no money, no food!

[thestepmom]

CA-
1. my mom has worked for her employer for 1 year. (since the birth of the business)
2. My mom has only been paid for 1 week of work in the past 8 weeks.
3. Her boss was supposed to pay her, and another employee today.
4. Boss says she can't pay them today because she had to give two other empoyee's 2 weeks worth of pay or they would quit. ( she is behind in all her bills including all her empoyees)
5. My mom has been looking for another job to no avail now for 3 months.
here's my question Does my mom and this other employee have the right to sue thier empoyer for not getting paid? Can they sue for pain and suffering? (I'll explain my mom is diabetic. She works over time because nobody shows up to relieve her without food, and no other co-workers are on her shift to go and get her anything. Boss turned off her pager, and has no phone to be reached. My mom had to ask for help from friends just to be able to eat 2 weeks ago.)
Boss is on drugs, along with her family. Funny part is boss has no money to pay empoyee's but her family has food, and drugs. I am getting fed up of watching my mom go through this. Please help me help her.
Thank you for your help.

 

[JETX]

Yes, your mother and her friend can sue for the past due wages. However, any argument for pain and suffering is moot. The reason is that in order for her to sue for wages, the best forum (cheapest and easiest) would be Small Claims court. And Small Claims court doesn't hear cases of pain and suffering, only direct money issues.

So, in order to try to collect for "pain and suffering" (though they are probably NOT compensible anyway), she would need to sue in Superior Court, which requires attorneys and formal procedures.

Additionally, you have the problem of enforcing the judgment itself if she wins. A lot of people think that the courts force the debtor to pay when they win. That is not the case, the winner (now the Judgment Creditor) has to enforce the judgment against the Judgment Debtor. And that is usually much harder than winning the judgment. If the employer is as you describe (living on borrowed money and time), it will probably be very hard to collect, even with a judgment.

Finally, one other thing to consider... you said the employer is a business. Is it a corporation?? If so, then that brings its own problems since the corporation is obviously so poorly run that it will not have any funds either. Making the judgment even harder to collect than against an individual.

I am sorry about the situation that your stepmom has gotten into. It sounds to me like her first step should be getting another job, then suing for any unpaid salary.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

And Small Claims court doesn't hear cases of pain and suffering, only direct money issues.

So, in order to try to collect for "pain and suffering" (though they are probably NOT compensible anyway), she would need to sue in Superior Court, which requires attorneys and formal procedures.

My response:

Just a minor correction:

I thought that since this question comes from California, I might make a quick appearance on this thread to clear up the above-quoted misconception. For any readers of this post, this information is for California only.

Insofar as the rest of Mr. Halket's response to this writer is concerned, he is "right on the money" and has made some extremely cogent remarks and suggestions.

My comments here are strictly concerning the jurisdiction of the Small Claims court, and whether "pain and suffering" can be awarded in that court.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 116.220 (The Small Claims Act) does not limit jurisdiction to mere actual damages (calculable damages) such as vehicle repairs or lost wages.

General Damages (better known as "Pain and Suffering) are not excluded from Small Claims in California. Therefore, if a Cause of Action is filed in Small Claims court, and such Cause of Action is entitled to an award of General Damages, then such damages can, in fact, be received as part of a judgment.

The only restriction in the California Small Claims Act, insofar as the amount of money is concerned, is that any demand for judgment, and any judgment rendered, shall not exceed $5,000.00. So, the California jurisdictional limit can be comprised of both "Actual Damages" and "General Damages".

Other restrictions to the jurisdiction of Small Claims court may apply; e.g., the TYPE of claim that you have may not be within the jurisdiction of the California Small Claims court to be able to hear and decide. Therefore, please see a local attorney, or a Small Claims court Advisor (free of charge) prior to filing your claim.

Good luck.

IAAL

 

[thestepmom]

Thank you both for your responses.
IAAL, thank you I know stepers have given you a hard time in the past. Thanks for replying to my post.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Alright, alright. I broke my rule against responding to a "Stepper" this, one time, only - - and this, only because it was an otherwise "benign" situation, having nothing to do with a child, or support payments, or any of the other myriad of things that bug the everloving CRAP out of "steppers".

Believe me when I tell you, however, that when it comes to the Family Law Boards, if I know it's a "Stepper" that's asking the question, I tell myself, "Benny, get the jet !!"
There will be no answers from me - - I've been taken down the "nice nice" road too many times, only to wind up having my head ripped off.

You see, when I have a "Stepper" in my office, and they start getting hinky with me, I get up out of my nice, cushy, highback, down-filled, easy chair (and if you knew me, you'd know that's a bad sign when someone makes me get out of that chair) and then I reach across my desk and grab that "Stepper" by the throat, and throw them right out of my office, and kick 'em in the ass on the way out.

I may have to "take it" there, but here, I have a choice.

IAAL

 

[thestepmom]

I still want to thank you for answering! You can't stop me from being nice. You broke your rule and you broke it with me!