top of page

Noteworthy Matters

The matters below reflect the litigation support I’ve provided to plaintiff-side attorneys - strategic, detail-focused, and aligned with case goals. Identifying details have been removed to preserve confidentiality. In each case, I supported the litigation team at key points, whether analyzing facts to draft a complaint, helping oppose summary judgment, or assisting with post-verdict briefing. These summaries offer a practical view of how I work: with statutory clarity, procedural fluency, and an eye for persuasive detail.

Challenging Clickwrap Arbitration: A Strategic Victory - Trial & Appellate Wins

This matter centered on whether an employee could be bound to an arbitration agreement without ever reviewing it, based solely on having received an email that included a hyperlink and opt-out instructions.
I was involved from the outset, supporting the litigation team at both the trial and appellate levels. At the superior court stage, I helped prepare an opposition to the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the employer’s email, which contained a link to a company intranet page, which in turn linked to the arbitration agreement, was insufficient to establish knowing and voluntary consent. There was no evidence the employee ever clicked the link, saw the agreement, or took any action to indicate assent.

The trial court denied the motion, rejecting the employer’s reliance on the so-called “mailbox rule” to imply consent. On appeal, I supported briefing strategy to distinguish federal rulings that had upheld similar agreements, reinforcing California’s commitment to actual notice and affirmative consent in the arbitration context.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. The decision reinforced that an employee cannot be compelled to arbitrate based solely on passive receipt of an email, especially where there’s no direct evidence of review or agreement.

A respected employment law association later submitted a formal request for publication, citing the case’s importance in clarifying limits on the enforceability of digital arbitration programs.

This matter is one of several where I’ve contributed legal research and drafting that helped shift the trajectory of an arbitration enforcement attempt—not through broad claims, but through precise statutory and evidentiary argumentation.

$300,000 in a No-Damages FEHA Arbitration — A Rare Mixed-Motive Fee Award

In a high-stakes FEHA arbitration involving claims of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, I supported briefing that resulted in a highly uncommon outcome: an award of nearly $300,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, despite the claimant receiving no damages.

The arbitrator found that unlawful discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in the termination, but also that legitimate business reasons contributed to the decision. This mixed-motive finding led to a denial of compensatory and injunctive relief. Still, we argued that under California Government Code §12965(b), the claimant was a “prevailing party” entitled to fees.

I prepared a detailed supplemental brief that:

  • Applied the reasoning in Harris v. City of Santa Monica

  • Differentiated unpublished and federal rulings that had denied fees

  • Grounded the request in FEHA’s public policy goals of deterrence and access to enforcement

  • Articulated why liability findings—on their own—may justify equitable fee recovery

The arbitrator agreed in principle, and while reducing the requested amount, awarded just under $300,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. This decision reinforces how targeted legal reasoning can create meaningful outcomes, even in technically adverse scenarios.

Whistleblower & Disability Retaliation Case — Settled for Around $3 Million

I provided complete litigation support in a complex case involving retaliation under California’s whistleblower statutes, disability discrimination under FEHA, and failure to prevent harassment. The plaintiff, a C-suite executive, had internally reported potential financial improprieties. What followed was a series of adverse actions culminating in her termination.

My contributions included:

  • Drafting the initial complaint, PAGA letter, and pre-discovery strategy outline

  • Analyzing internal complaint records, audit trails, and termination documentation

  • Assisting in outlining FEHA and Labor Code § 1102.5 claims based on protected activity

  • Supporting the development of an emotional distress damages theory and reputational harm narrative

  • Preparing the mediation brief, including comparative case value analysis and structured factual narrative

The matter settled for approximately $3 million during pre-trial mediation. The case involved novel intersections between whistleblower protections, disability leave retaliation, and reputational fallout following protected disclosures. By staying close to statutory language and leveraging case law on constructive discharge and pretext, we positioned the claim for maximum impact.

