Gary Siniscalco, a partner in the San Francisco office, is a member of the employment law group. Mr. Siniscalco has developed special expertise in equal opportunity, affirmative action (OFCCP) compliance, wrongful discharge, wage-and-hour matters and in working with companies on cross-border employment issues. His practice involves both employment litigation and counseling. He has handled numerous class actions, pattern and practice cases and government audits, in court and before the EEOC and Department of Labor.
Gary is widely recognized as one the top management employment lawyers in the United States by every major ranking organization, including Chambers USA, the National Law Journal, Best of the Best USA (Euromoney), Super Lawyers and Who’s Who Legal. Among management employment lawyers in the United States and Europe, Gary is ranked in the top 10 of Who’s Who international management labor and employment lawyers and is described as “absolutely superb.”
Gary’s extensive practice in class actions includes litigation, consent decree strategies and preventive advice. Gary has also been designated as an expert or retained as special counsel in several federal court class actions. Gary’s counseling practice extends beyond the United States and includes assisting U.S. multinational companies in dealing with employee issues in foreign jurisdictions. He has written numerous articles on employment law. Most recently, he is Management Editor-in-Chief of a two-volume treatise--Restrictive Covenants and Trade Secrets in Employment Law: An International Survey (BNA, 2010). Gary also was co-author of "The Law of Employment Discrimination from 1985-2010," Journal of the ABA Labor & Employment Law Section, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Spring 2010).
Some of Gary’s current representations include several EEOC commissioner’s charge and individual claims of race and national origin discrimination in use of criminal background checks against a major financial services company; a commissioner’s charge alleging race discrimination in hiring and promotions; a multi-employee race promotion and pay case against a major retail store chain; EEOC Equal Pay Act investigations; and OFCCP systemic pay and promotion audits.
Prior to joining Orrick, Gary served as regional counsel and senior trial attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in San Francisco.
In Germany, remuneration of managers in general has increasingly come into public and political focus.
Over the last years, the German legislator enacted several law reforms concerning managers’ pay. Very recently, the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz “KWG”) was amended effective January 2014, to provide for further restrictions on bonus payments for managers and employees in the banking industry. A reform of the German Stock Corporation Act (Aktiengesetz “AktG”) however, shifting the authority of determining the remuneration of board members to the shareholders’ meeting was stopped, but presumably only for the time being. Read More
On October 17, 2013, the California Supreme Court revisited the enforceability of arbitration agreements in California. The Court released its decisionSonic-Calabasas Inc. v. Moreno (Sonic II). In that 5 – 2 ruling, the California Supreme Court reversed its prior decision to strike down an arbitration agreement on the ground of FAA preemption, but remanded the case for analysis of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement under an unconscionability analysis. Read More
Welcome to the Fall 2013 edition of Orrick World: A Quarterly Report of Global Employment Law Issues for Multinationals. We have designed this newsletter to provide our multinational clients with quarterly updates on important employment law issues across the globe. Read More.
Employees who live in employer-provided housing as part of their job may not so easily claim wages for 24-hour periods of work under California’s Wage Orders, according to a recent opinion, Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., Case No. B245019 (July 3, 2013). Mendiola involved a class of security guards who were employed at various constructions sites across California. On weekdays, the guards were scheduled from 5:00 to 7:00 a.m. and from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m. On weekends the guards patrolled from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. From 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. on weekends and weekdays, the guards were to remain on call at the construction site where they were provided trailer residences for their exclusive use during the on-call time. Read More
On June 11, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed two separate lawsuits against Dollar General and BMW Manufacturing Co. LLC, accusing each company of discriminating against Black job applicants through the improper use of criminal background screens. The aggressive positions taken by the EEOC in these cases demonstrate the agency means business with respect to cracking down on criminal background check policies that it feels are not consistent with its April 25, 2012 enforcement guidance on the use of criminal conviction and arrest records in employment decisions. The lawsuits also underscore the importance of reviewing existing policies in light of the EEOC’s emphasis on this issue.
For decades, the EEOC has taken the position that criminal background check policies pose a particular threat of adverse impact discrimination against Black and Hispanic job applicants in light of statistics showing that they are convicted at a rate disproportionally greater than their representation in the population. The agency’s first written policy guidance on the use of criminal background screens, published in 1987, explains that “the Commission has held and continues to hold that [criminal background check policies are] unlawful under Title VII in the absence of a justifying business necessity.” In April 2012, the EEOC issued new guidance on the topic (click here to read our April 30, 2012 blog entry on the EEOC’s guidance). Technically, the new guidance did not establish new rules. It undoubtedly illustrates, however, the increased scrutiny under which EEOC is reviewing criminal background check policies such as those at issue in the Dollar General and BMW lawsuits. Read More
Can the EEOC require employers to hire convicted criminals? Last April, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a policy guideline that calls into question the extent to which employers can incorporate a check of criminal records into a hiring decision without risking legal liability.Read More
The United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, Case No. 11-864 (March 27, 2013) reinforces class certification requirements as spelled out in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. However, the closely divided court (5-4) and a strong dissent underscore that the battle over class certification standards may be far from over. While Comcast involved antitrust claims, the Court’s decision has implications for all Rule 23 cases, including employment class actions. Read More
As we currently reported on our January 9 blog, on Dec. 17, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its strategic enforcement plan (SEP). The SEP resulted from the broader strategic plan unveiled by the EEOC earlier this year, outlining the commission’s activities for 2012-2016. The SEP confirms that combating systemic discrimination will be one of the EEOC’s primary objectives. Read Orrick’s “EEOC’s Plan May Mean Narrower, More Aggressive Oversight” on Law360.
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.