Law Offices of Herman Thordsen

EMPLOYEE REST PERIODS ARE SACRED CALIFORNIA EMPLOYEES CANNOT CANNOT BE ON-CALL OR ON-DUTY DURING THEIR REST PERIODS FACTS... On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court held that California employees cannot be on-call or on-duty during rest periods. The plaintiff, Jennifer Augustus, filed this class action in 2005 on behalf of all ABM security guards employed in California, alleging that the company's policy violated state law because it did not relieve the guards of all duties during rest periods. ABM had maintained a policy requiring its California security guards to keep their pagers and radio phones on during rest periods, and to remain vigilant and responsive to calls when needs arose. The Supreme Court held rest period requirements for non-exempt employees were NOT satisfied if the employee remained on-call during the break. California Labor Code Section 226.7(b), prohibits employers from requiring an employee to work during a rest period mandated pursuant to an order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4, subdivision 12(A), which requires employers such as ABM to authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods. In examining the plain text and history of Wage Order 4 and the Labor Code, the court determined that the reference to a rest period is premised on the ordinary meaning of rest: an interval of time free from labor, work or other employment-related duties. Requiring employees to be on-call or on-duty runs violates the rest break requirement, as state law requires employers [to] relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and relieve their employees of all dutiesincluding the obligation that an employee remain on call. California law requires employers to relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and to relieve their employees of all duties, based on the current wage order and statutory language. This decision means requirements that employees remain ready and available to respond by pager, telephone or other means during a break is not allowed. The court advised that the mere possibility that an employee may be called back to work from a rest period, such as by a requirement to wear a pager, does not invalidate a rest-period policy. In the usual instance of an interrupted break, an employer need only pay the rest-period premium when the rest period is interrupted, or the employee may be provided with another uninterrupted rest period. Here it was the requirement for the employee to remain in contact, vigilant and ready to respond during the break that set the ABM policy apart and conflicted with rest break requirements. (Augustus v ABM Security, CalSupCt12-22-2016) MORAL The rest breaks are law. Not getting it can cost the employer a lot of money as it did here.

CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS MUST REPLACE TOILETS FACTS On or before January 1, 2017, noncompliant plumbing fixtures in any single-family residential real property shall be replaced by the property owner with water-conserving plumbing fixtures....Continue reading

Questions? ask them.

I DON’T WANT A BMW; I WANT A JAGUAR I WANT A BMW SO, SON PUSHES THE CAR INTO THE RIVER FACTS... A young driver pushed his new BMW into a river he got from him parents because he wanted a Jaguar. The man, named locally only as Akash, is alleged to have pushed the brand new car after he got it as a present from his parents. It had to be pulled out using a crane. A police official said: "The youth was arrogant and kept insisting that he be given a Jaguar as a BMW is a little small for him and his friends inside. The boy's father said, "I wanted to give my son a birthday present. We could only afford to give him a BMW, while he kept on insisting that he be given a Jaguar. He said the vehicle was too small but we thought he will be okay. "We never imagined he would do anything like this." (foxnews8-13-19) MORAL Would someone say this is a spoiled brat? From Thordsen Law Offices A California Law Firm For a free consultation call (888) 667-8529

CALIFORNIA EDD MAY HELP YOU IF YOU LOST YOUR JOB DUE TO THE CORONA VIRUS FACTS Benefit programs available to help California workers who are losing wages due to the impacts of the Coronavirus Sacramento Workers who have lost their jobs or have had their hours reduced due to the impacts of COVID-19 may be eligible for the financial support provided by the benefit programs of the California Employment Development Department (EDD). These programs are designed to replace a port...ion of the wages workers are losing through no fault of their own, and are available to those affected for medical reasons or for economic impact reasons.(See EDDNewsRelease No.:20-06) MORAL Apply for benefits. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If you have been injured on the job let us know and we may be able to assist. Contact Herman Thordsen, Attorney at Law at (657) 845-4014 for a free consultation.

