Gary, Senior Counsel and Co-Chair of Orrick's EEO & OFCCP Compliance Group, is a “zealous and well-connected advocate in the employment law arena” as described in Chambers by clients and peers. He has extensive experience in counseling and litigation defense for clients on equal opportunity, affirmative action (OFCCP) compliance, wrongful discharge, and in working with companies on cross-border employment issues.
Gary has handled numerous class actions, pattern and practice cases and government audits, in court and before the EEOC and Department of Labor. Most recently, Gary served as senior counsel on the Orrick team that obtained a complete dismissal for Oracle in OFCCP v. Oracle, a high-stakes systemic compensation discrimination case that garnered national media attention. Gary and the Orrick team was named "Litigator of the Week" by American Lawyer for their role in the successful defense of Oracle in litigation against the OFCCP. He brings a particularly unique perspective to clients on matters involving the EEOC, having served as regional counsel and senior trial attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in San Francisco prior to joining Orrick.
Gary also has an extensive class actions practice, focusing on litigation, consent decree strategies and preventive advice. He has been designated as an expert or retained as special counsel in several federal court class actions throughout the United States.
Gary’s counseling practice extends beyond the United States and includes assisting U.S. multinational companies in dealing with complex employee issues in foreign jurisdictions
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), 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 also serves regularly on the NYU faculty for training federal judges on employment law, the OFCCP Institute, PLI International Employment Law and ABA Labor and Employment Law Section programs.
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
Welcome to the Spring 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.
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.[1] 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
Welcome to the Winter 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.
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.
On December 17, 2012, the EEOC released its Strategic Enforcement Plan. As previously reported, the EEOC released the draft SEP for public comment on September 4, 2012, with a plan to vote on and implement it by October 1. The more than two month delay suggests that the Commission reviewed the more than 100 comments to the draft and may have also been internally conflicted over portions of the draft (the Commission’s final vote was 3-1). READ MORE
On December 10, 2012, in Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., a California Court of Appeal overturned a Marin County jury’s verdict against Lucasfilm based on its finding that several errors in jury instructions prejudicially affected the verdict. Plaintiff had sued under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for pregnancy discrimination and related claims when she accepted, but did not start, in a temporary position at Lucasfilm. After eleven days of testimony and three days of deliberation, a jury awarded Veronese a total of $113,800 in damages and the trial court awarded Veronese $1,157,411 in attorneys’ fees. Lucasfilm challenged both the judgment and the fee award. Lucasfilm argued that the trial court judge erred in giving certain instructions proposed by Veronese, failing to give certain instructions proposed by Lucasfilm, and failing to instruct on certain issues submitted to the jury. Notably, this Court of Appeal decision appears to be the first California appellate decision reversing a jury verdict for an employee based on failure to give a business judgment instruction. READ MORE
