Watch Your Step! Most Powerful Employment Attorneys for On-Site Clinics Increasing. Taking Pre- Relocation Precautions

Transcription

1 Most Powerful Employment Attorneys for 2013 FEBRUARY JUNE 16, 2013 $ Watch Your Step! Today s leaders able to work cross platform? PAGE 14 An emboldened EEOC is poised to trip you up in your dealings with employees and job candidates so tread carefully, say some of this year s most powerful employment attorneys. PAGE 17 On-Site Clinics Increasing Page 32 The State of Recruiting Technology Page 39 Taking Pre- Relocation Precautions Page 42

2 Cover Story Watch Your Step! As the EEOC intensifies its scrutiny over how companies handle employees and job candidates, don t get slipped up on its rules and guidelines, lawyers on the 2013 Most Powerful Employment Attorneys list warn. JEFFREY MANGIAT BY JOEL BERG A trucking company would likely stand on safe ground if it refused to hire an applicant with a string of drunk-driving convictions. But in most cases, a clear line between the crime and the job is not so easy to draw. Even where the link is clear, complicating factors such as the timing of the conviction and the applicant s subsequent behavior can trip up employers, say some of the lawyers on this year s Most Powerful Employment Attorneys list, prepared exclusively for Human Resource Executive by Lawdragon, a Los Angeles-based networking site for lawyers and clients. Companies are more likely to withstand scrutiny if they evaluate each case on its own merits, as suggested by some of the latest guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. June 16,

3 Cover Story Watch Your Step! The way that employers are most likely to get in trouble is if they have some hard-and-fast rule: We will consider all crimes within the last seven years as automatic disqualifiers, says Jeff Wray, partner in charge of the Houston employment and labor practice at the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski. And now, to make matters even more dicey, it may not matter if that hard-and-fast rule was born in a state legislature or an HR office. In April, a federal judge in Ohio suggested federal law may override state law when relying on past convictions as an employment screen. The case Waldon et al v. Cincinnati Public Schools involves a suit by two African American employees who claimed they were discriminated against after they were fired in the wake of state-mandated criminal-background checks. Of 10 employees let go by the schools, nine were African American. The judge, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, rejected the school system s motion to dismiss the case. A jury trial is tentatively scheduled for June The Court concludes that Plaintiffs Complaint raises plausible allegations of disparate impact discrimination, Judge S. Arthur Spiegel wrote in his ruling. Defendant s implementation of the William Cole MS&K LoS AngeLeS wlc@msk.com Criminal records aren t the only minefield employers must tread carefully over, either. The recruitment and hiring process as a whole is a priority for the EEOC.... state mandate, as alleged, could very well amount to a violation of Title VII. Criminal records aren t the only minefield employers must tread carefully over, either. The recruitment and hiring process as a whole is a mitchell SilberberG & Knupp llp is proud to congratulate our friends And partners Gerald HatHaWay MS&K new YorK gth@msk.com on being recognized by adam levin MS&K LoS AngeLeS axl@msk.com Human ResouRce executive AS three of the most PoweRful employment attorneys in the u.s. LOS ANGELES NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. priority for the EEOC, as evidenced by that function s place in the agency s latest strategic enforcement plan, issued late last year and covering the next four years. At the top of the agency s list of priorities is eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring. Racial, ethnic and religious groups; older workers; women; and people with disabilities continue to confront discriminatory policies and practices at the recruitment and hiring stages, the EEOC writes in its plan. These include exclusionary policies and practices, the channeling/steering of individuals into specific jobs due to their status in a particular group, restrictive application processes and the use of screening tools. Job applications have asked about criminal records for decades and employers have often rejected candidates based on past convictions. But the practice has come under increasing scrutiny, and the grounds for rejecting applicants have narrowed over the years. The EEOC has argued that screening out people with convictions can be discriminatory to African Americans and other minority groups, which have higher conviction rates than white Americans. It has also said it is in a better position than individuals and private attorneys to gather