rubenp | Dolan Law Firm

Justice Empowerment Scholarship 2020

We’re proud to announce that our annual Justice Empowerment Scholarship is now open to receive submissions. Last year we awarded the scholarship to Adrian Hurndon, an undergraduate student at Northeast Community College. Adrian Hurndon, an upbeat percussionist, when asked what inspired him to submit a video for the 2019 Justice Empowerment Scholarship said, “It is the perfect opportunity to let people know that awareness is only part of the solution and it’s time to take action and stand up for ourselves.”

Justice Empowerment Scholarship Award Requirements

Award: One $2,500 scholarship paid to the winning student.

Deadline: This is a recurring scholarship that will be offered every year. The deadline for the 2020 Justice Empowerment Scholarship is July 31, 2020.

Criteria: Submissions are evaluated primarily on the persuasiveness of arguments contained in the video. Creativity, images, and innovation incorporated into the video are also taken into account. The scholarship winner is determined solely by the Dolan Law Firm.

Eligibility: Students attending an accredited U.S. college (including community college) or university are eligible for the scholarship. High school seniors who will be attending an accredited U.S. college or university this Fall are also eligible to apply. No employees of the Dolan Law Firm, or their spouses and family members, nor any employees, spouses and family members of any vendors of the Dolan Law Firm, are eligible.

Submission Requirements:

Applicants must create a 4 to 6 minute video on the topic of justice.

In the video, introduce yourself and address the following questions:

What does justice mean to you?

What you think needs to be changed in our society to make it more just?

How you can help bring about this change?

Videos must be uploaded to YouTube with the title: “2020 Justice Empowerment Scholarship Submission By _______” Insert your name in the blank space.

In the description of the video on YouTube, briefly summarize your video and include in the description the following statement: The Justice Empowerment Scholarship is provided by the Dolan Law Firm which can be found online at https://dolanlawfirm.com

Fraud and Misrepresentation in the Workplace

By Christopher Dolan and Mari Bandoma Callado

This week’s question comes from Arthur B.

Dear Chris,

I was contacted via Linkedin by the Chief Financial Officer of a San Francisco-based start-up. He offered me an opportunity to join the start-up as a program director with an annual salary of $120,000 plus a $30,000 raise by the end of the year. I was flattered by the offer but was concerned about job security and the start-up’s financial stability. The CFO assured me that the position is permanent and long-term and that the start-up is in the midst of receiving a capital injection from an investor. Based on the CFO’s statements, I uprooted my family and moved from Portland to San Francisco last August.

At the end of the year, I did not receive the raise I was promised and instead learned that I was being terminated because my position was being eliminated due to a “restructuring due to an impending acquisition”. I protested that the CFO assured me that my position was long-term and permanent. The CFO responded that my position was in fact “at-will”. I have been unsuccessful obtaining comparable employment. Do I have a claim for wrongful termination?

Thank you for your question, Arthur. It can be difficult to establish a cause of action for wrongful termination for employees who were not terminated on the basis of discrimination or retaliation. However, employees who were enticed to relocate their residence based on representations made about the job that later turned out to be false may have a claim pursuant to California Labor Code section 970, as well as other tort claims such as negligent misrepresentation.

California Labor Code section 970 was enacted in 1937 to protect migrant farm workers. Experienced farm workers were often offered higher wages to entice them to relocate. However, once they get there, they learn that the wages would be much lower than what was promised or the hours they would work would be considerably less. The law therefore recognizes that after spending considerable resources to move and/or turning down other job offers, these workers would have no choice but to accept terms that were different from what they were promised.

Often, experienced farm workers were offered higher wages and/or clean housing to induce them to relocate. Many times these employees would turn down other job offers and spend a lot of money to relocate. However, once they would get there, the job would not be anything like what was promised. For example, their wages would be much lower than what was promised and/or the duration of their job would be much shorter. Many times, because these employees had already spent considerable amounts of time and money, they would have no choice but to accept these less favorable terms.

Today, the statute applies to all classes and types of employment. California Labor Code section 970 prohibits employers from enticing employees to relocate to, from, or within California by falsely representing the:

Kind, character, or existence of work;
Length of time work would last;
Compensation for work;
Sanitary or housing conditions relating to work;
Existence or nonexistence of any pending strike, lockout or other labor dispute affecting work.

California Labor Code section 970 is supplemented by sections 971 and 972. Section 971 provides criminal penalties (fine up to $1,000 and/or 6 months of jail time) against employers who violate section 970, while section 972 provides a for a “private right of action” allowing the employee to bring a civil action as well as an entitlement to recover double damages. These damages may include but are not limited to moving expenses, rejecting other job offers, loss of income due to inabilities to find another job, sale/purchase of a home, a lease, transportation, buying furniture, etc.

A claim for fraud under the labor code must be filed within one year from the date of the misrepresentation so we recommend that you contact a trial attorney and/or the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement immediately.

