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
Annie Prasad Vadillo
Driven and always prepared, Annie thrives on new challenges and brings an eye for precision and efficiency to her work. Combined with her passion for overcoming obstacles, Annie loves to conquer high-stakes employment challenges.As a litigator, Annie helps employers navigate single plaintiff, multi-plaintiff and class action lawsuits under state and federal laws. She also works with companies on state agency tax audits. Since an adverse ruling can threaten the very core of a company’s business model, companies need attorneys like Annie to guide them through the complex audit and assessment process.
Having amassed significant courtroom experience, she knows how to deliver the best results for her client – whether that means resolving a matter quietly, or winning decisively at trial. For example, Annie was a key member of the team which secured a complete defense verdict for a Fortune 500 retail employer in a religious discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination case. As the only associate on the trial team, Annie assisted with witness preparation, argued four of the pre-trial discovery motions and a motion in limine. Moreover, to help ease the stress of litigation for her clients, Annie maintains the highest service standards.
Annie also serves on the planning committee for Orrick’s Women in Employment Law (WE) Initiative. She spearheads networking events to foster connections between female leaders in the human resources, employment and legal professions.
Posts by: Annie Prasad Vadillo
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.
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.
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
This post was drafted with contribution from Annie Prasad, law clerk.
The Supreme Court has made federal contracting more treacherous by extending the reach of False Claims Act (“FCA”) liability. While the decision related to FCA liability for misrepresentations related to staffing levels, the case may provide a roadmap for federal officials looking to trigger FCA claims against contractors who are noncompliant with federal labor laws enforced by the Department of Labor. Specifically, those at risk of debarment or cancellation of contracts due to noncompliance with Executive Order 11246 or the proposed Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order may be at risk of more serious penalties.