evidence that might point to discrimination which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 leading attorneys to expect more action in this area. In addition to criminal convictions, the agency is examining issues around credit checks and medical tests administered after a job offer is extended, attorneys say. The use of social media is also a hot button, as is treatment of people who have been out of work for extended periods. The rate of joblessness and the time it takes to find a job vary by race, age, sex, disability and possibly other protected characteristics, says Justine Lisser, senior attorneyadviser and spokesperson for the EEOC, citing evidence from a 2011 commission meeting. Thus, an individual who was denied hire due to a period of unemployment might be able to demonstrate that this selection criterion had a disparate impact on a protected group. For large businesses, some level of screening is necessary, as it allows them to comb through hundreds of applications quickly, attorneys say. All businesses, meanwhile, are concerned about the risks of hiring someone who ends up harming co-workers or others, which can spark negligent hiring claims and liability lawsuits. Further, employers can t always count on references, because past employers fear defamation suits. And in some cases, state and federal laws apply to the hiring of people with criminal records. For example, some states bar schools and day-care centers from employing people who have been convicted, within a specific number of years, of violent or sex-related crimes. Federal law, meanwhile, prevents people from working in financial services if they have been convicted in the past 10 years of financial or fraudrelated crimes. This is really a catch-22 for employers, says Jonathan Segal, a partner at Duane Morris in Philadelphia who specializes in labor and employment law. Whatever decisions they do make, HR leaders have never before been faced with as pressing a need to tread carefully and confer with counsel. Gray Areas The EEOC Enforcement Guidance, published in April 2012, lays out steps companies can take to avoid being squeezed. If past convictions are used to screen applicants, the convictions must be job-related, and the denial of a job must be consistent with business necessity. Companies also should give applicants a chance to explain their past through some kind of individualized assessment. And that s where many employers get nervous, attorneys say. Many prefer a hard-and-fast rule that takes decision-making and liability out of their hands, rather than what appears to be a time-consuming and subjective process. Employers may have to spend time tracking down applicants to ask for more details about their convictions, slowing the hiring process. There is undeniably more administrative burden and potential for greater inconsistency, says Segal, who recommends that companies adopt targeted exclusions based 18 Human Resource Executive

4 on criminal records and set up a process for conducting individualized assessments. Even then, he says, companies may not be entirely safe. This is an area where, in my view, employers are between the cross hairs, he says, between the risk of a claim by the EEOC and the risk of a negligent-hire claim. According to Segal, individualized assessments were not always required. Other attorneys are unsure. That s where it s not clear, says Allan H. Weitzman, partner and head of the labor and employment practice in the Boca Raton, Fla., office of the law firm Proskauer. I know [the EEOC] would like them, and I think it would be a good idea for employers to engage in individualized assessments, if they want to stay clear of being on the wrong side of an EEOC lawsuit. For some employers, challenges could arise in deciding what convictions are job-related. The relatively easy calls include traffic offenses for potential drivers and In terms of the EEOC Enforcement Guidance, I think it would be a good idea for employers to engage in individualized assessments, if they want to stay clear of being on the wrong side of an EEOC lawsuit. Allan H. Weitzman, Proskauer financial crimes for anyone who might be entrusted with money. But there is a large gray area, says Gary D. Friedman, a senior partner in the employment litigation practice at New York-based Weil Gotshal & Menges. Domestic violence is one example, he says. A conviction could stem from an isolated argument between a husband and wife that spun out of control. Or it could be a sign of something worse. There s no bright line that you can draw in this area, nor does the EEOC want you to draw a bright line... or the courts, for that matter, Friedman says. He suggests companies set up some kind of adjudication panel composed of three members: an attorney, who would bring familiarity with Title VII and insight into what should be documented; an HR professional, who