March 7, 2019 by

Employee Can Bring Lawsuit Before L&I Concludes Wage Complaint; May Have Claim for Wrongful Discharge

By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson

In Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete, an employee sued his employer for altering his timecards and shorting him on reported wages. Charles Peiffer claimed that Pro-Cut had unfairly withheld his wages. He filed a complaint with the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) who took over fourteen (14) months to investigate without making any findings. Not wanting to wait further for L&I to complete their investigation, Peiffer hired an employment attorney and sued the employer for wrongful termination and the withholding of wages. In the lower court proceeding, the two sides argued over whether or not his decision to file a complaint with L&I had given him extra time to file his lawsuit. The Washington Court of Appeals decided that Peiffer was allowed extra time to file a lawsuit despite the fact that L&I had not yet completed its investigation. The Court also decided that Peiffer may have a claim for wrongful discharge, and sent the case back for a new trial. It can sometimes be difficult for individuals to want to go up against a large company, even when they feel they are fully in the right. In these cases, a whistleblower lawyer can provide their assistance in trying to protect the rights of individuals in this predicament. Individuals who are filing a lawsuit should also know what to expect from a process server and other legal experts they are hiring. In addition, employees who are facing employment discrimination aside from other employment issues may consider consulting with Anaheim employment lawyers for immediate legal assistance.

[Read more…]
Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
January 3, 2019 by

Florida Chief of Police’s Statements Not Protected By First Amendment

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Santarlas v. City of Coleman, a federal court ruled that a Chief of Police who was tasked with securing funding for the Department and complained about misuse of public funds was speaking as part of his job duties, not as a private citizen. As a result, the Chief’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment and he could not sue the City for violating his constitutional rights.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Free Speech Rights
November 15, 2018 by

Pennsylvania Officer’s Claim for Prior Restraint of Free Speech Can Proceed Against City

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Vanderhoff v. City of Nanticoke, a federal court ruled that an officer’s suit for prior restraint of his free speech rights against the Chief of Police and the City may proceed. The Chief of Police had warned him not to speak out about misconduct in the Police Department.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Constitutional Rights, Free Speech Rights
November 15, 2018 by

Chicago Officer Involved in Shooting Denied Due Process by Indefinite Postponement of Hearing

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Policemen’ Benevolent & Protective Association v. City of Chicago, a federal court found that an officer’s due process rights had been violated when his disciplinary hearing was put off indefinitely while a criminal trial was in progress. The officer had been involved in a use of force incident in which other officers had been charged with crimes. To ensure that the defendants’ rights to due process are protected, they may need to hire a criminal defence lawyer.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Legal Protections
November 15, 2018 by

Texas Police Chief is Not Immune from Suit By Officer Who Tried to Form a Policeman’s Association

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Mote v. Walthall, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a Police Chief who threatened and intimated an Officer trying to form a policeman’s association could not assert a qualified immunity defense, because the Officer was engaging in Constitutionally-protected free speech. The lawsuit will therefore continue in a lower court.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Constitutional Rights, Free Speech Rights
November 8, 2018 by

Alaska Police Department Employee Can Proceed with Claims under the FMLA and for Emotional Distress

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Booth v. North Slope Borough, a federal court held that a Police Department employee could proceed with her claim that she was fired in retaliation for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[Read more…]
Filed Under: Legal Protections
November 2, 2018 by

North Dakota Police Officer’s Due Process Rights Not Violated by Minimal Pre-Termination Process

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Nagel v. City of Jamestown, a Federal Court held that even though an officer was not given complete notice of the charges against him before he was terminated, the fact that he received a full post-termination hearing meant that he received due process under the law.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Constitutional Rights, Free Speech Rights
November 2, 2018 by

New Mexico Correctional Officers Entitled to Pay for Pre-Shift Briefings

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Serna v. Board of Commissioners of Rio Ariba County, a Court held that detention center employees had a viable lawsuit that they should be paid for pre-shift briefings.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
November 2, 2018 by

In-Court Testimony of California Police Officer Not Protected by First Amendment

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Derby v. City of Pittsburg, a Federal Court in California ruled that Internal Affairs Investigator Wade Derby could not prove that there was a direct link between his statements in court relating to suspicious practices at the Pittsburgh Police Department and being fired from his job. The Court ruled that Derby’s statements in court were not protected by the First Amendment.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Constitutional Rights, Free Speech Rights
October 26, 2018 by

In-Court Testimony of California Police Officer Not Protected by First Amendment

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Derby v. City of Pittsburg, a Federal Court in California ruled that Internal Affairs Investigator Wade Derby could not prove that there was a direct link between his statements in court relating to suspicious practices at the Pittsburgh Police Department and being fired from his job. The Court ruled that Derby’s statements in court were not protected by the First Amendment.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Constitutional Rights, Free Speech Rights
« Previous Page
Next Page »