Rare Win for California Employers Naranjo v. Spectrum. California Supreme Court is a win for employers.
Being a California employer, victories are rare when it comes to employee lawsuits. However, the recent Supreme Court win in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. shines a light of hope for us. This case focused on penalties for incorrect wage statements under California’s Labor Code Section 226. It introduced a crucial “good faith defense” for employers12.
Gustavo Naranjo, the plaintiff, worked for Spectrum Security Services as a security guard. He claimed he was wrongfully terminated after taking a meal break. Naranjo then led a class action lawsuit, alleging he didn’t receive owed meal premiums and had inaccuracies in his wage statements. He demanded wage statement penalties, arguing his statements were flawed for not including meal period premiums12.
Yet, despite Naranjo’s assertions, the California Supreme Court made a unanimous ruling in favor of Spectrum. The Court determined that Spectrum acted in good faith believing their wage statements met legal requirements. This decision blocked Naranjo from collecting penalties under section 226, subdivision (e)12.
Key Takeaways
- The Naranjo win is a rare stand for California employers against employee claims.
- Now, employers can shield themselves from Labor Code Section 226 penalties for wage statement issues. They must prove they reasonably thought their statements were correct.
- This good faith defense helps protect employers from consequences of unintended wage statement mistakes.
- However, employers are still responsible for ensuring their wage statements are accurate.
- Employees have recourse through injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees for non-compliant statements. Hence, conducting regular wage statement checks with legal advice is advised.
Background Facts on Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services
Gustavo Naranjo was a security guard for Spectrum Security Services, Inc.3 He filed a lawsuit that included claims about his pay. These claims were about not receiving money for meal times and getting wrong pay statements.1 He said his pay was not right because it didn’t include extra pay for meals.1
Plaintiff’s Claims and Lawsuit
Naranjo’s lawsuit targeted his employer, Spectrum Security Services, Inc.1 His claims involved unpaid meal premiums and incorrect pay notices.1
Wage Statement Penalties Sought by Plaintiff
In his case, Naranjo focused on getting penalties for wrong wage statements.1 He argued his employer’s statements did not include meal pay he should have gotten.1
California Supreme Court Decision
Ruling on Wage Statement Penalties
The California Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal. It said that if employers genuinely think they have given correct wage statements, they won’t face penalties.4
Evaluation of Employer’s Mental State
The court focused primarily on what an employer needs to know to avoid breaking the wage statement rule.4
Analysis of Statutory Context
They examined the law itself and why it includes penalties. The goal is to stop bad actions from happening again. If someone thought they were following the law in good faith, they shouldn’t get penalized.4
In the case of3 Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of employers. It said employers are innocent if they truly believed they did not break wage statement rules. This was a key win for employers in California.3
The court highlighted that fines under section 226 are for those who intentionally mislead employees about their wages. It’s not for those who made honest mistakes in trying to give accurate information.2
Naranjo’s case was about missing meal break premiums in wage statements. The court found the employers not guilty because they honestly believed they followed the law.3
This ruling now means that employers can defend against claims with a strong good faith argument. Mistakes that weren’t made with bad intent are less likely to be heavily punished.3
In the California business world, this case’s outcome is seen as a major success for employers.3 The wage statement laws were often tripped over by small mistakes, resulting in big fines. This didn’t help anyone. Now, California employers can look forward to a more balanced system that integrates additional fairness in place.3
Purpose of Penalties and Good Faith Defense
The California Supreme Court says penalties under Labor Code section 226(e) aim to deter and punish, not compensate.1 They noted that well-meaning people shouldn’t worry if they make a mistake despite trying to follow the law. With that said you should not simply ignore or brush off the requirements that are still enacted and still in place.
They said the main goal is to keep everyone honest, not to pay for getting the law wrong.2 Employers are less likely to be fined if they are able to prove they honestly believed they were doing things right.
If a company thought it was doing the right thing and used incorrect wage statements, they might not get fined. But they could still have to fix their mistakes and pay for legal fees and other employment related items.2
To stay out of trouble, a good tip for companies is to always check their wage statements with qualified California employer lawyers.2
Rare Win for California Employers Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. Court win.