would have, or be able to get, a description of the job in question; and a security expert, who would have a better understanding of the conviction and any mitigating details. The panel s first task would be dividing up convictions among those that would result in automatic exclusion, those that can be ignored and those that require further investigation, Friedman says. Then, as the need arose, the panel could undertake individualized assessments, remaining blind to any details about the job candidate, such as race, gender and age, to avoid any perceptions of discrimination. Risks remain, he says. An applicant who is denied by the panel could challenge the decision, leading to claims of disparate treatment if the rejected applicant belongs to a protected category based on race, ethnicity or another characteristic. What s more, the panel may have trouble evaluating the stories offered up by applicants. More likely than not, they re going to come up with something compelling, and whether they do or not, how are you, the adjudication committee, supposed to really evaluate that? Friedman says. develop a bad back or other physical problem. Anyone deemed at risk would not be hired, says John J. Coleman III, a partner in the labor and employment practice group at Burr & Forman in Birmingham, Ala. Then came the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act. Those amendments broadened the definition of disability, Coleman says, and prevented companies from screening out workers based solely on the likelihood of future injury. Companies can still perform tests, Coleman says, but they can disqualify job candidates only under certain conditions, as determined by doctors. Rejected applicants, for instance, must pose a significant threat to themselves or others that cannot be reduced by accommodation, he says. The doctor also has to examine the candidates and their work and medical histories, as well as determine whether they can meet a job s requirements. The EEOC appears to be most interested in the doctors performing the assessments and the standards they re using to make judgments, Coleman says. As a result, employers should be careful about the doctors they choose. Agency guidelines, he says, suggest a preference for what might be called a team doctor : one who puts a brace on a player s injured knee so he can get back on the field, delaying fuller treatment until the season s end. A lot of doctors, especially those outside occupational medicine, don t [practice] that way, Coleman says. They would prefer to begin treatment right away and keep the player on the sidelines. What ends up happening is you can get some tension, he says. And it s causing employers, at times, to be frustrated. In other areas of hiring, the law and corporate practices continue to evolve. Two areas that have drawn attention recently are the use of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, and the treatment of the long-term unemployed. The EEOC held a hearing on the long-term unemployed in 2011, but states and cities have also been at the forefront of proactive measures. Laws banning discrimination have been put on the books in New Jersey, New York, Oregon and the District of Columbia. Claims could be hard to prove, says Grace Speights, a partner in the labor and employment practice at Morgan Lewis in Washington. An employer could argue that a candidate was passed over for lack of skills, not length of unemployment, Speights says. A long-unemployed person might lack the recent training Aggressive Agency, Jurisdictions No lawsuits have been filed recently over the use of criminal convictions or other screens. But EEOC investigators have been busy, attorneys say. I know, based upon my own docket and anecdotally from what other lawyers are telling me, that EEOC offices are conducting a lot of investigations into employer use of conviction information in hiring, says Donald R. Livingston, a partner at Akin Gump in Washington who served as the EEOC s general counsel from 1987 to Another area under scrutiny is preemployment testing that could uncover a disability, attorneys say. In the past, for example, manufacturers often tested people to whom they had conditionally offered jobs to gauge whether they might June 16,

