Finley Employment LawProtecting The Rights Of Employees In California2026-07-01T06:03:49Zhttps://www.finleyemplaw.com/feed/atom/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/sites/1502557/2022/01/cropped-Finley-site-identity-image-32x32.jpgby Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[Organ and Bone Marrow Donor Leave in California: What Employees and Employers Need to Know]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2562292026-05-28T05:33:13Z2026-05-27T05:02:02ZWho is covered?
California’s donor leave law generally applies to private and public employers with 15 or more employees, and to employees who have worked for the employer for at least 90 days before taking leave. Employers with fewer than 15 employees are not subject to these donor-leave requirements, though they may still choose to provide similar benefits.
To be eligible for organ or bone marrow donor leave, an employee must provide the employer with written verification that the employee is an organ or bone marrow donor and that there is a medical necessity for the donation.
How much leave is available?
Under Labor Code section 1510, covered employers must provide the following leave in a one-year period:
Organ donation:
Up to 30 business days of paid leave.
Up to an additional 30 business days of unpaid leave,
Bone marrow donation:
Up to five business days of paid leave.
The one-year period is measured from the date that the employee’s leave begins.
Use of accrued paid time off
The donor leave statute allows employers to require employees to use a limited amount of their existing paid time off while on donor leave. Specifically:
For organ donation, an employer may require an employee to use up to two (2) weeks of accrued sick leave, vacation, or paid time off.
For bone marrow donation, an employer may require an employee to use up to five (5) days of accrued sick leave, vacation, or other paid time off during the paid donor leave period.
Job protection and benefits during leave
Employers may not treat organ or bone marrow donor leave as a break in an employee’s continuous service for purposes of salary adjustments, sick leave, vacation, paid time off, annual leave, or seniority.
Upon returning from donor leave, the employee must be reinstated to the same position held when the leave began or to a position with equivalent seniority, benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Employers must also maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for the full duration of the leave in the same manner that the coverage would have been maintained if the employee had been actively at work during the leave period.
If you have questions about organ or bone marrow donor leave, call [nap_phone id="LOCAL-REGULAR-NUMBER-1"] or email contact@finleyemplaw.com. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[A True Sabbatical or Disguised Vacation?: How California Courts Tell the Difference]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2562192026-01-13T09:37:05Z2026-01-13T09:37:05ZPaton v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1505, no published California appellate decision had articulated a clear framework for distinguishing a true sabbatical from vacation.
In Paton, a class of employees sought payment for unused sabbatical time at separation, arguing that the employer’s sabbatical leave program functioned as deferred vacation wages that vested over time. The trial court granted summary adjudication for the employer, finding that the sabbatical leave program was exempt from California’s vacation payout rules. However, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that whether the program constituted a “true sabbatical” or simply disguised vacation was a triable issue of fact.
Put simply, labels do not control. Courts will likely examine the substance of the program and how it operates in practice, not merely what the employer labels the program.
The Paton Court explained that the central question is whether the paid leave is intended to reward past service, or alternatively, intended to function as a retention tool designed to enhance future service. To guide that analysis, the Court adopted a modified version of a test developed by the California Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement (“DLSE”).
The Court treated the DLSE guidance as persuasive (not binding) and identified key factors – adding a fourth factor – to help distinguish a legitimate sabbatical from vacation.
Paton identifies four key guideposts that courts may consider when deciding whether a program is a true sabbatical or vacation in disguise:
Infrequency: Is the leave granted infrequently (for example, every seven years, which is traditionally associated with sabbaticals)? The longer the interval between leaves, the more the benefit looks like a true sabbatical. More frequent leaves, by contrast, resembles ordinary vacation.
Length: A sabbatical should be long enough to accomplish the employer’s purpose of retaining an experienced employee and should generally be beyond what’s normally offered as vacation.
Not a Substitute for Vacation: A legitimate sabbatical should be offered in addition to a regular vacation program, and the vacation program should be market comparable. Employers cannot use a “sabbatical” label to backdoor additional vacation while keeping official vacation benefits unusually low.
Return-to-Work Expectation (added by the Paton Court): A true sabbatical leave program should include some feature demonstrating that the employee is expected to return to work after the leave.
