Our appellate lawyers possess focused wage-and-hour expertise that sets us apart from other firms.
Our appellate team has cultivated a deep expertise in wage-and-hour litigation across the country. By concentrating on wage and hour issues, we are better equipped to help our clients protect good outcomes and reverse bad ones.
When employers face less-than-satisfactory outcomes, they also enlist our appellate team to provide a “second look”—a fresh review of the record, an objective after-action review, and strategic advice. These impartial assessments can help detect faulty strategies or just provide assurance that the existing plan was sound.
We also help clients navigate trial-level issues that have appellate implications, including mandamus relief, interlocutory review of class-action certifications, and strategic trial advice.
Our appellate lawyers continually demonstrate their proficiency in cutting-edge wage-and-hour issues under federal and state laws nationwide. For example:
- We recently persuaded the Third Circuit that a district court—rather than an arbitrator—should determine whether an employer’s arbitration agreement permits class arbitration. To achieve this victory, we had to overcome appellate-jurisdiction and waiver issues, along with unhelpful dicta in previous decisions. We then argued successfully that the “who decides” issue is a matter of arbitrability for courts to decide. Opalinski v. Robert Half International, Inc., 761 F.3d 326 (3rd Cir. Jul. 30, 2014).
- We recently filed a highly influential amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging the NLRB’s decision that an arbitration agreement’s class-action waiver amounted to an unenforceable unfair labor practice. In reversing the NLRB’s decision, the Fifth Circuit’s majority opinion relied expressly and heavily on the arguments presented in our brief. D.R. Horton v. National Labor Relations Board, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013).
- We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Employment Law Council that was instrumental in affirming a lower court’s decision upholding the employer’s rounding policy. See’s Candy Shops v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012).
- In a complex putative collective action, we defeated plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal a District Court’s order denying their motion to use representative proof. Plaintiffs had enlisted the help of five pro-labor groups as amici. Rodriguez v. SGLC, Inc., No. 12-80226 (9th Cir. March 4, 2012).
Our clients rely on us to apply our wage-and-hour expertise at every stage of a class or collective action—not only as advocates, but as key advisors.