Wage-and-Hour

​Orrick’s Employment Law Group has successfully defended over 150 wage-and-hour class, collective and representative actions across a wide spectrum of industries. Our representation includes all phases of class litigation, from initial filing to class certification and subsequent litigation through settlement and claims proceedings. Our employment litigators have a proven track record of obtaining dismissal of purported class claims on the pleadings and defeating class certification.

In addition to our successful representation of class actions, we have a strong reputation of representing clients with

  • DLSE, EDD and DOL proceedings
  • Audits and enforcement actions
  • Single plaintiff cases
  • Meal and rest break issues
  • Off-the-clock matters
  • Independent contractor disputes
  • Pay deductions and frequency
  • Final pay, minimum wage, vacation pay and travel pay
  • Uniform and tools
  • Alternative work schedules

Orrick's employment lawyers work with clients’ in-house legal, management and human resources departments to develop a tailored and business-focused approach to meet objectives.  Orrick shares our clients’ emphasis on preventive measures to minimize the risk of litigation and on resolving matters cost-effectively through alternatives such as mediation and early settlement conferences.

​Apple.  Orrick defeated class certification in Camuti v. Apple, a wage-and-hour class action seeking rest break penalties on behalf of certain retail employees.

Health Net.  Orrick represented Health Net in Eddings v. Health Net, Inc., et al., against plaintiffs’ off-the-clock, meal period and rounding claims, in both FLSA and CA claims, on behalf of a putative class in excess of 3,000 call center employees working across the country. Orrick defeated class certification at Stage 1 for the FLSA and CA off-the-clock and meal period claims.

Major Financial Institution.  Orrick represented a major financial institution in a putative wage-and-hour class action asserting meal and rest break violations. The case had more than 5,000 putative class members, and the damages analysis put liability in the eight figure range. Orrick successfully defeated certification of the proposed class. 

Morgan Stanley.  Orrick represents Morgan Stanley in Pontilena v. Morgan Stanley, five consolidated matters proceeding as a multi-district litigation in New Jersey. The plaintiffs brought FLSA claims on behalf of a nationwide class of financial advisors, contending that they were misclassified as exempt and therefore entitled to overtime. Plaintiffs also assert state law claims for overtime and for business expense reimbursement under New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut law. This case represents the leading edge of a new wave of lawsuits challenging the exempt status of financial consultants and brokers.

Morgan Stanley.  Orrick won summary judgment in Bloemendaal v. Morgan Stanley, a case where plaintiff challenged Morgan Stanley’s policy of requiring employees who have brokerage accounts to maintain their accounts with the firm, claiming that it violates Labor Code section 450 and constitutes “compelled patronage.” All claims dismissed on motion to dismiss.

PricewaterhouseCoopers.  Orrick secured a major victory in the Ninth Circuit for PricewaterhouseCoopers in a case of first impression. In Campbell, et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's entry of summary judgment against PwC and remanded the case to the district court for trial, holding that PwC had established "material fact questions" regarding whether its unlicensed associate accountants are eligible for exemption from California overtime requirements.

Sears Roebuck & Co.  Orrick defeated class certification in Ortega v. Sears, a wage-and-hour class action of over 5,000 mechanics who worked in Sears Auto Centers in California. The case involved claims for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on various off-the-clock allegations, meal and rest break violations and numerous other claims.

Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.

OK
Cancel