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON HIT WITH $40 MILLION VERDICT BECAUSE ITS TALCUM POWDER CAUSES CANCER FACTS On September 27, 2019 a California Jury awarded a $40 Million Talc Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson. Nancy Cabibi, 71, of Hasuer, Idaho, and her husband Phil sued Johnson & Johnson, makers of Johnson's Baby Powder, following her pleural mesothelioma diagnosis in 2017. Since then, Mrs. Cabibi has undergone a variety of medical procedures including radical surgical intervention, ch...emotherapy, radiation and immunotherapy. Testing of her body tissue showed the presence of tremolite and anthophyllite asbestos, known contaminants of Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, both of which were manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and both of which Mrs. Cabibi used. The jury in the case found Johnson's Baby Powder defective because it contained asbestos. It also found the powder caused Mrs. Cabibi's mesothelioma, which is an invariably fatal form of cancer. (cisionprnwswire93019) MORAL If anyone has any injuries including using Johnson and Johnson talcum powder has developed cancer like syndromes, contact so we can put you in touch with the attorneys handling this type of case. Contact Herman Thordsen, Esq., at 714.662.4990

SOFT TISSUE DAMAGE TO YOUR NECK WHEN YOUR VEHICLE IS HIT FROM THE REAR-ARE YOU ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION? FACTS Neck injuries (soft tissue damage to the neck) commonly referred to as whiplash injuries are scary and painful. Neck muscle and ligament damage from sudden head and neck movements can take time to appear and be felt and even longer to heal.... Soft Tissue Damage (Whiplash) is probably the most common car collision injury. When two cars collide, generally one is at fault if not both. You will note that Police Reports are all entitled TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT because there is inevitably a cause by one or more of the drivers or it would not have occurred. If you suffer from soft tissue damage (whiplash) it may be possible to obtain compensation. Whiplash is most often associated with high speed, rear end car collisions but it can occur during low speed accidents. The lay term whiplash refers to a cervical sprain, cervical strain, or hyperextension injury that occurs when the head is whipped forward and back causing damage to the muscles, tendons, and ligaments in the neck. Whiplash is a serious injury that may not be immediately apparent right after an accident. And, once diagnosed, it can in some cases take months to overcome which causes a substantial disruption to a person’s life and livelihood. As in most car collisions you can be compensated for your injury. BUT First, you must be able to prove your injury which is done by seeing a medical specialist to diagnose the extent of your injury and keeping copies of all your medical records relating to the colllision. Second, you must be able to prove the collision caused your injury. Your medical records will be very important to demonstrating that you were healthy before the collision and injured afterward. Third, you must be able to prove who caused the collision. This can be complicated; especially if more than two cars are involved. MORAL Take the other driver’s license and insurance information. If you have a camera take pictures of the vehicle damage before they are moved if possible. If there are any witnesses willing to talk to you or your passengers if any see if they will give you their names and phone numbers. If you have questions you may call us at no cost to you to discuss the case. These cases are worked on contingency meaning the attorney only gets paid if the case is won AND the attorney can collect. For any questions you may have if involved in a collision in California call us for a free consultation by dialing 888-667-8529 and request to speak to Herman Thordsen

THERE ARE TIME LIMITS FOR FILING PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUITS IN CALIFORNIA FACTS In California, the time to file a lawsuit for personal injury is two years from the date of the injury.... Each state has its own time limits within which you have to file a formal claim against a government entity. Some limits are as short as 30 days after the accident, although most are six months Courts in California are obligated to follow this rule in an injury lawsuit that makes it to trial. However, insurance adjusters are a different story. The adjuster may raise the issue of California’s comparative negligence rule during settlement talks to reduce your demands. Meaning to the extent you have some fault your recovery should be reduced by that fault amount. The object of your attorney is to negate amount of negligence the adjuster tries to attribute to you. With Alan as our trial attorney, the adjuster has a very large uphill battle. In the case of dog bites, California holds that if a dog bites or attacks you there is strict liability. California (Cal. Civ. Code 3342) making owners "strictly liable" for any dog that bites you. This means the dog owner is legally responsible where there dog bites someone, and no amount of fault or negligence needs to be shown. Specifically, the statute reads: "The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness." Some drivers in California do not carry any insurance notwithstanding they should at least have the minimum amount. These drivers will not be able to collect for non-economic pain and suffering even if the other driver is totally at fault for the collision. Pain and suffering are usually the largest part of an award at trial. One major exception is the uninsured driver will be able to recover non-economics if in an accident with a driver who is operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and that driver is in fact convicted of DUI in connection with the accident. You’ll find this law at California Civil Code section 3333.4. MORAL Personal injury cases are handled on a contingency basis. This means that the attorney is paid from any settlement or award. If you would like to find out more without any obligation, then please contact us at (888) 667-8529.

