Lynn Hague v. UHY Advisors NY, Inc.: February 4, 2009. Liz represented UHY Advisors NY, Inc. in this wrongful termination case, filed by a former employee of the Company's now-defunct Los Angeles office. After a 4-day trial, the 8-member jury reached a unanimous verdict in favor of UHY. Plaintiff was hired as Office Manager while the Company's regular office manager was on medical leave. When the regular Office Manager returned, Plaintiff's employment ended, and she sued for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and termination in violation of public policy. Liz handled the case from the beginning to its successful end.
Mehran Motamedi v. RadioShack Corporation: 2009. Liz represented RadioShack in this wrongful termination case, filed by a former District Manager who claimed that he was fired because of a medical condition. The Company prevailed in its Motion for Summary Judgment, and subsequently was awarded over $3,000 in litigation costs.
Ed Parker v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company: 2007. Liz represented Ameriquest Mortgage Company in this so-called whistle blowing case, filed by a former manager in the Company's fraud department. Although the Plaintiff was laid off along with thousands of other employees, he claimed that he was fired for complaining about the Company's loan practices. The Company prevailed in its Motion for Summary Judgment, and subsequently was awarded over $100,000 in attorneys' fees.
Zhao v. Bebe Stores, Inc., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Liz represented Bebe Stores in this case involving a group of workers employed by Bebe's sewing contractor, Apex, who claimed that Apex had failed to pay them proper wages and overtime. Bebe was sued under a joint employer theory. Ultimately, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs' theory, entering summary judgment in Bebe's favor on the joint employer issue. Plaintiffs claimed that they were also employees of Bebe because the majority of their work was done for Bebe, because Bebe had on-site quality control inspectors, and because Bebe audited the labor practices of Apex. The court rejected each of these arguments. The Court found no joint employer relationship because Apex was an ongoing business that had separate owners and performed services for companies other than Bebe, was one of 50 garment factories that supplied garments to Bebe, permitted Bebe’s quality control personnel at Apex’s factory, and controlled the employees’ schedules and work assignments.
