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 - January 10, 2005

Ninth Circuit Permits Requirement that Women Bartenders Wear Makeup

Indefinite Leave of Absence Not A Reasonable Accommodation When Employee Unlikely to Return Within Reasonable Time

Second Circuit Defines What Constitutes "Willful" Violations Under the FMLA

IMPORTANT REMINDER: Sexual Harassment Training Now Mandatory For Many California Supervisory Employees

Ninth Circuit Permits Requirement that Women Bartenders Wear Makeup

The Ninth Circuit recently upheld summary judgment for a casino resort that fired a female bartender for failure to comply with its grooming standards that required women to wear makeup and prohibited men from doing the same, based on a lack of concrete evidence that the policy unequally burdened women. In Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Company, Darlene Jespersen was a bartender at Harrah's Casino in Reno for almost 20 years with stellar performance reviews. In 2000, Harrah's implemented a "Personal Best" image program, which had general neatness standards that applied to both genders, as well as certain gender-specific standards. Specifically, men were required to keep their hair short, their fingernails neatly trimmed and without colored nail polish, and to not wear makeup. Women were required to wear their hair "teased, curled, or styled," to use clear, white, pink or red nail polish, and to wear makeup consisting of foundation, blush, mascara and lip color. When Jespersen refused to comply with the makeup requirement because she thought it was degrading and would make patrons view her as a sexual object, Harrah's fired her.

The trial court granted Harrah's motion for summary judgment on Jespersen's sex discrimination claim. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit (which covers Nevada and California, among other states) upheld the dismissal. The court found that because appearance and grooming standards affect "mutable" characteristics, they are permissible so long as they do not impose unequal burdens on men and women. Although one dissenting judge though the court was ignoring "common sense," the majority found that Jespersen failed to submit any concrete evidence that Harrah's "Personal Best" policy imposed greater time or cost burdens on women when viewing all of the policy's standards in the aggregate.

While the employer prevailed in this case, companies should carefully consider the potential risks of imposing materially different grooming and appearance standards on men and women, as the next litigant may be able to submit sufficient evidence regarding the relative burdens of such policies.

Indefinite Leave of Absence Not A Reasonable Accommodation When Employee Unlikely to Return Within Reasonable Time

The Third Circuit (covering Pennsylvania, among other states) recently held that an indefinite unpaid leave of absence is not a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when there is no indication that the employee will be able to return to work in the near future. In Fogleman v. Greater Hazleton Health Alliance, Aurea Fogleman was terminated from her position as a pharmacy technician because of excessive absenteeism. Fogleman sued under the ADA, claiming she was not provided the reasonable accommodation of an unpaid leave of absence. After two days of a jury trial, the district court granted the employer's motion for judgment in its favor and dismissed the complaint.

On appeal, the court acknowledged that a requested unpaid leave of absence might constitute a reasonable accommodation if it would enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job in the "near future." However, in this case, the requested leave was for an "indefinite and open-ended period of time."

In fact, in a separate workers' compensation action, Fogleman had prevailed on her claim of "full disability" after June 3, 2000. Consequently, the employer could reasonably assume, without further evidence from Fogleman that she would be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation, that she would not be able to return to work anytime soon.

While this case is encouraging for employers, companies should be mindful that the ADA requires that they engage in an interactive process with employees to determine what, if any, reasonable accommodations might exist, and they should evaluate each case on an individualized basis.

Second Circuit Defines What Constitutes "Willful" Violations Under the FMLA

In a case that defines what actions constitute "willfulness" under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) and illustrates the importance of timely action by employee claimants, the Second Circuit (which covers New York, among other states) upheld the dismissal of an employee's FMLA claim that was filed almost three years after his termination. In Porter v. NYU School of Law, Carlton Porter, a security guard at NYU, was terminated for abuse of sick leave and poor attendance. Porter sued, claiming he was entitled to medical leave under the FMLA and that NYU had willfully violated the law in terminating him. The district court granted NYU's motion for summary judgment, finding that, even assuming NYU violated the FMLA in terminating Porter, the violation was not willful such that Porter's claim was not timely filed within the two-year statute of limitation for non-willful FMLA claims. Had NYU's conduct been willful, though, the longer three-year statute of limitations would have applied and his lawsuit would have been timely.

On appeal, the Second Circuit noted that the FMLA does not specifically define "willful." Borrowing from the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of "willful" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court found that conduct is not willful if an employer "acts reasonably in determining its legal obligation," or if the employer acts "unreasonably, but not recklessly, in determining its legal obligation." Here, the court found that NYU reasonably requested additional information from Porter substantiating his alleged inability to work, which Porter did not provide. In addition, NYU reasonably relied upon the second opinion offered by a physician it paid for, who determined Porter was fit to return to work.

Although navigating the procedural requirements of the FMLA can present a challenge to even experienced HR professionals, this case demonstrates that a reasonable attempt to comply with the law can preclude an employee for successfully claiming willful violations of the law.

IMPORTANT REMINDER: Sexual Harassment Training Now Mandatory For Many California Supervisory Employees

Employers are reminded of a new law that went into effect January 1, 2005, requiring California employers with 50 or more employees to provide two hours of sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees in California. Supervisors employed as of July 1, 2005, must receive the training by January 1, 2006. All other new supervisory employees must receive the training within six months of their assumption of a supervisory position. Supervisors who previously received this sexual harassment training in 2003 or 2004 are not subject to the January 1, 2006 deadline. After January 1, 2006, supervisory employees must receive the training once every two years.

The training must be classroom training or other effective "interactive" training (i.e., video- or audio recorded presentations alone are not enough) and must be conducted by trainers or educators with knowledge and expertise in the prevention of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Please feel free to contact a Fenwick & West employment attorney if you are interested in discussing our tailored management training programs to meet the requirements of this law.


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