The caring lawyers and staff of the Law Offices of Bowman & Associates, APC. practice a hands-on approach with our clients. We take pride in being able to offer affordable legal services to California residents:

• helping discriminated employees fight back against their work;
• helping people receive their unpaid wages;
• helping victims of sexual harassment get compensation from their employers;
• helping those wrongfully terminated employees get the money they deserve;
• and more.

At our law firm, it is not uncommon for your attorney to give you their personal cell phone number and take calls over the weekend when you have important legal questions.

At our law firm we offer free initial consultations to evaluate your case.

At our law firm your case is the most important and we put all our resources toward fighting for your rights.

But don’t take our word for it, check out what other people had to say…

“Fantastic! Robert has been an incredible help during a very stressful, constant custody battle. He’s always been there to answer the phone and provide advice, drastically lowering my stress level and anxiety. He was right, it takes a little time, but our court arrangement is finally both in the best interest of my son and fair to me.” – Heather via Google Places

This firm went way above the call in regards to my case, attorney Ken Torlelson is a fantastic lawyer with lots of wit and experience. I would call them first anytime in the future when the need arises. And will refer this office to all my friends and family with there needs. – David M. on Yelp

The seasoned labor lawyers of Bowman & Associates help clients across California from our offices in Sacramento and Folsom. If you or someone you know has legal questions regarding wrongful termination, unemployment compensation, sexual harassment, retaliation, discrimination and employment law matters. Contact us today for a case evaluation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment to include harassing behavior in the workplace such as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. This can include quid pro quo offers of employment for sex or actions designed to cause you humiliation. Sexual Harassment in the workplace can take a variety of forms, in addition to unwanted sexual advances, including:

• Offering employment benefits in exchange for sexual favors (quid pro quo harassment)
• Threatening reprisals after a negative response to sexual advances (retaliation)
• Visual conduct: leering, displaying of sexually suggestive objects or pictures, cartoons or posters, or making sexual gestures
• Verbal conduct-making derogatory comments or jokes
• Verbal sex advances or propositions
• Verbal abuse of a sexual nature
• Physical conduct: touching, assault, blocking movement

Read More »

When making a claim of harassment or discrimination a complainant is usually limited to acts that occurred within one year of the complaint to the complaining agency. However, if the employee can demonstrate that the acts were a part of a “continuing violation” and at least one act occurred during the one year period the Court can consider acts that are older. The acts must be part of a pattern of discrimination. In a recent case, Sepulveda v. Municipality of San German, out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Puerto Rico, the court held that the acts outside of the one-year period must amount to a “hostile work environment.”

A hostile work environment is defined as work where the discriminatory conduct is severe and pervasive – occurring frequently. Also, the conduct must unreasonably interfere with the employee’s work performance. In the Sepulveda case the Court found that the acts were not severe – there had been no physical threats, and was not pervasive – there was only one act outside the one year period of harassment. The case dealt with harassment of a gay man in regards to his sexual preference. In addition, the Appeals court found that even though there was evidence that Sepulveda had to get counseling because of the harassment, and there was no evidence that his work performance was affected. As a result, the Court threw out Sepulveda’s lawsuit. Read More »

California wage and hour law requires that employees are to be paid over-time wages if they work more than 8 hours in one day or more than 40 hours in one week. Certain workers are classified as “exempt” employees and are therefore excluded from the law. Last week the California Supreme Court held that insurance adjusters are not exempt and are covered under the law. In this case it involved all adjusters working for Liberty Mutual or Sentry Insurance.

When employers do not pay earnings due it becomes an unpaid wages case. Our experienced Sacramento labor lawyers help clients through this difficult technical process and fight for your rights. We get you the compensation you deserve.

If you have a wage claim or any employment issue please call me, David Foos, at 916-923-2800, or email me at dfoos@bowmanandassoc.com. All first consultations are free.

