Bryan Schwartz Civil Rights And Employment Law

Attorneys, Bankruptcy Law Attorneys, Bankruptcy Services

Be the first to review!

CLOSED NOW

Today: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Tomorrow: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

(510) 444-9300Call Visit WebsiteVisit Website Map & DirectionsDirections180 Grand AveOakland, CA 94612 Write a ReviewWrite Review

Is this your business?

Customize this page.

Claim This Business

Hours

Regular Hours

Mon - Fri:	9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Bryan Schwartz Civil Rights And Employment Law

Child Abuse
. The plaintiff, Eric Bahra, was employed by San Bernardino County’s Department of Children and Family Services, which investigates referrals regarding child abuse, among other duties. While investigating allegations of abuse against a foster parent, Bahra discovered that the foster parent had a prior history of child abuse and neglect, but this history was not reflected in the agency’s database due to errors in previous entries.

View All Services

Provided by

Places Near Oakland with Attorneys

Emeryville (3 miles)
Piedmont (3 miles)
Alameda (5 miles)
Berkeley (7 miles)
Albany (9 miles)
Orinda (10 miles)
Moraga (12 miles)
El Cerrito (12 miles)
San Leandro (13 miles)
San Francisco (14 miles)

More Info

Extra Phones: TollFree: (888) 891-8489
Neighborhoods: Uptown, Central Oakland, Downtown Oakland
AKA: Bryan Schwartz Law
Other Link: https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com
Categories: Attorneys, Bankruptcy Law Attorneys, Bankruptcy Services, Business Litigation Attorneys, Criminal Law Attorneys, Discrimination & Civil Rights Law Attorneys, Domestic Violence Attorneys, Employee Benefits & Worker Compensation Attorneys, Employment Discrimination Attorneys, Labor & Employment Law Attorneys, Sexual Harassment Attorneys, Workers Compensation Assistance

GalleryView all (1)

Gallery Image Number 1

Reviews

Hi there!
Be the first to review!

Click to Rate

Details

Phone: (510) 444-9300

Address: 180 Grand Ave, Oakland, CA 94612

Website: https://www.bryanschwartzlaw.com

People Also Viewed

View similar Attorneys

Suggest an Edit

Bryan Schwartz Civil Rights And Employment Law

Child Abuse
. The plaintiff, Eric Bahra, was employed by San Bernardino County’s Department of Children and Family Services, which investigates referrals regarding child abuse, among other duties. While investigating allegations of abuse against a foster parent, Bahra discovered that the foster parent had a prior history of child abuse and neglect, but this history was not reflected in the agency’s database due to errors in previous entries.

Sex Crimes
Prohibits employers from conditioning settlement of certain claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or harassment or discrimination on the employee’s silence. The bill does allow for a provision that shields the identity of the claimant and all facts that could lead to the discovery of his or her identity, including pleadings filed in court to be included within a settlement agreement upon the request of the claimant. However, this provision does not apply if a government agency or public official is a party to the settlement agreement.
Theft
Assault
Identity Theft
In Lamps Plus, the company was alleged to have disclosed sensitive personal information belonging to 1,300 employees, including that of the plaintiff, Frank Varela. As a result, Mr. Varela was the victim of identity theft. Mr. Varela sued Lamps Plus on behalf of himself and the other employees affected by the security breach.
Restraining Order
Temporarily preventing enforcement of AB-5 “as to any motor carrier operating in California,” in the case California Trucking Association v. Becerra, 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-NLM. The temporary restraining order opined that there was a significant likelihood that AB-5’s applicability to truck drivers would be preempted (and thereby unenforceable) by the

