Annie H Chen

Managing Associate

Los Angeles

Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Annie Chen is a Managing Associate in the employment litigation department in Orrick’s Los Angeles office. She represents corporate clients in complex employment litigation, including wage-and-hour class actions and PAGA representative actions, as well as single plaintiff discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims.

Annie has experience in all facets of litigation, including factual investigations, preparing witnesses for depositions, taking depositions, and pretrial briefing and motion practice. She also advises clients regarding compliance with employment laws, including revising employee handbook provisions and employee commission agreements, leave of absence issues, requests for accommodations and employee terminations.

Posts by: Annie H. Chen

No Unpaid Wages Under PAGA

Julia Riechert, Stephanie Lee and Annie H. ChenPosted on October 11, 2019

On September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court, which resolved a split of authority regarding whether an employer may compel arbitration of an employee’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim seeking unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558. In reaching its conclusion, the Court first answered the “more fundamental question” of whether a plaintiff may seek unpaid wages under PAGA: to which the answer is no. Therefore, ZB’s motion to compel arbitration should have been denied. READ MORE →

Use It or Lose It: SCOTUS holds that EEOC Charge-Filing Requirement Is Forfeited If Not Timely Asserted

Gary Siniscalco, David B. Smith and Annie H. ChenPosted on June 20, 2019

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), or equivalent state agency, is jurisdictional. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Title VII’s charge-filing instruction is not jurisdictional; rather, it is a procedural prescription which is mandatory if timely raised, but subject to forfeiture if tardily asserted. READ MORE →

Easy—Or Challenging—as ABC? California Supreme Court Rewrites Independent Contractor Test for Wage Order Claims

Christopher Wilkinson, Julie Totten, Andrew Livingston, Julia Riechert, Kathryn Mantoan and Annie H. ChenPosted on May 9, 2018

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. The Court announced a significant departure from the S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) test, previously used by California courts and state agencies for nearly three decades for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor under the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage orders. In its place, the Court adopted the so-called “ABC” test for determining whether an individual is considered an employee under the wage orders, which govern many aspects of wages and working conditions in covered industries. READ MORE →

Reversed! NLRB Overrules Browning-Ferris Decision And Returns To Prior Joint Employment Standard

Julie Totten, David B. Smith and Annie H. ChenPosted on December 27, 2017

On December 14, 2017, the new Republican majority at the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) overturned a controversial Obama-era decision regarding joint employment. The Board’s 3-2 decision in Hy-Brand Contractors, Ltd. and Brandt Construction Co. (“Hy-Brand”) rejected the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, which had fundamentally broadened the joint employer standard. READ MORE →

Heads You Win, Tails You Lose: Government on Both Sides of the LGBT Protections Debate

Christopher Wilkinson, Jinnifer Pitcher and Annie H. ChenPosted on October 5, 2017

Recently, much has been made about the government’s conflicting positions regarding whether sexual orientation is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC (“Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”) has continued to assert its position that sexual orientation is protected under Title VII as a form of sex-based discrimination under the Supreme Court’s Price Waterhouse decision. At the same time, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has claimed that Title VII does not protect sexual orientation as it is not based on sex. Many have taken extreme umbrage at DOJ’s position as a complete reversal of the previous administration’s position as the Department filed an unsolicited amicus in the Second Circuit. However, as the DOJ’s civil division filed the brief, it presents a rare window into the “Jekyll/Hyde” dynamic within the government. As some agencies broadly seek civil rights protections, the federal government is also one of the world’s largest employers faced with the challenges of limiting countless claims. READ MORE →

California Supreme Court Expands PAGA Plaintiffs’ Access to Statewide Discovery of Employee Contact Information

Andrew Livingston and Annie H. ChenPosted on July 30, 2017

On July 13, 2017, the California Supreme Court greatly expanded the scope of discovery available under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). In Williams v. Superior Court (Marshalls of CA, LLC), ___Cal. 5th ___ (Jul. 13, 2017), the court held that the breadth of discovery in a PAGA action should be no less than what is normally permitted in a class action. Additionally, the Court held that as an essential first step to prosecuting any representative action, a PAGA plaintiff is presumptively entitled in the early stages of litigation to obtain from the employer-defendant the contact information of those the plaintiff purports to represent in early stages of litigation. READ MORE →

Employment Law and Litigation