The firm maintains a significant labor and employment practice representing management in both the public and private sectors.  Representative corporate clients include The Home Depot, Inc., Denny’s, Inc., Tyco International, Inc., McKesson Corporation, Macy’s, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and United Parcel Service, Inc.

Governmental clients include the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Alameda County and the City of Oakland.

The firm provides legal services in cases involving all aspects of employment litigation, including wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, reasonable accommodation, retaliation, wage and hour, class actions and restrictive covenants.  The firm has been particularly successful in prevailing in cases by dispositive motions.

Labor & Employment – Representative Cases

Summary Judgments:

McLaughlin v. United Parcel Service, Inc. – Susan Kumagai successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of Defendant in an employment matter in which Plaintiff alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, wrongful termination and retaliation. Lafayette & Kumagai argued that Plaintiff did not meet the definition of a person with a disability. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full. 2019.

Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, et al. – Rebecca Kimura and Gary Lafayette of Lafayette & Kumagai LLP won summary judgment in what started as a putative class action alleging joint employment of station managers. Lafayette & Kumagai initially got the court to stay the action, under the theory of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction which led to Plaintiff dismissing his class claims. In an exhaustive opinion, the court granted summary judgment, finding the firm’s client was not the joint employer of Plaintiff. 2017.

Morgan v. AT&T Communications of California, Inc. – Susan Kumagai and Brian Chun successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of Defendant in a matter in which a former employee sued alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation and wrongful termination. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full. 2017.

Simeon v. Comcast – Brian Chun and Susan Kumagai of Lafayette & Kumagai LLP successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of Defendant Comcast. Plaintiff, a former employee, sued claiming sexual harassment, age, sex and disability discrimination, retaliation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full. 2016.

Schmitt v. City of Oakland et al. – Brian Chun and Gary Lafayette successfully defended a major Bay Area City in a case where a sworn officer sued claiming sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision and retention. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  All claims were dismissed and Plaintiff is not entitled to a recovery. 2015.

Deleon v. Prudential Insurance Company of America – Gary Lafayette and Africa Davidson successfully defended a Fortune 100 company in an employment matter in which Plaintiff alleged disability and race discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent and wrongful termination. Defendant contended that Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate business reasons. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full. 2015.

Ingram v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Gary Lafayette and Rebecca Kimura represented a Fortune 500 gas and electric company in an employment matter in which Plaintiff alleged race discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination. Defendant contended that Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate business reasons and that plaintiff’s race had nothing to do with that decision. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full. 2015. Affirmed on appeal. Ingram v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 690 Fed.Appx. 527 (9th Cir. 2017)

Veloz v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, alleging race discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full. 2014. Affirmed on appeal. Veloz v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 655 Fed.Appx. 537 (9th Cir. 2016)

Abiola v. The DirecTV Group, Inc. – Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, alleging wrongful termination and sex, race and national origin discrimination.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full. 2012.

Kukoyi v. AT&T Services, Inc. – Plaintiff sued his former employer, alleging national origin, race, age and disability discrimination, retaliation, harassment, failure to accommodate and wrongful termination. Defendant argued that Plaintiff was terminated for poor job performance.  Lafayette & Kumagai filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Contra Costa County Superior Court on behalf of Defendant. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden and that Defendant had unequivocally established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full. 2012. Affirmed on appeal. 2015.

Contreras, et al. v. Tyco Electronics Corporation – Plaintiffs, six former employees, alleged wrongful termination and section 17200 claims against their former employer after they were fired following a computer forensic investigation that revealed that they had electronically distributed inappropriate materials to some of their co-workers.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2010.

Jones v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company – Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging racial discrimination and harassment and retaliation. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2010.

Boissiere v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company – Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit for alleged retaliatory refusal to rehire.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2010.

Reeves v. MV Transportation Inc. – Plaintiff alleged age discrimination related to his job application.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in its entirety and affirmed on appeal.  Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc., 186 Cal.App.4th 666 (2010)

Bingham v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company – Plaintiff sued his former employer, alleging discrimination based on age, physical disability and having exercised his rights under CFRA.  In its motion for summary judgment, Defendant successfully demonstrated that Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate business reasons: namely the misuse of his company-issued vehicle and credit card and subsequent violation of the code of business conduct.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2009.

Leon v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company – Plaintiff sued her employer alleging disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate and retaliation.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2009.

Moss v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Plaintiff, an attorney employed for 35 years in Defendant’s legal department, was terminated for poor performance.  He sued his employer for age and physical disability discrimination, harassment, breach of contract and retaliation.  Lafayette & Kumagai filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in San Francisco County Superior Court on behalf of Defendant.  The firm’s attorneys vigorously contested Plaintiff’s opposition, which included more than eighteen inches of evidence.  The Court ruled in favor of Defendant that the attorney was terminated for legitimate business reasons.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2009.

