Julie Totten

Partner

Sacramento

jatotten@orrick.com

Read full biography at www.orrick.com
Julie Totten, who leads Orrick’s Global Employment Law and Litigation Practice Group, built her reputation by helping companies prevent and resolve their most challenging litigation and compliance issues in the employment law arena.

In doing so, Julie closely collaborates with each client, gathering an in-depth understanding of their specific tensions, challenges and objectives. Legal 500 noted she “truly understands corporate politics and works with in-house counsel to understand the intersections of legal advice and business objectives.” Julie then draws upon nearly three decades of experience to guide clients towards the best possible resolution. Her client-focused approach is one of many reasons she was selected to lead Orrick’s global employment practice, which Chambers ranks as one of the country’s foremost practices and describes Julie as “a big thinker and a thought leader.”

Julie has experience litigating and arbitrating both class actions and individual plaintiff cases. She defends clients in all types of employment matters, including complex wage-and-hour class, collective and representative actions, pay equity and promotion cases, whistleblower retaliation actions, discrimination, harassment and retaliation litigation and trade secret and non-complete matters. She also guides clients through sensitive investigations, as well as government agency audits and litigation. Julie is proactive in helping clients avoid litigation by assisting them with the development of policies and practices designed to minimize exposure, including advice and counseling work in the areas of AI and DEI in selection and recruiting. Julie is honored to be a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment and a member of the American Employment Law Council. She also served as a Council Member of the American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section.

Posts by: Julie Totten

COVID-19 Update: DHS Modifies I-9 Physical Presence Requirements

and Posted on

On March 20, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it will defer the physical presence requirements associated with I-9s. Employers with employees taking physical proximity precautions due to COVID-19 will not be required to review the employee’s identity and employment authorization documents in the employee’s physical presence. The new process is only for employers and workplaces that are operating remotely. If there are employees physically present at a work location, no exceptions are being implemented at this time for in-person verification of identity and employment eligibility documentation for Form I-9. However, if newly hired employees or existing employees are subject to COVID-19 quarantine or lockdown protocols, DHS will evaluate on a case-by-case basis. READ MORE →

Employer Readiness Plans in the Wake of the Coronavirus Outbreak

, and Posted on

While world governments scramble to contain the spread of the coronavirus, businesses are fielding questions from employees who are concerned for their safety and protection in the workplace. As you develop your coronavirus response strategy, be mindful of employee privacy, anti-discrimination, and other employment law considerations. Ultimately, any actions employers take should be proportionate to the risks presented. Here are a few of the most common questions employers should ask and some practical tips. READ MORE →

The TRO on AB 51 is Still in Effect Following Oral Argument – With Modifications and Supplemental Briefing On The Way

, and Posted on

On Friday, January 10, 2020, Chief United States District Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.  As a result of clarifications made at the oral argument, the temporary restraining order (TRO) has been modified from its broad applicability to only enjoin defendants from enforcing AB 51 to the extent it applies to arbitration agreements covered by the FAA.  The revised TRO will remain in effect until January 31, 2020, at which point we might have a ruling on the preliminary injunction.  Judge Mueller concluded the oral argument by providing both parties the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing on two issues:  (1)  jurisdiction/standing; and (2)  severability.  As to the latter issue, Judge Mueller indicated she would accept specific proposals related to how the arbitration-related sections of the statute might be severed if she decided to grant the injunction on FAA preemption grounds. READ MORE →

It’s About Time!: DOL’s Overtime Regulations Become Final

and Posted on

On September 24, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its final rule updating the earnings thresholds necessary to exempt executive, administrative, and professional employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.  According to the DOL’s press release, “[t]he increases to the salary thresholds are long overdue in light of wage and salary growth since 2004,” and the DOL estimates that 1.3 million additional workers will be entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay as a result of the new regulations. READ MORE →

“Judges Are Appointed For Life, Not For Eternity”: SCOTUS Rules That Judge’s Vote in Equal Pay Case Does Not Count Due To Judge’s Passing

and Posted on

In April 2018, an en banc Ninth Circuit held in Rizo v. Yovino that an employer cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees under the Equal Pay Act by relying on prior salary. Before the Ninth Circuit published its decision, though, Judge Stephen Reinhardt passed away. On February 25th, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, reasoning that the appellate court should not have counted Reinhardt’s vote because he passed away before the decision was issued. Instead, the Ninth Circuit should not have released the opinion. READ MORE →

Big Win for the Healthcare Industry on Meal Break Waivers as the California Supreme Court Resolves an Apparent Conflict in the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order

Posted on

On December 10, the California Supreme Court issued an impactful decision for the healthcare industry. In Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, the unanimous Court endorsed the Hospitals’ meal break policy, over which the parties had battled for more than a decade.

The policy permitted employees who worked shifts longer than 10 hours to voluntarily waive one of their two meal breaks, even if their shifts lasted more than 12 hours. The Plaintiffs alleged the meal period waivers they signed were illegal because under the California Labor Code, waivers were not permissible for shifts greater than 12 hours.

READ MORE →

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

, , , and Posted on

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 →

While Veteran-Friendly, USERRA’s Anti-Discrimination Provision Still Requires Adverse Employment Action For Employer Liability

Posted on

With Memorial Day around the corner, it is an appropriate time for employers to review their management of employees who are members of the military.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4335, prohibits discrimination against employees and potential employees based on their military service and imposes certain obligations on employers with respect to employees returning to work after a period of service in the U.S. military.  USERRA differs from other employment laws in ways that make it quite veteran/employee-friendly, including:

READ MORE →

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

, and Posted on

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 →

Expanded Protections for Working Mothers in San Francisco

and Posted on

 

Effective January 1, 2018, San Francisco will expand available protections for nursing mothers working within city limits. California law currently requires employers to provide lactating employees with a reasonable amount of break time and to make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with a room, other than a bathroom, in close proximity to the employee’s work area to express milk.  Similarly, federal law requires employers to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for one year after the child’s birth in a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public.  Signed into law by San Francisco’s Mayor Ed Lee on June 30, 2017, the “Lactation in the Workplace Ordinance” will expand these requirements for San Francisco employers in the following ways.

READ MORE →