In a recent case the New Hampshire Court found against a professor that had been arrested for disturbing the peace and stalking another professor, but later was found not guilty in a trial. Even though he won at trial the Court found that there was sufficient cause to have had him arrested. The Court found that the University of New Hampshire was justified in suspending the professor with pay and from banning him from the campus. The University had sent an email to all of the faculty telling them to avoid the professor and report it if they saw him on campus. The professor sued for libel based on this email claiming that it created the impression that he was dangerous and armed. The Court held that the email could be interpreted as just warning faculty to report the professor and that there was no defamation because the comments were not false and that there was no intent to damage the professor’s reputation. Read More »

A worker in Houston, Texas recently sued his employer for discrimination based on his disability of obesity. The law recognizes that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on them being a member of a protected class such as gender, race, or disability. To demonstrate disability discrimination the employee must first show that she has a recognized disability. In California obesity has not been recognized as a disability, however, the side effects of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, difficulty walking, may be conditions that are protected under the law. Also, some cities, such as San Francisco, have passed laws making it illegal to discriminate against the obese. Once it is demonstrated that the employee has a recognized disability the employee must show that an adverse action has been taken. An adverse action is defined as an action which materially affects the terms and conditions of employment such as demotion, firing, or an re-assignment of job responsibilities.

If you believe that you have been the victim of job discrimination in Sacramento and would like to discuss the matter with an attorney please feel free to contact me, David Foos, Retired Sacramento Superior Court Commissioner, or our other employment attorneys at Bowman and Associates. Our number if (916) 923-2800 or I can be reached by email at dfoos@bowmanandassoc.com. The consultation is at no cost to you.

California law requires employers to pay overtime to their workers and provide regularly scheduled meal and rest breaks. Some employers fail to do so, either intentionally or out of ignorance. If you have been unlawfully denied overtime pay or have been made to work through breaks, you may be entitled to unpaid back wages, back benefits and attorney’s fees.

Misclassification of Employees as Exempt

Under California and federal law, employees are generally entitled to overtime pay unless they qualify as exempt from overtime under a few narrow exemptions for “white collar” employees and commissioned salespersons. The so-called “white collar” exemptions only apply to certain managerial, administrative, and professional employees who exercise substantial discretion and independent judgment in the performance of their jobs. Read More »

One of the most frustrating and perhaps bewildering moments in any employee’s career is finding out that your employer is ending the employment relationship. After the initial shock, questioning, bargaining, accusations, and maybe a moment of self-criticism, employees often seek out a lawyer for information. Inevitably, the most common question to the lawyer is a variation of “my boss fired me for no real reason, does this qualify under wrongful termination law in California?”

Wrongful termination is an umbrella term covering many kinds of improper conduct by an employer that leads to the loss of a job. Some situations and reasons for termination of employment may seem unfair, but that does not necessarily mean they are illegal or a viable cause for a lawsuit. However, many reasons that an employer may have to terminate an employee are unlawful.

Folsom workers are working in very difficult times. The economy is in crisis and employers are looking for any way they can to cut back. Sometimes employers cut back the work force and in so doing have wrongfully terminated you. Below are just a few examples of wrongful termination under California law: Read More »

A federal class-action suit has been filed against a New York unit of French insurance giant AXA Group alleging that thousands of U.S. employees worked as many as 60 hours per week but weren’t paid minimum wage or overtime.

The suit, which names two former employees of the firm as plaintiffs, alleges that AXA Financial, AXA Advisors and other related entities hired unlicensed financial product marketers, made them pay for training materials and registration fees, and required them to work without compensation while studying for exams.

Upon becoming licensed, the workers earned a flat salary and commission on sales but were “not compensated for any time spent working past 40 hours in a week,” according to the complaint. It also alleges that AXA failed to maintain complete timesheets or payroll records for employees. Read More »

The emails and memos written by administrators and doctors at Citizens Medical Center about three of their colleagues of Indian descent are, at best, derogatory. An operating room chief wrote of trying to force “the Indians off the reservation.” Others wrote about their “Indian troubles,” or labeled the hospital’s two rival cardiology practices as “the Cowboys” and “the Indians.”

At worst, they could be considered racist: “I feel a sense of disgust but am more concerned with what this means to the future of the hospital as more of our Middle-Eastern-born physicians demand leadership roles and demand influence,” David P. Brown, chief executive of Citizens Medical, wrote in a 2007 memo to himself. He continued, “It will change the entire complexion of the hospital and create a level of fear among our employees.”

But whether racial animus led Citizens Medical, a county-owned hospital, to close its cardiology unit to non-staff doctors – effectively revoking the privileges of Drs. Harish Chandna, Ajay Gaalla and Dakshesh Kumar Parikh to practice there – is the subject of fierce debate and a discrimination lawsuit filed by the three doctors in federal district court in the Southern District of Texas. The dispute has divided Victoria’s close-knit medical community, where many longtime doctors and hospital officials say that it is not about race – the city has long been home to doctors of all ethnicities and nationalities – but a struggle over egos and influence gone awry. Read More »