Everidge v. Sutter Health – Plaintiff sued her employer alleging race discrimination.  The Court ruled in favor of Defendant, despite Plaintiff’s submission of declarations from co-workers who believed Everidge had been discriminated against. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full and affirmed on appeal.  2009.

Martin v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company – Plaintiff sued her employer for alleged denial of a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process.  The court’s tentative ruling initially granted summary adjudication as to punitive damages only, however, during oral arguments Susan Kumagai successfully argued before Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Judith Craddick, who changed her ruling and granted summary judgment in full.  2009.

Jackson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company – Plaintiff sued his employer for alleged race discrimination and harassment.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2009.

Finley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. – Plaintiff sued her former employer for alleged race discrimination.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2009.

Smith v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Plaintiff sued his employer for alleged employment-related age discrimination and retaliation.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2009.

Shaw v. Sprint Nextel – Plaintiff sued for alleged breach of employment contract, lost commissions, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with her termination.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2009.

Boissiere v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company – Plaintiff sued for alleged retaliatory refusal to rehire.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2008.

Hoff v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company – Plaintiff sued for alleged ADA discrimination.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.  2008.

Knowles v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on preemption under section 301 of the LMRA.  Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted in full.

Montanio v. WalMart – Plaintiff alleged national origin discrimination. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in full.

Navarro v. Denny’s, Inc. – Plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to retaliation, demoted and constructively discharged after she reported an alleged complaint of race discrimination made by guests against a server.  The firm successfully argued on behalf of Denny’s, Inc. that Plaintiff was never demoted and retained her position until she quit.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted in full.

Embury v. King – Plaintiff, a physician and researcher, claimed he was entitled to tenure and could not be terminated for deficiencies in his performance.  The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Embury v. King, 179 Fed.Appx. 409 (9th Cir. 2006); Embury v. King, 361 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 2004); Embury v. King, 191 F.Supp.2d 1071 (2001)

Brunson v. Andre-Boudin Bakeries, Inc. – Plaintiff alleged discrimination and wrongful termination based on gender, marital status and medical condition.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted in full.

Rajput v. Blue Cross of California – Plaintiff sued for alleged discrimination based on age and national origin.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted in full.

Van Dalen v. California State Automobile Association – Plaintiff sued for alleged retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted in full.

Smith v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. – Plaintiff sued for alleged discrimination and sexual harassment.  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted in full.

Trials:

Fuqua v. UPS, Inc. – Lafayette & Kumagai LLP successfully defended UPS, Inc. in a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District Of California where Plaintiff claimed Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate her disability, failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, harassed her because of her disability, and then terminated her because of her disability.  Plaintiff also claimed Defendant failed to take steps to prevent discrimination.  Plaintiff sought back pay, future pay until the age of her retirement, and damages for emotional distress.  Defendant denied all claims. The jury reached a unanimous verdict on September 26, 2018 against Plaintiff after deliberating for approximately 12 hours.  Individuals participating in the effort on behalf of the employer defendant included, Susan Kumagai, Kelvin Su, Trinh Ngo, Gary Lafayette, and a host of individuals from the employer who took time to testify in the case. Defense verdict – jury trial. September 2018.

Jones-Mixon v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc. – Susan Kumagai and Brian Chun of Lafayette & Kumagai LLP successfully defended a Fortune 500 retail company in an employment arbitration, where Claimant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy), failure to prevent discrimination, failure to accommodate a pregnancy-related medical condition, retaliation for taking or requesting leave under the pregnancy disability law and wrongful termination. Respondent contended Claimant was neither discriminated nor retaliated against and that Claimant was terminated for legitimate business reasons. The arbitrator’s decision resulted in an ultimate finding on behalf of the firm’s client, the Respondent, on all claims. Defense verdict – arbitration. April 2015.

Cabaniss v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Lafayette & Kumagai successfully defended a Fortune 500 energy company in a two week employment trial, where Plaintiff sought over $2 million, claiming constructive discharge when he was demoted and reassigned from a management position to a union job two hours from his home. The reassignment decision followed an inquiry into Plaintiff’s actions during an internal investigation of his administrative clerk regarding her alleged acts of sexual harassment and threats of workplace violence. Defendant contended Plaintiff was reassigned based on legitimate business reasons and that the reassignment did not result in a constructive discharge. The jury returned a defense verdict after three hours of deliberation. Defense verdict – jury trial. August 2014.

Brown v. City of Oakland – Gary Lafayette and Africa Davidson of Lafayette & Kumagai successfully represented the high profile former Oakland City Manager in a two-and-a-half week whistleblower trial.  Plaintiff, formerly the City’s Controller, claimed she was fired in retaliation for complaining about alleged illegal financial activities involving high government officials.  Plaintiff, represented by John Burris, filed suit in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, for Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law pursuant to the First Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  The jury deliberated for about six hours before returning a defense verdict, concluding: 1) Plaintiff was not acting as a private citizen when she complained; and 2) Plaintiff was not the victim of retaliation.  At trial, defense counsel argued she was instead terminated because of her abusive behavior with subordinates and coworkers. In filing the lawsuit, Plaintiff demanded punitive damages, attorney’s fees and $1.5 million in general damages.  Defense verdict – jury trial.  2012.