The Naranjo decision marks a rare win for Californian employers by the state’s Supreme Court.2 It means from now on, employers could avoid facing penalties under Labor Code section 226 for mistakes in wage statements. This is as long as they can show they believed in good faith that the statements were correct.2 Such a ruling may help shield them from unintended errors in wage statements.1
If employers fail to follow wage statement laws on purpose, employees can ask for penalties up to $4,000.2 This happened in the case Naranjo brought, which included wage and hour complaints.2 The California Supreme Court’s decision in the Naranjo case is unusual as it favors employers.2
So, if employers truly believed their wage statements were right, they potentially won’t be fined under Labor Code section 226.2 But, employees can still seek court orders to stop this and get legal costs if the wage statements were indeed wrong. Employers can’t use the ‘good faith belief’ as defense in these cases.2 Because of this, companies are urged to always double-check their wage statements with advice from experts in labor and employment law.2
Employer Lawyer LA offers a FREE 15 Minute consultation for California Employers.
Harmonizing Penalties Across Labor Code Provisions paga
The court said claims under sections 226 and 203 of the Labor Code often come up together.4 They both stem from not paying certain wages. So, the court decided to treat the penalties for these the same way. According to Labor Code section 203, bosses can be penalized only if they knowingly didn’t pay. And if the boss thought they didn’t have to pay, this is not seen as a wrongful act.4 The court said the same rule goes for section 226’s penalties.
Relationship with Labor Code Section 203
In the case of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. the court made a key ruling.4 This decision links the rules for punishable acts under Labor Code sections 226 and 203. Now, by matching the meaning of a ‘willful’ breach in section 203 with the legal defense of good faith in section 226, there’s a steady way to check if a boss broke the law on wage statements or delays in final pay.
Legislative Intent Behind Wage Statement Penalties
The court understood that the rule in section 226 aims to correct those who2 “deliberately fail[ed] to provide wage information to their employees.” It’s not meant for those who try their best but still get it wrong. The court said the fines under section 226 are more about warning and punishing. They’re not meant to make employees richer.2
In the Naranjo case, the court’s decision makes sense with what section 226 wants to do. Its goal is to punish deliberate violations of the wage rules. It’s not to hurt employers who believe they’re following the law, even if they’re wrong.4 This approach keeps the penalty part working by deterring and punishing2 those who lie about wages. But it also makes sure those making an honest mistake about the rules don’t get fined.4
| Key Findings |
Impact |
| The court found that the legislature’s intent behind section 226’s penalty provision was to punish deliberate violations, not good faith mistakes.2 |
This aligns the Naranjo decision with the legislative intent behind wage statement penalties, which are meant to deter and punish employers, not compensate employees.2 |
| Employers can rely on objectively reasonable mistakes of law or legal uncertainties to assert the good faith defense.4 |
This preserves the penalty provision’s role in deterring and punishing deliberate violations, while avoiding penalties for good faith mistakes.4 |
Addressing Concerns of Incentivizing Ignorance
Naranjo worried that allowing a good faith defense for employers might lead to ignorantly breaking the law.5 The California Supreme Court, however, disagreed. They said courts already check if an employer’s belief was reasonable. So, they saw no big problem with adding a good faith defense to this.5
Objective Reasonableness Standard
The court clarified this isn’t about letting people off for not knowing. It’s more like if an employer truly didn’t know because the law was muddy, they might not get penalized. But, those without a strong reason for messing up will still face consequences.5
Avoiding Adverse Incentives
The objective reasonableness standard is key here. It makes sure there’s no green light for ignoring the law. Employers facing genuine legal fuzziness and acting reasonably won’t get penalized. Yet, those who just didn’t bother will still have to pay up.5
Employer Takeaways from Naranjo Decision
In the Naranjo case, employers scored a win at the California Supreme Court.2 Now, employers won’t face penalties if they thought their wage statements followed the law closely enough. But, employees can still get help from the court and ask for attorney fees if they show the wage statements were incorrect. And, using a “we thought it was right” excuse won’t work against their claim.2 So, it’s advised that all employers check in regularly with experts to make sure their wage statements are top notch.
