CURRENT CASES

Altshuler Berzon's docket currently includes:

• Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger
  A federal court challenge, on behalf of consumers and providers of in-home support services to elderly and disabled Californians, to a state statute that would sharply reduce the wages paid to low-income home care providers on the grounds the statute violates the Medicaid Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.
  
• V.L. v. Wagner
  A federal court challenge to a California statute that would entirely eliminate or severely restrict the eligibility of about 120,000 elderly and disabled individuals for in-home support services on the grounds the statute violates the Due Process Clause, the Medicaid Act, and other legal requirements.
  
• Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano
  A U.S. Supreme Court case that presents a federal preemption challenge to an Arizona statute that prohibits an employer from continuing to operate if found by the State to have hired an undocumented worker.
  
• Friendly House v. Whiting
  A federal court constitutional challenge to Arizona’s 2010 law requiring State enforcement of immigration law.
  
• Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Comm’n
  A challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal and state civil rights laws to discrimination against low income minority communities in public transportation funding.
  
• Hawaii State Teachers Association and United Public Workers v. Lingle
  A challenge to the Hawaii Governor's decision to unilaterally impose unpaid furloughs of three days per month for all state employees and to withhold 14 percent of funds allocated to the Department of Education.
  
• Hawaii State Teachers Ass’n v. Hawaii Labor Relations Bd.
  A lawsuit asserting the constitutional rights of public school teachers not to be subjected to random, suspicionless drug and alcohol testing.
  
• United Public Workers v. Lingle
  A lawsuit for unlawful retaliation against the Governor of Hawaii for implementing mass layoffs of employees who successfully challenged an Executive Order.
  
• Sutter Health v. UNITE HERE
  Defense of a labor union against claims for defamation and trade libel resulting from a postcard advising prospective hospital patients of a labor dispute between the union and a laundry supplier to the hospitals.
  
• Luquetta v. Regents of the University of California
  A state court class action against the University of California alleging the University breached contracts by increasing fees for tens of thousands of undergraduate, graduate and professional students.
  
• Donselman v. California State University
  A state court class action lawsuit against the California State University alleging the University breached its contracts with thousands of students by imposing last-minute fee increases.
  
• Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. United Air Lines
  A state court lawsuit challenging a national airline’s violation of California’s “kin care” law by refusing to permit all airline pilots domiciled in California to use their accrued paid sick leave to care for ill family members.
  
• Sierra Club v. Schwarzenegger:
  A lawsuit against the Schwarzenegger administration for delays in adding substances to the list of chemicals in California that are known to cause cancer and reproductive harm.
  
• Holloway v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
  A federal court class action alleging that a national electronics retailer discriminates against women and minorities in its hiring, promotion and compensation practices.
  
• Banuelos v. Cintas Corp. No. 2
  A class action challenging a national industrial laundry corporation’s systematic underpayment of its workers in violation of the Los Angeles living wage ordinance.
  
• Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
  The defense on appeal of a $16 million class-action settlement for African-American and Latino financial advisors and financial advisor trainees that will (among other non-monetary relief) require Morgan Stanley to change its account distribution procedures to de-emphasize historical factors that have an adverse impact on minorities, to engage in active recruitment of minority financial advisors, and to tie manager compensation to diversification efforts.
  
• NRDC v. Kempthorne
  Federal environmental challenge to long-term contracts for the delivery of more than 2.3 million acre-feet of California Central Valley Project water, which pose a severe risk to the survival and recovery of the threatened Delta smelt.
  
• State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista
  A case in the California Supreme Court seeking to establish that the California law that requires workers to be paid prevailing wages on public construction projects applies to projects undertaken by charter cities.
  
• Veliz v. Cintas Corp.
  Class action challenges, proceeding in the Ninth Circuit, the Northern District of California, and AAA arbitration, to a nationwide industrial laundry company’s policy of classifying its drivers as exempt from the overtime requirements of federal and state wage-and-hour laws.
  
• Garvin v. Utility Consumers’ Action Network/Savage v. Utility Consumers’ Action Network
  The defense on appeal of a $14 million settlement of a state law privacy class action challenging a bank’s practice of selling confidential consumer information to third-party marketing companies.
  
