Profile

Glenn E. Lerman, Esq. has successfully settled over six hundred disputes as a mediator since 2007, focusing exclusively on employment law matters. As a mediator, Mr. Lerman draws upon 33 years of experience representing both employers and employees in equal measure to bring a clear, balanced point of view, free of prejudices or preferences. His experience as a trial lawyer gives him a real-life perspective on the multifaceted issues presented in employment matters, both legal and emotional, that can confront a mediator and act as obstacles to settlement. Having worked for a major law firm and founded a boutique employment firm, he has a broad and keen understanding of the economics of law, as well as an ability to effectively communicate with litigants from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. These skills, along with a judiciously-used sense of humor, create a unique combination: a mix of experience and temperament that makes him perfectly suited to mediate even the most complex and contentious employment cases.

For nearly 20 years prior to becoming a full-time mediator, Mr. Lerman enjoyed a litigation practice with an exclusive emphasis in all areas of employment law. He has conducted numerous trials, arbitrations, mediations and administrative hearings, and represented clients through trial in state and federal courts, and before numerous public agencies, including the California Labor Commissioner’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mr. Lerman has also counseled employers on day-to-day issues ranging from hiring, discipline and firing, to compliance, training and pre-litigation advice.

Mr. Lerman began his legal career at a preeminent full service law firm in Los Angeles, before forming his own boutique employment law firm managing a diverse case load on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants, for clients ranging from large corporations and mid to small size businesses, to individuals and executives. He is admitted to practice before all California courts and federal courts in the Central District of California.

EXPERTISE

  • Harassment based on Race, Gender, Age, National Origin, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Pregnancy, Disability and Perceived Disability, Religion, or Ethnicity
  • Race Discrimination
  • Gender Discrimination
  • Age Discrimination
  • National Origin Discrimination
  • Sexual Orientation / Gender Identity Discrimination
  • Pregnancy Discrimination
  • Disability and Perceived Disability Discrimination / ADA
  • Sexual Harassment / Assault
  • Retaliation
  • Wrongful Termination / Constructive Discharge
  • Whistleblower Wrongful Termination
  • Leaves of Absence / FMLA / CFRA
  • Equal Pay Act
  • Labor Code Violations
  • Wage and Hour Claims
  • Wage and Hour Class Actions / Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”)
  • Employment Contracts
  • Commissions / Bonuses / Benefits
  • Non-Compete Agreements

EXPERIENCE

  • 2022-Present, Mediator, ADR Services, Inc.
  • 2007-2022, Mediator, Lerman Mediation
  • 1996-2022, Founding Partner, Lerman & Pointer LLP
  • 1989-1996, Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP

EDUCATION

  • 1989, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
  • 1986, B.A. magna cum laude, University of California, Davis

MEMBERSHIPS

  • American Bar Association
  • California Lawyers Association
  • Los Angeles County Bar Association

Representative Cases

HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, GENDER, AGE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, PREGNANCY, DISABILITY AND PERCEIVED DISABILITY, RELIGION, ETHNICITY, ETC.

  • Settled a case in which plaintiff was employed by a large corporation, and was required to work half of his time in Mexico. The plaintiff claimed that he was sexually harassed by his male supervisor and customers of the company as a result of being forced to go to sex clubs to “entertain” clients. The company management claimed that it had no idea such conduct was occurring, that plaintiff had never complained about the conduct, and that there were social media posts suggesting that plaintiff voluntarily participated in these activities.
  • Resolved a case against a large retail company wherein an Orthodox Jewish employee claimed he was required to work during the Jewish Sabbath. Despite complaints to HR that his religion forbade him to work during the Sabbath, the company harassed and pressured him to do so, especially during busy promotional days. Plaintiff claimed he was forced to choose between his religion and his job, and was constructively terminated.
  • Settled a case where the plaintiff was an African American forklift operator at a large warehouse facility. On multiple occasions, pictures of the Ku Klux Klan and burning crosses were taped to his locker, and a noose was left on his windshield. Following an investigation, the company could not determine who was responsible for these acts, and offered plaintiff the opportunity to work at another location much further from his home. The harassment continued and the company allegedly told plaintiff there was nothing else it could do.
  • Resolved matter concerning a female employee of a bank who was repeatedly asked out on a date by her supervisor, but politely declined each time. The supervisor then allegedly began to micromanage the employee, find fault with minor work issues that had never before been an issue, wrote her up, and eventually placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan. The employee quit shortly thereafter.
  • Settled a case regarding an employee of Arab ethnicity who was allegedly harassed by his co-workers. The employee claimed three co-workers told him, “your type is not welcome in America”, “we’ll be watching you”, and asked him if he “was in a sleeper cell”. The employee claimed that his supervisor had witnessed some of these comments and just laughed.

