​Daniel Chammas is an experienced attorney who has worked for several firms in Los Angeles. Leveraging his significant legal experience, Daniel Chammas is an attorney at Ford & Harrison, LLP, in Los Angeles. He concentrates his practice on high-stakes cases involving off-the-clock violations, missed breaks, and employee misclassification.

Employee misclassification is a labor violation in California that happens when an employer abusively classifies a worker as an independent contractor when the worker is actually an employee and consequently deprives the worker of employee protections, such as paid sick leave, the minimum wage, and overtime. When an employee sues an employer for misclassification, they may be eligible for compensation for the loss due to the misclassification.

California's labor laws also penalize employers for any additional compensation deduction due to misclassification. For example, the state proscribes an employer from deducting a misclassified employee's compensation for employer materials, equipment maintenance, government licenses, space rentals, and services during the period of misclassification. The employee is liable for reimbursing the misclassified employee for these violations.

The conditions for classifying an individual as an employee may vary depending on the occupation, certification, and other factors. Often, an individual is an employee unless their hirer establishes conditions, including freedom from the hirer's direction or control, freedom to engage in a different business that is essentially the hirer's competitor, and freedom to work outside the hirer's business environment. Again, these conditions only apply to certain occupations. Real estate appraisers, home inspectors, freelance writers and editors, security brokers, licensed lawyers, and licensed doctors are not classified based on these conditions.

​Daniel Chammas is a Los Angeles attorney who delivers experienced defense representation to corporate clients in various areas of employment and discrimination law. Apprised of legal developments in his state, Daniel Chammas counsels clients on aspects of California labor law such as the Garment Worker Protection Act.

Also known as Senate Bill 62, the law went into effect at the beginning of 2022 and pertains to contractors defined as garment manufacturing operations or factories. It stipulates that garment manufacturing workers must receive an hourly rate not under the minimum wage. They cannot by law receive a piece rate, and employers that pay such rates are liable for compensatory damages totaling $200 for each pay period.

One exception to this law involves employees covered under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. However, this only applies in cases where the regular hourly rate of pay is not less than 30 percent above the California minimum wage, and premium wages are offered for overtime hours. In addition, there must be monitoring and dispute resolution mechanisms related to nonpayment of wages within the agreement.

One significant element of the law involves joint and several liability applied in cases where contractor’s employees are found by the Labor Commissioner to have wages owed. In other words, the manufacturer, contractor, and brand guarantor all bear liability for the wages owed over a contracted time period in full.

​Based in Los Angeles, Daniel Chammas delivers defense counsel as attorney to diverse corporate entities. With a focus on employment law, Daniel Chammas provides knowledgeable guidance as new laws are instituted. One such law instituted as Assembly Bill 701 on January 1, 2022, pertains to warehouse quotas, or work standards or requirements pertaining to various measurements of productivity over a set period.

One example involves a worker being required to process 200 packages each hour, with adverse employment actions taken if this performance standard is not met. Other applicable situations include having to clear all outgoing or incoming inventory during a single shift, or being required to clear all packages from a conveyor belt operating at a specific speed.

Under state law, employers can still place such quotas, but they must be provided to new employees as written descriptions when hired, and there are other limitations. In particular, quotas cannot prevent compliance with other aspects of the job, including bathroom facility use, rest periods, and meals. In addition, fulfilling the quota may not interfere with occupational health and safety statutes. Any quota that makes “exercising these statutory rights” impossible may be considered illegal, and workers have the right to contact the Labor Commissioner’s Bureau of Field Enforcement and file a labor law violation report.

​Daniel Chammas, an attorney and partner with Los Angeles-based law firm Ford & Harrison since 2016, advises and represents clients on employment law, compliance with California labor laws, and protecting trade secrets. At the firm in Los Angeles, he has prevailed in more than a dozen multi-million dollar class action suits. As part of his work in defense litigation, Daniel Chammas may file dispositive motions based on the motion-to-dismiss approach.

In a dispositive motion scenario, the court ends the litigation process and dispute before the trial starts. A common form of the dispositive process is a motion to dismiss. This motion is filed by the defendant at the early stages of the litigation process, usually arguing that the complaint does not state facts to constitute a cause of action. Another reason for filing a motion to dismiss is a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, where the court lacks the power to determine that type of case.

Another common type of motion to dismiss is a motion based on lack of personal jurisdiction, where the moving party argues that the court lacks the power to compel the defendant personally to appear in that jurisdiction. This primarily focuses on the defendant's contacts with the jurisdiction, the defendant's residency, and the court venue. A motion to dismiss may also be filed due to invalid service of process. In this situation, the case may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to properly deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant.

​A high-stakes Los Angeles litigator, Daniel Chammas practices with Ford & Harrison, LLP, and delivers measurable results in complex corporate defense cases. Among the areas of law that Daniel Chammas works in with Los Angeles clients are covenants not to compete and non-solicitation clauses.

As a general rule, covenants not to compete are unenforceable under California law, with employers in the state barred from preventing former employees from offering positions to current employees of the firm, or “poaching talent.” While the state does prioritize employee mobility, there are narrow exceptions to this rule.

One involves a situation where the non-compete provision is agreed to in connection with the sale of a business. California law permits a buyer of a company to prevent the seller from competing with the business he or she just sold Another exception involves cases where confidential information such as trade secrets is at stake, and hiring an employee would place the old company’s intellectual property at risk, while benefiting the new company. Lawsuits may be filed for a number of related reasons, such as misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and interference with prospective economic advantage.

