Photo of Dixie Morrison

Dixie Morrison is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. She is a member of the Discrimination, Harassment, & Title VII and the Labor-Management Relations practice groups.

Dixie assists clients across a variety of industries in litigation and arbitration relating to wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour, trade secrets, breach of contract, and whistleblower matters in both the single-plaintiff and class and collective action contexts. She also maintains an active traditional labor and collective bargaining practice and regularly counsels employers on a diverse range of workplace issues.

Dixie earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was the Executive Editor of Submissions for the Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. Dixie received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Pomona College. Prior to law school, she served as a labor and economic policy aide in the United States Senate.

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

A federal court in New York has held that a Broadway musical’s casting decisions—specifically replacing one actor with another actor of a different race—are shielded by the First Amendment from employment discrimination claims, in a decision that could have implications across the entertainment industry.

In Moore v. Hadestown Broadway LLC, the plaintiff, a Black woman, brought race discrimination and retaliation claims under federal and

On February 14, 2024, California State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas introduced Senate Bill 1137 (“SB 1137”), a bill that would make California the first state to specifically recognize the concept of “intersectionality.” Smallwood-Cuevas has stated that SB 1137 “makes it clear that discrimination not only happens based on one protected class, such as race, gender or age, but any combination thereof.”

Specifically, SB 1137 would amend

All eyes will be on the United States this November as Americans head to the polls in the upcoming 2024 general election. Likely to go somewhat less noticed among the Presidential, Senate, and House races this year is a California ballot initiative that would repeal (after 20 long years!) the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004—better known as PAGA. (We previously reported in

California’s minimum wage is already one of the highest in the nation at $16 per hour (although Sacramento’s efforts pale in comparison to those of cities and towns across the Golden State, which have created a patchwork quilt of over 40 different minimum wage obligations up and down the state). Now, as we have previously reported here, the rate is set to increase by

On November 8, 2023, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., a case that could have profound implications for the future of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) litigation.  The Court granted review in order to decide whether courts have the power to strike or limit PAGA claims that would prove to be unmanageable at trial.

A prior

A California semiconductor manufacturer cannot pursue in court its claims of trade secret misappropriation against a rival company while simultaneously arbitrating the same claims against the allegedly larcenous employee, a state appeals court recently found.

In Mattson Technology, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc., a California Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred by not staying Applied Materials’ trade secret misappropriation claims against

Many California employers and their counsel remain blissfully ignorant of the latest “gotcha” law in California, which can easily derail an otherwise perfectly planned arbitration.  Back in 2019, the California legislature, an implacable foe of arbitration agreements, set a booby trap for unsuspecting employers by requiring the timely payment of arbitration fees and costs on pain of “waiving” the right to arbitrate.  (The same gotcha

In recent years, employees (and their lawyers) have taken a variety of approaches to challenging the enforceability of workplace arbitration agreements.  One common tactic has been to claim that they “don’t remember signing it” and, therefore, should not be required to arbitrate their claims.  And at least one Court in the Second Appellate District has accepted this excuse.  See Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic

The federal court for the Northern District of California recently declined to dismiss a former Al Jazeera International employee’s constructive wrongful termination claim against the news outlet, finding that requiring an employee to perform tasks more advanced than their pay level, without promotion, could constitute “intolerable” working conditions.

The plaintiff alleges she was working as a producer for Al Jazeera when she was offered a