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 - November 29, 2005

ADA Interactive Process May Require Communicating With Employee's Attorney

Employer Properly Hired Investigator When Suspicious of Leave Abuse

NEWS BITES

Report Suggests that Employees From Countries with High Tuberculosis Should Be Screened for TB

Applicant/Offeree Who Does Not Start Work May Sue for "Whistleblower" Wrongful Termination

California Supreme Court Grants Review of Disability Case

EEOC Gives Final Approval to Revised EEO-1

ADA Interactive Process May Require Communicating With Employee's Attorney

The California Court of Appeal recently ruled that, although an employer may ordinarily refuse to communicate through an employee's attorney during the interactive process to reasonably accommodate an employee's disability, in some limited circumstances the employer may need to communicate with an employee's attorney. Claudio v. Regents of the University of California was just such a case. There, Michael Claudio worked as a technician for the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California Davis ("UCD"). He contracted a disease which foreclosed him from working around animals. While on medical leave, UCD informed Claudio that he had been terminated. A vocational rehabilitation specialist with UCD contacted Claudio and attempted to engage in an interactive process with him to determine if there were alternate positions that he could perform. While Claudio referred UCD to his attorney, UCD never communicated with counsel. The appellate court concluded that because UCD had previously terminated Claudio, his legal status was uncertain and it was reasonable that he required UCD to communicate with him through his attorney. Employers should be aware of these unique circumstances that might require dealing with an employee's attorney.

Employer Properly Hired Investigator When Suspicious of Leave Abuse

A federal court in Boston recently concluded that an employer properly hired an investigator to determine the validity of an employee's FMLA leave. In Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Division, Brian Colburn periodically took FMLA leave for migraines. The employer hired an investigator because it was suspicious of Colburn after the company was unable to reach him at home on work days. The investigator followed Colburn to the gym, as he rented videos, went shopping at different stores, and drove himself to other locations when he was supposedly too sick to work. The company then terminated Colburn. Colburn urged that hiring the investigator was evidence of pretext and that the employer retaliated against him for exercising his FMLA rights. Rejecting the argument, the court observed that the employer had hired investigators on other occasions, and that it had reasonable grounds to be suspicious of Colburn.

NEWS BITES

Report Suggests that Employees From Countries with High Tuberculosis Should Be Screened for TB

The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine recently conducted a study of the workplace environment and risk factors for transmission of tuberculosis. The study recommended pre-employment testing of employees who are recent immigrants from a country with a high tuberculosis rate such as El Salvador. Employers are cautioned that such selective testing of minority immigrant applicants or employees may create liability for discrimination and should only be conducted after consulting with counsel.

Applicant/Offeree Who Does Not Start Work May Sue for "Whistleblower" Wrongful Termination

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that an applicant who accepted employment but never commenced work could nonetheless sue for wrongful termination as a whistleblower after the employer allegedly withdrew the offer of employment because he testified as a witness against the company. Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc. The court affirmed an award of $800,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

September 26, 2005 FEB. Earlier disability discrimination cases placed the burden of proof on the employee-plaintiff to prove that he could perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. In Green, the lower court ruled that the employer must prove an employee-plaintiff could not perform his duties with or without reasonable accommodation. The Supreme Court will decide who bears the burden of proof on this important issue.

 

EEOC Gives Final Approval to Revised EEO-1

The EEOC approved revisions to the EEO-1 form, including the addition of a "two or more race" category for reporting the ethnicity of employees. If these changes are approved by the Office of Management and Budget they will go into effect in 2007.


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.

©2012 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.