​An accomplished Los Angeles employment attorney, Daniel Chammas has been a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Ford & Harrison, since 2016. Over the course of his career, Daniel Chammas has represented clients in multiple class action lawsuits.

A class action lawsuit is one involving a plaintiff or group plaintiffs that are taking legal action on the behalf of a much larger group of people. Known collectively as the “class,” each member of the group must attest that they were affected by the defendant’s actions as alleged in the claims of the suit.

Particularly useful in claims against large corporations with massive legal resources, class action lawsuits can dramatically lower the cost of many legal pursuits. This allows ordinary people to receive legal compensation that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

By certifying as a class, individuals can expedite litigation while making it more cost-effective and improving its potential outcomes. However, any member of a class can opt out of future class action settlements and choose to file their own individual lawsuits at any time.

​After getting his BA in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles, Daniel Chammas joined Stanford Law School and earned his JD in 1999. For close to 25 years, Daniel Chammas has worked as an attorney in Los Angeles, representing clients in cases such as wrongful termination.

California is an at-will employment state. That means an employer can hire and fire an employee at will, regardless of the worker’s productivity. They do not need to have justification for it. In the same breath, an employee can quit their employment at will. They do not need justification.

Because California is an at-will state, an employee cannot successfully sue their employer for wrongful termination merely because they believed their termination was unfair. But, there are grounds under which a wrongful termination claim can hold. The first is illegal discrimination. The law protects employees from termination on the bases of their race, gender, disability status, religion, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.

The National Labor Relations Act also protects employees from termination because they tried to unionize or join a union. There are also whistleblower laws protecting employees from getting fired because they reported a violation of the law to authorities. Other laws protect employees’ rights to certain leaves so their employers cannot fire them for going on leave.

In addition, there are instances where an employer-employee contract states the grounds under which an employer can fire their employee. If the employer breaches this contract, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.

​Daniel Chammas practices law at Ford & Harrison in Los Angeles and has been involved in over a dozen multi-million-dollar class action lawsuits. Daniel Chammas has handled many employer-employee disputes in Los Angeles, using skills he honed while earning his juris doctorate at Stanford Law School.

Recognizing that many financial transactions and legal communications cross international borders, Stanford has created the W. A. Franke Global Law Program, which consists of four educational opportunities.

Participants take a basic course titled International Business Transactions Regulation and Litigation. Unlike other international courses that deal with specific areas of law such as intellectual property, this offering teaches theory and practice on a range of relevant issues. It uses business school-type case studies to help students see multiple points of view. Other Stanford courses also involve visits from overseas subject experts.

Two other parts of the program involve foreign travel. Participants in intensive overseas field study trips spend 7 to 10 days between quarters meeting with business leaders and other officials while earning credits toward their degrees. In addition, semester-long Global Quarters teach topics such as dispute resolution and financing in several cities, funded by grants from W.A. Franke himself.

​The managing partner at Ford Harrison LLP’s Los Angeles, California office, Daniel Chammas focuses his practice on high-stakes collective actions for missed breaks, “off-the-clock violations,” and employee discrimination. Daniel Chammas has prevailed in over 12 multi-million dollar class actions and continuously advises his Los Angeles employer clients on issues such as compliance with employment laws.

The California legislature passed several laws in 2022 that alter employer-employee relations. They include AB 1041, SB 1162, and SB 1044. These new laws will take effect from January 1, 2023.

AB 1041 expands the California Family Rights Act and its unpaid leave provisions. It expands employees’ rights to unpaid leave, enabling them to go on leave to take care of a “designated person” who has a serious condition. Previously, the law only allowed sick leave for family members, but the new law will enable employees to take leave to care for some non-family members.

SB 1162 gives employees greater access to pay scale information. The law requires employers to provide employees and job applicants with information on pay when they ask for it. The law even mandates employers with 15 or more employees to add pay scale information on all job advertisements.

Finally, SB 1044 protects employees who choose not to work at a workplace for safety reasons. The employee must have a reasonable belief that the workplace is unsafe. To comply with these new laws, California employers should consult an attorney to update their employee policies.

A partner with Ford & Harrison, LLP, Los Angeles professional Daniel Chammas delivers solutions in class action cases that range from labor to employment law. A skilled litigator, Daniel Chammas, has pursued high-profile results in workplace discrimination and employee misclassification in Los Angeles.

As stipulated on the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) website, numerous employers have reclassified workers as "independent contractors" in recent years to avoid overtime pay and workers' compensation expenses. One formative opinion that the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, issued underlines the risks faced by employers who categorize workers as independent contractors.

The case JKH Enterprises v. Department of Industrial Relations (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046 involved a Labor Commissioner inspection that revealed that a small-sized courier business had reclassified its drivers on counsel's advice. A second inspection resulted in a stop order and a penalty assessed at $1,000 per worker classified as an independent contractor.

JKH failed in an appeal that challenged the ruling, and a subsequent hearing officer's decision via petition for administrative mandamus was filed with the Superior Court. With the case ultimately reaching the California Supreme Court, the final decision affirmed previous rulings against JKH and set the stage for Labor Commissioner enforcement actions that continue to this day.