5 Cover Story of someone who has been working. Still, she adds, more laws are likely. It s hard to say, but once one jurisdiction passes a statute, you can imagine others are looking at it as well, she says. Laws governing how employers treat social media also have been proliferating, says William C. Martucci, a partner at Shook Hardy & Bacon. Nine states California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Utah, New Mexico and Arkansas bar employers from asking employees or applicants to unlock their personal social-media sites and open them to review, says Martucci, who focuses on employment law. Roughly a dozen more are contemplating such rules, and others are likely to follow. Decisions based on what employers uncover online also are increasingly problematic, Martucci says. A few states, including Colorado, New York and North Dakota, protect employees from being judged by comments or actions found online, as long as the conduct is off-duty and lawful. It s unclear how the statutes might apply to job applicants. But, Martucci says, there is this trend to be thoughtful about protecting socialmedia use. Despite the challenges, employers continue to press for better tools that help them sift through applications, Martucci adds. There s more and more interest in effective employee-screening programs, and there s still a lot of discretion, he says. But if it has a disparate impact, then it s very difficult to justify it. Send questions or comments about this story to hreletters@lrp.com. Watch Your Step! Reviewing the Process This is the sixth edition of the Nation s Most Powerful Employment Attorneys, a joint project produced by Human Resource Executive magazine and Lawdragon, a media company that has been issuing best of lawyer lists since Starting in 2007 as a guide to the top 50 attorneys, the list has grown and now recognizes 210 employment lawyers nationwide for their excellence in guiding employers through today s everintensifying legal landscape. The list features 100 leading corporate-side lawyers; 20 specialists apiece in immigration, traditional labor law, and employee benefits and ERISA; and 40 Up-and-Comers, those no doubt destined to make some of the other lists in years to come. New to the list this year is the Hall of Fame. We have selected 10 legends of the employment bar whose contributions to the field as well as their firms are unparalleled. To be considered for this distinction, an attorney must have practiced 35 years and have been consistently recognized for all-around excellence in counseling clients, contributing to the bar and serving as a visionary to improve workplaces. These guides are intended to offer corporate counsel and human resource professionals an unparalleled guide to some of the best, most powerful lawyers who are poised to help them resolve difficult employment situations and keep them in compliance with the country s increasingly complicated and changing workplace-related laws and regulations. The process pairs online balloting and submissions with rigorous vetting, as well as editorial and peer review. In December, HRE s more-than-75,000 subscribers and Lawdragon s 450,000 database members Human Resource Executive MOST POWERFUL EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS 2013 IN CONJUNCTION WITH LAWDRAGON were invited to submit nominations for the guide. Nomination forms were also posted on both websites. Three months and thousands of submissions later, the vetting began first by Lawdragon s staff of researchers and then through each nominee s peers. To make the cut on the general and specialty lists, a lawyer typically has practiced more than 20 years and amassed a list of accomplishments that speak for themselves defending companies in cases making headlines, helping financially stressed companies reorganize their pension obligations, ensuring technology behemoths can hire the best talent from throughout the world; the list goes on. A winning attorney has also generally served as chair of the firm s employment department and has held leadership positions in employmentlaw bar associations. (Criteria for the top 40 Up-and-Comers are very similar, though they typically have practiced fewer than 20 years.) All have received glowing recommendations from corporate counsel who have benefitted from their wisdom and would hire them again. To make the lists, lawyers are also required to demonstrate good judgment. Not only are attorneys bar-discipline records reviewed, but professional or personal missteps are also sought and scrutinized actions that could undercut the credibility of our guide and of the lawyers recognized. Lastly, rigorous vetting is performed by an acclaimed editorial advisory board, members of which provide input based on experiences with those under consideration and an evaluation of the attorney s impact within his or her firm and in the profession. Much thoughtful discussion is held with leading lawyers and among the two organizations respective staffs to ensure the list they bring to you represents the cream of the crop in employment law. The Nation s Most Powerful Employment Attorneys Hall of Fame New to this sixth edition of the Nation s Most Powerful Employment Attorneys is the inaugural Hall of Fame list below, containing the names of lawyers whose contributions to, and overall excellence in, the field have made them legends of the employment bar. See the sidebar for more details about the Hall of Fame. Law Years in Name/Title Law Firm City School Practice Practice Specialty