California Employment Law
California Employment Law Questions Answered by Legal Experts
And, if you need to contact me again, please put my user id on the title line of your question (“ToCustomerrdquo;), and the system will send me an alert. Thanks!
I have a brief follow up.
The DFEH did issue a right to sue notice, but it was only in the name of the company for whom the employee actually worked. The other company was not named, because the connection was not known, until the discharged employee discussed above was recently reviewing her direct deposits and saw the other company's name, instead of the company she actually worked for.
Does this matter? Can the other company be brought in without a FEHA right to sue if it's tantamount to a parent company?
It's been a year. In fact, she had an attorney and he filed suit against the company she worked for. They answered. The attorney then fell off the face of the earth, and she attended a CMC on her on, telling the judge the attorney is missing in action. The defense agreed to court referred mediation.
Basically, she will need to get another attorney if hers doesn't reapper, but she is worried now that she found the other company's name on her direct deposit, should she DOE them in, or wait for mediation? Is it even possible to Doe them i?
Basically, the two companies use the same office space and share some staff, but they are incorporated separately, and do not want their customers to know of their connection. She always assumed she was an employee of the one company, but the direct deposit with the other company's name has really confused the situation and she is worried about missing time deadlines to bring them in.
Well, that isn't good to hear! All I know is that the feha issued a right to sue four months after the discharge, and the complaint was filed within the one year s/l agaisnt the employer company. The issue of the other company wasn't known until the direct deposits were pulled and it said the other company's name. The positive is that the employer company defendant is insured.
I guess the best thing to do is fight to get the altar ego company Doe'd in, because as you said, the two companies are mirror images, just with different product. The owners, CEO, etc are all the same people.
Thanks for your input.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).