Mr. Sperber’s employment practice includes nearly every aspect of the employment relationship, such as employment policies and practices, background screening, internal investigations, contract negotiation, dispute resolution, counseling and litigation. He helps employers and employees understand and defend their rights under the most common state and federal employment statutes, including:

• The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical and mental disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, medical condition or marital status.

• The California Labor Code, which imposes strict requirements on employers in a seemingly endless number of areas, including payment of wages, independent contractors, privacy in the workplace, relocation of employees, job references, and discrimination.

• The most commonly invoked federal employment laws: Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Equal Pay Act (EPA); Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII); and Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).

Mr. Sperber is well-versed in the above statutes and their interpreting regulations and court cases; he also continually educates himself on new developments in this area. Below are some of the issues that arise most frequently in Mr. Sperber’s employment practice:

•  Arbitration Agreements
•  Defamation
•  Employment Contracts
•  Harassment and Discrimination
•  Independent Contractors
•  Non-Competition Agreements
•  Non-Disclosure and Trade Secrets
•  Overtime Requirements
•  Retaliation and Whistleblowing
•  Severance Requirements for Mass Layoffs
•  Unpaid Wages
•  Wrongful Discharge

Mr. Sperber represents individuals and businesses, both as plaintiffs and defendants, in a wide variety of forums, including the California Superior Courts, federal district courts in the Ninth Circuit, state and federal administrative agencies, arbitration panels and private mediation. Mr. Sperber’s civil litigation practice encompasses a number of substantive areas, including employment law, business litigation, consumer protection, defamation and privacy.

Lemon Law

Many states have enacted “lemon laws” to provide remedies for consumers and businesses who buy or lease new or used motor vehicles (cars, motorcycles, electric vehicles, RVs and boats) which, despite a warranty, are not be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. California’s lemon law is the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code Section 1790 through 1797.

California’s lemon law provides for a replacement vehicle or full reimbursement of payments, fees, taxes, repair costs, etc. (the consumer may choose between replacement and reimbursement). The law also requires the manufacturer to pay the attorneys’ fees and court costs of a prevailing consumer. If the manufacturer willfully fails to repair the vehicle, the consumer may also be entitled to penalties of up to twice the consumer’s monetary losses.

Mr. Sperber accepts most lemon law cases on contingency, so the consumer is not liable for any fees or costs unless Mr. Sperber achieves a satisfactory result. Each lemon law case is very different, so Mr. Sperber recommends an initial consultation to discuss the facts of the case and other issues, such as the legal process, attorneys’ fees. This consultation is free of charge.

Unfair Business Practices

California law prohibits a wide range of unfair business practices, such as unfair competition, false advertising, odometer roll-backs, undisclosed defects in consumer goods, automobiles and real estate. Several statutes provide strong remedies for these and other types of unfair business practices, including actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and whatever other relief the court deems proper. See, e.g., Cal. Civil Code § 1750, et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

The term “defamation” refers to both libel and slander, both of which are tort claims for false and damaging statements that are communicated to others. “Libel” refers to statements in written or other permanent form, while “slander” refers to verbal statements and gestures.

In order to recover on a claim for defamation (libel or slander), the plaintiff must demonstrate the publication of a false statement that is defamatory, unprivileged and was made with fault:

“Publication” means communication (printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise) to some third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made.

“Falsity” must be proven because truth is a complete defense against civil liability, regardless of malicious purpose, offensiveness or damage to reputation.

“Defamatory” means that the statement actually harms the reputation of the subject person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive. However, in some cases, known as “defamation per se”, a statement is presumed to be so injurious that the plaintiff does not need to prove any actual damages. Examples of this include false allegations of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct.

“Privilege” refers to a legal protection that is given to certain types of socially valued communications, such as media reports of official proceedings or reports of crimes to government agencies. A defamation plaintiff must show that the defamatory statement was not privileged.

“Fault” refers to the level of intent that the publisher of the defamatory statement had when they published the statement. The degree of fault that must be proven depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term that means the defendant knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the statement. In general, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent, that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

Mr. Sperber has represented plaintiffs and defendants in defamation cases in various contexts. These cases, whether libel or slander, are very fact-specific—and sometimes involve many different claims or defenses. In addition to the normal statute of limitations, there are strict procedural requirements for bringing certain defamation claims, so the potential plaintiff or defendant should consult legal counsel as soon as possible.

The “right to privacy” is protected by many provisions of California law. For example, in 1972, California voters amended article I, section 1 of our state Constitution to include privacy as one of the "inalienable" constitutional rights of California citizens.

The courts continue to interpret this “right to privacy” and, at present, California courts now recognize at least four specific tort causes of action for invasion of privacy: (1) intrusion upon seclusion of another; (2) appropriation of the name and likeness of another; (3) public disclosure of private facts; and (4) publicity that places another in a “false light”.

Numerous statutes also safeguard the “right to privacy,” including:

•  The Privacy Act, Penal Code Section 630, et seq., outlaws the nonconsensual recording of confidential communications. This statute specifically addresses wiretapping (Section 631), interception of cellular telephone conversations (Section 632.6), eavesdropping on or recording confidential communications (Section 632) and unconsented videotaping (Section 647).

•  The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Civil Code Section 56, et seq., strictly restricts the dissemination or use of private medical information in the custody of health care providers and employers.

•  The Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and numerous state and federal regulations prohibit pre-employment questionnaires that intrude on the right to privacy by inquiring about applicants’ medical or psychological history, genetic information, family status, criminal records, disabilities, addictions, workers’ compensation history, pregnancy and other private matters.

Many other statutes prohibit a wide range of intrusions into the privacy of others, including those in the context of employment or credit relationships. Remedies include actual damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, court costs and such other relief that the court deems proper.