    RACE DISCRIMINATION

    • Settled a case in which plaintiff was an African American mechanic at a trucking company, who complained that his Mexican American co-workers used racial slurs against him and sabotaged his work. During the company investigation, the company was sold and plaintiff and others were “laid off.” While most of the laid off employee were rehired, plaintiff was not.
    • Settled a case regarding an African American warehouse worker of a large corporation, who complained multiple times of racial harassment by his co-workers. Despite substantial evidence of harassment, including photographs of racial epitaphs using plaintiff’s name, the company terminated plaintiff during the investigation, claiming the employee had instigated a physical altercation at the workplace.
    • Resolved a case involving a Native American employee who worked for a large county entity. The employee claimed she was harassed by her supervisor, who called her Pocahontas as a “nickname,” leading to other co-workers doing the same, and told her that if she didn’t like her job, she should “go work in a casino,” among other comments.
    • Resolved a case involving an African American employee who complained that other African American employees were referring to him as the “n-word.” The plaintiff complained to HR, stating that he was deeply offended by being called that name by anyone. The company allegedly told the employee that it wasn’t racial harassment because the ones using the offensive term were themselves African American.

    GENDER/SEX DISCRIMINATION

    • Resolved lawsuit wherein a female accountant working for a firm did not make partner. Employee alleged she was told multiple times that she needed to dress more femininely, speak more femininely, and that she was too aggressive when interacting with clients. The accounting firm denied the accusations, and claimed that while the employee was a “good accountant,” she did not have a sufficient book of business to make partner.
    • Settled a case involving a female employee of an insurance company who was transferred to a new male manager. The employee claimed that the manager had created a “boy’s club” atmosphere, provided male employees with business generation opportunities that she did not get, and spent far more time mentoring the male employees than he did for female employees.
    • Resolved a failure to hire case involving a woman who claimed she was not hired after disclosing in an interview that she loved children and planned to have a big family. The applicant claimed that before this topic came up, the male interviewer was extremely enthusiastic about hiring her, and everything “obviously changed” after the discussion about children.
    • Settled a case concerning a male employee of a high-end clothing chain. After being passed up several times for promotion to a management position in favor of female employees with less tenure and experience, plaintiff was allegedly told “men don’t understand our clientele,” and “only gay men can handle that position.”

    AGE DISCRIMINATION

    • Settled case involving a 67-year-old landscaper who worked for a company that terminated him, alleging that he could no longer perform the essential functions of his job. Plaintiff had worked for the company for 22 years, never received a write-up, and was never put on a performance improvement plan.
    • Resolved a lawsuit brought by a 62-year-old human resources manager, who claimed that the owner of the company kept asking plaintiff when he was going to retire, insinuated that he was getting a little old for work, and asked whether he wanted to spend more time with his grandchildren.
    • Settled a case involving a 47-year-old A&R recording label employee, who allegedly was told repeatedly that he was “too old” to be in the clubs, this was a “young person’s job,” and that “he looked tired all time” and “wasn’t getting enough sleep.”
    • Settled a lawsuit involving a 66-year-old employee for a large manufacturing company, who allegedly was called a “Boomer,” told “he was losing a step,” and that he “always had trouble with new technology.” The company also seemed to be systematically removing older workers and replacing them with younger ones, although the company denied this.

    NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION

    • Settled case involving an employee of Hispanic national origin who worked at a hardware store chain. She alleged that her supervisor called her “a lazy Mexican,” as well as other slurs that created a hostile work environment based on her national origin. She also claimed that she was unfairly singled out for physically difficult work assignments.
    • Settled lawsuit wherein an Arabic and Muslim employee at a tile factory claimed he was called a “terrorist,” “bomb maker” and other slurs based on his national origin. Plaintiff claimed these comments were made in the presence of supervisors who laughed and took no corrective action.
    • Resolved lawsuit brought by Hispanic employees of a convenience store chain who alleged they were harassed and told they could not speak Spanish at work, had to use “American” names at work, and were treated poorly in comparison to non-Hispanic employees.
    • Settled case for an Asian employee who worked at a construction company, and claimed he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his national origin. The employee testified that co-workers said “Asians don’t do construction,” “go home on your rice rocket,” and other slurs. He also claimed that he was given the lowest level jobs on the construction site in an effort to get him to quit his job.

