Episodi

  • The Case That Changed California Employment Law | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-5

    The Case That Changed California Employment Law | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-5
    Oct 12 2026
    Join host Drew Levine of Levine Labor Law as he sits down with attorney Lauren Grochow to discuss the realities of labor law. This conversation highlights the impact of the Dynamex case in California, which significantly redefined the criteria for classifying individuals as independent contractors. In this episode of the Bald Legal Podcast, we welcome Lauren Grochow, owner of Grochow Law, to provide her expert perspective on the legal landscape. This conversation explores how the law is intended to work for employees and the practical application of employment rights in everyday situations. Whether you are navigating a complex workplace issue or simply want to understand the legal protections available to you, this discussion sheds light on the advocate's role in the labor law process. We break down the professional insights necessary to ensure you are informed about your legal rights when dealing with employer disputes. Chapters: 00:00 - Dynamex Case: Worker Misclassification Explained 03:31 - Employer Savings Through Misclassification 06:24 - Contractor vs. Employee: Key Differences 09:27 - Dynamex Drivers Reclassified for Savings 12:44 - Drivers Sue Over Contractor Status 15:38 - The ABC Test for Worker Classification 18:53 - Control, Business, and Competition Factors 20:55 - Legislature Adopts ABC Test, Defines Exceptions 24:00 - Professional and Performing Arts Exemptions 26:39 - Borello Test, Gig Workers, and Protections 29:28 - Misclassification Penalties and Remedies 31:32 - Employer Penalties, Lawsuits, and Fees
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    34 min
  • The Apple Pie Lawsuit: Robey v. McKesson Explained | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-3

    The Apple Pie Lawsuit: Robey v. McKesson Explained | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-3
    Sep 28 2026
    How did a simple apple pie become key evidence in a workplacediscrimination lawsuit? In this episode, employment attorneys Drew Levine (Levine Labor Law) and Alexander Vialy break down Robey v. McKesson Corporation, a case where a supervisor's cruelty, from excluding an employee from office treats to mocking her medical condition, led to a jury verdict holding both the company and the supervisor personally liable. In this episode, we unpack disparate treatment vs. disparate impact, how harassment and discrimination can overlap, and what this case means for employee rights today.Chapters:00:00 - Apple Pie Case and Legal Nuances09:12 - McKesson, Roby, and Panic Attacks12:01 - Disparate Impact vs. Treatment15:00 - Policy Neutrality and Workplace Realities18:26 - Unfair Termination of Disabled Workers20:51 - Medication Side Effects and Mistreatment24:04 - Disability Termination and Discrimination27:19 - Discrimination and Harassment Simultaneously30:17 - Supervisor Liability for Claims33:23 - Broadening Law for Fair Civil Rights
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    35 min
  • She Proved Discrimination and Still Lost the Case | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-4

    She Proved Discrimination and Still Lost the Case | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-4
    Oct 5 2026
    In this episode, I am joined by my former boss and trusted mentor, John Barber. We discuss the essential role of guidance in the legal profession and how having a seasoned colleague can help you refine your legal skills over time. This discussion is for anyone looking to understand the human side of professional development within the law. Whether you are just starting out or are further along in your practice, the lessons on building a foundation in employment law are universal. We reflect on the collaborative relationships that shape our careers and the importance of learning from those who have paved the way before us. Subscribe to the Bald Legal Podcast for weekly insights into the practice of law, and leave a comment sharing a piece of professional advice that changed your career. 00:00:05 - Podcast Intro and Case Preview 00:03:00 - Mixed-Motive Termination Cases 00:06:31 - Attorney Fees and Retaliation 00:09:45 - Arbitrator's Ruling and Risk 00:13:00 - Fees Drive Settlement Value 00:16:08 - Seven-Figure Fee Application 00:18:53 - Pregnancy Discrimination Discussion 00:22:02 - Performance vs. Discriminatory Comments 00:24:49 - Court's Role in Legal Outcomes 00:28:06 - Motivating Factor and Remedies 00:31:01 - Attorney's Fees: May vs. Will 00:33:30 - Advice for Employees 00:37:23 - Lawyer's Focus: Justice
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    41 min
  • Fired for Not Being "Hot Enough": Yanowitz v. L'Oréal Explained | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-2

    Fired for Not Being "Hot Enough": Yanowitz v. L'Oréal Explained | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-2
    Sep 21 2026
    In this episode, employment attorney Drew Levine, joined by personal injury attorney Connor Traut, break down one of the most jaw-dropping cases in California employment law: Yanowitz v. L'Oréal USA. A senior executive orders a regional manager to fire a top-performing sales associate for one reason: she wasn't considered attractive enough. She refuses, and what happens next reshapes how California courts define retaliation and "protected opposition" under FEHA, even when you never say the word "discrimination." We dig into what "reasonable belief" really means, why conduct can speak louder than legal buzzwords, and how L'Oréal ended up paying the price for punishing an employee who simply said no. Chapters: 00:05 - Introduction: Yanowitz v. L'Oréal 03:23 - Law, Deterrence, and Workplace Protections 07:00 - Documentation and Legal Evolution 10:30 - Documenting Harm and Legal Changes 14:10 - Retaliation for Refusing Illegal Orders 17:21 - Attorneys Argue Facts and Credibility 20:21 - L'Oréal's Risky Appeal and Exposure 23:50 - Employment Law and Email's Impact 26:39 - Reasonable Belief Protects Employees 30:11 - Legal Paths for Victims Seeking Justice
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    43 min
  • When Your Boss Asks You to Break the Law: Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-1

    When Your Boss Asks You to Break the Law: Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-1
    Sep 15 2026
    In this episode of Bald Legal, employment attorneys Drew Levine (Levine Labor Law) and Alexander Vialy break down Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., the landmark case that fundamentally reshaped California employment law. When an ARCO employee was fired for refusing to participate in an illegal price-fixing scheme, his refusal sparked a legal revolution that established the right to sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In this episode, we unpack the limits of at-will employment, how tort law stepped in where contract law failed, and why standing up against illegal employer demands remains a protected right today. Chapters: 00:06 - Wrongful termination and ARCO case 03:21 - Employment law evolution and moral wrongdoing 06:52 - California labor code and Tameny case 09:33 - Gordon Tameny's price fixing role 11:41 - Tameny's wrongful discharge suit 15:00 - Contract vs. tort in wrongful termination 18:29 - Termination violating public policy 22:00 - Whistleblower protection and fair employment 25:15 - California at-will employment explained 27:56 - At-will employment not absolute
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    37 min
  • Bald Legal | Sneak Peek

    Bald Legal | Sneak Peek
    Sep 9 2026
    Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    1 min