Julie Totten

Partner

Sacramento

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

Menes v. Roche

Julie Totten and Jessica PerryPosted on August 6, 2012

In a victory for pharmaceutical companies, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that plaintiff-appellant pharmaceutical sales representatives (“reps”) were exempt from California law’s overtime requirements. See Menes v. Roche Laboratories, Inc., No. 08-55286 (9th Cir. July 23, 2012) (unpublished) (consolidated with D’Este v. Bayer Corp. and Barnick v. Wyeth).

The Ninth Circuit decision is on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s similar holding that reps are exempt from federal law overtime requirements. Back in June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 11-204 (U.S. June 18, 2012) held that reps were exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s outside sales exemption. The Supreme Court found reps were exempt as outside salespersons despite laws that prohibit reps from selling pharmaceuticals directly to patients or physicians based on a “common sense” approach to the exemption. It was also a significant victory for employers because the Department of Labor attempted to use amicus briefs to argue that courts must defer to its interpretation of the law—the Supreme Court rejected this practice. See Orrick’s Blog Post about Christopher here.

Unlike Christopher and unlike the district court below, the Ninth Circuit in Menes did not reach the issue of whether reps were exempt under California’s outside sales exemption. Rather the Ninth Circuit held that reps were exempt under California’s administrative exemption, a different exemption, which generally provides that individuals who spend more than 50 percent of their time performing non-manual work directly related to the management policies or general business operations of his employer or customers are exempt.

Orrick represents Roche Laboratories, Inc. Read Law360’s coverage of this case here.

SCOTUS Will Decide Whether Rule 68 Offers Moot FLSA Collective Actions

Julie TottenPosted on July 23, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert on June 25, 2012 in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk to resolve a federal circuit split on whether an FLSA collective action is mooted when the lone plaintiff receives from defendants an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 that satisfies the plaintiff’s claims. Under Rule 68, a defendant may offer judgment against it on specified terms. If the offer is accepted, judgment is entered on the terms offered. If the offer is not accepted, plaintiff is liable for post-offer costs if the plaintiff fails to ultimately obtain a judgment more favorable than the offer. READ MORE →

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham – Supreme Court holds Pharma Reps Exempt Outside Salespersons

Allison Riechert Giese, Jessica Perry and Julie TottenPosted on June 18, 2012

On June 18, 2012, a 5-4 split United States Supreme Court held in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that under the most reasonable interpretation of the Department of Labor’s regulations, pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt from overtime as outside salespersons under the Fair Labor Standard Act. This decision resolves the split in authority between the Ninth and Second Circuits in favor of employers and strikes a blow to the deference accorded to the DOL in interpreting its regulations. READ MORE →

D.C. Circuit Enjoins NLRB Posting Requirement

Julie TottenPosted on April 23, 2012

In a key update regarding an issue that will affect all employers, on April 17, 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an injunction requiring the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to preserve the “status quo” in its ongoing push to require employers to post its controversial “Employee Rights Notice” informing employees of their rights to organize unions. As a result of this order, the NLRB is prohibited from enforcing its new requirement that employers post the notice by April 30, 2012. The NLRB has appropriately acknowledged the Court’s injunction, stating on its website that “The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily enjoined the NLRB’s rule requiring the posting of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act” and that “[t]he rule, which had been scheduled to take effect on April 30, 2012, will not take effect until the legal issues are resolved. There is no new deadline for the posting requirement at this time.”

The D.C. Circuit’s order is an important and welcome “time out” given the uncertainty of the “legal issues” surrounding the NLRB’s posting requirement. Just last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its bid to invalidate the posting requirement, holding that the posting requirement was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and that the NLRB’s role is to be “reactive” rather than “proactive.” But earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the NLRB posting requirement against a challenge by the National Association of Manufacturers. That case is presently on appeal, the outcome of which will determine the next development in this saga.

For now, at least, employers should breathe a sigh of relief and know that they do not need to post the NLRB’s “Employee Rights Notice” until its legality is determined by the courts.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Brinker‘s Effect on California Meal and Rest Periods

Mark Thompson and Julie TottenPosted on April 17, 2012

In a highly anticipated decision largely hailed as a victory for employers, the California Supreme Court, in Brinker v. Superior Court, No. S166350 (Cal. April 12, 2012), clarified employers’ obligations to provide meal and rest periods under California law and provided guidance regarding class certification issues in wage-and-hour litigation. On the most contentious of the issues raised in Brinker—the nature of an employer’s duty to provide meal periods under California law—the court held that an employer’s obligation is simply to relieve the employee of all duty for the designated period, with the employee free to use the time for whatever purpose he or she desires, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done. Thus, if an employer relieves an employee of all duty, but the employee continues to work, the court held that the employer will not be liable for premium pay. The court cautioned, however, that an employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal periods by coercing employees to skip breaks, creating incentives for employees to forego breaks, or otherwise encouraging employees not to take legally protected breaks. READ MORE →