    SEXUAL ORIENTATION/GENDER IDENTITY DISCRIMINATION

    • Resolved a lawsuit wherein a transgender employee was harassed by co-workers for his appearance. Despite plaintiff claiming that he complained to human resources multiple times, the company alleged that no complaints were ever received. Believing that the company would do nothing to protect him, the employee resigned.
    • Settled case in which a transgender employee claimed he was denied the use of the male bathroom close to his work station, and had to walk a significantly farther distance to use a unisex restroom. The employee was then written up and harassed for being absent from his work station for extended periods of time.
    • Settled a case involving a male employee who kept his sexual orientation private from co-workers, until he married his male partner. Several co-workers told him “they thought he was a real man,” that “now they understand why he dresses so nicely,” and that “men shouldn’t be allowed to marry other men.”
    • Resolved a case concerning a lesbian employee of a financial services company who was allegedly told “we have no problem with your sexual orientation, but we would like you to dress more like a woman.” The company also made derogatory comments when the employee wore pants and a sports coat. Plaintiff also claimed she was not invited to certain important client meetings, which hampered her career.

    PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

    • Settled a case where a pregnant temporary employee, placed by a staffing agency for a six-month assignment, was “released” after just one day at work following her announcement that she was pregnant and delivering in three months. The company asserted that the plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions of her job, because half way through the assignment, she would be on parental leave during a critical time for the company.
    • Resolved a case where an employee of a tech company, working in sales, alleged she was removed from a lucrative account shortly after announcing her pregnancy to the company. Then, while on a protected leave of absence, plaintiff’s job was eliminated due to a company restructuring.
    • Settled a case involving the termination of a pregnant employee six weeks after she informed the company she was pregnant. Although the company laid off approximately seven percent of its workforce due to COVID, plaintiff’s exact position was filled a month after she was terminated.
    • Settled a case wherein an employee working as a cocktail waitress was terminated following her announcement that she was pregnant. At first the restaurant cut her hours and gave her fewer desirable shifts. Later, the employee was told that “this is no place for a pregnant woman,” and that “she was better off at home.”
    • Resolved a case involving a pregnant outside sales representative, who claimed she was taken off of a lucrative account because it involved air travel. The employee claimed that her supervisor said that “women as pregnant as you shouldn’t fly.” When the employee complained to human resources, she was told that her manager knows how to distribute accounts, and that she need not worry.

      DISABILITY AND PERCEIVED DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, INCLUDING ADA, INTERACTIVE PROCESS, FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE, ETC.

      • Settled a mediation wherein a baggage handler suffered a back injury on the job and alleged he was in too much pain to come into the office to fill out and discuss an incident report. Company concluded that plaintiff was avoiding a mandatory drug screening and terminated him.
      • Resolved a case where an employee of a large landscaping company injured his back at work and needed an accommodation to continue working. Plaintiff claimed that the company failed to reasonably accommodate him and fired him shortly thereafter. Company alleged that plaintiff was part of reduction in force wherein 10% of employees were laid off.
      • Settled a case where an employee loan officer working for a large wholesale mortgage company suffered from a disability that required several leaves of absence, which were accommodated. However, during this time period, the company believed that the employee was not performing well, and consistently failed to meet its “key performance indicators.” Employee was terminated as part of reduction in force when the company’s business model changed.
      • Resolved a case regarding an employee who worked for a major airline as a ticketing agent. The plaintiff suffered a knee injury requiring surgery, and needed an accommodation of sitting ten minutes per hour when she came back to work. The company alleged it could not accommodate the employee’s work restriction for a variety of reasons, including that a stool was a tripping hazard, and asserted that plaintiff would at times need to carry baggage that exceeded her work restrictions.
      • Settled a case involving a senior executive of a large company who suffered a severe back injury and was given the accommodation of arriving to work at 10 a.m. so that his commute time, which often caused him back pain, would be minimized. After accommodating the executive for eight years, the company abruptly told the employee he had to be at work at 8:30 a.m., which nearly doubled his commute time. This allegedly followed a comment by a more senior executive that “the laziness around here is over.”

