Employment

While Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.'s attorneys assist clients with personnel management planning (e.g., employment, non-disclosure and severance agreements, handbooks, etc.), keep them abreast of relevant legal developments, and provide counsel during critical decision making, our greatest strength is the firm's deep litigation and trial experience aiding our clients in class action and other complex litigation before state and federal courts across the nation.  We have attorneys experienced in a wide range of employment law litigation, including wage & hour disputes (in particular defense of class action claims involving misclassification, meal & rest breaks, rates of pay and payment documentation claims); discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims (age, gender, race, disability, etc.); wrongful termination; employee status disputes (independent contractor and joint employer); and statutory leave (FMLA and California Family Leave Act).

  • Selected Case Results

    Show All
    • Represent employer in a matter venued in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Ten named plaintiffs brought a purported national class action (and a California sub-class) asserting claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiffs allege that employer discriminates on the basis of race, gender, color and national origin regarding all terms and conditions of employment, including recruitment, testing, hiring, job assignments, allocation of hours, transfers, promotions, compensation and termination. Plaintiffs seek class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay and punitive damages.

    • Represented employer in a nationwide class action involving gender discrimination and hostile environment claims. The Court denied class certification of hostile work environment/sexual harassment claims and granted limited certification of compensation and promotion claims as to liability and injunctive relief only, reserving the question of damages certification to a later time. Employer obtained summary judgment dismissing the individual claims of hostile work environment/sexual harassment of 10 of the 12 named plaintiffs. Our trial team prepared for an anticipated month-long trial but the certified pay and promotion claims were settled the night before jury selection.

    • Represent employer in two California statewide class actions (Los Angeles County Superior Court) alleging violations for misclassification of managers, off-the-clock work, meal and rest break compliance, and associated wage statement and late payment penalties.

    • Represented employer in class action commenced in March 2006 in United States District Court, Northern District of California, seeking unpaid wages and penalties related to alleged employee searches upon entry at the beginning and exit after the workday. Mediation held after Ninth Circuit declined to review class certification order, and settlement was reached on favorable "claims made" terms.

    • Represented employer with 80+ stores in a statewide class action (removed to United States District Court, Central District of California) alleging off-the-clock work, meal and rest break violations, failure to properly calculate "regular rate" for overtime pay, and failure to pay accrued vacation, absence and personal holiday time off. Two of three plaintiffs dismissed their claims and the remaining named plaintiff refiled only on the claim regarding improper calculation of "regular rate of pay" for overtime related to incentive payments. Case was dismissed without prejudice.

    • Represented employer in age discrimination class action resulting from reduction-in-force in company's IS Department; case settled just before trial.

    • Represented employer in class action brought by employees working in branches across the nation who claimed that they had been misclassified as employees exempt from overtime pay. Approximately 700 employees opted into the litigation. Employer obtained summary judgment on the lead plaintiff's claim, finding her job duties were exempt from overtime requirements. The employer also defeated plaintiffs' class-wide motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the employer's motion to decertify the class and dismissed all but the remaining named plaintiffs' claims. The case subsequently settled.

    • Represented employer in an action brought by general and assistant managers in 65 stores located in California who claimed that they had been misclassified as employees exempt from overtime pay. After initial discovery and motions, the general managers' claims were dismissed and the class period was restricted to February 2003 (plaintiffs had sought a class definition without any ending date). The case also involved Title VII claims of gender discrimination and harassment. While employer's motion to decertify the classes was pending, the matter settled.

    • Represented employer in audit order from the California DLSE regarding exempt classification of managers and administrative personnel, meal and rest break compliance, overtime calculation and payment, and documentation of payroll. Compromise settlement was reached with DLSE on meal break compliance and salaried overtime only (other issues being abandoned).

    • Represented employer in class action venued in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, against class claims for wages and penalties resulting from the employer's purported failure to issue paychecks without an in-state bank for presentation at no cost. The case settled on favorable terms following mediation.

    • Represented franchisor against claims by employee of a California franchisee alleging franchisor was liable to plaintiff and the similarly situated class as a "joint employer" for wages and meal and rest break violations. Case dismissed against franchisor.

    *Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation in which we practice and do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.