Mark Thompson

Senior Associate

New York


Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Mark Thompson is a senior associate in the New York office and a member of the employment law and litigation group. Mark's practice focuses on employment litigation and counseling. He has significant experience litigating wage and hour, discrimination, harassment and trade secret issues in high-profile cases for clients in the venture capital, technology, financial services and media industries.

Orrick’s Employment Law and Litigation group was recently named Labor & Employment Department of the Year in California by The Recorder, the premier source for legal news, in recognition of their significant wins on behalf of leading multinational companies on today’s most complex and challenging employment law matters.

In addition to his litigation practice, Mark advises clients regarding a broad range of employment issues, including human resource policies and procedures, severance agreements and employee terminations.

Prior to joining Orrick, Mark was a judicial law clerk and gained experience litigating a wide range of civil and criminal cases.

 

Posts by: Mark Thompson

The CDC Provides Guidance: Antibody Testing Cannot Be Used as a Return to Work Passport

On May 26, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) released its anxiously awaited Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing (the “Guidelines”). As set forth in further detail below, the Guidelines make clear that COVID-19 antibody testing should not be used to make decisions about returning employees to the workplace.

While the Guidelines detail some encouraging data developed from early studies on antibody testing, several concerns remain. On the encouraging side, the CDC states in the Guidelines that “nearly all immune competent individuals” will develop an immune response following infection with COVID-19 and recurrence of COVID-19 illness “appears to be very uncommon,” suggesting that COVID-19 antibodies may confer at least some short-term immunity. Consistent with this observation, the Guidelines further note that in experiments involving primates, infection and subsequent development of antibodies resulted in protection from reinfection. Additionally, the Guidelines note that antibody development in humans correlates with a marked decrease in viral load in the respiratory tract. According to the CDC, taken together, these observations suggest that the presence of antibodies may decrease a person’s infectiousness and offer some level of protection from reinfection. However, the Guidelines make clear that definitive data are lacking and it remains uncertain whether individuals with antibodies are protected against reinfection with COVID-19, and if so, the duration of that protection and what concentration of antibodies is needed to confer protection.

In addition to these issues, the CDC raises several other concerns in the Guidelines regarding antibody testing. The Guidelines note that some antibody tests can lead to false positive results, when they react with the presence of antibodies to other coronaviruses like the common cold. Moreover, the CDC cautions that certain individuals may not develop detectable antibodies even after infection while others’ levels could wane over time to be undetectable. The timing of antibody tests can affect the result as well; as the CDC notes, the most useful antibodies for assessing antibody response are not present early in infection, and only become detectable 1-3 weeks after symptom onset. Thus, antibody test results may not definitively indicate the presence or absence of current or previous COVID-19 infection.

In light of the continuing uncertainty regarding these issues, the CDC affirmatively states that COVID-19 antibody testing results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.” The CDC specifically notes that although certain testing can have “high positive predictive value” indicating at least some degree of immunity, “until the durability and duration of immunity is established, it cannot be assumed that individuals with truly positive antibody test results are protected from future infection.” In addition to stating that employers should not use antibody testing to determine eligibility to return to the workplace, the CDC also recommends against using antibody testing to make decisions about admitting individuals to other congregate settings, such as schools, dormitories, or correctional facilities.

Finally, the CDC states that its Guidelines do not affect existing guidance from public health authorities and other governmental agencies on maintaining social distancing and using PPE in the workplace. The CDC notes that healthcare workers and first responders should continue to use PPE even if they test positive for COVID-19 antibodies. Further, while those who test positive for antibodies and do not have a recent history of “a COVID-19 compatible illness” have a low likelihood of active infection, they should still follow general recommendations to prevent the spread of infection.

While this area is rapidly evolving, employers now have affirmative guidance from the CDC that antibody testing should not be used to make decisions about bringing employees back to work. Since the EEOC has largely deferred to the CDC on this issue, employers who condition an employee’s return to work on a positive test for antibodies may be subject to claims by both the individual and the EEOC.