        SEXUAL HARASSMENT/SEXUAL ASSAULT

        • Settled mediation where female long-haul trucker claimed sexual harassment by company owner. Her claims included physical touching, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and constructive termination. Company claimed plaintiff abandoned her job after quitting without notice.
        • Settled a case regarding a female executive who traveled to a tech start-up’s annual meeting, wherein she became obviously “blackout” intoxicated in front of several senior executives. The employee left the event with a third party who plaintiff claimed later raped her.
        • Resolved a lawsuit regarding an employee of a publicly traded company who claimed she was sexually assaulted and harassed by a co-worker. After investigating the complaint, the company terminated the accused “bad actor.” However, shortly thereafter, the company terminated plaintiff, alleging she physically assaulted her estranged boyfriend who was also a co-worker.
        • Settled a case involving a female employee who worked at a hardware store chain. Following the employee’s breast reduction surgery, several male co-workers allegedly told her, “she made a big mistake with that surgery,” “she had a perfect rack and blew it,” along with other similar comments. Plaintiff complained to the store manager, who told her to ignore “those idiots,” but did nothing to stop the harassment.

        RETALIATION

        • Settled a case where a female employee complained about wage and hour violations and harassment for taking intermittent FMLA leave. Shortly thereafter, the company received two complaints of sexual harassment against the plaintiff from two co-workers. Plaintiff contended that the co-workers falsely complained to garner favor with the company. Plaintiff was fired shortly after the complaints against her were made.
        • Resolved a case involving a female employee who was written up for speaking with co-workers about their salaries. In responding to the write up, the employee stated that it appeared that male employees were paid more than female employees. Within weeks, the plaintiff was written up three times for a variety of minor issues that never had warranted a write up in the past. The employee was later terminated for alleged performance issues.
        • Settled a case for a manufacturing company employee who complained to human resources that his supervisor forced him to clock out for lunch, even though he worked through his meal period. The company investigated. Following an “inconclusive” investigation, the employee stated that his hours were cut, and he was not given the opportunities to work overtime that he had received in the past.
        • Resolved a lawsuit wherein a commissioned salesperson complained that he was routinely shorted the wages he was due. The employee demanded to inspect detailed sales reports in an attempt to calculate his commission. The company refused to allow the employee to inspect these records asserting that they were confidential. Later, this long-time employee was transferred to a new territory, resulting in an approximate 50% reduction in his pay.

        WRONGFUL TERMINATION/CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

        • Settled a case regarding an employee of a document servicing company, who alleged that she was terminated as a result of her complaints to management that the company was purposefully double billing clients. The company claimed the employee never complained of any such thing, and that she was laid off due to a COVID-related reduction in force.
        • Resolved a matter wherein a male employee of a sporting goods store was harassed by his co-workers on account of his sexual orientation. He alleged that other employees regularly used offensive slurs, and despite his complaints, those actions did not stop. He was also allegedly told that he could only work in the bicycle department, because other departments were “too manly.” The employee quit his job claiming the harassment became unbearable.
        • Settled a case where an employee was deposed in connection with another employee’s claims regarding wage and hour issues. Shortly after testifying in a manner that the company believed was “friendly” to that plaintiff, the employee was terminated for claimed performance issues.
        • Resolved a case for an employee who filed a claim with the Labor Board wherein she alleged she was forced to “work off the clock.” The employee claimed that following her claim, her supervisor became disengaged and “cold” to her. Approximately two months after the claim was filed, the employee received her first write-up in four years of employment. A month later she was terminated.

        WHISTLEBLOWER WRONGFUL TERMINATION

        • Resolved a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles filed by a probationary Deputy Public Defender, who was terminated at the end of her one-year probationary period. Plaintiff alleged she complained that the department’s policies violated the Labor Code, among other laws. The County alleged that plaintiff displayed hostility to her supervisor and made misrepresentations about her cases.
        • Settled a case brought by an employee of a large hospital corporation, wherein the employee complained several times about the hospital’s failure to follow its own COVID safety protocols. Shortly after the complaints, plaintiff was terminated following two co-workers’ complaints that she acted unprofessionally, was disrespectful and “bossy,” and had poor relations with her subordinates.
        • Settled a lawsuit brought by an employee of a large cosmetics corporation who believed the company ignored valid consumer complaints regarding the safety of its products. Plaintiff complained to her superiors, to OSHA, and eventually to the FDA. During this time period, a new supervisor was hired above plaintiff. The new supervisor stripped job duties from plaintiff, and allegedly made the employee’s life very difficult. Plaintiff resigned and claimed it was a wrongful constructive termination.
        • Resolved a case brought by a therapist who was employed by a large corporation. The employee received a very positive performance evaluation. Shortly thereafter, the therapist complained several times in writing about shortened meal periods, missed breaks, and the lack of a break room. Within six weeks the employee was fired for missing a single staff meeting.

