Photo of Daniel Kim

Daniel Kim

Subscribe to Daniel Kim's Posts

Daniel Kim is a Shareholder in Weintraub Tobin’s Trusts & Estates Litigation practice group.  His practice focuses on all aspects of Trusts and Estates litigation, including fiduciary abuse, elder financial abuse, contested trust administrations, probate, and contested conservatorships. Daniel applies his litigation expertise in highly contentious and complicated trust and estate disputes to help direct the matters towards resolution, where possible, or successful trials and appeals.

Follow:Read more about Daniel KimDaniel's Linkedin Profile

This article was first published in Volume 29, Issue 2, 2023 of the California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, reprinted by permission.

I.      SYNOPSIS

Ed was a vibrant and healthy 85-year-old. One day, he decided to sign an advance healthcare directive providing that if his physical condition ever declined, he wished to remain in his home as long as possible with the help of live-in caregivers and other staff, as needed. Although his wife, Donna, and his daughter, Taylor, tried to assist Ed on their own, Ed’s growing needs became more than they could handle. They decided to bring in a live-in caregiver, Paula, who was a family friend. Paula was loosely hired by all three of them. Ed and his wife, Donna, were trustees of their family revocable trust. Taylor was Ed’s acting agent under his advance healthcare directive. No written employment agreement was signed by the parties. Paula was expected to work a “standard” workday, Monday through Friday, but was expected to be “on-call” during the evenings, weekends, and holidays. The family verbally agreed to pay Paula $500 per week, which was more than she made at her last job, so she felt she was adequately compensated. Moreover, over the years, Ed repeatedly promised her that after he passed, his estate would be sure to “take care of her.” Based on this promise, Paula selflessly cared for Ed until he sadly passed away more than ten years later. She did not pursue any other employment, despite having a number of great opportunities.Continue Reading Where Agreements Won’t Work – A Word to the Wise Regarding Strict Wage and Hour Liability and Related Claims

As previously reported here, earlier this year a federal district court in Texas issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Labor (“DOL”) from enforcing the new Persuader Rule, which was to go into effect as of July 1, 2016. Last week, the court issued a ruling converting its preliminary injunction into a permanent…

In a 3-1 ruling, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) recently revised its back pay formula and radically departed from its traditional remedy for compensating employees who have been unlawfully terminated. The Board’s ruling now supports employees’ rights to recover search-for-work and interim employment expenses, regardless of whether the employees have interim earnings and regardless…

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) recently issued new guidance for employers to prevent discrimination against transgender employees, who are protected under California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”). Since 2012, FEHA protection has been extended to include gender identity and gender expression categories, and defines “gender expression” to mean a “person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” The DFEH’s new brochure, called “Transgender Rights in the Workplace” (available here), makes clear that employers must allow transgender employees access to restroom, shower, locker room and other such facilities that correspond with their gender identity. It also suggests that providing individual or unisex restrooms, where possible, can enhance privacy for all employees.
Continue Reading DFEH Releases New Guidance Regarding Transgender Employees

The Ninth Circuit recently held that during an EEOC investigation, employers can be forced to produce “pedigree information” (i.e., name, telephone number, address, and Social Security number) of their employees or employment applicants. The decision broadens the scope of information that the EEOC can obtain during its investigations and gives the EEOC further grounds to investigate beyond what is arguably “necessary” to make a determination on an EEOC charge.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Allows EEOC To Obtain Private Employee Information During Investigations