More Accountability is Needed for Amazon

More accountability is needed for Amazon

This week’s article will focus on a legal battle my firm is currently engaged in with Amazon. On Nov. 28, 2015, our client purchased, through Amazon, a hoverboard for her son for Christmas. The hoverboard was manufactured by a Chinese company, TurnUpUp. On Dec. 16, 2015, the hoverboard arrived. The shipping label said that it had been shipped by Forrinix Technology, a company in Alhambra, California. The hoverboard was opened on Christmas and enjoyed throughout the holiday. On New Year’s Eve, after a day of play, the hoverboard was plugged in to charge overnight. When the mother heard a noise coming from her son’s bedroom and went to investigate, she saw that the hoverboard was burning intensely like a firework, and the bed and bedroom were on fire. During the fire, our client suffered severe burns, and the bedroom sustained heavy fire damage. The cause of the fire was determined to be exploding lithium ion batteries.

Unbeknownst to our client and the rest of the world, Amazon had knowledge of a rash of hoverboard fires. Amazon had sold over 400,000 hoverboards in the weeks leading up to Christmas. It had over 60,000 separate listings for hoverboards at the peak of the season. Amazon had been receiving reports of fires associated with hoverboards around the world. According to testimony I obtained during a deposition of the head of Amazon’s Product Safety and Recalls Team, Mr. Jones, by mid-November 2015, Amazon was “monitoring” hoverboard fire issues, reviewing cases from as far back as January 2014. As Christmas approached, Amazon was in almost daily contact with the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) passing along reports of fires that Amazon had received from its customers.

Indeed, the CPSC had asked Amazon to monitor and report all hoverboard fires as Amazon was the largest single seller of these products in the U.S. and Amazon could directly communicate with purchasers. By Nov. 20, 2015, Amazon was aware that Costco, concerned for the safety of its customers, had pulled hoverboards from their shelves and stopped selling them to the public. Because of concern over fires, on Dec. 4, 2010, Amazon had pulled all hoverboard listings from its United Kingdom sales platform but kept selling them in the U.S. Finally, on Dec. 10, 2015, Doug Herrington, head of Amazon’s North American retail business, made the decision to remove all third-party sellers’ hoverboards from its website because of complaints “of hoverboards/batteries catching fire or exploding, or of sparking battery charges for hoverboards,” and because of concerns that the reports “might be indicative of safety issues of these products across Chinese manufacturing.” Over 60,000 separate listings were taken down from Amazon’s “marketplace.”

Although Amazon stopped selling hoverboards, Amazon neither stopped delivery of those in transit, nor did our client receive any notice from Amazon about the potential for fire.

Under California law, anyone or any enterprise in the “chain of distribution” between the manufacturer and the retailer can be held liable for injuries caused by the product. This makes everybody who is involved in the sale of the product is responsible for making sure the products are safe, which is a benefit to every consumer. They can inspect them, reject them, research them and otherwise determine if they are suitable for sale.

Additionally, they are in the best position to purchase insurance, which can cover injuries caused to consumer and at a fraction the cost of that among the many products they sell, thereby increasing the price only slightly while incorporating the true costs of the product into its sales price. If the true costs, including insurance, make the product too expensive, then application of free market principles should lead to it being discontinued from sale. This increases the cost a few pennies spread across all who use the product, which is fairer than having one injured person bear all the costs and losses associated with the product when they are injured. That is, in effect, a subsidy. (OK, I am revealing what I learned in one of my degrees involving law and economics.)

Amazon claims it is not in the chain of distribution: it is just a new form of classified advertising. This is BS. Amazon is the largest single seller of products. In its own documentation, Amazon calls itself a retailer. It gets paid a posting fee for each item listed. Amazon completely controls the content of each posting and has the right to edit and delete it. Buyers and sellers must communicate only through Amazon, and they cannot contact each other directly. The financial transaction is handled through Amazon. Amazon takes a percentage of every product sold, including shipping. Any product difficulties or complaints must go through Amazon. If a product is returned, Amazon charges the seller a return fee. Amazon offers an A-Z guaranty saying it will make the customer satisfied, including a refund, even if the manufacturer goes out of business. And now Amazon has fulfillment centers where it keeps stock on hand to satisfy orders.

Amazon has changed the landscape of our world, causing people to lose retail jobs by the hundreds of thousands. Amazon is one of the most valuable companies in the world. It must step up and be responsible corporate citizens instead of just not caring what it sells and if the consumer gets hurt.

To change this, I am working with the Consumer Attorneys of California to get a law passed, which would make Amazon just as responsible as any other retailer when the products it sells cause harm. It’s part of what I think a lawyer representing injured people should do: protect their rights and fight against corporate greed.

Christopher B. Dolan is owner of the Dolan Law Firm. Email questions and topics for future articles to help@dolanlawfirm.com.

We serve clients across the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our offices in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. Our work is no recovery, no fee or also referred to as contingency-based. That means we collect no fee unless we obtain money for your damages and injuries.