How to Draft a Clear and Compliant Sabbatical Leave Program
Courts have not applied the Paton test in a large body of later decisions, but Paton remains the clearest roadmap for employers who want a sabbatical leave program to be treated as a sabbatical – rather than paid vacation subject to payout at separation. Accordingly, employers designing (or revising) a sabbatical leave program should draft the sabbatical leave program with the Paton factors in mind.
Practical guidelines for drafting a sabbatical leave program include the following:
Keep sabbaticals infrequent and meaningfully longer than normal vacation. Short or regularly recurring sabbaticals are more likely to be characterized as vacation.
Ensure that regular vacation is market-comparable and that the sabbatical is truly additive. Employers should benchmark industry norms.
Include a concrete return-to-work expectation feature consistent with retention goals. The specifics vary by workplace, but the sabbatical leave program should reflect a real retention purpose (not just paid time off by another name).
Document the business purpose and how the sabbatical leave program operationally differs from vacation in administration and intent.
If you have questions about sabbatical leave programs, call [nap_phone id="LOCAL-REGULAR-NUMBER-1"] or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your specific situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[5 Things That California Employees Should Know About Bereavement Leave]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2562182026-01-05T07:01:48Z2026-01-05T07:01:48ZNo. 1: California law guarantees up to five days of bereavement leave after the death of a family member. Most employers with five or more employees must provide up to five days of bereavement leave when an employee loses a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, or parent-in-law. These five days are a legal minimum – many employers choose to offer more time or extend eligibility to additional family relationships.
No. 2: The five days do not need to be taken all at once. Grief does not follow a schedule. California law allows bereavement leave to be taken intermittently, so long as the time is used within three months of the family member’s passing.
No. 3: Bereavement leave is unpaid unless an employer offers paid leave. The law does not require employers to pay employees during bereavement leave. However, employees may use accrued vacation or other paid time off if they would like their bereavement leave to be paid. Some employers also choose to provide paid bereavement leave as a benefit.
No. 4: Employees are protected from retaliation for taking bereavement leave. Employers may not punish, terminate, demote, or otherwise retaliate against an employee for requesting or taking bereavement leave. Employers must also keep confidential any information provided by an employee (to an employer) in connection with a bereavement leave request.
No. 5: If five days is not enough, other types of leave may be available. Bereavement leave is separate from other forms of protected leave, such as leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”).
If you have questions about bereavement leave, call [nap_phone id="LOCAL-REGULAR-NUMBER-1"] or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[Remote Work as a Reasonable Accommodation]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2562152025-12-11T05:31:28Z2025-12-11T05:31:28ZRemote work, also called telecommuting or working from home, has become increasingly common these days. One reason is that technology makes it easier for employees to perform their jobs without setting foot in a physical workplace.
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”), employers may be required to provide remote work as a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability.If you are seeking remote work as a reasonable accommodation, ask yourself these questions before you approach your employer:
Are other employees (with or without disabilities) at your workplace permitted to work remotely? If so, approximately how many?
Can you perform the essential functions of your job remotely?
Did you previously work remotely at your current job, and if so, did you competently perform your work?
Do the essential functions of your job require frequent in-person interactions or can these interactions be conducted just as effectively via telephone or videoconference?
Does your employer have the technological capabilities that would permit you to work remotely? If not, would obtaining those technological capabilities impose an undue hardship on your employer?
If you have questions about remote work or other reasonable accommodations, call [nap_phone id="LOCAL-REGULAR-NUMBER-2"] or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[When Commute Time Becomes “Hours Worked”: Lessons from Oliver v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2562062025-12-04T05:58:54Z2025-12-04T05:58:54ZCalifornia employers and employees alike know the usual rule: time spent driving between job sites is compensable, but ordinary commute time is not. But this is not always the case.
