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 defending both class actions and individual plaintiff cases. She has successfully defended clients in trial and arbitration and helps clients with 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-compete matters. She also guides clients through systemic government investigations and audits. 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 counselling 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

Show Me The Money: Yes, Even Corporate Officers Can Collect Dodd-Frank Bounty Awards

, and Posted on

Whistle

On March 2, 2015, the SEC announced a whistleblower bounty award of between $475,000 and $575,000, its 15th under the Dodd-Frank whistleblower program.  While the SEC’s order is scant on detail, it does disclose that the award will go to a corporate officer, making it the first award to go to an officer under the program.  This award is in keeping with the SEC’s approach to demonstrate in the relatively small number of awards made to date that a broad range of individuals can get bounties for providing original information of corporate wrongdoing under Dodd-Frank.

READ MORE →

Don’t Forget the Veterans: Unique Provisions, High Stakes, and Liberal Judicial Interpretation Make USERRA Compliance a Battle

and Posted on

Because of the way the statute is drafted and how courts have interpreted it, employers of current members of the Armed Forces and veterans can sometimes find themselves with unexpected legal exposure under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”).  The statute imposes various obligations on employers with respect to members of the U.S. military returning to work and also prohibits discrimination against employees and potential employees based on their military service.  As 2014 comes to a close, a couple of USERRA cases from this year remind employers of the intricacies of USERRA compliance.

READ MORE →

No One Likes A Bully: New California Law Mandates Anti-Bullying Training In The Workplace

and Posted on

On September 9, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB-2053, which mandates that certain California employers provide workforce bullying training in addition to already-required sexual harassment training and education.  As a result, many California employers need to be prepared to expand their training programs to address abusive conduct beginning on January 1, 2015.

READ MORE →

Try, Try Again: The California Supreme Court Sends “Fundamentally Flawed” Duran Case Back to the Trial Court

Posted on

Employment class action defendants in California who were hoping for an unequivocal statement that statistical sampling has no place in class actions are likely to be disappointed by today’s ruling in Duran v. U.S. Bank, N.A.  The California Supreme Court cautiously left all avenues to certification open, stating that a “[s]tatistical sampling may provide an appropriate means of proving liability and damages in some wage and hour class actions.” (Emphasis added.)  But despair not!  The bulk of the opinion agreed with the court of appeal in finding the trial court’s methods “profoundly flawed,” recognized the “thorny” issues of proof that arise in misclassification cases, and reaffirmed a court’s obligation to consider the manageability of individual issues in certifying a class action.  The Court’s instructions to lower courts and litigants to determine – as an integral part of class certification – whether the case can be manageably tried are likely to aid employers in certification battles to come.     READ MORE →

San Francisco Employers Beware: New Extensive Restrictions on Use of Criminal Background Information

and Posted on

Cuffed Hands

The use of criminal background checks when hiring employees has become even more limited in San Francisco. On August 13, 2014, the recently passed Fair Chance Ordinance (Ordinance) becomes operative requiring employers doing business in San Francisco and employing 20 or more workers, regardless of location, to limit the use of an applicant’s criminal history. READ MORE →

California Employers: Test Yourself – Are You Ready for 2014?

Posted on

Road Signs

If you have employees in California, you are, no doubt, aware that California laws are constantly changing and have a tendency to sneak up on even the best companies. To help prepare you for the year ahead, here are five important questions employers should ask themselves to test whether they are ready for the key changes in 2014: READ MORE →

Do as I Say, Not as I Do: Differences in Duties Means No Commonality, No Class Certification for Unpaid Interns

and Posted on

As employers welcome a new group of eager interns to their offices this summer, employers may be thinking about the recent wave of class action lawsuits alleging that unpaid internships violate minimum wage and overtime laws. Should these claims be litigated on a classwide basis? READ MORE →

Seventh Circuit Holds That FLSA and Rule 23 Certification Standards Are the Same and Affirms Denial of Certification Based on Lack of Trial Plan

Posted on

A recent opinion by the Seventh Circuit holds that the standard for certifying a collective action under the FLSA is the same as the standard applied to a class action under Rule 23. In Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC, No. 12-1943 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2013), the court considered decertification by a Western District of Wisconsin District Court of more than 2,000 satellite technicians in an action alleging technicians did not receive overtime and were not compensated for certain hours. In analyzing the standard to apply in evaluating the decertification decision, the court contrasted the opt-in procedure of FLSA collective actions with the opt-out procedure of Rule 23 actions, as well as noted that the FLSA lacks “the kind of detailed procedural provisions found in Rule 23” that set forth the standard for certification. READ MORE →

California Court of Appeal Denies Wage-and-Hour Class Claims and Enforces Arbitration Agreement under Concepcion

Posted on

Gavel and Hundred-Dollar Bill

Employers in California have been watching closely to see how courts will apply the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted state law concerning the enforceability of class action waiver provisions, in which a party waives his or her right to arbitrate claims on a class basis. READ MORE →

Eighth Circuit Rules Employers Can Change Workweek Regardless of Effects on Overtime Pay

and Posted on

3 Minutes to 12:00

On October 10, 2012, the Eighth Circuit in Abshire v. Redland Energy Services, LLC (Case No. 11-3380) confirmed that under the FLSA, employers are allowed to alter the days contained in employees’ workweek to minimize overtime pay as long as the change is intended to be permanent. While this decision is certainly a victory for employers, employers (particularly in California) should nevertheless ensure compliance with state law before making any changes.

Abshire involved claims against employer Redland Energy Services, LLC, a company that drills and services natural gas wells in Arkansas. Most of Redland’s workers worked a regular Monday-to-Friday schedule, and any weekly overtime was calculated on a regular Sunday-to-Saturday week. Redland’s drill operators, however, worked 12-hour shifts on seven consecutive days, from Tuesdays through Mondays, and then received seven days off. Originally, Redland calculated weekly overtime for its drill operators on a Tuesday-to-Monday week. In May 2009, however, Redlands switched to a Sunday-to-Saturday week, thereby making the workweek consistent for all employees. Redland claimed that this switch was made not only to decrease payroll expense by reducing the number of hours that drill operators must be paid at the FLSA-mandated overtime rate, but also to reduce administrative costs because the change would allow the company to calculate the overtime for all of its employees on the same weekly basis. The drill operators alleged that the supposed reduction of administrative costs was merely a pretext, and the effort to reduce the amount of overtime paid was impermissible under the FLSA. READ MORE →