Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration has filed a new lawsuit to force the state controller to pay California government workers the federal minimum wage.

The Department of Personnel Administration filed the lawsuit Tuesday against Controller John Chiang in Sacramento County Superior Court.

The suit seeks a restraining order that would force Chiang to pay state employees $7.25 an hour, rather than their full salaries.

Last week, an appellate court ruled Schwarzenegger had the authority to order the minimum wage because the state has not passed a budget for the current fiscal year. His order would cover about 200,000 workers.

The controller said he doesn't have to follow the order because the state's computer payroll system can't handle the change. A telephone message left for the controller was not immediately returned.

A federal appeals court has ruled against pilots from the old America West airlines in their dispute with their union at US Airways.

The two airlines combined in 2005, but their pilots are still fighting over seniority rights. Six pilots from the old America West sued their union, saying it planned to ignore an arbitrator's decision that it believed had favored the America West pilots. Last year a judge agreed with the America West pilots and ordered the union to follow the arbitrator's decision.

Friday's decision from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says it's too soon to say that the union has harmed the America West pilots because a new contract would have to be ratified first.

Q. Do I need a lawyer to review my contract before I sign it?

Yes.  The number one mistake an employee can make is to sign an employment contract without seeking legal counsel beforehand.  Often the employee fails to ask for contract terms that will protect what he brings to a new job.  For example, if an employee brings his customers with him to a new job, he must have the employment contract exclude these customers from being considered the new employer’s customers.  Otherwise, when the employee leaves the company and tries to take those customers with him, the company has a claim that those customers are no longer his to take.  The cost of litigating over this dispute will be far greater than the cost of seeking legal counsel to review the employment agreement before signing it.

Dallas Emploement Lawyer

Q. I have an employment contract that states it is for a one (1) year term.  Does that mean the company must employ me for one year?

Not necessarily.  The contract may provide that the company may terminate the agreement for any reason after providing an employee 30 days notice.  In such a case, the employee only has a 30 day term contract, not a one (1) year contract.

Q. I have a contract that states the company will   “consider” me for bonus payments.  Does this mean it is obligated to pay me the bonus payments?

No. Such language only obligates the company to consider you for possible payment.  The company can simply state they considered you and decided not to pay you any bonus payments.  More specific language is needed to guarantee an employee will receive bonus payments.

Weinberg Law Firm
6425 Willow Creek Drive
Plano, Texas 75093

Tel. (972) 403 - 3330

The Supreme Court appears likely to rule against public employees who claimed a local government violated their privacy by reading racy text messages they sent on their employers' account.

Several justices said Monday that the employer, the Ontario, Calif., police department, acted reasonably in monitoring the text messages in view of its written policy warning employees they have no guarantee of privacy in the use of office computer and electronics equipment.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he didn't see "anything, quite honestly, unreasonable about that."

While the case involves government workers, the decision could have broader privacy implications as courts continue to sort out privacy issues in the digital age. Many employers, including Ontario, tell workers there is no guarantee of privacy in anything sent over their company- or government-provided computers, cell phones or pagers.

The case arose when the Ontario department decided to audit text message usage to see whether its SWAT team officers were using them too often for personal reasons. Three police officers and another employee complained that the department improperly snooped on their electronic exchanges, including many that were said to be sexually explicit.

Ms. Weinberg provides corporations with practical and proactive labor and employment law counseling services. She works closely with high-tech and start-up companies in the Richardson, Plano, Frisco and Dallas areas.

Non-compete agreements

Confidentiality agreements

Severance agreements

Employment contracts

Education

Ms. Weinberg received her J.D. from Hofstra University School of Law in 1985 and was an Associate Editor of the Hofstra Law Review.
Ms. Weinberg graduated Magna Cum Laude from the State University of New York at Albany with a B.A. in History and Education.

Honors

Named as a Texas "Super Lawyer" in Labor and Employment law, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 & 2003.
Member of Strathmore's Who's Who 2002-2003.
Elected to Membership in the Fellows of the Texas Bar Foundation 2008

Expertise

Successfully negotiating employment and severance packages.
Successfully defending corporations and individuals against sexual harassment, race, age and religious discrimination claims.
Supervising out of state litigation to ensure cohesive and consistent strategies.
Negotiating with federal agencies to reduce liability exposure and avoiding additional liability for monetary fines and attorney fees.
Providing confidential group and one-on-one sensitivity training to individuals

Highlights of some high-profile cases that the Supreme Court will take up in its term that begins Monday:

_Guns: The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms has never been held to apply to state and local laws restricting guns. The court is taking up a challenge to a handgun ban in Chicago to decide whether this right, like many others in the Bill of Rights, acts to restrict state and local laws or only federal statutes. If the court sides with gun rights supporters, lawsuits to overturn all manner of gun control laws are likely.

_Animal cruelty videos: A 1999 federal law bars depictions of acts of animal cruelty, including pit bull fights. A federal appeals court overturned a Virginia man's conviction and struck down the law because it impermissibly restricted his First Amendment rights. The Obama administration says courts should treat this issue the same as child pornography and rule that pictures and videos deserve no constitutional protection.

_Mojave cross: For most of the past 75 years, a cross on public land in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve has stood as a memorial to World War I soldiers. The court takes up a long-running legal fight over whether the cross, which Congress declared a national memorial, violates First Amendment religious protections despite Congress' decision to transfer the land to private ownership.

_Mutual fund fees: A fight over the fees paid to an investment adviser gives the court a timely chance to weigh in on compensation paid to financial services executives. Individual mutual fund investors claim in a suit that they are paying unreasonably higher fees than institutional investors to the adviser who chooses their funds' stocks. The court could use this case to resolve disagreements among lower courts about whether plaintiffs have to prove merely that the fees are excessive or demonstrate that the adviser misled the mutual funds' directors who approved the fees.