|
Trial Litigation and Other Significant Cases
The attorneys in the Employment Practices Group have represented a wide variety of clients in numerous cases. While not a complete list, the following matters are representative of actions for which we have provided counsel:
Gharajehdaghi v. Synopsys, Inc., et al: Jury trial in Santa Clara Superior Court defending Synopsys and several of its managers against claims of pregnancy discrimination, retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others. After 17 days of trial, eight days of jury deliberations, and motions for non-suit and directed verdict, Synopsys prevailed. Judgment was entered in its favor on all claims.
Gibson v. Conceptus, Executive: Jury trial in San Mateo Superior Court defending against claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. This seven and one-half week trial presented novel issues in sexual harassment law and the use of electronic evidence — at the end of which the jury delivered a 12-0 verdict in favor of all defendants.
Kitcho and Blackhart v. Siemens: Jury trial representing Siemens against claims brought by two employees, claiming constructive discharge, fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of implied contract. Kitcho's claims were dismissed on summary judgment, and all but one of Blackhart's misrepresentation claims were rejected by the jury after a three and one-half week jury trial in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Blackhart was limited to a recovery of $20,000, and all punitive damages claims were rejected.
Perez v. California Tennis Club: After a 2-1/2-week jury trial, obtained a defense verdict in San Francisco Superior Court. The jury rejected claims of wrongful discharge, national origin and disability discrimination, retaliation and breach of the implied covenant of good faith.
Sanford v. LSI Logic: Represented LSI Logic in this Santa Clara County Superior Court trial that began with a claim of wrongful discharge by a terminated Executive with worldwide responsibilities. The Company counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, conspiracy, indemnity and an accounting. The court found that the plaintiff was properly discharged for numerous breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company, including the diversion of corporate funds, and, after a three and one half week trial, awarded the Company $3.75 million in damages. Prior to trial, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of LSI on the wrongful discharge and other claims brought by the plaintiff. This complex trial, which involved coordination of counsel in Germany, England and the U.S., and document/translation evidentiary issues, is one of the few cases of this nature taken through trial and resulting in a substantial award in favor of an employer.
Former Manager v. Port of Oakland: Represented the Port in defending against extensive claims of sex discrimination, wrongful discharge, and retaliation. After successfully demurring to several causes of action, a motion for summary judgment was filed, and the case was resolved on eve of trial on favorable terms.
Former Employer v. Executive/New Employer: Represented Fortune 1000 employer in defending claims of Fortune 500 company that hiring of latter’s executive was in violation of non-compete contract (also claims of inevitable disclosure). Successfully defeated TRO and preliminary injunction, after which matter resolved on very favorable terms.
Former Executive v. Synopsys: Defended against wrongful discharge and breach of contract claims by terminated executive. Company countersued for breach of fiduciary duties, breach of non-competition agreement, breach of contract, infringement of federally registered trademark, cyberpiracy and unfair competition. After extensive pre-trial discovery, the matter was successfully resolved before trial, without any payment by the Company.
Fraser v. IBM: Obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant IBM in Santa Clara County Superior Court and a unanimous decision on appeal in the Sixth District Court of Appeal on claims of wrongful discharge, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Freeman v. Terminix International: Client was sued in a nationwide and state class action filed on behalf of thousands of technicians for alleged violation of state and federal overtime pay laws, breach of contract, unfair business practices, and related causes of action. After extensive discovery, motion practice, and mediations over a two-year period, the matter was successfully resolved without trial.
Herndon v. Sun Service, a Division of Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Defended Sun Service against claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of Sun Service in U.S. District Court. Plaintiff appealed and judgment was upheld by a unanimous decision after full argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kale v. Integrated Device Technology, Inc., et. al.: Defended Integrated Device Technology against claim of discrimination based on race and national origin. Dismissal of all claims in Superior Court of Santa Clara County after plaintiff failed to comply with discovery procedures. Successfully obtained affirmance by Sixth District Court of Appeal.
Luaritz v. Dataquest: Defended client Dataquest, Inc. against wrongful termination claim brought by a former employee. Prevailed on summary judgment in Santa Clara County Superior Court and successfully defended appeal in the California Court of Appeal.
Lubic v. Vulcan Materials: We secured a unanimous defense verdict for our client following a four week jury trial in San Diego Superior Court. The plaintiff, one of the few female truck drivers at the company, had claimed she was sexually harassed by customers and vendors and retaliated against after she raised her claims.
Presley v. IBM: Federal court trial defending IBM Corporation against numerous claims of discrimination, defamation, tortuous discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and ERISA violations. Defendant's motion for nonsuit was granted after approximately one week of trial, and the US. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case.
Proudfoot v. P.C. Doctor: We defended a software company in an overtime case originally pled as a class action. We defeated the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, thus limiting the case to a handful of individuals who formally joined the case as plaintiffs. We thereafter secured a favorable settlement for our client, funded largely by the company's insurance carrier.