One Step At a Time: New York Issues Guidance for Businesses as Parts of State Reopen

New York State has begun its slow and deliberate process of re-opening on May 15, 2020. Governor Cuomo has established both a regional and industry approach for how the state will re-emerge following the state-wide Executive Order restricting all non-essential businesses since March. The process will be gradual, however, with restrictions on non-essential business in much of the state, including New York City and the surrounding suburbs, potentially continuing through May 28, 2020. READ MORE

Cross-Border Layoffs in the Wake of the COVID-19 International Pandemic

As bars, restaurants, theatres, sporting and entertainment events, gyms, casinos, movie theatres, and other establishments shutter globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic many employers have been forced to consider immediate layoffs of their employees around the world in response to their businesses having been essentially shut down. Other employers, faced with the possibility of a looming global recession, are preparing for potential future international layoffs. Significant pitfalls await employers conducting layoffs (temporary or permanent) outside of the U.S., which are heavily regulated by law, including mandatory severance payments, notice periods and cumbersome processes. We discuss some of these pitfalls for selected countries outside the U.S. including Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain and the UK below and discuss some of the early responses by countries like Spain and Germany to create exceptions to the normal requirements. READ MORE

Maryland Says “Me Too” with Arbitration Limits and New Reporting Requirements

On May 15, 2018, Maryland Governor Lawrence J. Hogan signed into law H.B. 1596, the Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018 (the “Act”), expanding employee rights and remedies under state sexual harassment law and impacting Maryland employers in two ways. READ MORE

#MeToo—New York Poised to Ban Non-Disclosure and Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims

On March 30, 2018, the New York State Assembly completed passage of the 2018-19 state budget.  Undoubtedly spurred by the #MeToo movement, the final budget measure, which is expected to be signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo, includes a bill (S. 7507–C/ A. 9507–C), containing several measures aimed at creating safer workplaces free of sexual harassment and abuse.  READ MORE

New Lawsuit Alleges Rush to Judgment in #MeToo Climate

Newton’s Third Law of Physics states that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” A recent Complaint filed in the Southern District of New York suggests that this principle may also hold true for the recent “Me Too” movement. READ MORE

“#MeToo”: Fostering A Harassment-Free Workplace

In the last several weeks, allegations of rampant sexual harassment have shocked the collective conscience. With the assistance of social media, what started as an allegation against a Hollywood mogul snowballed into a nation-wide conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace and elsewhere. According to the Washington Post, hundreds of thousands of men and women took to Twitter and Facebook to express they had been victims of sexual harassment, many of them using the hashtag “MeToo” to show solidarity with other victims. READ MORE

Fool’s Gold: Second Circuit Vacates Order Affirming Arbitrator’s Certification of Class of Jewelry Store Workers Including Absent Class Members

On July 24, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a federal district court’s approval for a class of roughly 69,000 women claiming that Sterling Jewelers, Inc. (“Sterling”) discriminated against them based on sex. The decision overturned a district court ruling that affirmed an arbitrator’s decision to let the women proceed to trial as a class in an arbitration.

Plaintiffs initially filed a class action lawsuit in March 2008, alleging that Sterling’s practices and policies led to women being deliberately passed over for promotions and paid them less than their male cohorts. The case was sent to arbitration several months later under Sterling’s arbitration clause.

In 2009, an arbitrator ruled that Sterling’s dispute resolution program did not specifically bar class actions and allowed claimants to seek class status. From there, the case took a number of twists and turns, which we reported on more fully at the time here.

In June 2013, the employees moved for class certification. In February 2015, the arbitrator ruled that that the employees could proceed as a class in the arbitration.  In November 2015, the district court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by certifying a class that included absent class members i.e., employees other than the named plaintiffs and those who have opted into the class.  Sterling appealed. READ MORE

I’ll Defer To You: Supreme Court Rules Appellate Courts Should Apply Abuse Of Discretion Standard When Reviewing EEOC Subpoena Efforts

Recently, in McLane Co., Inc. v. EEOC, case number 15-1248 , the United States Supreme Court clarified the standard for when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s order to enforce or quash a subpoena from the EEOC. Vacating a Ninth Circuit decision applying a de novo standard of review, the Court ruled that appellate courts should review based on the abuse of discretion standard. READ MORE

Game Over for NCAA Student Athletes Seeking Employee Status? 7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of U. Penn Athletes’ FLSA Complaint

On December 5, 2016, the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a complaint filed by two University of Pennsylvania track and field athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the university, and more than 120 other NCAA Division I universities and colleges alleging that student athletes are entitled to minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In Berger v. NCAA, the court held that student athletes are not “employees” within the meaning of the FLSA and thus, are not entitled to a minimum wage for their athletic activities. READ MORE