Importance of Periodic Wage Statement Audits
To keep up with the wage statement rules, doing regular checks is key.2 Working with experts in labor and employment law helps. This way, if there’s a lawsuit about your wage statements, you can show you tried to get it right. The Naranjo case says having a solid reason to believe your statements were correct is important.2
By frequently looking at and adjusting your wage statements, you cut the chance of fines. Plus, your employees get clear and correct pay details.
Establishing Good Faith Defense Win for employers
Employers need to show they thought their wage statements were legal to avoid claims. They can argue they made a mistake in understanding the law. Or that the law was unclear. This can help their case.1
Citing Legal Uncertainty
In a key case, the California Supreme Court settled a disagreement. It decided that if employers acted in good faith, they might escape penalties.1 To do this, they need to prove they had a solid reason to believe their records followed the law accurately.1
Providing Evidence of Reasonable Mistake
The aim of the good faith defense is not to excuse ignorance. It’s to protect those who honestly didn’t know the law well. But made logical mistakes about it.1 Employers have to prove that their understanding of the law was reasonable.
This has been made clear by the state’s highest court. They want to stop companies from knowingly breaking the law. While not punishing those who tried to get it right. This is in regard to how wage statements are handled.6 A good faith effort, even if it ends up being not entirely correct, can save companies from severe penalties under the law.12
Conclusion
The Naranjo decision is a big win for California employers. They can avoid penalties for wage statement mistakes if they tried to follow the law. However, it’s crucial that they make sure their wage statements are correct. This is because they could still have to pay fines or the lawyer’s fees if their statements are off.2 It’s a good idea for employers to have their wage records checked by experts often to stay out of trouble.
The California Supreme Court supported employers in the Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. case. They ruled that a good faith defense can be used against certain fines under the Labor Code.1 The court said it’s okay if employers tried to get it right but made a mistake. This decision gives hope to employers dealing with complex wage statement laws.4
Although the Naranjo case helps employers, they still need to be careful. The court stated that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse. But, it will protect those who tried their best and made a reasonable error.1 To be ready, employers should check their wage statements with legal experts. This can help them use the good faith defense successfully if needed.
FAQ
What were the key facts in the Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services case?
Gustavo Naranjo was a security guard at Spectrum Security Services. He sued because he believed he was not paid properly. This included not getting meal period premiums and getting wrong wage statements.
Part of his claim was that the statements he got didn’t show the meal period premiums he should have received, which he thought was against the law.
What was the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the Naranjo case?
The Court stated that companies that believe they’re giving the right info on wage statements can’t be penalized. They think the penalties’ goal is to deter and punish, so if a company tries to do right, they shouldn’t be punished.
How did the court analyze the employer’s mental state and the statutory context?
The Court carefully considered what an employer must know to be guilty of a wage statement violation. They looked at the law directly and its context. They said that penalties aim at discouraging mistakes, but not if the mistake was made in good faith.
What was the purpose of the penalties under Labor Code section 226(e)?
The Supreme Court said the penalties weren’t meant to make companies pay up. Their purpose is to stop and punish the intentional hiding of pay info. If a company tries to be fair but makes a mistake, they shouldn’t have to pay these penalties.
How did the Naranjo decision impact employers in California?
Naranjo was a win for companies in California. Now, if a company believed its wage info was right, it won’t get penalized under Labor Code section 226.
How did the court harmonize the penalties under Labor Code sections 226 and 203?
The Court said both code sections are usually linked. They come up with the same payment problem. So, they decided to align how to deal with fines when the failure is the same.
What was the court’s analysis of the legislative intent behind the wage statement penalties?
The Court said the rule aims to punish those who intentionally don’t give wage info. It’s not to punish honest mistakes about the law.
How did the court address concerns about the good faith defense incentivizing employer ignorance?
Judges evaluate if an employer’s beliefs were reasonable without looking at ignorance. So, recognizing a good faith defense won’t help the clueless. It’s to save those who tried to do right but misunderstood the law.
What steps should employers take after the Naranjo decision?
Companies should check their wage statements often with the help of labor experts. Doing this can help stay within the law. Even with a good faith defense, there may still be other legal consequences.
How can employers establish a good faith defense to wage statement penalties?
