A bill that would have allowed California employers to offer employees a flexible workweek schedule has failed to pass the California Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment in a 5-2 party-line vote. The Committee rejected Assembly Bill 907 on the ground that the proposed law would “lead to employee intimidation and a breakdown of the eight-hour work day.” The bill, which was opposed by Democrats
Tony Oncidi
Anthony J. Oncidi is the Co-Chair Emeritus 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 Journal, The 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 Journal, Bloomberg 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.
November 2013 California Employment Law Notes
Employer Was Entitled To “Substantial Motivating Factor” Jury Instruction
Alamo v. Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp., 219 Cal. App. 4th 466 (2013)
In one of the first appellate opinions to consider the new jury instructions required for employment discrimination cases as set forth by the California Supreme Court in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013), the Court of Appeal…
Newly Enacted California Statutes
Minimum Wage Increased to $10.00 Per Hour By 2016
The minimum wage will increase in California from $8.00 to $9.00 per hour on July 1, 2014 and to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016 (AB 10).
Employer Recovery of Attorney’s Fees Is Further Restricted
California has amended Cal. Lab. Code § 218.5 to limit the circumstances under which an employer may recover…
Governor Brown Signs New Laws Affecting California Employers
Minimum Wage Increase
Gov. Brown has signed into law a measure that will increase California’s minimum wage from $8.00 per hour to $9.00 per hour on July 1, 2014, and to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016. So, California employers must prepare for a 25% increase in the minimum wage over the next two years.
The California Chamber of Commerce lists the new law…
September 2013 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2013 California Employment Law Notes – a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
…
PAGA Claims Cannot Be Aggregated To Satisfy Jurisdictional Minimum Required For Removal
Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 2013 WL 4055615 (9th Cir. 2013)
John Urbino alleged in the form of a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) that Orkin illegally deprived him and other non-exempt employees of meal periods, overtime and vacation wages and accurate itemized wage statements. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity…
Wage Claims Were Not Barred By Statute Of Limitations
Bain v. Tax Reducers, Inc., 2013 WL 4542681 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)
Harold Bain sued Tax Reducers, Inc. (“TRI”) for unpaid minimum wages, expenses and waiting time penalties. TRI contended that Bain was an independent contractor and not an employee of TRI. In an earlier administrative proceeding, the Labor Commissioner determined that Bain was an employee and awarded him $15,105.86. In a subsequent trial,…
Bankrupt Employee Was Not Estopped From Prosecuting Undisclosed Discrimination Action
Quin v. County of Kauai Dep’t. of Transp., 2013 WL 3814916 (9th Cir. 2013)
Kathleen M. Ah Quin contends that her employer (the Kauai Department of Transportation) discriminated against her because she is a woman. While pursuing her discrimination action, Quin filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and failed to list the lawsuit as an asset in her bankruptcy schedules where she was required…
Judgment In Favor Of Commissioned Sales Representative Is Upheld
Reilly v. Inquest Tech., Inc., 218 Cal. App. 4th 536 (2013)
Peter Reilly sued Inquest under the Independent Wholesale Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990, Civil Code § 1738.10, et seq. (the “Act”), which was created to protect sales representatives who receive commissions from, but who are not employed by, a manufacturer. The jury entered a general verdict in favor of Reilly, awarding him…
Whistleblower Employee Must Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Suing For Retaliatory Discharge
MacDonald v. State of Cal., 2013 WL 4522792 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)
Aaron MacDonald worked for the State of California and the California State Assembly and was fired shortly after complaining that one of his supervisors was “illegally and/or inappropriately smoking” at the office. In response, MacDonald sued for retaliatory discharge in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 and retaliatory and discriminatory discharge in…