I DON’T WANT A BMW; I WANT A JAGUAR I WANT A BMW SO, SON PUSHES THE CAR INTO THE RIVER FACTS... A young driver pushed his new BMW into a river he got from him parents because he wanted a Jaguar. The man, named locally only as Akash, is alleged to have pushed the brand new car after he got it as a present from his parents. It had to be pulled out using a crane. A police official said: "The youth was arrogant and kept insisting that he be given a Jaguar as a BMW is a little small for him and his friends inside. The boy's father said, "I wanted to give my son a birthday present. We could only afford to give him a BMW, while he kept on insisting that he be given a Jaguar. He said the vehicle was too small but we thought he will be okay. "We never imagined he would do anything like this." (foxnews8-13-19) MORAL Would someone say this is a spoiled brat? From Thordsen Law Offices A California Law Firm For a free consultation call (888) 667-8529

EMPLOYEE REST PERIODS ARE SACRED CALIFORNIA EMPLOYEES CANNOT CANNOT BE ON-CALL OR ON-DUTY DURING THEIR REST PERIODS FACTS... On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court held that California employees cannot be on-call or on-duty during rest periods. The plaintiff, Jennifer Augustus, filed this class action in 2005 on behalf of all ABM security guards employed in California, alleging that the company's policy violated state law because it did not relieve the guards of all duties during rest periods. ABM had maintained a policy requiring its California security guards to keep their pagers and radio phones on during rest periods, and to remain vigilant and responsive to calls when needs arose. The Supreme Court held rest period requirements for non-exempt employees were NOT satisfied if the employee remained on-call during the break. California Labor Code Section 226.7(b), prohibits employers from requiring an employee to work during a rest period mandated pursuant to an order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4, subdivision 12(A), which requires employers such as ABM to authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods. In examining the plain text and history of Wage Order 4 and the Labor Code, the court determined that the reference to a rest period is premised on the ordinary meaning of rest: an interval of time free from labor, work or other employment-related duties. Requiring employees to be on-call or on-duty runs violates the rest break requirement, as state law requires employers [to] relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and relieve their employees of all dutiesincluding the obligation that an employee remain on call. California law requires employers to relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and to relieve their employees of all duties, based on the current wage order and statutory language. This decision means requirements that employees remain ready and available to respond by pager, telephone or other means during a break is not allowed. The court advised that the mere possibility that an employee may be called back to work from a rest period, such as by a requirement to wear a pager, does not invalidate a rest-period policy. In the usual instance of an interrupted break, an employer need only pay the rest-period premium when the rest period is interrupted, or the employee may be provided with another uninterrupted rest period. Here it was the requirement for the employee to remain in contact, vigilant and ready to respond during the break that set the ABM policy apart and conflicted with rest break requirements. (Augustus v ABM Security, CalSupCt12-22-2016) MORAL The rest breaks are law. Not getting it can cost the employer a lot of money as it did here.