This matter reflects how sustained, integrated litigation support from intake through resolution, can elevate even the most complex disputes to high-value outcomes.

Title IX & Retaliation Trial – From MSJ Through $2.4M Jury Verdict

I provided legal support through multiple stages of a complex whistleblower and retaliation matter involving allegations under Title IX, FEHA, Labor Code §1102.5, and related statutory protections. The case centered on two faculty members at a private healthcare university who participated in the internal investigation of sexual harassment complaints brought by students against a senior university official.

What began as internal advocacy escalated into sustained retaliation: pay cuts, false allegations, suspension, and ultimately termination. I assisted on this matter from the opposition to summary judgment all the way through a multi-week, long-cause jury trial held during the height of COVID, with all parties masked and proceedings livestreamed.

At the MSJ stage, I helped develop responses that challenged the credibility of the employer's proffered justifications and demonstrated pretext through timing, shifting explanations, and procedural deviations. Our work emphasized how investigatory roles were stripped from the plaintiffs and how disciplinary measures followed closely after protected activity.

At trial, I supported the construction of a full narrative strategy, digesting depositions, identifying key fact clusters tied to retaliation, and linking evidence to jury instructions. I also contributed to framing emotional distress and reputational harm, which played a key role in damages presentation.

The jury ultimately returned a $2.4 million verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The matter stood out for the complexity of its legal theories, the emotionally charged institutional backdrop, and the real-time challenges of trying a workplace retaliation case under pandemic protocols.

This case remains one of the most demanding I’ve worked on both legally and logistically, and illustrates how I provide deep, consistent support across the full litigation lifecycle.

Sexual Harassment & Hostile Work Environment – $1M+ Settlement in Security Industry

I provided end-to-end litigation support in a high-impact sexual harassment case involving a 36-year-old African American woman employed as an armed security officer. The case centered on repeated harassment and inappropriate conduct by male coworkers, conduct that persisted despite internal complaints and requests for intervention.

The claimant had chosen a profession marked by physical risk and emotional toughness. Yet, she found herself subjected to workplace misconduct that was tolerated and, at times, implicitly encouraged by management. She endured inappropriate touching, graphic sexual comments, and humiliating behavior, often in settings where her professional authority was being systematically undermined.

My involvement began at the intake stage and continued through settlement. I:

  • Drafted the initial complaint under FEHA and common law tort theories

  • Helped outline early discovery strategy tied to internal complaint records and supervisor knowledge

  • Developed claims under Gov. Code §§12940(j) (harassment) and 12940(k) (failure to prevent)

  • Assisted in the structuring of a mediation brief that balanced legal framing with a grounded, human narrative

  • Integrated a damages model that emphasized emotional trauma, loss of security clearance eligibility, and career derailment in a niche field.

 

The matter resolved for a confidential seven-figure sum following pre-hearing negotiations. This case required precision in connecting employer liability to passive tolerance, as well as building a persuasive arc from isolated comments to systemic hostility.

What stood out in this matter was the need to amplify the client’s experience without sensationalism, to make the legal story not just technically sound, but emotionally compelling. That’s where much of my effort went: into making the facts speak with clarity and force, while staying squarely within the evidentiary record.

This matter reflects how I approach trauma-based employment cases: with rigor, empathy, and a commitment to shaping litigation tools that move the case, and the client toward resolution.

Disability Discrimination & Wrongful Termination – $1M+ Jury Verdict Following Long-Term Leave Denial

I assisted in litigation support from complaint through trial in a highly emotional and procedurally complex employment discrimination matter. The plaintiff, a long-serving employee in the airline services industry, suffered a life-threatening medical event and underwent open-heart surgery. During his recovery, his family submitted all required documentation to the employer, including multiple physician letters outlining the expected return-to-work timeline and temporary physical limitations.

