Photo of Hal Brody

Hal Brody is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department. His practice is characterized by its diversity and he has represented employers in virtually every facet of labor and employment law.

For over 25 years, Hal has represented employers in almost every conceivable forum. He has appeared before the National Labor Relations Board in connection with union organizing campaigns and unfair labor practice charges. He has handled numerous labor arbitrations. He has appeared before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing on a broad range of employment discrimination matters, and he has practiced before the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the United States Department of Labor on a wide variety of wage and hour issues. Although very much a labor generalist, over the past several years, Hal's practice has focused on employment litigation. He has appeared before trial and appellate courts throughout California, successfully representing employers in such matters as wrongful discharge, sexual harassment, ERISA, wage and hour, and employment discrimination lawsuits. The diversity of Hal's practice can be gauged by the range of employers he has represented in such litigations: financial institutions; museums; hospitals; airlines; retailers; newspapers; food processors and distributors; theme parks; publishers; and television and motion picture companies.

Employers are increasingly turning to social networking sites to find additional information about candidates. In fact, recent articles suggest that an applicant’s failure to have a social media presence is viewed by many employers as a decided negative, and a 2006 CareerBuilder survey found that 70 percent of employers use social networking sites to research candidates, a number that certainly has gone up since the

On May 1, we reported on the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining if a worker may properly be classified as an employee or independent contractor. See  Cal. Employment Law Blog (May 1, 2018). An issue that the Court did not address is whether its opinion should

The California Labor Commissioner recently issued a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) memo regarding breaks and lactation accommodation. The FAQ memo contains no new concepts, but emphasizes the following longstanding principles:

  • California employers must authorize and permit a net 10-minute paid rest period for every four hours worked (or major fraction thereof). To the extent practicable, the rest period should be in the middle of the

A recent California Court of Appeal opinion reminds employers of the need to carefully monitor parallel workers’ compensation proceedings involving litigants who also have civil claims pending against the employer. Ly v. County of Fresno, 2017 WL 4546059 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2017).

Three Laotian correctional officers filed Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) charges alleging they had been subjected to racial and

We recently blogged about Governor Brown signing S.B. 1241, which is now codified as Section 925 of the California Labor Code. The law, which affects venue and choice of law provisions in agreements entered into as a condition of employment, will begin applying to agreements entered into, modified, or extended beginning on January 1, 2017. The text of the law (posted directly below) might appear relatively straight forward, but certain ambiguities and questions concerning the law’s implementation raise several issues, which are discussed in this blog post.

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari filed in CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC v. Iskanian, a case in which the California Supreme Court held that waivers of employees’ right to bring representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) are unenforceable under state law. You may read our previous post on the Iskanian decision

On June 26, 2014, the California Supreme Court handed down Salas v. Sierra Chemical, a case at the intersection of employment and immigration law. Salas, a former employee of Sierra Chemical, filed suit alleging disability discrimination and wrongful termination. Prior to trial, Salas notified the court that he would assert a Fifth Amendment privilege to any questions regarding his immigration status. This apparently alerted Sierra

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. A125557, 2012 WL 366590 (Feb. 6, 2012)

In a decision destined to have significant statewide ramifications, the California Court of Appeal for the First District reversed a trial court’s certification of a wage-hour class and determination of liability, concluding that the trial court had failed to follow “established statistical procedures” in adopting the trial management plan under which class-wide liability was determined by the testimony of only a relative handful of the class members.

Four current and former U.S. Bank Business Banking Officers (BBO) filed suit on behalf of themselves and all current and former BBOs within the relevant period, alleging that they had been misclassified as exempt outside sales people and therefore illegally deprived of overtime pay. After certifying the class, the trial court, over U.S. Bank’s strenuous objections, adopted a trial management plan in which a random sample of 20 (out of 260) class members would testify as representatives of the class, and the court would use this testimony to determine class-wide liability. After bench trials, the court awarded the class members $15 million in unpaid overtime and prejudgment interest, as well as $18 million in attorney’s fees.

Litigating in the Age of Social Media Wednesday, October 12, 2011

10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. PST
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. CST
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. EST

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and the rest of the new social networking media have not only revolutionized the ways employees communicate with each other, both on and off the job, but have raised a host of new problems for employers. Not surprisingly, social media is also changing the face of litigation, something with which employers must increasingly learn to cope.

Please join us for a fast-paced hour-long webinar that talks about the problems and challenges social media pose in employment litigations and how employers can best deal with them. This is not just another social media program – but a program focused on what employers need to be doing now to prepare for the unique problems social media pose in employment litigations, including:

  • The latest case law regarding social media
  • Suggested employment policies regarding social media
  • Social media in discovery or e-discovery in employment law litigation with suggested language for discovery requests
  • Using (or not using) social media and or Web-based searches in hiring and the potential issues this type of search raises