In Oliver v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., 51 Cal.App.5th 1 (2020), the California Court of Appeal held that there are circumstances where travel from home to the first work assignment of the day, or back home from the last work assignment of the day, may be compensable “hours worked.”The plaintiffs were a class of copier service technicians who traveled to multiple customer locations each day to repair equipment. Their employer, Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (“Konica Minolta”), required them to use their own personal vehicles: (a) for work travel; (b) to store and transport company-provided tools, parts, and equipment in those vehicles; and (c) to maintain enough cargo space in their personal vehicles to hold a significant amount of inventory. Some plaintiffs explained that the volume of equipment was so large that their backseats were folded down, their cars were filled to capacity, and they were unable to transport passengers or realistically stop for personal errands on their way to the first job.Although Konica Minolta did not strictly mandate that the plaintiffs keep every part in their vehicle, the plaintiffs argued it was not feasible to meet performance expectations without carrying most or all of the assigned equipment. The plaintiffs also argued that because Konica Minolta effectively restricted their ability to use their commute for personal purposes, their entire commute should be paid.The trial court granted summary judgment for Konica Minolta, holding that commute time was notcompensable because it occurred between home and the first or last job site. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment, ruling that there were triable issues of fact about whether the plaintiffs’ commute time was actually under Konica Minolta’s control and therefore compensable “hours worked”. Specifically, the Court of Appeal found factual disputes about whether carrying tools and parts in personal vehicles was mandatory (either expressly or as a practical matter), and whether the volume of required equipment restricted the plaintiffs’ ability to use their commute time for personal purposes.This ruling does not mean that all commute time is compensable, but it does warn that policies requiring employees to use personal vehicles, and to store employer equipment in those vehicles, may mean that the employee is owed wages for commute time between home and work if the practical effect is to limit personal freedom during the commute.Employees who are unable to use their vehicles for personal purposes during their commute, and who are not compensated for that time, may be entitled to recover wages, interest, and statutory penalties.Employers seeking to avoid liability while maintaining non-compensable commute time should adopt clear, written policies on personal-vehicle requirements and equipment storage. They should ensure that any practices limiting an e§mployee’s ability to use their personal car remain genuinely optional (not required or functionally necessary to meet performance expectations), and that employees have realistic, accessible alternatives for storing or transporting tools and inventory so their vehicles remain usable for personal errands, passengers, and everyday needs.Click here to read the Court of Appeal’s decision.If you have questions about compensation for driving time, call [nap_phone id="LOCAL-REGULAR-NUMBER-2"] or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[California’s Payment of Final Wages Laws Explained: Deadlines, Penalties, and Common Pitfalls]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2561982025-11-25T06:54:11Z2025-11-25T06:54:11ZLabor Code Section 201: When an employee is terminated
When an employee is terminated (fired) or laid off, all final wages are due immediately at the time of discharge. Final wages include all earned wages, overtime, accrued but unused vacation or PTO, earned bonuses, commissions, and any other earned compensation. Accrued but unused vacation or PTO is treated as wages.
Too often, employers fail to pay final wages on time because they have not maintained current timekeeping and payroll records. Employers can avoid this outcome by keeping timekeeping and payroll records current at all times. This ensures that even in an unexpected or urgent termination, final pay can be promptly and accurately issued. Where possible, employers should plan terminations in advance, including the payment of final wages.
Labor Code Section 202: When an employee quits
The deadline for paying final wages when an employee quits depends on whether the employee provided sufficient notice:
If the employee gives at least 72 hours’ notice, final wages are due at the time employment ends.
If the employee gives less than 72 hours’ notice, final wages must be paid within 72 hours of the resignation.
Employees are not required to appear in person to pick up their final paycheck. An employee may request that final wages be mailed, in which case the date of mailing is considered the payment date. Final pay can also be rendered through an electronic transfer.
Labor Code Section 203: Waiting-time penalties
If an employer willfully fails to pay final wages on time under California Labor Code Sections 201 or 202, the employer may owe waiting-time penalties. These penalties equal one full day’s wages for each day payment is late, up to a maximum of 30 days. Penalties accrue at the employee’s daily rate, not at the employee’s hourly rate.
Employees cannot intentionally create a situation to trigger penalties. If an employee hides, evades payment, or refuses valid tender of wages, the employer is not liable for waiting-time penalties.
Waiting-time penalties can become substantial, especially when multiple employees bring claims at once or as part of a class action.
