Andrew Livingston, a partner in the San Francisco office, is the Deputy Practice Group Leader of Orrick’s Global Employment Law Group.

Orrick’s Employment Law and Litigation group was recently named Labor & Employment Department of the Year in California by The Recorder, the premier source for legal news, in recognition of their significant wins on behalf of leading multinational companies on today’s most complex and challenging employment law matters.

Andrew is a highly regarded trial lawyer.  The Daily Journal has listed him as a Top Labor & Employment Attorney a number of times, and he has been selected as a BTI Client Service Allstar. Legal 500 has recognized Andrew as a "very effective courtroom advocate who connects well with jurors" and noted that he is "exceptional in his ability to organize complex factual and legal arguments into a simple and persuasive presentation."

Andrew represents clients in a wide variety of industries, but specifically focuses on financial services, retail, technology, and advertising.

He has an extensive class- and collective-action practice. He routinely defends employers in such cases in state and federal courts, particularly in cases alleging violations of the wage-and-hour laws. Andrew also defends employers in numerous other types of cases, such as those related to restrictive covenants and trade secrets, wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment and retaliation.


Posts by: Andrew Livingston

California Supreme Court Holds “No Universal Rule” Exists When Deciding Who Should Determine Availability of Classwide Arbitration


On July 28, 2016, the California Supreme Court added to the ever-changing body of case law regarding classwide arbitration when it held that “no universal rule” exists regarding who (the court or the arbitrator) should decide whether classwide arbitration is permissible under an arbitration agreement, and that this issue must be decided on a case-by-case basis. 


Despite Veteran-Friendly Construction, Liability Under USERRA’s Anti-Discrimination Provisions Still Requires Adverse Employment Action


The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4335, prohibits discrimination against employees and potential employees based on their military service and imposes certain obligations on employers with respect to employees returning to work after a period of service in the U.S. military.  With a large number of service members currently deployed and increased intervention against ISIS potentially enlarging these numbers, employers’ treatment of employees who are members of the military continues to remain an important issue.


Pennsylvania Plaintiffs Launch Successful Attack on Pittsburgh’s Local Paid Sick Leave


The proliferation of paid sick leave (PSL) laws has been well-documented in the last few years.  California’s PSL statute has received particular attention in this blog, but Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Oregon have also adopted similar state-wide legislation.  And it is not just the states that are rolling out requirements for PSL; dozens of cities and counties have also adopted PSL ordinances (oftentimes in states that already have similar laws in place).  Major municipal adopters include New York City, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Newark, and Philadelphia.


Managing PAGA Claims: A Recent Decision Points the Way to Defeat Representative Actions

Judges Gavel

A recent federal court decision illustrates how defendants may be able to defeat PAGA claims in California.  Brown v. American Airlines, Inc., No. CV 10-8431-AG (PJWx), 2015 WL 6735217 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015) is the latest case to dismiss PAGA claims based on the presence of numerous individualized issues that render the case unmanageable.  This decision provides hope for employers in the face of rulings by the California Supreme Court and certain federal district courts that PAGA actions need not meet class certification requirements.


Not All Class Actions Are Created Equal Under CAFA, Says the Ninth Circuit


The Ninth Circuit recently delivered a setback to defendants seeking to remove cases to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) when it interpreted the statute narrowly to exclude consideration of non-class claims in determining the jurisdictional amount in controversy in Yocupicio v. PAE Grp., LLC, No. 15-55878, 2015 WL 4568722 (9th Cir. 2015).


Is Supervisor-Induced Stress a Protected Disability? California Appellate Court Says No


Employers often encounter challenging questions regarding their duty to accommodate employees who are diagnosed with stress, anxiety, or other mental health conditions that allegedly impact job performance absent accommodation.  But what if an employee claims that the stress of working with a particular supervisor is disabling, and that a transfer is the only reasonable accommodation?  The California Court of Appeal has provided some measure of clarity, in a recent opinion holding that anxiety and stress claimed by an employee as a result of working under a particular supervisor does not constitute a disability under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Found., Case No. C073677 (May 26, 2015).


Splitting the Baby: SCOTUS Ruling in Pregnancy Discrimination Suit Calls For Review of Pregnancy Accommodations

US Supreme Court

On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., holding that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) requires courts to consider the extent to which an employer’s policy treats pregnant workers less favorably than it treats non-pregnant workers similar in their ability or inability to perform their job duties.


IRS Announces That It Will No Longer Refund FICA Taxes on Severance Payments

Pen and Calculator

The IRS recently announced that severance payments are taxable wages under FICA, and thus employers who seek tax refunds on those payments will be denied.  The IRS’s position reflects the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., issued in March of last year.


Franchisors Beware: NLRB Seeking to Super-Size Joint Employer Liability


The National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) General Counsel’s Office has again signaled its commitment to expanding the scope of the current test for joint employment. In a move that could have implications for a broad array of franchise relationships, on December 19, 2014, the General Counsel of the NLRB announced that it has issued complaints against both McDonald’s franchisees and McDonald’s USA, the franchisor, as a joint employer. The decision to name McDonald’s as a respondent is consistent with the General Counsel’s recent advocacy that the current joint employment standard is too narrow.


Domino’s Delivers Key Ruling in Favor of Franchisors

Judges Gavel

The California Supreme Court recently issued an important victory for franchisors, finding that a franchisor does not stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee and its employees for purposes of holding the franchisor vicariously liable.