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 Gay Marriage Decision: Support for Title VII Employment Discrimination Claims?

Lynne Hermle and Mark ThompsonPosted on July 7, 2015

Following the excitement of the same-sex marriage decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26^th, the question remains how much the Opinion may impact Title VII employment discrimination claims. Based on our reading of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, and the many states that have passed legislation protecting employees from sexual-orientation discrimination, we recommend that employers revisit and update their anti-discrimination policies.

New York City “Bans the Box”—Inquiries Into Applicants’ Criminal Histories Now Significantly Restricted

Jill L. Rosenberg and Mark ThompsonPosted on June 12, 2015

On June 10, 2015, the New York City Council passed the Fair Chance Act (the “Act”), which prohibits employers from inquiring into the criminal backgrounds of applicants in the initial stages of the employment application process. With the passage of the Act, which is expected to be signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York City joins a large group of other states and municipalities in passing so-called “ban the box” legislation, which refers to laws that prohibit or restrict employers from asking about or relying upon criminal convictions and arrests or requiring employees to disclose their criminal history through a check box on an employment application. The ban the box legislation stems from the use of criminal history as an employment screening tool and from concerns that criminal history is often not a reliable indicator of job performance, and moreover, may adversely affect minority groups.

Employers Finally Get a Break—Court Reverses $90 Million Verdict and Holds That Employers Are Not Required to Relieve Employees of All Duty During Rest Periods

Erin Connell and Mark ThompsonPosted on January 12, 2015

On December 31, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second District of California held in an unpublished opinion that employers are not required to relieve employees of all duty during rest periods mandated by California state law. In so holding, the court in Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., No. B243788, 2014 WL 7463154 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2014), reversed the trial court’s award of approximately $90 million dollars in statutory damages, interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees to the employees.

The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Busk: Could Employers Have to Pay for Employee Time Spent Passing Through Security?

Michael Weil, Julia Riechert and Mark ThompsonPosted on November 18, 2014

On October 8, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. In Busk, plaintiffs allege that, under the FLSA, their employer should have compensated them and other warehouse employees for time spent passing through the employer’s security clearance at the end of their shifts, including their time spent waiting in line to be searched. Busk is an important case to watch because the Court may provide employers with wide-ranging guidance on what pre-work or post-work tasks are compensable.

Post This! Private Employers Not Required to Display Pro-Union NLRB Posters

Mark Thompson and Rob ShwartsPosted on January 15, 2014

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently announced that it would not seek Supreme Court Review of two U.S. Court of Appeals decisions invalidating the NLRB’s Notice Posting Rule, which would have required most private sector employers to post a pro-union notice of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act on their premises and websites. READ MORE →

Oh, F*©k No: Administrative Law Judge Rules that Employees’ Expletive-Laced Facebook Posts are not Protected Under the National Labor Relations Act

Mark Thompson and Lynne HermlePosted on November 20, 2013

With the increasing prominence of social media, employers have been rightfully concerned about the impact of employees’ out-of-work statements on the work place—particularly when it comes to the reputation of the employer. In the last few years, the National Labor Relations Board has held that even offensive language can be protected concerted activity [See previous Orrick blog postings on this topic from September 25, 2012 and May 16, 2013]. However, apparently there is a limit: an administrative law judge held last week that the expletive-laden Facebook posts of two youth center employees crossed a line. READ MORE →

“Picking Off” Plaintiffs in FLSA Collective Actions: Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk

Mark Thompson and Lynne HermlePosted on May 7, 2013

Earlier this month in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is permissible for defendants to “pick off” plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions. In jurisdictions that hold that an unaccepted offer of judgment fully satisfies and renders moot a plaintiff’s individual claim, a defendant can moot a collective action brought under the FLSA by simply tendering the named plaintiff a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment. READ MORE →

A New Term in the U.S. Supreme Court: Cases to Watch

Mark Thompson and Joe LiburtPosted on October 16, 2012

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court began a new term that is anticipated to include decisions on hot-button issues such as affirmative action, same-sex marriage and national security. The Court will also hear several significant cases in the employment context READ MORE →

Amendment to New York’s Labor Law Expands the Universe of Permissible Wage Deductions

Mark Thompson and Erin ConnellPosted on August 21, 2012

The New York State Legislature recently passed a bill amending New York Labor Law Section 193 and establishing new categories of permissible wage deductions that employers may take with the consent of employees. In addition to allowing employers (with employee consent) to recoup advances on wages or accidental overpayments, the new amendments also permit employee-approved deductions for things such as discounted mass transit tickets; gym membership dues; cafeteria or pharmacy purchases made at the employer’s place of business; and education and child care expenses. Both employers and employees are expected to benefit from the flexibility permitted by the bill, although implementing regulations from the New York Department of Labor have yet to be enacted.

With respect to deductions related to recovering accidental overpayments of wages or wage advancements, the bill instructs the New York Department of Labor to issue regulations governing the periodic amount of recovery or repayment; the timing, frequency, duration and method of recovery or repayment; a requirement that notice to be provided to employees before commencing the recovery or repayment; and a requirement that employers implement procedures for disputing the amount of overpayment or repayment or seeking to delay commencement of repayment or recovery. Employers are advised to wait until these regulations are enacted before acting on the bill, and should also take care to ensure compliance with the bill’s new record keeping requirements.

The amendment is expected to be signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo and will become effective 60 days after enactment. The bill contains a sunset provision, which provides that the law shall expire and be deemed repealed three years after the effective date. The text of the bill is available here.

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 →