R. Lawrence Ashe Jr. Senior Counsel Austin T. Fragomen Alan V. Friedman Of Counsel Theodore R. Groom Principal Paul Grossman C. Lash Harrison Chairman Garry G. Mathiason Chairman of the Board Bettina B. Plevan Co-Chair, International Labor and Employment Patrick L. Vaccaro Firmwide Managing Jay W. Waks Chair, Employment and Labor Law Group Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs Atlanta Harvard 46 Defense of employment class and collective actions, employmenttesting issues, executive agreements and noncompetes Fragomen New York Case Western Reserve Munger Tolles & Olson Los Angeles Case Western Reserve Groom Washington Harvard 53 Employee benefits 45 Immigration and nationality law, emphasizing risk management for global immigration programs 47 General labor and employment advice, negotiations and litigation Paul Hastings Los Angeles Yale 49 Employment class actions and other high-visibility employment litigation FordHarrison Atlanta Emory 48 Employment and labor law Littler San Francisco Stanford 42 Wage/hour and discrimination class-action litigation and prevention, HR compliance law and trends, and international employment law Proskauer New York Boston 43 Discrimination and harassment claims, primarily in financial services, law and media industries Jackson Lewis White Plains, N.Y. New York 49 Labor and employment law, including arbitrations; private- and publicsector bargaining, mediation and fact finding; and management training and education Kaye Scholer New York Cornell 42 Litigation, counseling, collective bargaining and employee-relations matters 20 Human Resource Executive

6 The Nation s Most Powerful Employment Attorneys Top 100 The following list, in alphabetical order, was prepared exclusively for Human Resource Executive by Lawdragon, a Los Angeles-based networking site for lawyers and clients. In addition to this list of 100, three lists of 20 are featured after it, specifying the most powerful attorneys for immigration law, labor law, and employee benefits and ERISA law, respectively. The Hall of Fame list, featured on page 20, honors those now considered legends in the field and the top 40 Up and Comers on page 31 represent employment and labor-law stars most likely to take their place on any of the other lists in the years ahead. Law Years in Name/Title Law Firm City School Practice Practice Specialty Nancy L. Abell ; Chair of Employment Law Department Paul Hastings Los Angeles UCLA 34 Trial representation and advice on full range of employment issues, including class and individual cases Rory Judd Albert Co-Head, Employee Benefits, Executive Proskauer New York Columbia 36 Employee benefits, executive compensation and ERISA litigation Compensation and ERISA Litigation; Chair, Advisory Committee Rosemary Alito Chair, Labor and Employment Practice Fred W. Alvarez Michael L. Banks Paula A. Barran Ned H. Bassen Joseph Baumgarten ; Co-Head, Employment Litigation and Arbitration Group Scott C. Beightol Chairman Charles S. Birenbaum Elise M. Bloom Co-Chair, Labor and Employment James N. Boudreau Barbara B. Brown Office Chair and Employment Law Paul W. Cane Jr., Employment Department Charles S. Caulkins Managing, Ft. Lauderdale Joseph T. Clees Shareholder William L. Cole John J. Coleman III Harriet E. Cooperman Co-Chair, Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Joseph J. Costello Practice Leader, Labor and Employment Barbara Jean D Aquila Lisa J. Damon National Chair, Labor and Employment Francis X. Dee Chair, Labor and Employment Group Mike Delikat Chair, Global Employment Law Mark S. Dichter Chair, Labor and Employment Department Lawrence C. DiNardo Practice Leader, Labor and Employment Dennis P. Duffy Chair, Labor and Employment Practice Kim F. Ebert Managing Shareholder Zachary D. Fasman Co-Chair, Employment Discrimination Practice Group Baruch A. Fellner Mark J. Foley Chair, Labor and Employment; Chair, Labor and Employment Litigation James C. Franczek Jr. Founding and President Gary D. Friedman K&L Gates Newark, N.J. Rutgers 35 Employment litigation Jones Day Palo Alto, Calif. Stanford 38 Employment class-action and executive-level claims defense, governmental and internal investigations, consent-decree monitoring/compliance Morgan Lewis Philadelphia Columbia 32 Litigates a wide range of employment benefits and trade-secret cases Barran Liebman Portland, Ore. York 34 Provides employment advice and handles employment litigation in state and federal courts, and labor disputes and arbitrations Hughes Hubbard New York Cornell 40 Labor and employment law, including litigation, defamation, unfair competition, government-contract litigation and debarment proceedings Proskauer New York Harvard 30 Labor and employment litigation, arbitration and counseling Michael Best Milwaukee of Wisconson 25 Management-side employment litigation and counseling, noncompetes, misconduct investigations, union