Jinnifer Pitcher

Senior Associate

Sacramento


Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Jinnifer helps Orrick’s technology, retail and finance clients solve their most complex employment challenges. Her practice focuses on employment litigation and counseling, and she has handled wage-and-hour class actions as well as discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases.

After working at Orrick for several years, Jinnifer gained an in-depth perspective of litigation as a clerk for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eastern District of California.

Jinnifer is a past recipient of Orrick’s Global Award for Diversity and Inclusion. She serves on the board of the Asian / Pacific Bar Association of Sacramento (ABAS), and previously served on the board of the Sacramento Lawyers for the Equality of Gays and Lesbians (SacLEGAL). She was also a committee member of the Sacramento County Bar Association Diversity Fellowship.

She earned her J.D. in 2007 from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law graduating with great distinction and Order of the Coif. Prior to law school, Jinnifer worked as a programmer analyst, and she holds a B.S. in Computer Science Engineering.

Posts by: Jinnifer Pitcher

Workplace Violence Prevention In An Active-Shooter Era

Earlier this month, the country was again rocked by mass shootings—two in less than 24 hours left the cities of Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas reeling.  Like so many tragedies before, both shootings occurred at a location that was also a workplace.  Although neither was perpetrated by an employee (unlike yet another shooting earlier this summer), employees were affected.  They had to think quickly and act fast in the moment, and to deal with the psychological and emotional toll afterwards.

The Department of Labor estimates that approximately two million people will be victims of workplace violence this year.  With an employed population of approximately 157 million, this means that about 1 in 80 employees will experience workplace violence—and more will likely be aware of or witness it.

In these circumstances, employers should consider developing or updating their workplace violence prevention (1) strategies, (2) policies, and (3) practices. READ MORE

District Court Orders Employers to Submit Component 2 Data by September 30, 2019

The EEOC has been ordered to collect employers’ EEO-1 Component 2 pay data by September 30, 2019.  The D.C. District Court issued the order after finding back in March 2019 that Office of Management and Budget (OMB’s) decision to stay the collection of Component 2 pay data lacked the reasoned explanation required by the Administrative Procedure Act.  See our prior blog posts here, here, and here about National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 17-cv-2458 (TSC) (D.D.C.).  Since then the court has been critical of the EEOC’s compliance with its order, and held a status conference and a hearing in March and April. READ MORE

Hut-Hut-Hike: The Second Circuit Tackles Hostile Work Environment Claims Under the ADA

In a case of first impression, the Second Circuit has held that hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).  In Fox v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No.17‐0936‐CV (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2019), the Second Circuit joined the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits to recognize this cause of action under the ADA.  The court also provided useful guidance on when teasing may or may not suffice to establish a hostile work environment. READ MORE

EEOC’s Revised Pay Data Collection Rule is Back in Force

Uncertainty continues for the EEOC’s attempt to expand the collection of employers’ pay data. Last Monday, the D.C. District Court in National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 17-cv-2458 (TSC) (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2019), reinstated the EEOC’s revised EEO-1 form that increases employers’ obligation to collect and submit pay data. READ MORE

Back to School! How to Navigate School-Related Leave for Employees

With school back in session, employees may be asking for time off to go to their children’s school activities. Employers should know that several states and the District of Columbia require or encourage employers to provide employees with school-related time off. It is time to make sure employers are compliant with these laws. READ MORE

Belaboring The Point: Supreme Court Opens the Door to Dismantling Public Sector Union Membership in Janus v. AFSCME

Just over two years ago, after the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia but before the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked in a 4-4 tie over whether unions could require non-members to pay “fair share fees.” The case challenged the Supreme Court’s 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education precedent that allowed public sector unions to force non-union members to pay fees covering the cost of collective bargaining so long as the workers were not made to pay for a union’s political or ideological activities.

Recently, in Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court returned to the issue. Ultimately, the Court held that allowing public sector unions to require non-union workers to pay fair share fees violates workers’ First Amendment rights, thereby overturning the Abood precedent.

READ MORE

Pulling the Plug: New York City Bill Would Give Workers the “Right to Disconnect”

It is now the norm to see passersby glued to their phones as they make their morning trek into work. And when those employees head home, they are often unable to “leave work at the office” as they continue to respond to evening messages, texts, and emails. Recent studies have shown that employees who spend time communicating about work matters and engaged in other work activities outside of working hours are less productive in the office and have a worse quality of sleep. Now, a novel bill introduced before the New York City Council seeks to end that practice by giving workers the ability to pull the plug on work communications during non-work hours.

READ MORE

Heads You Win, Tails You Lose: Government on Both Sides of the LGBT Protections Debate

Recently, much has been made about the government’s conflicting positions regarding whether sexual orientation is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC (“Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”) has continued to assert its position that sexual orientation is protected under Title VII as a form of sex-based discrimination under the Supreme Court’s Price Waterhouse decision.  At the same time, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has claimed that Title VII does not protect sexual orientation as it is not based on sex.   Many have taken extreme umbrage at DOJ’s position as a complete reversal of the previous administration’s position as the Department filed an unsolicited amicus in the Second Circuit.  However, as the DOJ’s civil division filed the brief, it presents a rare window into the “Jekyll/Hyde” dynamic within the government.  As some agencies broadly seek civil rights protections, the federal government is also one of the world’s largest employers faced with the challenges of limiting countless claims. READ MORE