        LEAVES OF ABSENCE / FMLA / CFRA

        • Resolved a case where the plaintiff was a van driver for a manufacturing company who required intermittent FMLA leave. Plaintiff claimed management gave him a hard time each time he needed to exercise his leave rights and eventually terminated him. The company alleged that plaintiff was at fault in a rear-end vehicle crash causing the “disability” at issue, and that plaintiff later made a “threatening” Facebook post about the company, thereby justifying the termination.
        • Settled a lawsuit involving an employee who had a disability which required major surgery. The company granted FMLA leave to the employee in connection with the surgery. However, when the employee’s recovery took longer than expected, and she requested an extension of her leave beyond what was required by FMLA as an accommodation of her disability, the company refused and subsequently terminated her.
        • Settled a case wherein an employee who was injured on the job needed to take FMLA leave for medical treatment. The employee’s physician cleared the employee to return to work with “minor” and “temporary” work restrictions. The company refused to reinstate the employee until he was “100%.” The company allegedly did not take adequate steps to determine if the employee could be accommodated with his work restrictions.
        • Resolved a case involving an employee of a large company who suffered from debilitating migraine headaches that occurred when the individual first woke up in the morning. The employee was granted intermittent FMLA leave. While the company initially accommodated the employee, written evidence demonstrated that the company was tired of “dealing with the constant uncertainty” of an employee who might not be able to come to work on any given day. The employee was eventually terminated for alleged performance related issues.

        EQUAL PAY ACT

        • Settled a case involving a female architect working for a firm for four years. She discovered that a more junior male architect who had just been hired was being paid $15,000 per year more than she was. When she complained, she alleges she was told that she was not performing work that was substantially equal in skill because the male architect was working on more expensive homes.
        • Resolved a matter wherein a female security guard claimed she was almost completely denied the opportunity to work overtime, while the male guards earned substantial overtime.
        • Settled a lawsuit wherein two female employees found that they were paid substantially equal pay in comparison to their male counterparts, but discovered that the male employees were paid an average of 30% more for their non-discretionary bonuses.
        • Resolved a lawsuit involving a female employee who was paid less than her male counterparts performing substantially similar jobs. While the company believed the pay differences were warranted based on its assessment of the employees’ performance, the company had difficulty articulating a “material factor” justifying the pay disparity.

        LABOR CODE VIOLATIONS

        • Resolved a case for an employee who worked double shifts at a discount retail store. The company properly paid plaintiff for one shift, complete with appropriate itemized wage statements. However, the company then created a “fake identity” for this same employee and paid him cash, without paying any overtime.
        • Settled a lawsuit for several employees who claimed that their meal periods were frequently interrupted with requests for work and were not paid a missed meal premium.
        • Settled a case for employees who were paid missed meal premiums, but not compensated at their “regular rate of pay.”
        • Resolved a case for a group of employees who drove their own personal vehicles for work purposes. The employees were paid a “flat” monthly reimbursement, rather than being properly reimbursed by the mile.
        • Settled a retaliation lawsuit under Labor Code Section 1102.5, after an employee engaged in protected activity by complaining in writing that the company was willfully misclassifying employees to avoid the payment of overtime.

          WAGE AND HOUR CLAIMS

          • Settled a case where three misclassified plaintiffs opted out of a wage and hour class action settlement, and pursued some of the same claims as well as some additional ones. While there was no dispute that the plaintiffs were non-exempt, there was a significant dispute regarding how many hours of overtime was actually worked. Despite problems relating to the fact that the three individual plaintiffs were going to get substantially more than the “class members,” the case was resolved.
          • Resolved a case against a large energy company brought by a highly compensated director of global sales who claimed to have been misclassified as exempt. Plaintiff claimed that over fifty percent of his duties were non-exempt, and that he was not an outside salesperson because he was working at his home office.
          • Mediated and settled over 250 cases involving a wide variety of alleged wage and hour violations, including failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to pay overtime, forced work off the clock, misclassification of non-exempt employees, failure to provide accurate itemized pay stubs, failure to pay wages when due and after ending of employment, waiting time penalties, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to reimburse for work related expenses, and more.

