Bald Legal https://www.levinelaborlaw.com/ en Bald Legal cuts through the noise with candid conversations about the law, the cases shaping our world, and how the legal system actually works. Clear answers, sharp analysis, real stories, and no unnecessary legalese.  https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/90c8a802-abdf-11f1-a946-5351d1e57143/image/93443590d4bf0c5bbbdceb3375fac398.png?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&max-w=3000&max-h=3000&fit=crop&auto=format,compress Bald Legal https://www.levinelaborlaw.com/ no episodic Drew Levine Bald Legal cuts through the noise with candid conversations about the law, the cases shaping our world, and how the legal system actually works. Clear answers, sharp analysis, real stories, and no unnecessary legalese.  Bald Legal cuts through the noise with candid conversations about the law, the cases shaping our world, and how the legal system actually works. Clear answers, sharp analysis, real stories, and no unnecessary legalese. 

]]> Drew Levine mark@driftstudiosla.com The Case That Changed California Employment Law | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-5 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 Mon, 12 Oct 2026 01:00:00 -0000 full 5 Drew Levine 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 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

]]> 2026 no She Proved Discrimination and Still Lost the Case | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-4 In this episode, Drew Levine and guest John Barber delve into a significant California Supreme Court ruling concerning mixed-motive employment terminations. The case, involving a probationary bus driver with performance issues and alleged pregnancy discrimination, highlights the complexities of balancing an employer's right to address poor performance with anti-discrimination laws. 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 Thu, 08 Oct 2026 17:50:00 -0000 full 4 Drew Levine In this episode, Drew Levine and guest John Barber delve into a significant California Supreme Court ruling concerning mixed-motive employment terminations. The case, involving a probationary bus driver with performance issues and alleged pregnancy discrimination, highlights the complexities of balancing an employer's right to address poor performance with anti-discrimination laws. 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 In this episode, Drew Levine and guest John Barber delve into a significant California Supreme Court ruling concerning mixed-motive employment terminations. The case, involving a probationary bus driver with performance issues and alleged pregnancy discrimination, highlights the complexities of balancing an employer's right to address poor performance with anti-discrimination laws. 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

]]> 2435 no The Apple Pie Lawsuit: Roby v. McKesson Explained | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-3 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 Roby 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 Thu, 08 Oct 2026 17:43:00 -0000 full 3 Drew Levine 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 Roby 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 How did a simple apple pie become key evidence in a workplace
discrimination lawsuit?

In this episode, employment attorneys Drew Levine (Levine Labor Law) and Alexander Vialy break down Roby 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 Nuances
09:12 - McKesson, Roby, and Panic Attacks
12:01 - Disparate Impact vs. Treatment
15:00 - Policy Neutrality and Workplace Realities
18:26 - Unfair Termination of Disabled Workers
20:51 - Medication Side Effects and Mistreatment
24:04 - Disability Termination and Discrimination
27:19 - Discrimination and Harassment Simultaneously
30:17 - Supervisor Liability for Claims
33:23 - Broadening Law for Fair Civil Rights

]]> 2094 no Fired for Not Being "Hot Enough": Yanowitz v. L'Oréal Explained | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-2 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 Mon, 21 Sep 2026 01:00:00 -0000 full 2 Drew Levine 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 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

]]> 2568 no When Your Boss Asks You to Break the Law: Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. | Bald Legal Podcast Ep-1 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 Wed, 16 Sep 2026 06:18:00 -0000 full 1 Drew Levine 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 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

]]> 2205 no Bald Legal | Sneak Peek Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. Wed, 09 Sep 2026 02:33:00 -0000 trailer Drew Levine Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

]]> 31 no