BUYING A HOME? COLORADO WARNS OF HOW CYBER-SCAMMERS CAN STEAL BUYER’S MONEY DURING TRANSACTION FACTS On December 13, 2016 the Colorado Division of Real Estate at the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) warns Colorado consumers to beware of a national cyber-scam currently taking place that steals money directly from home buyers and sellers. ... Cybercriminals HACK THE EMAIL ACCOUNTS OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS, TITLE COMPANIES, AND CONSUMERS who are in the process of buying or selling a home. In other instances, they create alternative email accounts with just minor changes to the name of the email account, which typically goes unnoticed by the recipient of the email. Unfortunately the costs * * * can be in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars with just one successful scam, stated Marcia Waters, Director of the Division of Real Estate. Unless you pay very close attention, everything may look right -- the email signature, address and the website. But, by the time homebuyers realize something is wrong, the money is already gone and in an untraceable bank account, leaving them at the closing table with no money and eliminating their ability to purchase the home. Here is how the scam works. Often the computer hackers monitor email exchanges between the parties of a real estate transaction and gain specific information, such as the buyer and seller names, subject property address and file numbers. As the closing date approaches and arrangements are made to wire the money to the closing company, or wire the proceeds from the sale of the house to the sellers, the scammer will send a last-minute email from a hijacked account or similar looking email address updating the wiring instructions to request the money be transferred into a fraudulent bank account. The email looks legitimate and often contains the transaction specific information the hackers obtained in the body of the email or as an attachment. In one case in February the seller lost $80,000 in funds. (codivre121316) MORAL Before the money transfer, call and call by going to the website or through information or call your broker or do all three. It is better to check before you send than send and find it went to the wrong place. Has this happened to any of you? I would like to hear from you if it has.

Allows children time to refinance as well as those that inherit property

MCDONALDS TO PAY EMPLOYEES OF FRANCHISEES BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES THOUGHT THEY WERE WORKING FOR MCDONALDS FACTS On October 31, 2016 McDonald’s settles Labor Lawsuit with U.S. Franchise Workers.... McDonald’s has agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a lawsuit claiming it was liable for labor law violations by a California franchisee In a filing in U.S. district court in San Francisco on October 28, 2016, lawyers representing about 800 employees at five restaurants owned by a single franchisee said Illinois-based McDonald’s would pay the workers $1.75 million in back pay and damages and $2 million in legal fees. The settlement, which must still be approved by a federal judge, comes as MCDONALD’S FACES CLAIMS BEFORE TWO U.S. AGENCIES THAT IT IS A JOINT EMPLOYER OF WORKERS AT FRANCHISE RESTAURANTS, a designation that could make the company liable for legal violations by franchisees and require that it bargain with workers who unionize. The 2014 lawsuit claimed McDonald’s and the franchisee, Smith Family LP, violated California law by failing to pay overtime, keep accurate pay records and reimburse workers for time spent cleaning uniforms. The franchisee previously settled the claims for $700,000. LAST YEAR, A JUDGE RULED THAT MCDONALD’S WAS NOT THE PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT EMPLOYER UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS. BUT HE SAID THE COMPANY COULD STILL BE HELD LIABLE IF THE WORKERS BELIEVED MCDONALD’S WAS THEIR EMPLOYER. (ocrp9) MORAL So if I think I am your employee, therefore I am your employee? Sounds right out of Shakespeare. If you have a question as to who is an employee and who is an independent contractor just ask. You just might be pleasantly surprised at the answer. For example, if anyone is terminated, that person must be paid at termination and the employer is penalized for every day late up to thirty days. Has anyone been paid late? Feel free to e mail or ask questions.

CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS MUST REPLACE TOILETS FACTS On or before January 1, 2017, noncompliant plumbing fixtures in any single-family residential real property shall be replaced by the property owner with water-conserving plumbing fixtures....Continue reading

SOMEONE HAS DIED OWNING REAL PROPERTY IN THEIR OWN NAME OR IN TRUST-WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WITHIN 150 DAYS FACTS The Assessor’s Office must be notified upon the death of an owner within 150 days of the date of death, or if the estate is probated at the time the inventory and appraisal is filed. This form is required even if the decedent held the property in a trust. It can become mind-boggling if you are a mortgage broker in the middle of a loan at the time it occurs.... MORAL Contact our probate attorney Sean Thordsen at (714) 662-4995 (DL) at no cost. If there is a probate, the legal fees are controlled by state law based upon the value of the estate. He can represent you and advise of all notifications that must be published and necessary documents to be obtained to further the distribution of the estate.

Questions? ask them.