Photo of Ryan Abernethy

Ryan Abernethy is a shareholder in the firm’s Labor & Employment and Litigation practice groups. Ryan has successfully represented clients in all areas of employment law including the defense of claims involving workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage and hour issues, trade secrets infringements and class actions.  He also regularly counsels clients regarding compliance, risk management, policy preparation and training.

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

When starting a business, there are many common employment issues to consider. Join Weintraub attorneys Meagan Bainbridge and Ryan Abernethy in Part Two of their Employment Start-Up Kit for Start-Ups series for California Employment News, where they cover employee payroll, HR, and other important things for new businesses to consider to limit liability.

There are many common employment issues that start-ups might face. Weintraub attorneys Meagan Bainbridge and Ryan Abernethy help review these issues in a two-part series for California Employment News. Join them in part one, which covers independent contractor classification and employment exemptions.Continue Reading California Employment News: The Employment Start-Up Kit for Start-Ups – Part 1

Almost exactly one year ago, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Gustavo Naranjo v Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (“Naranjo”), reviewing a decision by the Second Appellate District (the “Appellate Court”) in 2019. As we discussed in our California Employment News episode at that time (available here on YouTube, or here on our podcast) and here on our blog, the Supreme Court’s decision opened the flood-gates for employees to recover waiting-time and wage statement penalties whenever meal or rest period premiums went unpaid. This ruling immediately hyper-inflating the value of many wage and hour class actions across the state. On remand, the Appellate Court halted this inflation in some instances by clarifying that such penalties are not available to a class of employees where the employer has a good faith dispute that the premiums were due.Continue Reading Safe Harbor from Class-Based Waiting Time and Wage Statement Penalties for Employers with “Good Faith Disputes” That Meal or Rest Period Premiums Were Owed — the Latest Chapter in the Naranjo Saga

California recently passed Senate Bill 731 (“SB 731”) into law which significantly expands the automatic sealing eligibility of most felonies that occurred on or after January 1, 2005, if certain circumstances are met. This will impact the type of records employers can lawfully rely upon for hiring decisions after conducting employment background checks.

Continue Reading California Expands Criminal Record Relief