Blog - Joseph Avrahamy Law Offices

Notable Results

Fourth Amendment Violation against City of Los Angeles
$5,000,000.00 Jury verdict
$5,000,000.00 Jury Verdict
$5,000,000.00 Jury Verdict
$20,500,000.00 Global settlement

First Amendment Retaliation
$950,000.00 settlement after jury verdict

Gender Discrimination
$975,000.00 Jury Verdict

Failure to Accommodate Disability
$725,000.00-Total recovery following Jury Verdict

Gender discrimination
$167,500.00 Settlement

Sexual Harassment
$130,000.00 Settlement

Sexual Harassment
$375,000.00 Settlement

National Origin Discrimination
$275,000.00

Sexual Harassment
$57,500.00 Settlement

USERRA Violation
$650,000.00 Settlement

Gender Discrimination
$200,000.00 Settlement

Insurance Claim
$850,000.00

Injuries following rear end accident
$230,000.00

Employment theft
$600,000 settlement

Personal Injury
$375,000 for leg injuries from slip and fall

Dog Bite injury
$100,000.00 settlement

Multiple $100,000 policy limits settlements in personal injury cases.

Attack in Psychiatric Ward
$300,000.00

Gender Discrimination
$500,000.00

Injury to student in LA Unified School
$145,000.00

Injury in Construction Site
$1,750,000.00

Where We Are

Click to open larger map

Blog

 

9th Circuit expands First Amendment  Protection for Public Employees  September 30, 2014

 

By Joseph Y. Avrahamy

 

In August of 2013, in the case of Dahlia v. Rodriguez 735 F. 3d 1060, (9th Cir 2013), the 9th Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a First Amendment Retaliation case filed by a City of Burbank detective who alleged that he was retaliated against for disclosing fellow officers’ misconduct. Dahlia, a detective in the Burbank police department who reported misconduct of fellow police officers to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, filed an action for First Amendment Retaliation, after he faced retaliation from his department. The District Court dismissed the action after concluding that Dahlia had a professional duty to report misconduct, and therefore did not meet the requirement that the disclosure be made as a private citizen. In the En Banc decision, the 9th Circuit reversed the District Court ruling and held that Dahlia’s disclosure of misconduct to Internal Affairs and to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department  did not fall within his official duties and therefore was protected by the First Amendment. In the Dahlia decision, the 9th Circuit expanded the First Amendment protection of public employees, especially police officers who are retaliated against for disclosing misconduct.    

 

 

Los Angeles Truck Accident Causes Significant Damage – July 22, 2013

By Joseph Y. Avrahamy

On Saturday morning, July 14, 2013, an accident involving a tanker truck caused an oil spill and a fire in an underpass on the I-5 freeway.  The accident occurred near Dodger Stadium and closed down the 5 and 2 freeway connector, while Caltrans workers and firefighters struggled to address the damage.

Reports of the accident reveal that no injuries were sustained as a result of the accident. However, the incident illustrates the extent of destruction that can be caused by a collision involving a truck. According to CHP statistics, there were over 5,000 truck accidents in California in the year 2010. Road safety depends on the truck driver as well as other vehicles in it’s vicinity. Truck accidents can be caused by unsafe actions of others, such as driving your vehicle in an area where the truck driver can’t see you.

In this case, the cause is unclear, but according to the Los Angeles Wave, the driver of the truck described the accident as the result of a tire blow-out. Dangerous road conditions or unforeseen circumstances can exist but avoiding distracted driving, as always, can reduce the risk of an accident causing bodily injury or property damage.

If you were injured in a truck accident, an experienced personal injury attorney can assist you in securing compensation for your loss. Speaking with an attorney can give you peace of mind after an accident which resulted in bodily injury or property damage.

Further Source: http://wavenewspapers.com/news/local/article_2079ea74-ed80-11e2-a5b3-0019bb30f31a.html

 

Employment Discrimination Law-June 24, 2013

By Joseph Y. Avrahamy

The Supreme Court on Monday, June 24, 2013, made two important rulings in  cases involving discrimination and retaliation under Title VI. The decision of the Supreme Court in one of these cases serves to narrow the definition of “supervisor” as someone who can take “tangible action” against an employee claiming discrimination. If they cannot hire, fire or promote, among other actions which define a supervisory role, they are considered a co-worker, and therefore the employer cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged discrimination. In Vance v. Ball State, former Ball State University employee Maetta Vance sued for the actions of Shaundra Davis, someone she deemed her supervisor. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals ruling, that since the accused employee did not have the power to terminate the alleged victim, than their relationship was that of co-workers, and Ball State was not liable for Davis’ actions. Justice Samuel Alito said:

“We hold that an employee is a `supervisor’ for purpose of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim,”

Title VII is the 1964 federal law which prohibits workplace discrimination based on the protected categories of race, color gender and nation of origin.

In Nassar vs. the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, the Supreme Court held that in order to prove that there has been retaliation, an employee must prove that an adverse employment action was motivated exclusively by the retaliatory motive.

These decisions affect cases filed under Title VII and not cases filed under California FEHA laws.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57590772/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-sue-businesses-for-retaliation-and-discrimination/

 

 

 

New Laws for 2013 for California Drivers

On January 1, 2013, there were will be new laws that will go into effect in the State of California. The following are summaries of selected laws that are important for motorists:

*Electronic Wireless Communications: This new law will allow California drivers to talk and text while driving via the use of a hands-free voice operated technology. The device must be used in a voice-operated hands free manner to be in compliance with the law.

*Financial Responsibility and Insurance: Under this new law drivers will now be able to provide proof of insurance and registration on an electronic device-smart phone or tablet- when requested by law enforcement. So be sure to take a picture of your proof of insurance and registration so that you will always have it on your smart phone, ready to be shown to an officer.

*Driving Under the Influence: This law no longer allows a person arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, the option of a urine test. Previously, a person arrested for driving under the influence of drugs had the option of submitting either to a urine test or a blood test to test whether the level of drugs in their blood.

*Charter-Party Carriers of Passengers: As of January 1, 2013, a driver or carrier in limos, buses, etc. is responsible to communicate that the new law prohibits underage drinking in the “charter-party” carriers. The new law also requires that a person who is at least 25 years old, be present in a “charter- party carrier, whenever there are passengers that are under 21 years of age in the vehicle and alcohol is being transported. This law will specifically affect teenagers riding in limos to proms and other similar events. The 25 year old “designee” shall be responsible for ensuring that the rules are follows and is responsible for the safety of the underage passengers.