campaigns, collective bargaining and training Winston & Strawn San Francisco Georgetown 31 Traditional labor matters, employment law and benefits law Proskauer New York Emory 31 Employment class and collective actions, including wage/hour and discrimination matters, and extensive trial experience and employment counseling/training Greenberg Traurig Philadelphia of 23 Defends employers in class-action, wrongful-termination and trade-secret litigation Minnesota Paul Hastings Washington Yale 42 Employment litigation, with class-action, executive employment and government-agency investigation expertise Paul Hastings San Francisco UC Berkeley 34 Employment actions with a focus on major motions and appeals Fisher & Phillips Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. Creighton 37 Labor and employment, union-representation campaigns, collective bargaining, arbitrations, dispute resolution, FLSA and trade-secret protection Ogletree Deakins Phoenix Villanova 29 Employment litigation and counseling, training and executive coaching, compliance strategies and litigation avoidance, and tribal law Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp Burr & Forman Los Angeles Stanford 36 Employment litigation, including class actions, and traditional labor law, including NLRB proceedings, arbitrations and union negotiations Birmingham, Ala. Saul Ewing Baltimore of Maryland Duke 32 Class and individual discrimination; FLSA, NLRA and OSHA litigation defense; union campaigns; and training and counseling 35 Labor, employment and employee benefits Morgan Lewis Philadelphia Stanford 28 Labor and employment counseling and litigation, with a focus on ERISA class actions Fulbright Minneapolis of Minnesota Seyfarth Shaw Boston Fordham 26 Labor and employment McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter Morristown, N.J. Catholic of America 34 Class, collective and complex employment and business litigation for major companies; broad-based labor-and-employment experience (discrimination, wage/hour, ERISA, trade secrets, etc.) 44 Employment litigation and jury trials, class and collective actions, ERISA, trade-secret litigation and traditional labor Orrick New York Harvard 36 Class-action and agency systemic claims defense, whistleblower claims, trade-secret litigation and cross-border employment-law advice Morgan Lewis Philadelphia Villanova 44 Defense of U.S. employment class and collective actions, high-profile individual cases, and international employment law Jones Day Chicago Notre Dame 39 Labor and employment BakerHostetler Houston of Virginia Ogletree Deakins Indianapolis Indiana Paul Hastings New York of Michigan 31 Complex employment litigation and counseling, including discrimination, wage/hour, labor relations, corporate transactions and executive compensation 37 Defends interests of employers in full range of labor and employment matters 41 Employment-discrimination and class-action litigation, labor-law litigation and advice Gibson Dunn Washington Harvard 45 Founded occupational safety and health practice and represents clients in federal civil litigation, including labor, pension, profit-sharing, employee benefits and consumer-product safety Cozen O Connor Philadelphia Villanova 26 Collective bargaining and traditional labor litigation and counseling, employment discrimination, wage/hour and other employment litigation Franczek Radelet Chicago of Chicago 42 Labor and employment, including chief labor counsel to many public agencies Weil New York Georgetown 24 Class actions, high-level counseling and other complex discrimination, wage/hour and trade-secret litigation and arbitrations June 16,

7 The Nation s Most Powerful Employment Attorneys Top 100 Law Years in Name/Title Law Firm City School Practice Practice Specialty Willis J. Goldsmith in Charge, New York Michael J. Gray Brian S. Greig Chair, Labor and Employment Elizabeth P. Hardy Member Barry A. Hartstein Shareholder Gerald T. Hathaway Shareholder; Co-Chair, Business Restructuring Practice Group Lynne C. Hermle Patrick H. Hicks Shareholder Stephen J. Hirschfeld Founding Hunter R. Hughes III Jerry M. Hunter Maurice G. Jenkins Managing W. Carl Jordan, Co-Head, Employment Controversies and Labor Practice Group Gregory J. Kamer Founding Joel H. Kaplan Ellen C. Kearns Thomas G. Keinbaum Member William J. Kilberg Senior Jeffrey S. Klein Chair, National Employment Practice Jay P. Krupin National Labor and Employment Practice Team Leader Matthew W. Lampe John B. Langel Kevin B. Leblang Chair, Employment Law Adam Levin John B. Lewis National Chair, Employment Class Action Team Joseph C. Liburt Donald R. Livingston Alison B. Marshall William C. Martucci Chair, National Employment Litigation and Policy Matthew T. Miklave Member Armin J. Moeller Jr. Demitrios M. Moschos Senior Marko J. Mrkonich President and Managing Director Michael Patrick O Brien Shareholder; Chair, Litigation