Photo of Tony Oncidi

Anthony J. Oncidi is the co-chair of the Labor & Employment Law Department and heads the West Coast Labor & Employment group in the firm’s Los Angeles office.

Tony represents employers and management in all aspects of labor relations and employment law, including litigation and preventive counseling, wage and hour matters, including class actions, wrongful termination, employee discipline, Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, executive employment contract disputes, sexual harassment training and investigations, workplace violence, drug testing and privacy issues, Sarbanes-Oxley claims and employee raiding and trade secret protection. A substantial portion of Tony’s practice involves the defense of employers in large class actions, employment discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination litigation in state and federal court as well as arbitration proceedings, including FINRA matters.

Tony is recognized as a leading lawyer by such highly respected publications and organizations as the Los Angeles Daily JournalThe Hollywood Reporter, and Chambers USA, which gives him the highest possible rating (“Band 1”) for Labor & Employment.  According to Chambers USA, clients say Tony is "brilliant at what he does… He is even keeled, has a high emotional IQ, is a great legal writer and orator, and never gives up." Other clients report:  “Tony has an outstanding reputation” and he is “smart, cost effective and appropriately aggressive.” Tony is hailed as "outstanding,” particularly for his “ability to merge top-shelf lawyerly advice with pragmatic business acumen.” He is highly respected in the industry, with other commentators lauding him as a "phenomenal strategist" and "one of the top employment litigators in the country."

“Tony is the author of the treatise titled Employment Discrimination Depositions (Juris Pub’g 2020; www.jurispub.com), co-author of Proskauer on Privacy (PLI 2020), and, since 1990, has been a regular columnist for the official publication of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the State Bar of California and the Los Angeles Daily Journal.

Tony has been a featured guest on Fox 11 News and CBS News in Los Angeles. He has been interviewed and quoted by leading national media outlets such as The National Law JournalBloomberg News, The New York Times, and Newsweek and Time magazines. Tony is a frequent speaker on employment law topics for large and small groups of employers and their counsel, including the Society for Human Resource Management ("SHRM"), PIHRA, the National CLE Conference, National Business Institute, the Employment Round Table of Southern California (Board Member), the Council on Education in Management, the Institute for Corporate Counsel, the State Bar of California, the California Continuing Education of the Bar Program and the Los Angeles and Beverly Hills Bar Associations. He has testified as an expert witness regarding wage and hour issues as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and has served as a faculty member of the National Employment Law Institute. He has served as an arbitrator in an employment discrimination matter.

Tony is an appointed Hearing Examiner for the Los Angeles Police Commission Board of Rights and has served as an Adjunct Professor of Law and a guest lecturer at USC Law School and a guest lecturer at UCLA Law School.

The California Supreme Court handed employers a consolation prize this week, holding that an employer does not incur monetary penalties if there is a reasonable, good faith dispute over whether the employer violated the wage statement statute. Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 2024 WL 1979980 (Cal. May 6, 2024).

One of the employer’s workers in this case filed a putative class action, alleging

Labor Co-Chair Tony Oncidi joins Bloomberg Law podcast host June Grasso to discuss how the First Amendment can shield casting decisions from discrimination challenges. In this episode, Grasso and Oncidi cover a Broadway musical’s casting decision that replaced one actor with another of a different race and the implications the decision will have on discrimination claims throughout the entertainment industry.

We invite you to listen

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has introduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act (the “Act”), a bill that, if enacted, would lower the threshold for a “standard” workweek by 20 percent, from 40 to 32 hours. Should the Act become law, it would have a significant impact on employers not just in California but across the nation. (Of course, there’s always a California connection—companion legislation, H.R. 1332

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 93 F.4th 459 (9th Cir. 2024)

The Ninth Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of a former employee’s “non-individual” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023). Plaintiff in this case signed a contract with her employer (Lowe’s)

Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel Cal. By the Sea, LLC, 99 Cal. App. 5th 551 (2024)

Amanda Neeble-Diamond sued her employer for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), but after a jury concluded she was an independent contractor rather than an employee, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the employer (Hotel California). Hotel California then filed a motion for attorney’s fees

Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 15 Cal. 5th 582 (2024)

The California Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court judgment that “trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds”—that is, trial courts may not “dismiss [them] with prejudice.” In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746 (2021).

The

Applied Med. Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells, 2024 WL 1007523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)

Stephen Jarrells worked for Applied as a vice president in charge of group purchasing organizations and had previously held other positions during his tenure with the company. When he was hired, Jarrells signed Applied’s proprietary information agreement in which he agreed to hold in “strictest confidence” Applied’s trade secrets and confidential/proprietary

Daramola v. Oracle Am., Inc., 92 F.4th 833 (9th Cir. 2024)

Tayo Daramola is a Canadian citizen who resided in Montreal at all relevant times and who worked for Oracle Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary of Oracle Corporation (a California‑based company). Daramola’s employment agreement stated that it was governed by Canadian law. During his employment, Daramola, who worked remotely, conducted business and collaborated with

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)

For the seventh time since they became effective in 2020, the California Court of Appeal has published an opinion holding that Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1281.97 and 1281.98 truly mean what they say: “[I]f the [arbitration] fees or costs… are not paid [by the employer] within 30 days after the