Search results
Renuka V. Jain. LAW OFFICES OF RENUKA V. JAIN. 1. Preparing plaintiffs to speak their truth in deposition and at trial. WRONGFUL-TERMINATION PLAINTIFFS NEED TO TESTIFY AND YOU NEED TO PREPARE THEM. Employment trials are unique – instantly relatable and simultaneously burdened with twelve unretained subject-matter experts.
Notable Case Results. 2.5 million dollar verdict Camp v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 2022. One of the top 25 verdicts in Southern California in 2014 for a wrongful termination lawsuit (Roundtree v. Los Angeles Unified School District) Ms. Jain was lead counsel in State v.
Skilled & Resolute Trial Advocacy for Wrongfully Terminated Employees. From fighting for the constitutional right of African-Americans to serve as jurors in a race discrimination case, to challenging the retaliatory termination of a whistleblower by the second largest school district in the country, the employment litigation matters we handle ...
Camp v. Los Angeles Unified School District in 2021. Camp was a high school principal who challenged the school district for mis-using Title I funds and discrimination and was accused of falsifying grades in retaliation. Jain helped him challenge the termination, and filed suit for whistleblower retaliation. Camp v. Los
Renuka V. Jain is a trial lawyer practicing plaintiff-side employment law in Los Angeles, California. She works with cases involving wrongful termination, discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower claims, and wage and hour violations.
Renuka Jain is an attorney at Law Offices of Renuka V. Jain, P.C., helping people with Employment Litigation: Plaintiff issues. Law Offices of Renuka V. Jain, P.C. has an office in Los Angeles, California, serving the local community. Renuka Jain was selected to Super Lawyers for 2016 - 2025.
decisions in the cases of Saumya Tiwari v. State Of U.P. & Ors.1 delivered by the learned single judge of the High Court of Allahabad and a decision passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 09.07.2012 in A. Arulin Ajitha Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu,2 to reiterate that the petitioner