Reab v. Electronic Arts: Represented the employer in defending a national class-action lawsuit (filed in Federal District Court of Colorado) involving claims brought on behalf of thousands of "volunteer counselors" asserting entitlement to overtime pay under the FLSA and Colorado Wage Act. After successfully narrowing the representative class, and extensive discovery and motion practice, the Company achieved a favorable settlement extended to a very limited class.
Bell v. Arrow International: Following a bench trial on plaintiff's alter ego claim, in which he attempted to impose liability against his employer's larger (and wealthier) parent company, the court dismissed all claims against our client.
Clarke v. Symantec Corporation: Obtained summary judgment dismissal of all claims in a race discrimination and retaliation case filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Burnley, Secretary of Dept. of Transportation v. Railway Labor Executives Association, et. al.: Appeared as amicus counsel for CELC before the U.S. Supreme Court, briefing in support of mandatory drug testing for employees involved in safety-sensitive jobs. In this case of first impression, the Supreme Court found the drug testing programs in issue to be constitutional and lawful.
Carter v. NatSteel Electronics: In this reverse discrimination case, the employee accused the company of terminating him because of his race (Caucasian) and because he had raised concerns about immigration compliance matters. Representing the company, we convinced the court to dismiss most of the employee's claims on a motion for summary judgment and quickly negotiated a settlement of the remaining claims.
Dette v. Digital Link Corp: Successfully defended Digital Link Corp, a Silicon Valley-based electronics firm, in jury trial. Digital Link was facing claims by a salesman for commissions, fraud and punitive damages. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of less than $500 for plaintiff.
Expand Networks v. Peribit Networks: In U.S. District Court in New Jersey, we defeated the application for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by the plaintiff, a competitor of our client, who alleged claims for trade secrets and unlawful solicitation. After our victory at the preliminary phase, we negotiated a favorable settlement for our client.
Hill v. NCAA: This precedent-setting case involved multiple challenges to the NCAA's drug testing program under the right of privacy clause of the California Constitution. As amicus counsel on behalf of the CELC, argued in support of the NCAA's program, which the California Supreme Court found to be lawful and constitutional.
Iwama v. Ancore Corporation: Defended explosives detection technology company against claims for breach of contract and fraud and pursued cross-claims against the plaintiff. We secured dismissal of a fraud claim against the company and an individual defendant and, following a jury trial, significantly reduced the plaintiff's contract damages through a creative mitigation defense. We also secured a significant judgment, including punitive damages, against the plaintiff for a net win for our client.
Loder v. City of Glendale: As amicus counsel on behalf of the California Employment Law Council ("CELC"), argued in support of the City of Glendale's program for testing job applicants. The California Supreme Court, reviewing the issue of private sector job-applicant drug testing for the first time, ruled in favor of the City of Glendale, and adopted the arguments set forth by the CELC that the programs were constitutional and lawful.
Mendel v. The Industry Standard: In this case, a freelance writer brought a Labor Commissioner claim against The Industry Standard alleging that, although the company had classified him as an independent contractor, he was in reality an employee entitled to all of the protections of the Labor Code. We successfully represented The Industry Standard in the hearing before the Labor Commissioner, in which the Labor Commissioner ruled that the worker was in fact an independent contractor, and dismissed the claims.
Sakasegawa v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc. and Falque v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc.: Won summary judgment in Santa Clara County Superior Court on behalf of Cadence in the Sakasegawa case, which involved claims of discrimination brought by female sales representative and won summary judgment in Los Angeles County Superior Court in the Falque case in an age discrimination and wrongful termination action brought by a former manager.
Woodfin v. MAST Immunosystems, et. al.: Won defense award in binding arbitration in Superior Court, Nevada County of claims brought by terminated female vice-president of MAST, Immunosystems, a privately-held medical test equipment company.
AccentHealth v. Miller: Represented plaintiff AccentHealth in suit against former Vice President of Sales for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, and trade secret misappropriation in connection with defendant's simultaneous service to plaintiff and direct competitor. Secured favorable settlement, approved by New York federal district court, following court's ruling permitting plaintiff's access to defendant's personal computer.
Carpenters Work Preservation Trust Fund v. Bruns Belmont Construction: Defended contractor against simultaneous state court litigation by Carpenters' Union and investigation by state agencies regarding alleged prevailing wage violations. Secured successful settlement for defendant.
Wilkinson v. Times Mirror, Matthew Bender: Represented defendants before the Superior Court of Alameda County, which enjoined the client's drug testing of job applicants. In one of the seminal decisions regarding privacy law in the workplace, the California Court of Appeal vacated the injunction and found that the client's drug testing procedures were constitutional and lawful.
|