Business and Corporate Law

Unfair Competition
The Plaintiff in Kim brought a putative class action claiming that he had been misclassified as exempt from overtime laws. The operative complaint alleged claims for failure to pay wages and overtime (Cal. Labor Code § 1194), failure to provide meal and rest periods (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7), failure to provide accurate time statements (Cal. Labor Code § 226(a)), waiting time penalties (Cal. Labor Code § 203), and unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). It also sought civil penalties under PAGA. The employer compelled Plaintiff to arbitration and the PAGA litigation - which could not be compelled to arbitration, under Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles ( as explained here ) - was stayed pending arbitration. While the PAGA action was stayed, the employer made a statutory offer to settle Plaintiff’s individual claims pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. Despite the settlement encompassing only Kim's "individual claims" (as discussed in footnote 7 of the Supreme Court opinion), the company sought and the court granted summary adjudication on the PAGA claim, concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing because his rights had been completely redressed by the settlement of his individual claims. The Appellate Court affirmed, leaving the California Supreme Court to weigh in on standing in PAGA cases.

Workers Compensation
In a momentous win for app-based drivers, the California Superior Court struck down Proposition 22 on August 20th, 2021. Gig companies such as Uber and Lyft spent an unprecedented $200,000,000+ to pass Proposition 22 in order to exempt themselves from treating app-based drivers as employees. Designating these workers as independent contractors allows companies like Uber and Lyft would to avoid their obligations to provide basic protections to their drivers, including a minimum wage, health insurance, contributions to workers compensation, and the ability to unionize.
Wrongful Termination
Workers fear not only contagion, but retaliation for raising their concerns with their employers. Employees are being terminated for raising well-founded health and safety concerns to their employers. An employee terminated for exercising their OSHA rights has strong claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 6310, in addition to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Employment Discrimination
Biel sued St. James in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that her termination violated the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. St. James moved for summary judgment, arguing that the First Amendment’s ministerial exception to generally applicable employment laws barred Biel’s ADA claims. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment for St. James.
Employment Contract
In November 2013, Plaintiff Biel received a positive teaching evaluation from the School’s principal, noting that Biel was “very good” at promoting a safe and caring learning environment for her students. Less than six months after that evaluation, Biel was diagnosed with breast cancer. When she disclosed her diagnosis to the School’s administrators, she was told her employment contract would not be renewed because “it was not fair … to have two teachers for the children during the school year.”
Employment Litigation
[2] The Court also drew upon the then-contemporary 1925 legal landscape in which “Congress had already prescribed alternative employment dispute resolution regimes for many transportation workers. And it seems Congress “did not wish to unsettle” those arrangements in favor of whatever arbitration procedures the parties' private contracts might happen to contemplate.” Id.
Sexual Harassment
The district court dismissal of actor Ashley Judd’s sexual harassment claim against former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The Ninth Circuit opinion allows Judd’s sexual harassment claim to go forward. This decision illustrates how sexual harassment claims are not limited to standard employer/employee or service provider/client relationships.

Disability Discrimination
On February 5, 2019, the U.S. District Court certified a class of employees challenging their employer's company-wide Fitness-for-Duty ("FFD") program in Harris, et al. v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., Case No. 8:16CV381. The important opinion is available here. The issues in the case are similar to a disability discrimination class action that has been litigated since 2006 by Bryan Schwartz against the State Department, challenging the State Department's Foreign Service policies that unlawfully screen out applicants with disabilities. See Meyer, et al. v. Clinton (Dept. of State), discussed on this blog here and here. The Harris decision is an important step toward courts recognizing that policies that discriminate based upon disabilities can be ideal for class-wide challenges - as we have argued on this blog and at the American Bar Association's National Conference on Employment and Education Law Impacting Persons with Disabilities.

Bankruptcy
The case involves bankruptcy attorney Robert White’s allegations against Square, a company that provides a service to allow individuals or businesses to receive and accept electronic payments. Mr. White wished to use this service for his bankruptcy practice. He visited the website multiple times, reviewed the documents filed in a previous lawsuit against Square and a bankruptcy law firm, and carefully reviewed the terms and conditions. However, when he visited the web page to register for services, he did not proceed because Square's terms and conditions prohibited the use of its services for certain businesses, including the practice of bankruptcy law. Based on his research, Mr. White believed he could not sign the agreement without committing fraud.

View All Services

Provided by