of its prototypes – require human, licensed drivers to be inside with access to steering, brake and gas pedals. They must monitor the SDV’s operations at all times, and be ready to take control should technology fail or other emergencies arise.

Google’s November letter to NHTSA expresses concern that human error will make their completely autonomous SDVs unsafe should the humans try to override artificial intelligence.

The Administration acknowledged this concern, paving the way for years of further extensive testing and monitoring of vehicles completely controlled by AI with no human override capabilities.

But the proverbial genie is out of the bottle – Federal Rules will have to be modified to keep up with and include SDVs. There is much work to be done on both sides of this issue before we will have an SDV in our own garages – a prospect that is both scary and exciting for some of us.

 

Andrew L. Shapiro is the Chair of our Personal Injury Practice Group

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Monday
Sep282015

Yes We CAN (talk about politics in the workplace)

Lawyer for EmployersEmployment Defense

 

by Tal Burnovski Yeyni

818-907-3224

 

As election times draw near, news about debates, political faux pas, and myriad guarantees are becoming more and more entrenched in our lives. Which, coincidentally, brings about the oh so common political discussions among friends, families and even co-workers.

As an avid political junkie I enjoy the occasional, lively debate. I have also witnessed several political discussions gone sour. While disagreement over politics can generate a healthy exchange of thoughts and ideas it can also cause a great deal of frustration and anger.

Which begs the question: Can employers limit their employees' political speech in furtherance of a drama-free work environment?  

The short answer is no. Political discussions can be problematic at times, but prohibiting them altogether is against California's public policy. California Labor Code prohibits employers from making, adopting or enforcing any rule, regulation or policy that:

(a) forbids or prevents employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office, and

(b) controls or directs, or tends to control or direct the political activates or affiliation of employees. (Labor Code §1101).

There’s more. Labor Code §1102 provides:

No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

Meaning, Labor Code §§ 1101-1102 reinforce the substantial public interest in protecting the “fundamental right” of employees to engage in political activity without interference or threat of retaliation from employers. (Ali v. L.A. Focus Publication (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1487). 

Therefore, in California, employers should be very careful in prohibiting political discussion and even more so dismissing an employee for voicing his or her political opinions.

However, employers are not left to navigate through the rough seas of politics without an anchor. There are a few steps employers can take to promote a pleasant work environment during the upcoming election season: 

  • Employers may draft or revise their employee conduct policies to direct employees to observe professional behavior at work and avoid using rude and abusive language or outbursts toward management, employees or others.

  • Employers are further encouraged to remind employees about acceptable conduct in the workplace. 

  • If you are struggling with a similar issue, please consult a legal advisor  

In the meanwhile, don't get upset about politics. Take the example of Will Rogers, who once famously said: I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

Tal Burnovski Yeyni is an Employer Defense Attorney at our firm. Contact her via email: tyeyni@lewitthackman.com; or by phone: 818-907-3224.

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

LEWITT HACKMAN | 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 | 818.990.2120