Accurate and timely calculation of final wages (including all wages, overtime, vacation/PTO, bonuses, and commissions) is critical. If there is any legal ambiguity as to the correct amount owed, paying the higher amount is often advisable. If any wages are left unpaid past the deadline (even a small amount), waiting-time penalties begin to accrue at the same rate as if all wages were unpaid. This makes it essential for employers to have in place a fully compliant final pay policy.
An employment attorney can help employers audit their policies and avoid costly mistakes before they occur.
If you have questions about final pay laws in California, call 916-612-0326 or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[La Kimba Bradsbery et al. v. Vicar Operating, Inc.: Are Prospective Meal Period Waivers Enforceable?]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2561762025-11-17T03:56:03Z2025-11-17T03:55:26ZLa Kimba Bradsbery et al. v. Vicar Operating, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th (2025), employees brought a class action alleging that their employer had failed to provide meal periods as required by law. They argued that meal period waivers could only be agreed to on a shift-by-shift basis, not in advance. The trial court upheld the waivers, and the employees appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that blanket meal period waivers for shifts of six (6) hours or less are valid under California Labor Code § 512(a) and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, both of which state that “the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and employee.”
The employees contended that because the law did not expressly authorize “blanket” waivers, such agreements should not be upheld. The Court rejected this argument, finding no statutory or regulatory language prohibiting such waivers.
Because the waivers in this case were voluntary, revocable at any time, and free of coercion or unfairness, the Court concluded that the employees had lawfully waived their right to a meal period for shifts under six (6) hours and were therefore not entitled to premium pay for missed meal periods.
Employees should remember that they cannot be required to waive meal periods, and employers may not retaliate against them for refusing to sign or for revoking a waiver.
Employers, in turn, may rely on properly drafted meal period waivers, provided that the waiver is mutual and voluntary, it may be revoked at any time, and the employer does not retaliate against an employee who chooses not to waive their meal period.
Click here to read the California Court of Appeal’s decision in La Kimba Bradsbery et al. v. Vicar Operating, Inc.
If you have questions about meal period waivers, call 916-612-0326 or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[Iloff v. Lapaille, 18 Cal.5th 551 (Cal. 2025): What is “Good Faith?”]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2561752025-11-10T14:28:24Z2025-11-10T14:28:24ZIloff v. Lapaille, 18 Cal.5th 551 (Cal. 2025) clarifying what constitutes “good faith” for purposes of reducing or eliminating liquidated damages in minimum wage cases.
In Iloff, the plaintiff Laurance Iloff brought California Labor Code claims before the Labor Commissioner against his former employers. Iloff had lived and worked on the defendants’ property, performing maintenance work in exchange for free rent. The Labor Commissioner found that the arrangement violated California’s minimum wage laws and awarded the plaintiff unpaid wages and liquidated damages. The defendants appealed, asserting that they had acted in “good faith” and therefore should not be required to pay liquidated damages.
Under California Labor Code § 1194.2(a), an employee who is not paid the minimum wage is entitled to liquidated damages “in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.” However, subsection (b) provides a limited “good faith” defense that may reduce or eliminate these liquidated damages if the employer “had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation.”
The question before the Court was whether an employer can rely on a “good faith” defense when the employer never made a reasonable attempt to determine the legal requirements for paying minimum wage. The defendants admitted that Iloff received no cash wages, but claimed they did not know that providing free rent alone instead of wages was unlawful.
The Court rejected this argument, holding that “ignorance of the law is insufficient” to establish good faith. Because the employers failed to make any effort to learn whether their arrangement complied with wage laws, they lacked reasonable grounds for believing they were acting lawfully. As a result, the Court upheld the Labor Commissioner’s award of liquidated damages.
This decision reinforces that California employers have an affirmative duty to understand and comply with minimum wage requirements. Employers must ensure that all workers, whether paid hourly, salaried, or otherwise compensated, receive at least the applicable minimum wage for every hour worked. Failure to do so, even out of misunderstanding or neglect, will not excuse liability for liquidated damages.
Click here to read the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iloff v. Lapaille.
