Ann Guleser Los Angeles Employment LawyerBar Admissions
California - 2000
University of Montana School of Law, Missoula, Montana J.D. - 1999 California State University, Northridge, California B.A. - 1995
Ann Guleser of the Employment Lawyers Group won on appeal before Division 8 of the 2nd Appellate District on Vasquez v. Franklin Management. This case was an appeal of a sustained demurrer on whether it was intolerable for a $10.00 an hour employee to quit because his employer refused to reimburse him for unpaid mileage that had the effect of bringing his hourly wage down below minimum wage. During the argument of the case in front of the court of appeal, the court commented that failing to pay mileage reimbursements to a $10.00 hour employee was, “Terrible.” The court wanted the other side to explain why the situation was not intolerable. The court argued that the Plaintiff quit over not receiving reimbursements. The other justices chimed in to say, “Exactly, that is why it was intolerable. He quit.” The court believed that it was intolerable under these facts whereby a lack of reimbursements brought the average hourly wage below minimum wage. The court stated that if this involved an executive maybe not, but this was not an executive.
If the appellate court decides not to publish Vasquez v. Franklin Management, the Employment Lawyers Group will file papers that this opinion indicating that California Labor Code Section 2802 regarding employee reimbursements qualifying as a public policy justifying wrongful termination or constructive wrongful termination (being forced to quit) should be published.
Accordingly, California Labor Code Section 2802 regarding employee reimbursements qualifying as a public policy justifying wrongful termination or constructive wrongful termination (being forced to quit).
Ann Guleser also won the appeal on Dominguez v. Washington Mutual Bank (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 714, 720–721, wherein the court held that Plaintiff’s DFEH complaint was timely under an equitable exception to the one-year deadline known as the continuing violation doctrine because the conduct was similar in kind to the conduct that fell outside the limitations period, it was reasonably frequent, and it had not yet acquired a degree of permanence. Dominguez at 720–721, CACI 2508.