To protect against penalties, employers must show their belief in giving the right info was reasonable. They can point to laws that were unclear or other valid reasons for their actions.
Source Links
- https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/in-a-rare-win-for-california-employers-good-faith-is-good-enough-to-avoid-wage-statement-penalties-us/
- https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/rare-win-employers-the-california-supreme-court-holds-wage-statement-penalties
- https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2024/05/california-supreme-court-wage-penalty-case
- https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/california_supreme_court_recognizes_employers_good_faith_defense_labor_code_wage_statement_0524.html
- https://natlawreview.com/article/rare-win-employers-california-supreme-court-holds-wage-statement-penalties-are-not
- https://www.hansonbridgett.com/publication/240513-6000-wage-statement-penalties
Rare Win for California Employers Naranjo v. Spectrum. California Supreme Court is a win for employers.
Being a California employer, victories are rare when it comes to employee lawsuits. However, the recent Supreme Court win in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. shines a light of hope for us. This case focused on penalties for incorrect wage statements under California’s Labor Code Section 226. It introduced a crucial “good faith defense” for employers12.
Gustavo Naranjo, the plaintiff, worked for Spectrum Security Services as a security guard. He claimed he was wrongfully terminated after taking a meal break. Naranjo then led a class action lawsuit, alleging he didn’t receive owed meal premiums and had inaccuracies in his wage statements. He demanded wage statement penalties, arguing his statements were flawed for not including meal period premiums12.
Yet, despite Naranjo’s assertions, the California Supreme Court made a unanimous ruling in favor of Spectrum. The Court determined that Spectrum acted in good faith believing their wage statements met legal requirements. This decision blocked Naranjo from collecting penalties under section 226, subdivision (e)12.
Key Takeaways
Background Facts on Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services
Gustavo Naranjo was a security guard for Spectrum Security Services, Inc.3 He filed a lawsuit that included claims about his pay. These claims were about not receiving money for meal times and getting wrong pay statements.1 He said his pay was not right because it didn’t include extra pay for meals.1
Plaintiff’s Claims and Lawsuit
Naranjo’s lawsuit targeted his employer, Spectrum Security Services, Inc.1 His claims involved unpaid meal premiums and incorrect pay notices.1
Wage Statement Penalties Sought by Plaintiff
In his case, Naranjo focused on getting penalties for wrong wage statements.1 He argued his employer’s statements did not include meal pay he should have gotten.1
California Supreme Court Decision
Ruling on Wage Statement Penalties
The California Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal. It said that if employers genuinely think they have given correct wage statements, they won’t face penalties.4
Evaluation of Employer’s Mental State
The court focused primarily on what an employer needs to know to avoid breaking the wage statement rule.4
Analysis of Statutory Context
They examined the law itself and why it includes penalties. The goal is to stop bad actions from happening again. If someone thought they were following the law in good faith, they shouldn’t get penalized.4
In the case of3 Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of employers. It said employers are innocent if they truly believed they did not break wage statement rules. This was a key win for employers in California.3
The court highlighted that fines under section 226 are for those who intentionally mislead employees about their wages. It’s not for those who made honest mistakes in trying to give accurate information.2
Naranjo’s case was about missing meal break premiums in wage statements. The court found the employers not guilty because they honestly believed they followed the law.3
This ruling now means that employers can defend against claims with a strong good faith argument. Mistakes that weren’t made with bad intent are less likely to be heavily punished.3
In the California business world, this case’s outcome is seen as a major success for employers.3 The wage statement laws were often tripped over by small mistakes, resulting in big fines. This didn’t help anyone. Now, California employers can look forward to a more balanced system that integrates additional fairness in place.3
Purpose of Penalties and Good Faith Defense
The California Supreme Court says penalties under Labor Code section 226(e) aim to deter and punish, not compensate.1 They noted that well-meaning people shouldn’t worry if they make a mistake despite trying to follow the law. With that said you should not simply ignore or brush off the requirements that are still enacted and still in place.
They said the main goal is to keep everyone honest, not to pay for getting the law wrong.2 Employers are less likely to be fined if they are able to prove they honestly believed they were doing things right.