If you have questions about minimum wage laws, call 916-612-0326 or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[7 Questions That California Employers May Not Ask During the Job Interview/Application Process]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2561742025-11-10T05:30:39Z2025-11-10T05:30:39ZNo. 1: “How much money did you make at your previous job?”
The California Labor Code prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their salary history, whether directly or through a third party. Employers are also barred from relying on a job applicant’s salary history when making hiring or compensation decisions. These protections help ensure that employees are paid wages that reflect their skills and experience, rather than being boxed into a lower pay range based on past earnings. However, job applicants may still choose to disclose their previous salary as a negotiating tool if they wish.
No. 2: “Have you ever been arrested?”
California employers may not ask job applicants about arrests that did not result in a criminal conviction. Even if an arrest led to a conviction, employers are only permitted to inquire about it after extending a conditional offer of employment, not during the initial interview.
No. 3: “Do you have any disabilities or medical conditions?”
In California, employers are prohibited from asking job applicants about disabilities or medical conditions before making a job offer. Once a conditional offer has been extended, employers may ask limited, job-related medical questions to assess whether a job applicant can perform the essential functions of the position.
No. 4: “Are you pregnant or planning to have kids?”
It is unlawful to ask about pregnancy. Questions about family planning may improperly require job applicants to disclose protected information and may suggest discriminatory intent by the employer.
No. 5: “How old are you?”
It is improper for California employers to ask job applicants about their age or to ask any question designed to disclose their age, such as birth year. Hiring decisions must be based on qualifications, not assumptions about applicants and their abilities because of their age.
No. 6: “What is your immigration status?”
California law prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their citizenship or immigration status except where required by federal law. Although employers may ask whether a job applicant is legally authorized to work in the United States, the specific immigration status that makes the job applicant work-eligible is irrelevant.
No. 7: “Do you use marijuana?”
As of January 1, 2024, California law protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on their off-duty, off-site cannabis use. Employers may not ask about a job applicant’s cannabis use or rely on drug tests that detect only non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites. Exceptions exist for certain federal or safety-sensitive positions, but for most jobs, questions about cannabis use are now off-limits.
If you have questions about what employers can and cannot ask during the hiring process, or would like guidance on conducting interviews in compliance with California law, call [nap_phone id="LOCAL-REGULAR-NUMBER-1"] or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>On Behalf of Finley Employment Law<![CDATA[Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office: Is One Racial Slur Enough to Constitute Harassment?]]>https://www.finleyemplaw.com/?p=2561722025-11-04T03:48:10Z2025-11-04T03:47:04ZBailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, 16 Cal.5th 611 (Cal. 2024) that one racial slur alone can be enough to constitute unlawful harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
Background
The plaintiff, Twanda Bailey, an African American woman, worked as an investigative assistant at the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office. Her coworker, also an investigative assistant, made a racially offensive remark toward her after she reacted to a mouse in the office: “You [N-words] is so scary.”
When Ms. Bailey attempted to report the incident, the human resources manager, a close friend of the coworker, refused to file her complaint, discouraged her from pursuing it, and later treated her with hostility. The City’s Department of Human Resources ultimately declined to investigate, claiming that one racial comment was not enough to create a hostile work environment.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Court held that the single use of a racial slur, especially the N-word, was sufficiently severe to constitute harassment, emphasizing “the odious and injurious nature of the N-word in particular, as well as other unambiguous racial epithets.” The Court also found that obstructing or intimidating an employee from trying to report harassment can qualify as retaliation, even if it does not involve termination or formal discipline.
What Employers Should Know
This case is a reminder that employers must respond immediately and seriously to any report of discrimination or harassment. Employers can protect both their employees and their organization by:
Implementing a zero-tolerance policy toward racial slurs and other discriminatory conduct.
Clearly communicating that policy to all employees in writing.
Ensuring HR staff are trained to handle complaints objectively, promptly, and without bias.
Racial slurs, no matter how “isolated,” have no place in the workplace, and a failure to respond appropriately can violate California law.
Click here to read the California Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.
If you have questions about racial harassment, call [nap_phone id="LOCAL-REGULAR-NUMBER-1"] or email (contact@finleyemplaw.com) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.]]>