• Engel v. Serono International SA/Helgren v. Amgen USA, Inc./Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.
  Court challenges to several pharmaceutical companies’ failure to pay overtime compensation to their sales representatives.
  
• Common Cause of Colorado v. Buescher
  A challenge to voter purging practices by the State of Colorado as violating federal voter protection laws.
  
• Dallman v. Ritter
  A challenge to Colorado Amendment 54, which would ban public employee unions in Colorado from making political contributions in local and state elections.
  
• Narayan v. EGL, Inc.
  A class action lawsuit asserting wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code on behalf of delivery truck drivers who were unlawfully treated as independent contractors rather than employees.
  
• In re Farmers Ins. Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation
  A nationwide FLSA, ERISA, and state law overtime class action challenging an insurance company’s treatment of its claims representatives as exempt “administrators.”
  
• City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3
  Representing the SEIU’s California State Council as amicus curiae before the California Supreme Court in a case regarding whether there is an exception PERB’s primary jurisdiction over public sector labor relations that would permit the California courts to issue injunctions against certain public employee strikes.
  
• Knox v. Calif. State Employees Ass’n, Local 1000
  The defense of a union’s collection of “fair share fees” from non-members against a challenge by the anti-union National Right to Work Foundation.
  
• Zalewa v. Tempo Research
  The defense on appeal of a state court judgment awarding unpaid retention bonuses to the laid-off employees of a high-tech company.
  
• Ronches v. Dickerson Employee Benefits
  An ERISA lawsuit against the former fiduciaries of a health trust fund alleging breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions.
  
• Faulkner v. Dominguez
  The defense of a union representing airline ramp, operations, provisions and freight agents in an action for breach of contract.
  
• NRDC v. Petco, et al.
  A Proposition 65 lawsuit against pet care manufacturers and retailers alleging failure to warn consumers of cancer risk from exposure to propoxur in flea collars.
  
• Clarke v. JP Morgan Chase
  A class action lawsuit on behalf of technical support workers for JP Morgan Chase nationwide, who allege they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime, then re-classified as non-exempt from overtime, but not paid back wages for the period when they were misclassified.
  
• Southern Wine & Spirits v. Simpkins
  Litigation proceeding in Miami and San Francisco to determine the enforceability of a covenant-not-to-compete and Florida venue and choice-of-law clauses in an employment contract between a Florida company and a California executive.
  
• California Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles
  Amicus brief in California Supreme Court that defends against federal and state preemption challenges to a City ordinance that requires large grocery stores, upon a change in ownership, to retain the existing workforce for a 90-day period.
  
• Kairy v SuperShuttle International
  Interlocutory appeal to Ninth Circuit challenging district court's dismissal of an employment class action lawsuit brought by airport shuttle drivers as preempted by California Public Utilities Act
  
• Vasquez v. State of California
  Defense on appeal of attorney's fee award incurred in California Supreme Court case establishing the scope of California's private attorney general fees statute.
  
• Bright v. 99 Cent Only Stores
  Appeal from dismissal of class action brought under California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act seeking statutory penalties for retail employer's violation of IWC Wage Order 7-2001, which requires retailers to provide "suitable seats" to their cashiers.
  
• Pryor v. Overseas Administrative Services, Inc.
  Arbitration class action on behalf of truck drivers employed in Iraq by KBR Halliburton who contend the company breached its contract to pay them for all hours worked.
  
• Endsley v. Chiang
  The defense in state court of the right of certain state employees to full payment of wages during a budget impasse.
  
• Miscellaneous
  We also represent many local unions and apprenticeship programs on general matters, including litigation, negotiations, arbitrations and advice. In addition, we represent many workers in individual employment matters, we represent public agencies in selected constitutional cases, we provide counsel on First Amendment issues to the Public Health Institute’s Technical Assistance Legal Center (TALC), we defend public interest groups against SLAPP suits, we represent law firms and public interest organizations on statutory and common fund attorneys’ fees matters, and we provide legal advice on the drafting of legislation.