close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Fenwick Employment Brief - February 23, 2006

Citing Procedural Confusion, Federal Court Refuses to Reinstate First Successful Sox Whistleblower

NEWS BITES

IBM Faces Massive Overtime Class Action

Home Depot Defeats Class Action Certification

UBS to Pay $89 Million to Settle Misclassification and Overtime Claims

California Appellate Court Upholds Class Action Waiver

DOL's Overall Collections Fall While Recovery for Low-Wage Workers Increase

Citing Procedural Confusion, Federal Court Refuses to Reinstate First Successful Sox Whistleblower

On appeal, a Virginia federal judge recently refused to enforce a Labor Department administrative law judge's order reinstating the first plaintiff to bring a successful claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower protections. The plaintiff, Welch, brought suit in 2002 after he was terminated from his position as CFO of Cardinal Bankshares. As CFO, Welch refused to certify a quarterly financial statement due to what he viewed as financial irregularities involving individuals with significant roles in internal controls. Welch was discharged two weeks later after he refused to meet with company officials without his counsel present.

In 2004, the ALJ found that Cardinal unlawfully retaliated against Welch in violation of SOX, and in 2005 it ordered reinstatement along with a monetary award of $172,839.71. On appeal, the federal court reversed the reinstatement order saying it was unclear whether the initial reinstatement order was "final," and explaining that the confusion was created by the SOX enforcement process. It emphasized that its refusal to enforce the reinstatement order was driven by procedural grounds, i.e., whether Cardinal had sufficient notice that it was expected to request a stay of reinstatement during the appeal. Welch v. Cardinal Bankshares Corp., W.D. Va., No. 05-00546, January 26, 2006. However, the federal court did not change the order that Cardinal unlawfully retaliated against Welch in violation of SOX.

As a result of this decision, the procedural framework for enforceable reinstatement orders under SOX is clouded with uncertainty. It is best, of course, to avoid such a "retaliation" predicament in the first instance.

NEWS BITES

IBM Faces Massive Overtime Class Action
The world's largest technology services provider, IBM, faces a nationwide lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California accusing it of misclassifying tens of thousands of current and former installers and maintenance workers. Rosenburg v. IBM. The lawsuit seeks compensation on behalf of such employees nationwide. Plaintiffs' lawyers associated with the IBM lawsuit, who previously obtained a settlement against Computer Sciences Corp. on behalf of 30,000 computer workers, have indicated that the potential class in the IBM suit is larger. Attorneys on both sides of the bar speculate that the IBM suit foretells a trend toward increasing overtime class action litigation targeting technology companies.

Home Depot Defeats Class Action Certification
In a significant win for employers, a California trial court judge recently ruled against Home Depot employees seeking class certification in a large wage/hour case. Home Depot Overtime Cases, Cal. Sup. Ct., No. JCCP4229, February 2, 2006. The judge rejected an "all or nothing" approach to handling the claims of up to 2,800 managers, explaining that the claims were too individualized to proceed as a class. The judge noted that the purported class representatives recognized that a sizable percentage of the 2,800 managers were rightly classified as exempt, and that if the number of correctly classified employees exceeded 50 percent, the truly misclassified employees would receive no compensation under class action procedures.

UBS to Pay $89 Million to Settle Misclassification and Overtime Claims
On February 9, UBS announced that it will pay up to $89 million to settle four lawsuits, which accuse the financial firm of improperly classifying as many as 25,000 financial advisors as exempt employees. The lawsuits allege that the financial advisors do not meet the requirements of the administrative exemption under which they were classified. The lawsuits claim that the financial advisors are essentially salespeople hired to sell securities, and do not qualify for the administrative exemption which requires that they perform significant management responsibilities closely aligned with business operations.

California Appellate Court Upholds Class Action Waiver
A California appellate court recently considered whether the California Supreme Court's decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, which invalidated a class action waiver in a consumer contract of adhesion, also invalidated waivers of class actions in employment contracts. Circuit City's Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures included an option to elect binding arbitration that waived the right to bring class action claims. Distinguishing Circuit City's policy from the adhesive consumer agreement in Discover Bank, the appeals court concluded that the optional waiver of class actions was enforceable. Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.

DOL's Overall Collections Fall While Recovery for Low-Wage Workers Increase

The Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division collected $166 million in back wages during 2005. While the number of overall complaints filed with the Division dropped, collections on behalf of low-wage workers actually increased by 13 percent.


This Fenwick Employment Brief is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as advertising, solicitation, legal advice or opinion. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel.

Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.