Annie Prasad Vadillo

Senior Associate

Silicon Valley Office

avadillo@orrick.com

Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Driven, prepared, and expert in overcoming obstacles, Annie loves to conquer high-stakes employment challenges.

As a trial lawyer, trusted counselor, and advocate, Annie finds creative solutions - whether that means tackling challenging issues with current employees, resolving a matter pre-litigation, or winning decisively at trial.  Having amassed significant courtroom and trial experience, she knows how to deliver the best results for her client. For example, Annie was a key member (and the only associate) of a team which secured a complete defense verdict for a Fortune 500 retail employer in a religious discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination case. 

Annie also has expertise in gig economy and independent contractor classification issues, workplace best practices and policies, defending companies in government audits including unemployment insurance audits, investigating internal employee complaints, and counseling on issues throughout the entire employee life cycle. 

When she is not in her office in Menlo Park, Annie chases after her two dogs Clifford and Jude. 

Posts by: Annie Prasad Vadillo

COVID-19 Update: San Francisco, Los Angeles and Emeryville Take Local Legislative Measures

and Posted on

In the wake of coronavirus and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, California cities are taking their own measures. San Francisco launched the Workers and Families First Program to reimburse employers for providing extra sick leave beyond their existing policies. The City Council of Los Angeles approved a supplemental paid sick leave ordinance, which the mayor is expected to sign. And Emeryville issued guidance on the permissible coronavirus-related uses for sick leave under its local paid sick leave ordinance. READ MORE →

COVID-19 Update: Department of Labor Issues Further FFCRA Guidance

and Posted on

On Thursday March 26, the Department of Labor issued additional guidance about the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). The new guidance addresses a variety of topics including how the FFCRA applies to remote working, intermittent leave, worksite closures, reduction of hours and furloughs.

This week, the DOL also issued a fact sheet for employees and a fact sheet for employers. The required poster can be found here as well as FAQs about notice requirements. The DOL plans to implement formal FFCRA regulations in April.

Stay tuned for updates and check out our FFCRA FAQs here.

Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Employers Need to Know

, , and Posted on

On March 18, President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) into law. The FFCRA is effective April 1, 2020. The Department of Labor also issued guidance and detailed FAQs, addressing various hypotheticals.

Below are answers to some frequently asked questions about provisions of the FFCRA that are of particular importance to employers: the emergency expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and emergency paid sick leave. READ MORE →

COVID-19 Update: Senate Passes Families First Coronavirus Response Act

and Posted on

On Wednesday, the Senate passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act or H.R. 6201. The approved legislation has been sent to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature. On Monday evening, the House passed its amended and final version of the bipartisan legislation, which we outline below. Stay tuned for updates as the approved legislation awaits the President’s signature. READ MORE →

COVID-19 Update: House of Representatives Passes the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

and Posted on

For other COVID-19 resources, please visit our resource center.

On March 14, 2020, the House of Representatives passed HR 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Now, the Senate will consider the bill. As currently drafted, the bill will go into effect no later than 15 days after it is enacted and will remain in effect until December 31, 2020. Among other proposals, the bill proposes an emergency FMLA expansion, emergency paid sick leave and an employer tax credit, all of which would apply to employers with fewer than 500 employees. READ MORE →

Try To Restrain Yourself: California Is Temporarily Restrained From Enforcing Arbitration Ban

and Posted on

Remember California’s new ban on mandatory workplace arbitration agreements? The Eastern District of California has put it on ice, granting a temporary restraining order against the ban’s enforcement. As a refresher, and as we wrote about here, on October 10, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law California’s latest afront on workplace arbitration—AB 51. Under AB 51, employers may not, “as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, require an applicant or employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure” for FEHA and Labor Code claims. Violations of the new statute carry hefty consequences, including criminal penalties. Many employers see arbitration agreements as necessary to manage employment disputes and an outright ban on this efficient process strongly affects their bottom line. The ban was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020, but the TRO put enforcement on hold for now. READ MORE →

AB 5 and AB 71: CA Legislature Dukes It Out Over Dynamex and Borello

, and Posted on

The battle between Dynamex and Borello continues. Two competing bills – Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”) and Assembly Bill 71 (“AB 71”) – each seek to codify the respective worker classification tests. On May 29, 2019, the California State Assembly overwhelmingly passed AB 5, a bill seeking to codify Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, which adopted the three-factor “ABC” test to determine a worker’s classification for wage order claims. Now the bill is headed to the state Senate. Meanwhile, AB 71, a bill seeking to codify S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, has thus far not enjoyed the same success. READ MORE →

#MeToo One Year Later: A Viral Hashtag with Lasting Effects

and Posted on

On October 15, 2017, the #MeToo movement began in earnest following a tweet by actress Alyssa Milano.  To commemorate the one-year anniversary of the #MeToo movement, the Orrick Employment Law and Litigation Blog will analyze the effects of the movement from the employment perspective.  Part 1 below looks at the movement’s impact on sexual harassment claims in the workplace, Part 2 focuses on the legislative reaction to the movement, and Part 3 discusses how employers have responded to #MeToo.

READ MORE →

Employers, Victims, and Witnesses Rejoice: California Bars Sexual Harassers from Suing for Defamation

, and Posted on

In the wake of #MeToo, California has enacted a new statute aimed to protect victims, witnesses, and former employers from claims of defamation for making complaints or communicating information about alleged sexual harassers to others.  On July 9, 2018, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 2770. The bill amends Civil Code section 47, which makes certain communications “privileged,” meaning those communications cannot be the basis of a defamation claim.

READ MORE →

CA Court of Appeal Ruling Takes PAGA Standing By The Reins

and Posted on

Since its inception, the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) has been a thorn in employers’ sides by allowing “aggrieved employees” to seek civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and other “aggrieved employees” for violations of the California Labor Code. In a small victory for employers, the California Court of Appeal recently bestowed a key limitation on what it means to be an aggrieved employee for purposes of PAGA standing. Specifically, the court held that an employee who settles his individual Labor Code claims against his employer no longer has standing as an “aggrieved employee” under PAGA. READ MORE →