If a company thought it was doing the right thing and used incorrect wage statements, they might not get fined. But they could still have to fix their mistakes and pay for legal fees and other employment related items.2
To stay out of trouble, a good tip for companies is to always check their wage statements with qualified California employer lawyers.2
Rare Win for California Employers Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. Court win.
The Naranjo decision marks a rare win for Californian employers by the state’s Supreme Court.2 It means from now on, employers could avoid facing penalties under Labor Code section 226 for mistakes in wage statements. This is as long as they can show they believed in good faith that the statements were correct.2 Such a ruling may help shield them from unintended errors in wage statements.1
If employers fail to follow wage statement laws on purpose, employees can ask for penalties up to $4,000.2 This happened in the case Naranjo brought, which included wage and hour complaints.2 The California Supreme Court’s decision in the Naranjo case is unusual as it favors employers.2
So, if employers truly believed their wage statements were right, they potentially won’t be fined under Labor Code section 226.2 But, employees can still seek court orders to stop this and get legal costs if the wage statements were indeed wrong. Employers can’t use the ‘good faith belief’ as defense in these cases.2 Because of this, companies are urged to always double-check their wage statements with advice from experts in labor and employment law.2
Employer Lawyer LA offers a FREE 15 Minute consultation for California Employers.
Harmonizing Penalties Across Labor Code Provisions paga
The court said claims under sections 226 and 203 of the Labor Code often come up together.4 They both stem from not paying certain wages. So, the court decided to treat the penalties for these the same way. According to Labor Code section 203, bosses can be penalized only if they knowingly didn’t pay. And if the boss thought they didn’t have to pay, this is not seen as a wrongful act.4 The court said the same rule goes for section 226’s penalties.
Relationship with Labor Code Section 203
In the case of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. the court made a key ruling.4 This decision links the rules for punishable acts under Labor Code sections 226 and 203. Now, by matching the meaning of a ‘willful’ breach in section 203 with the legal defense of good faith in section 226, there’s a steady way to check if a boss broke the law on wage statements or delays in final pay.
Legislative Intent Behind Wage Statement Penalties
The court understood that the rule in section 226 aims to correct those who2 “deliberately fail[ed] to provide wage information to their employees.” It’s not meant for those who try their best but still get it wrong. The court said the fines under section 226 are more about warning and punishing. They’re not meant to make employees richer.2
In the Naranjo case, the court’s decision makes sense with what section 226 wants to do. Its goal is to punish deliberate violations of the wage rules. It’s not to hurt employers who believe they’re following the law, even if they’re wrong.4 This approach keeps the penalty part working by deterring and punishing2 those who lie about wages. But it also makes sure those making an honest mistake about the rules don’t get fined.4
Addressing Concerns of Incentivizing Ignorance
Naranjo worried that allowing a good faith defense for employers might lead to ignorantly breaking the law.5 The California Supreme Court, however, disagreed. They said courts already check if an employer’s belief was reasonable. So, they saw no big problem with adding a good faith defense to this.5
Objective Reasonableness Standard
The court clarified this isn’t about letting people off for not knowing. It’s more like if an employer truly didn’t know because the law was muddy, they might not get penalized. But, those without a strong reason for messing up will still face consequences.5
Avoiding Adverse Incentives
The objective reasonableness standard is key here. It makes sure there’s no green light for ignoring the law. Employers facing genuine legal fuzziness and acting reasonably won’t get penalized. Yet, those who just didn’t bother will still have to pay up.5
Employer Takeaways from Naranjo Decision
In the Naranjo case, employers scored a win at the California Supreme Court.2 Now, employers won’t face penalties if they thought their wage statements followed the law closely enough. But, employees can still get help from the court and ask for attorney fees if they show the wage statements were incorrect. And, using a “we thought it was right” excuse won’t work against their claim.2 So, it’s advised that all employers check in regularly with experts to make sure their wage statements are top notch.
Importance of Periodic Wage Statement Audits
To keep up with the wage statement rules, doing regular checks is key.2 Working with experts in labor and employment law helps. This way, if there’s a lawsuit about your wage statements, you can show you tried to get it right. The Naranjo case says having a solid reason to believe your statements were correct is important.2
By frequently looking at and adjusting your wage statements, you cut the chance of fines. Plus, your employees get clear and correct pay details.
