Jennifer Holly is a Senior Associate in the Labor & Employment and Litigation Practices in the Sacramento & Silicon Valley offices. She is an experienced litigator and counselor, providing clients with solutions in all aspects of employment relations, including litigation and preventative counseling and guidance.
Jennifer represents employers in employment and traditional labor law matters, including discrimination and sexual harassment, wrongful discharge, retaliation, workers’ compensation, trade secrets, unfair competition, and wage and hour violations. Jennifer has experience defending companies in both class actions and single plaintiff cases. She also has experience representing clients in the health care, trucking, hospitality, education, medical, retail and technology industries. Jennifer regularly represents employers in state, federal, and administrative courts including before the California Labor Commissioner, Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.
Jennifer's traditional labor relations experience includes collective bargaining, representation proceedings, and representing employers in arbitrations. She also represents clients in unfair labor practice proceedings. Jennifer provides clients with legal and practical advice on a wide spectrum of labor relations issue including lawful responses to union organizing campaigns.
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.
With a new Republican majority in the NLRB, the rules may be changing (again) when it comes to company emails. The NLRB is in the process of re-analyzing when and how employers can restrict employees’ company email use without running afoul of NLRA Section 7, and may begin upholding employer policies with facially neutral restrictions on company email and computer usage again in the near future.
A bit of background: Section 7 of the NLRA protects an employee’s right to engage in “concerted activities,” which occurs “when two or more employees take action for their mutual aid or protection regarding terms and conditions of employment.” The NLRA’s protection of “concerted activities” is a broader concept than “union activities” and covers many different activities, including employee discussions about pay, work conditions, and safety concerns. The NLRB has construed the terms “concerted” and “protected” very broadly and vaguely, to include any activity aimed at affecting employee interests.
The NLRB continues to find fault with employers who discipline or terminate employees for sending emails discussing the terms and conditions of employment.
When four restaurant workers at Mexican Radio responded to a group email from former employee Annette Polanco complaining about the wages, work schedules, tip policy, and the treatment of workers, the now-closed Manhattan location of the chain responded by preparing reprimands and then terminating their employment. READ MORE