While initially placed on protected medical leave, the employer later unilaterally reclassified his leave as “personal,” advised that his job was in jeopardy, and then terminated him upon his return — citing lifting restrictions that did not, in fact, affect the essential functions of his supervisory role.

My contributions spanned:

  • Drafting and refining the original FEHA complaint, with detailed factual sequencing of leave requests and employer responses

  • Supporting summary judgment opposition strategy by integrating timelines, HR correspondence, and duties analyses to rebut the notion of undue hardship or business necessity

  • Assisting with trial preparation, including exhibit matrices, witness themes, and jury instruction mapping for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and wrongful termination under Gov. Code §12940 and public policy doctrines

  • Participating in post-verdict brief development, defending the jury’s findings against claims of attorney misconduct and improper voir dire

The jury returned a seven-figure verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding substantial non-economic damages for past and future harm. While a motion for new trial on damages was granted by the court, the legal arguments we developed in response addressed procedural fairness, jury integrity, and the employer’s failure to make contemporaneous objections during trial, forming the foundation for a vigorous appeal.

This matter exemplifies how I contribute to complex employment cases: by bringing together statutory precision, evidentiary synthesis, and narrative clarity, particularly where employer policies and HR protocol intersect with medical realities and livelihood consequences.

Misclassification of Oilfield Workers – Independent Contractor Exposure

Conducted deep-dive legal analysis in a proposed wage and hour class action involving oilfield “mud engineers” misclassified as independent contractors by a staffing agency. Although formally retained as “consultants,” these workers were embedded into client operations and subject to highly regimented oversight by the companies they were assigned to.

The research project involved mapping out California’s multi-factor employment test under Borello, as well as analyzing joint employment liability theories under Martinez v. Combs and Labor Code §2810.3. I prepared the legal memo evaluating exposure under both the common law “right to control” test and IWC wage order definitions, including:

  • Dissecting operative agreements and identifying structural elements inconsistent with contractor status

  • Aligning factual details (supervision, discharge rights, tools, schedules) to case law that supports employment classification

  • Tracing joint liability between staffing agencies and host employers for wage violations, recordkeeping, and workers’ comp obligations

This memo formed the foundation for early motion work and settlement leverage. It illustrates how I bring statutory and practical nuance to complex wage and hour structures—especially where staffing agency layers and paper classifications mask day-to-day control dynamics.

Restraint-Related Death of Special Needs Student – Civil Rights Claims Preserved Against Corporate Officers

I provided strategic legal support in an emotionally and procedurally complex wrongful death and civil rights case arising from the fatal restraint of a non-verbal autistic teenager during school transport. The student, who functioned cognitively at the level of a toddler, was restrained in a bus seat by a driver weighing nearly 300 pounds — who compressed the student’s torso while another aide held his arms. Despite verbal signals that he was in distress, the restraint continued for over 12 minutes, leading to asphyxiation.

The matter involved claims under the Bane Act, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and California Education Code §§ 56521.1 & 56521.2, which regulate emergency interventions and restraint protocols in special education settings.

My role centered on:

  • Assisting in the opposition to a demurrer seeking to eliminate all causes of action against the entity and its corporate officers

  • Highlighting how the defendants failed to follow mandatory restraint training protocols (Pro-ACT), and misused restraint in violation of both civil rights statutes and education codes

  • Demonstrating the institutional failure to train, supervise, and protect medically vulnerable students—despite prior known risks and behavioral flags

  • Articulating claims for individual officer liability, particularly after the dissolution of a corporate entity following the issuance of a demand letter

  • Supporting the statutory and factual framing of claims asserting that the officers' own conduct, and their duty to act, was independently actionable

The court preserved all causes of action, including against multiple individual officers, concluding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged facts giving rise to potential personal liability, survival damages, and punitive exposure.

This matter reflects the kind of litigation I support where civil rights, education regulations, and organizational neglect intersect—and where procedural discipline and evidentiary mapping are essential to preserving justice in the face of institutional misconduct.

bottom of page