Establishing Good Faith Defense Win for employers
Employers need to show they thought their wage statements were legal to avoid claims. They can argue they made a mistake in understanding the law. Or that the law was unclear. This can help their case.1
Citing Legal Uncertainty
In a key case, the California Supreme Court settled a disagreement. It decided that if employers acted in good faith, they might escape penalties.1 To do this, they need to prove they had a solid reason to believe their records followed the law accurately.1
Providing Evidence of Reasonable Mistake
The aim of the good faith defense is not to excuse ignorance. It’s to protect those who honestly didn’t know the law well. But made logical mistakes about it.1 Employers have to prove that their understanding of the law was reasonable.
This has been made clear by the state’s highest court. They want to stop companies from knowingly breaking the law. While not punishing those who tried to get it right. This is in regard to how wage statements are handled.6 A good faith effort, even if it ends up being not entirely correct, can save companies from severe penalties under the law.12
Conclusion
The Naranjo decision is a big win for California employers. They can avoid penalties for wage statement mistakes if they tried to follow the law. However, it’s crucial that they make sure their wage statements are correct. This is because they could still have to pay fines or the lawyer’s fees if their statements are off.2 It’s a good idea for employers to have their wage records checked by experts often to stay out of trouble.
The California Supreme Court supported employers in the Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. case. They ruled that a good faith defense can be used against certain fines under the Labor Code.1 The court said it’s okay if employers tried to get it right but made a mistake. This decision gives hope to employers dealing with complex wage statement laws.4
Although the Naranjo case helps employers, they still need to be careful. The court stated that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse. But, it will protect those who tried their best and made a reasonable error.1 To be ready, employers should check their wage statements with legal experts. This can help them use the good faith defense successfully if needed.
FAQ
What were the key facts in the Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services case?
Gustavo Naranjo was a security guard at Spectrum Security Services. He sued because he believed he was not paid properly. This included not getting meal period premiums and getting wrong wage statements.
Part of his claim was that the statements he got didn’t show the meal period premiums he should have received, which he thought was against the law.
What was the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the Naranjo case?
The Court stated that companies that believe they’re giving the right info on wage statements can’t be penalized. They think the penalties’ goal is to deter and punish, so if a company tries to do right, they shouldn’t be punished.
How did the court analyze the employer’s mental state and the statutory context?
The Court carefully considered what an employer must know to be guilty of a wage statement violation. They looked at the law directly and its context. They said that penalties aim at discouraging mistakes, but not if the mistake was made in good faith.
What was the purpose of the penalties under Labor Code section 226(e)?
The Supreme Court said the penalties weren’t meant to make companies pay up. Their purpose is to stop and punish the intentional hiding of pay info. If a company tries to be fair but makes a mistake, they shouldn’t have to pay these penalties.
How did the Naranjo decision impact employers in California?
Naranjo was a win for companies in California. Now, if a company believed its wage info was right, it won’t get penalized under Labor Code section 226.
How did the court harmonize the penalties under Labor Code sections 226 and 203?
The Court said both code sections are usually linked. They come up with the same payment problem. So, they decided to align how to deal with fines when the failure is the same.
What was the court’s analysis of the legislative intent behind the wage statement penalties?
The Court said the rule aims to punish those who intentionally don’t give wage info. It’s not to punish honest mistakes about the law.
How did the court address concerns about the good faith defense incentivizing employer ignorance?
Judges evaluate if an employer’s beliefs were reasonable without looking at ignorance. So, recognizing a good faith defense won’t help the clueless. It’s to save those who tried to do right but misunderstood the law.
What steps should employers take after the Naranjo decision?
Companies should check their wage statements often with the help of labor experts. Doing this can help stay within the law. Even with a good faith defense, there may still be other legal consequences.
How can employers establish a good faith defense to wage statement penalties?
To protect against penalties, employers must show their belief in giving the right info was reasonable. They can point to laws that were unclear or other valid reasons for their actions.
Source Links
Top-Rated Employment Lawyers Near Me | Find the Best Employment Law Attorney
Think those California taxes only target billionaires? Think again!