Mark R. Thompson

Managing Associate
Employment Law
Read full biography at

Mark Thompson is an associate in the New York office and a member of the employment law and litigation groups. 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.

Mr. Thompson’s practice focuses on employment litigation and counseling. Mr. Thompson has significant experience litigating wage and hour, discrimination, harassment and trade secret issues in high-profile cases for clients in the venture capital, technology, financial services and media industries.

In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Thompson advises clients regarding a broad range of employment issues, including human resource policies and procedures, severance agreements and employee terminations.

 Prior to joining Orrick, Mr. Thompson was a judicial law clerk and gained experience litigating a wide range of civil and criminal cases.

Mark Thompson

The Commission Speaks: Guidance for Employers Regarding the New York City Fair Chance Act

On June 29, 2015, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law the Fair Chance Act (the “Act”), which prohibits employers from inquiring into the criminal backgrounds of certain job applicants in the initial stages of the employment application process.  You can read more about the Act here.  The New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”), the agency charged with enforcement of the Act, recently issued “Legal Enforcement Guidance” (the “Guidance”) regarding the Act.  As summarized below, the Guidance provides clarity regarding various aspects of the Act, including definitions of key terms, per se violations and exemptions from the Act.

Read More

Big Data, Big Problems: The Liability Pitfall Lurking Beneath the Shiny Surface of “People Analytics”

The use of big data in employment decisions—a practice often referred to as “people analytics”—has exploded in recent years. Lately, however, the concept is gaining more and more attention not only for its appeal of faster and more efficient hiring, but also for the significant risks it can pose. One key risk is the potential for a disparate impact claim, particularly on a class-wide basis. So while proponents of using software tools and algorithms to identify and select job candidates claim people analytics is more efficient and effective than traditional recruiting and selection procedures, employers should take care when choosing tools and vendors, and should proactively monitor their implementation to avoid big liability.

Read More

The Gay Marriage Decision: Support for Title VII Employment Discrimination Claims?

Following the excitement of the same-sex marriage decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26th, the question remains how much the Opinion may impact Title VII employment discrimination claims.  Based on our reading of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, and the many states that have passed legislation protecting employees from sexual-orientation discrimination, we recommend that employers revisit and update their anti-discrimination policies.

Read More

New York City “Bans the Box”—Inquiries Into Applicants’ Criminal Histories Now Significantly Restricted

On June 10, 2015, the New York City Council passed the Fair Chance Act (the “Act”), which prohibits employers from inquiring into the criminal backgrounds of applicants in the initial stages of the employment application process.  With the passage of the Act, which is expected to be signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York City joins a large group of other states and municipalities in passing so-called “ban the box” legislation, which refers to laws that prohibit or restrict employers from asking about or relying upon criminal convictions and arrests or requiring employees to disclose their criminal history through a check box on an employment application.  The ban the box legislation stems from the use of criminal history as an employment screening tool and from concerns that criminal history is often not a reliable indicator of job performance, and moreover, may adversely affect minority groups.

Read More

Employers Finally Get a Break—Court Reverses $90 Million Verdict and Holds That Employers Are Not Required to Relieve Employees of All Duty During Rest Periods

On December 31, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second District of California held in an unpublished opinion that employers are not required to relieve employees of all duty during rest periods mandated by California state law.  In so holding, the court in Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., No. B243788, 2014 WL 7463154 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2014), reversed the trial court’s award of approximately $90 million dollars in statutory damages, interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees to the employees.

Read More

The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Busk: Could Employers Have to Pay for Employee Time Spent Passing Through Security?

On October 8, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. In Busk, plaintiffs allege that, under the FLSA, their employer should have compensated them and other warehouse employees for time spent passing through the employer’s security clearance at the end of their shifts, including their time spent waiting in line to be searched. Busk is an important case to watch because the Court may provide employers with wide-ranging guidance on what pre-work or post-work tasks are compensable.

Read More

Secretly Working Off The Clock—You Don’t Get Paid For That!

Following principles that federal courts have applied in similar cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a California appellate court recently confirmed that employers are not liable under the California Labor Code for off-the-clock work that occurs without the employer’s actual or constructive knowledge. In Jong v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the First District affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer, holding that the employee failed to set forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the employer actually or constructively knew that the employee worked unrecorded overtime. Read More

Post This! Private Employers Not Required to Display Pro-Union NLRB Posters

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently announced that it would not seek Supreme Court Review of two U.S. Court of Appeals decisions invalidating the NLRB’s Notice Posting Rule, which would have required most private sector employers to post a pro-union notice of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act on their premises and websites. Read More

Oh, F*©k No: Administrative Law Judge Rules that Employees’ Expletive-Laced Facebook Posts are not Protected Under the National Labor Relations Act

With the increasing prominence of social media, employers have been rightfully concerned about the impact of employees’ out-of-work statements on the work place—particularly when it comes to the reputation of the employer. In the last few years, the National Labor Relations Board has held that even offensive language can be protected concerted activity [See previous Orrick blog postings on this topic from September 25, 2012 and May 16, 2013]. However, apparently there is a limit: an administrative law judge held last week that the expletive-laden Facebook posts of two youth center employees crossed a line. Read More

“Picking Off” Plaintiffs in FLSA Collective Actions: Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk

Earlier this month in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is permissible for defendants to “pick off” plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions. In jurisdictions that hold that an unaccepted offer of judgment fully satisfies and renders moot a plaintiff’s individual claim, a defendant can moot a collective action brought under the FLSA by simply tendering the named plaintiff a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment.  Read More