Tamborelli Law Group represents many clients concerning claims arising from employment. These types of disputes will naturally involve contested issues and emotionally charged feelings. However what is important, is viewing the dispute with an objective eye and using the legal guidance to attempt to resolve the dispute in the most expeditious and cost effective manner.
Tamborelli Law Group Provides Pre-Litigation Counseling to our clients who we also represent in litigation in a variety of areas including: wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment and retaliation, workplace violence, disability rights, leave rights and drug testing and privacy rights. This includes Alternative Dispute Resolution at varying stages of an employment dispute depending on the specific facts of each case.
Our Litigation practice regularly defends private sector employers in State and Federal court in cases alleging discrimination (based on sex, race, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin), harassment, retaliation, State and/or Federal constitutional rights, leave rights, wrongful termination, breach of contract, worker misclassification, the Equal Pay Act, workplace violence, and various tort claims.
We also represent clients in Administrative Hearings and Complaints Filed with Outside Agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Industrial Relations, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Employment Development Department, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and other public agency boards, and civil service commissions.
Ongoing representation of various private entity clients in government claims for unfair labor practice including wage and hour and ADA compliance.
Represented a multi-national aerospace technology contractor in a claimed overexposure to hazardous gamma radiation by a past employee. The plaintiff alleged violations under Labor Code Section 3602(B) (2) to avoid the exclusive remedy of workers compensation laws. Plaintiff alleged the onset of leukemia while his wife alleged loss of consortium. Plaintiff also alleged causes of action for products liability against the gamma cell manufacturer and all companies who monitored and tested the radiation detection devices. The claims included negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, willful and malicious misconduct, and fraudulent concealment. After conducted plaintiff’s deposition, and allowed persons most knowledgeable to be deposed, filed a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff then agreed prior to hearing to dismiss the matter with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Successfully obtained three separate motions for summary judgment on behalf of a corporation and two individual managers who allegedly terminated an employee based on race and/or national origin discrimination. The plaintiff also alleged breach of an oral contract, breach of a written contract and wrongful termination. The motions for summary judgment were based in large part on the admissions obtained from plaintiff during his deposition where his testimony failed to support, and/or completely contradicted his original allegations.
Obtained summary adjudication of federal civil rights and state claims asserted by two female state prison inmates against the Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, and several investigators of a state prison located in Northern California. Both inmates claimed the first defendants (and other Dept. of Corrections personnel) coerced the inmates into acting as informants, and then retaliated against then when they refused to do so; the second inmate asserted that she was placed into administrative segregation and transferred to another prison facility when she attempted to assist the first inmate in publicizing her plight to the media. Established that state law statutory immunities protected the public sector employees from any common law and state claims, and that neither inmate established violations of their federal or Constitutional rights giving rise to a civil rights claim. The plaintiffs did not appeal from the judgment of dismissal that followed the court granting our clients’ summary adjudication motion.
Represented a corporation and two of its officers shortly after a trial where it appeared that the court improperly found that the officers were individually liable for alleged Labor Code violations. After evaluating the underlying file materials and the trial transcripts and filings, filed an extensive motion to have the court vacate its decree and order. Primarily argued that individual officers of the corporation could not be considered an employer under the Labor Code statutes or the California Code of Regulations. Also documented that the law only allows, in very limited circumstances, individual liability of the corporation’s officers for the corporation’s contract. As such, established that all claims against the individual officers for these violations had to be dismissed. The court agreed with the positions advanced and dismissed all the Labor Code violations, dismissed all the individual officers from the claims of breach of contract and Labor Code violations, and struck the award for treble damages. Sought recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs for prevailing on the Labor Code claims and during this process also had the Court revisit its trial decisions and overturn its prior judgment. As such, a new trial was ordered. After the ordered new trial, was able to effectuate a settlement with the underlying Plaintiff to achieve a fair and just result.
Represented a large non-profit corporation in a workplace harassment claim. A spouse of a worker was apparently harassing and threatening co-workers in the workplace based on his belief that his spouse was having an affair with a co-worker. Immediately sought ex parte relief from the court obtaining temporary restraining orders preventing the individual from contacting any of the co-workers. Also worked closely with various law enforcement agencies for purposes of obtaining service of process on the individual in order to effectuate the temporary restraining order promptly. Subsequently, at the order to show cause hearing, the respondent appeared with counsel who sought to achieve an informal resolution without further orders of the court. Assisted in having our client reach an agreement in the judge’s chamber that effectively placed the respondent on probation with all due consequences. Thereafter, the harassment at the workplace ceased.
Represented various employees of a large public school district where a fellow teacher was continually filing claims actions against each of them for their refusals of his overtures of gifts, vacations, and proposals. Outlined the various options for our clients including a determination of vexatious litigation and/or temporary restraining orders. It was decided to challenge the claims directly with the appropriate pleadings and documentation. On behalf of each individual defendant, provided motions to strike and dismiss the claims based on Code of Civil Procedure provisions concerning protected activity, privileges under the Civil Code and tort immunity under Government Code provisions, as well as arguing any claimed damages were not recoverable. Successfully obtained dismissal of the initial action and thereafter plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the remaining actions.
Represented a school district and one of its teachers in an action that arose out of a dispute of ownership of multiple real estate properties, culminating in an alleged assault and battery while on school property. Represented the teacher on the cause of action for assault and battery which also alleged punitive damages. Prior to trial, served a small 998 Offer to Compromise, which plaintiff agreed to accept based on the evidence obtained through discovery, showing that the assault and battery may never have occurred. After nominal settlement, a request for dismissal was filed.
Represented major motion picture studio in multi-party toxic exposure litigation. 150 Plaintiffs sued 75 Defendants ranging from chemical manufacturers, motion picture developing machine manufacturers and employers for long term life threatening diseases and death claims for exposure to various chemicals and asbestosis along with allegations of unsafe working conditions to avoid the exclusivity of California Workers Compensation laws.
Conducted extensive investigation in the medical, family and employment background, amongst other areas, to determine potential causes and effects of alleged claims, along with epidemiological studies of other potential contributing factors.
Simultaneously developed information related to prior knowledge of claimed medical conditions and retention of counsel. As a result, the court granted a substantial number of Summary Judgments on Statute of Limitations ground and thereafter many claims were dismissed and others resolved for much lower amounts.