          WAGE AND HOUR CLASS ACTIONS / PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT (“PAGA”)

          • Settled a ‘pure’ PAGA lawsuit involving hundreds of employees alleging they worked off the clock at night answering emails and were not reimbursed for use of their private cell phones under Labor Code Section 2802.
          • Settled over 100 class action and PAGA cases ranging from twenty employees to thousands of employees. These cases covered a wide variety of wage and hour issues, including unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, regular rate of pay issues, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay wages when due, inaccurate itemized wage statements, misclassification cases, failure to pay minimum wage, and more.

          EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS

          • Resolved a case involving a senior executive who had a written term employment agreement that provided for very significant severance in the event the executive was terminated without cause. The executive was terminated for alleged fraud, and was not paid severance. The executive denied any fraud, and alleged that no investigation was ever conducted by the company.
          • Settled a case regarding a senior executive for a large entertainment studio. The executive had a written contract stating that his duties covered both domestic and international matters. Within the first year of the contract, the studio limited the executive’s duties to domestic only. The executive claimed this was a breach of the “duties” provision in his contract.
          • Settled a case involving a senior executive with a multi-year employment contract wherein she could only be terminated with cause. In what was a fairly ambiguous “for cause” provision, the company terminated the executive when she was convicted of a DUI unrelated to her work.
          • Resolved a case for an employee who allegedly had an oral contract that the company was in the process of implementing a profit-sharing plan, that he would be participating in it, and that it would be in place within three months of the employee’s start date. The company never implemented the plan.

          COMMISSIONS / BONUSES / BENEFITS

          • Settled a case concerning a salesperson who was paid pursuant to a new commission agreement that did not comply with Labor Code Section 2751. That Labor Code section requires that all commission agreements be in writing and specify how commissions are calculated. It further specifies that a new agreement is void if not in compliance with the law, and that an employee’s old commission agreement will be used to calculate commissions due. The old agreement provided for substantially higher commissions.
          • Resolved a case wherein an employee was set to receive a substantial year-end bonus at the end of December, and the company terminated him as part of a lay off on December 14th.
          • Settled a case involving a commissioned salesperson who resigned, but was later not paid commissions she believed were due under her agreement by contract. The dispute was whether the claimed commissions were “earned” by the employee, i.e. were all legal conditions precedent to payment met, or were the commissions not earned because other employees had to perform work in connection with the deals that would generate the commissions.
          • Resolved a case concerning an employee who was terminated and not paid their annual bonus. The employee claimed the bonus was “wages” under the Labor Code because the bonus was “non-discretionary.” The company claimed the bonus was discretionary, and that it had the right to decide whether or not to pay the bonus to the departing employee.

          NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS, THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, PRIVACY CLAIMS, AND OTHERS

          • Settled a case involving a veterinarian who sold her professional practice and entered into a non-compete agreement as part of the sale. Three months after her veterinary practice was sold, she went to work for a large veterinary corporation as a consultant, which plaintiff believed was a violation of the non-compete.
          • Resolved a case wherein a long-time employee of a plastics company resigned and went to work for a direct competitor. Although the employee did not take a physical customer list from his old company, the employee spent the first week of his new employment writing down every customer he could remember, including doing so with the aid of computer research.
          • Settled a matter involving a non-exempt employee who claimed he was not paid for a significant amount of overtime. Before the employee resigned, he copied hundreds of emails purporting to evidence his overtime. However, a significant portion of those emails contained sensitive confidential company information.
          • Resolved a case involving a former Vice President of Sales who went to work for a competitor of his former company. The plaintiff’s former company alleged that the former employee shared its plans for expansion into new territories with new products with his new employer, thereby giving the new company a competitive advantage.

          GLOBAL RESOLUTION OR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

          • Resolved well over one hundred workers’ compensation claims as part of the “global settlement” of other employment claims, such as disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, age discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination and more.

          Testimonials

          “Glenn Lerman is an excellent, effective mediator and a real pleasure to work with. I plan on using him again as a mediator and will recommend him to my colleagues.”


          “Glenn Lerman is, without question, one of the best labor/employment mediators in California. I’ve recommended him to my colleagues on BOTH sides of disputes and will continue to use Glenn as long as he’s mediating. Glenn not only knows the applicable laws and issues better than most mediators (that claim to be “employment law” experts), but he also has certain intangibles that are very important to resolving disputes and that other mediators simply do not possess. He has a gift with people. Glenn makes sure to listen and get to know my clients and their while also ensuring that – with professionalism and respect – my clients also understand the risks and weaknesses of their respective claims. Glenn is my go-to employment/labor mediator.”


           

          Articles / Publications