Kathryn G. Mantoan

Of Counsel

San Francisco

Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Kathryn (Katie) Grzenczyk Mantoan is Of Counsel in Orrick's Employment Law & Litigation group, working across the San Francisco and Portland offices. She focuses on high-stakes employment litigation, compliance counseling, and litigation avoidance measures. Her practice has a particular emphasis on complex class actions and developing areas of the law including pay equity and pay transparency, and she co-chairs Orrick's Pay Equity Task Force.

Katie was a part of the trial team that obtained a complete dismissal for Oracle in OFCCP v. Oracle, a high-stakes systemic compensation discrimination case that garnered national media attention. Katie and her co-counsel were named "Litigators of the Week" by American Lawyer for the win. Two years later, Katie and her co-counsel were named Runners-Up by American Lawyer for securing decertification of a 3,000-person putative equal pay class action for Oracle.

In fall 2023, Katie co-first chaired a two week federal jury trial in Oregon and obtained a verdict against the client's former general manager, who set up a competing business while employed, on claims for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference.

Previously, Katie received California Lawyer’s Attorney of the Year Award in 2016 and was named a Northern California Super Lawyers "Rising Star" for seven consecutive years. She regularly writes and publishes on employment law developments, having presented on topics to three separate state bar associations and a host of national and regional legal and academic conferences.

Katie started her career at Orrick in 2004 and returned in 2015. From 2011 to 2014, she was an associate at a litigation boutique in San Francisco where she handled employment and constitutional law matters.

Posts by: Kathryn Mantoan

There’s No Longer an “App for That” in Austin: Lyft and Uber Pull Out Over Driver Fingerprinting Requirements

Mike Delikat and Kathryn MantoanPosted on May 19, 2016

Rideshare companies Lyft and Uber announced on May 9 that they were no longer offering their services in Austin, Texas, after voters there rejected a proposed ordinance that would have eliminated fingerprint-based background checks for drivers. In a Saturday election, 56 percent of Austin voters, despite what some have called confusing ballot language, rejected the proposed ordinance, known as “Proposition 1,” which was supported by the companies.

Supreme Court Ties Underscore Justice Scalia’s Missing Influence

Kathryn Mantoan and Michael DisotellPosted on April 5, 2016

After the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, we predicted: “Justice Scalia’s passing will immediately impact several employment-related cases pending before the Court.” Specifically, cases in which Scalia was expected to provide the needed fifth vote were at risk of ending in a tie. After two recent rulings from the Court, this prediction appears to have come true.

Justice Scalia’s Employment Law Legacy

Kathryn Mantoan and Michael DisotellPosted on February 24, 2016

On February 13, 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia, the anchor of the Court’s conservative wing for nearly three decades, passed away. He leaves behind a distinguished legal career that involved experience in wide range of roles. After graduating from Harvard Law School, Justice Scalia entered private practice and then became a law professor at the University of Virginia. He served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, eventually becoming Assistant Attorney General. Scalia then began his judicial ascension when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Soon thereafter, Reagan nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court to replace Justice William Rehnquist, whom Reagan had named to the Chief Justice position. Scalia was unanimously confirmed.

Please Pass the Settlement: Second Circuit Widens Split Over Stipulated FLSA Dismissals

Jessica Perry, Kathryn Mantoan and Clayton FlahertyPosted on December 7, 2015

A recently filed petition for certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the procedural requirements for ending private causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Specifically, petitioner Dorian Cheeks is asking the Supreme Court to review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (“FRCP 41”) prohibits the dismissal of FLSA claims through private, stipulated settlement agreements absent approval from either a federal district court or the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”).

California Legislature Tries Again to Thwart Arbitration With Bill Purporting to Make Mandatory Arbitration Unlawful

Jessica Perry, Kathryn Mantoan and Alexandra StathopoulosPosted on August 28, 2015

California employers should keep an eye on a new challenge to arbitration provisions on its way to the Governor’s desk. On August 24, 2015, the California Senate passed AB 465, which would make it unlawful for any employer or other company to “require another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of [the California Labor Code], as a condition of employment, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Labor Commissioner, state agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity.” The Senate version eliminates the originally proposed $10,000 per violation penalty, but continues to authorize an award of injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff seeking to enforce the section. The Assembly concurred in the Senate’s amendments on August 27, 2015, and the bill will reach the Governor shortly.

Whistle While You Work: SEC Announces First Retaliation Whistleblower Award

Mike Delikat, Kathryn Mantoan and Michael DisotellPosted on May 13, 2015

On June 16, 2014, the SEC issued its first-ever charge of whistleblower retaliation under section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, charging a hedge fund advisor and its owner with “engaging in prohibited principal transactions and then retaliating against the employee who reported the trading activity to the SEC.”

Airline Tragedy Prompts Renewed Discussion on Employment Inquiries into Mental Health

Jill L. Rosenberg, Kathryn Mantoan and Jessica R. L. JamesPosted on April 7, 2015

As the world reels in the wake of last month’s shocking crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 in France, many are questioning what, if anything, the airline should—or could—have done to prevent the tragedy. These questions necessarily touch on important issues about what an employer is permitted to address in pre- and post-employment medical screenings concerning an employee’s mental health.

Employees Snooze, Employers Lose: California Supreme Court Delivers Wake Up Call to Employers of On-Call Security Workers

Michael Weil, Kathryn Mantoan and Annabelle ChanPosted on January 20, 2015

In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., issued on January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that security guards are entitled to compensation for all on-call hours spent at their assigned worksites, even when they are engaged in certain personal activities or sleep.

Employment Law and Litigation