Department; Leader, Employment and Labor Law Practice Group Camille A. Olson National Chairperson, Complex Discrimination and Litigation Class Action Group Jones Day New York New York 41 Labor, employment and occupational safety and health trial and appellate litigation and counseling, and collective bargaining Jones Day Chicago Northwestern 21 Class-action wage/hour and discrimination defense, complex employment litigation and trade-secret enforcement Fulbright Austin, Texas of 38 Trade-secret and noncompete issues, complex litigation and union-related cases Texas Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton Birmingham, Mich. Wayne State Littler Chicago Northwestern 37 Labor and employment Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp Orrick New York Menlo Park, Calif. of Pittsburgh 29 Specializes in employment litigation, preventive counseling and appellate work 34 Business restructuring, labor due diligence on deals and guidance on massive layoffs; complex litigation UC Hastings 32 Complex employment litigation, with special focus on EEO and wage class actions and jury trials Littler Las Vegas UC Hastings 26 Employment litigation Hirschfeld Kraemer San Francisco George Washington Rogers & Hardin Atlanta of Virginia Bryan Cave St. Louis Washington Jackson Lewis Detroit Michigan State 31 Employment litigation, counseling, union organizing, collective bargaining, labor arbitrations, misconduct investigations and cross-border employment law 43 Labor and employment 36 Employment-discrimination litigation and counseling, complex labor-relations issues and strategy, and preventive labor relations 32 Labor and employment litigation and strategy, arbitrations, corporate governance, compliance investigations, workforce and corporate restructurings Vinson & Elkins Houston Harvard 39 Labor and employment litigation and counseling Kamer Zucker Abbott Las Vegas Emory 34 Labor and employment Seyfarth Shaw Chicago of Chicago 44 Extensive experience in traditional labor relations as well as employment litigation, including discrimination under Title VII, ADEA and a particular emphasis on complex NLRB matters Constangy Boston Boston College 37 Labor and employment, including wage/hour law Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton Birmingham, Mich. Wayne State 45 Employment discrimination, wrongful termination and class-action matters Gibson Dunn Washington Harvard 44 Complex employment, labor and benefits litigation; ERISA; wage/hour class actions; appellate and Supreme Court advocacy; and collective bargaining Weil New York Columbia 32 Complex employment litigation and counseling, including class actions, trade secrets, ERISA, wage/hour and executive employment BakerHostetler Washington St. Louis 35 Represents businesses throughout the nation advising on employment and personnel issues Jones Day New York Cornell 24 Represents employers in class action and other complex litigation Ballard Spahr Philadelphia Temple 39 Represents employers in a wide variety of labor and employment matters Kramer Levin New York Fordham 29 Labor relations and employment counseling, negotiations and litigation Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp Los Angeles of San Diego BakerHostetler Cleveland of Missouri Orrick Menlo Park, Calif. Akin Gump Washington of Georgia Jones Day Washington of Pennsylvania Shook, Hardy & Bacon Epstein Becker Green Kansas City, Mo. 22 Labor and employment, including discrimination, wrongful termination and trade-secret claims 41 Complex employment and labor litigation, including class and collective actions and appellate advocacy UC Berkeley 22 Extensive litigation experience defending claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and numerous class actions of Arkansas 36 Employment litigation and government investigations, with emphasis on complex cases and class actions 29 Employment litigation, with emphasis on complex and class-actions, government investigations and whistleblower claims 36 High-stakes employment litigation, especially class actions, wage/hour and EEOC litigation and jury trials New York Notre Dame 29 Civil rights law, employment relations, traditional union management and complex employment litigation Balch & Bingham Jackson, Miss. Louisiana State Mirick O Connell Worchester, Mass. Boston 41 Labor and employment 48 Labor and employment Littler Minneapolis Harvard 33 Labor and employment law, and firm management Jones Waldo Salt Lake City of Utah Seyfarth Shaw Chicago of Michigan 27 Risk avoidance, EEO, fair-labor standards, immigration and wrongful-termination litigation and counseling 30 Employment-practices litigation Anthony J. Oncidi Co-Chair, Labor and Employment Proskauer Los Angeles of Chicago 29 Employment litigation, including wage/hour and discrimination class actions, restrictive covenants and trade secrets 22 Human Resource Executive