Cuellar, et al. v. Cingular Wireless – Lafayette & Kumagai LLP successfully represented Defendant Cingular Wireless in an eleven-week sexual harassment trial against three plaintiffs, who alleged sexual harassment and retaliation against Defendant and sought punitive damages and in excess of $5.6 million in damages and fees.  Plaintiffs alleged that their manager and assistant manager sexually harassed them and, in collaboration with others, retaliated against them for complaining to upper management by among other things, denying them promotional job opportunities, terminating one and forcing the others to terminate their employment.  During trial, the three plaintiffs corroborated each other’s allegations and sought indirect damages for having to witness sexual harassment allegedly committed against others. The jury deliberated for just under thirty minutes before delivering a defense verdict on all claims.  Defense verdict – jury trial.  2011.

Orosa v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. – Lafayette & Kumagai successfully represented Defendant Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. in this wage investigation conducted by the Labor Commissioner of the State of California.  The Labor Commissioner found in favor of Defendant.  2011.

Miniello v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Lafayette & Kumagai successfully represented Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company in a three-and-a-half week trial against Plaintiff who alleged age discrimination and breach of contract against his former employer of 46 years.  Plaintiff asked for $1.8 million, not including punitive damages and attorney’s fees.  The jury found that Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim had no merit, thus eliminating the prospect of costly attorney’s fees and punitive and emotional distress damages.  For the breach of contract claim, the jury awarded Plaintiff $180,000, an amount less than what Defendant had previously offered in order to settle the matter.  Jury trial.  2011.

Munoz, Tovar v. Denny’s, Inc. – Plaintiffs alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination unfair business practices and defamation. Defense verdict as to Plaintiff Tovar and award to Plaintiff Munoz of $130,000.  Jury trial. 2011.

Swanson v. Shell Oil Company – In this age discrimination/termination case, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Nonsuit after Plaintiff rested.  During the trial, the Court granted Motions in Limine preventing Plaintiff from calling a statistician as an expert witness and from relying on a stray remark of age bias.  Jury trial. 2010. Affirmed on appeal. 2012.

Goos v. Shell Oil Company – In this disability discrimination and failure to accommodate case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.  Jury trial. 2010. Affirmed on appeal. Goos v. Shell Oil Co., 451 Fed.Appx. 700 (9th Cir. 2011)

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethocon-Endo Surgery, Inc. – The firm successfully represented Johnson & Johnson in this case in which Plaintiffs attempted to invoke California’s non-compete statute to prevent Johnson & Johnson from enforcing its non-compete agreement with Plaintiffs. With a parallel lawsuit pending in another state, the firm successfully opposed Plaintiffs’ Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Request for a Preliminary Injunction, and successfully blocked their attempt to race to judgment in California.  2010.

Jones v. Regents of the University of California – An employee sued Defendant alleging race discrimination and retaliation, after learning from a co-worker that the co-worker had been instructed by more senior managers not to hire Plaintiff because she had previously sued Defendant for race discrimination and had settled for a substantial sum.  Plaintiff claimed she became so upset upon learning of the alleged retaliation that she was committed to a psychiatric hold by her treating therapist.  During the trial, Plaintiff called an employee who admitted to the retaliation.  Defense verdict – jury trial. 2006.

Warner v. Albertson’s Stores – Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), culminating in a three-week trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Thelton Henderson.  Defense verdict – jury trial. 2000.

Chan v. Regents of the University of California – Plaintiff claimed retaliation based on gender and national origin under FEHA in this tenure case.  Defense judgment – bench trial. 2003.

Burns v. California State Automobile Association – A supervisor sued for alleged sexual harassment based on hostile work environment in a historically all male workplace. Defense judgment – bench trial. 1999.

Tampas-Berger v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. – A 17-year employee with generally good annual evaluations alleged age and sex discrimination when terminated six months after working for a new and younger manager.  Defense verdict – jury trial. 2002.

Lenau v. Taco Bell – Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination and breach of contract.  Defense judgment – bench trial. 1995.

Orozco v. Lucky Stores – Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on national origin and breach of contract.  Defense verdict – jury trial. 1996.

Schmucker v. Port of Oakland – Plaintiff, an amputee, claimed he was harassed and that his employer failed to accommodate his disability. After a four-week trial, the jury deliberated for four hours.  Defense verdict – jury trial. 1997.

King-Scott v. Contra Costa County, et al. – Plaintiff alleged race discrimination.  Defense verdict – jury trial. 1995.

Rosenthal v. Regents of the University of California – Lafayette & Kumagai assumed responsibility for the case from another firm twenty days prior to trial. Plaintiff alleged twenty-nine individual acts of retaliation against twenty-nine different decision makers. Settlement efforts had been unsuccessful.  After a one-month jury trial, Plaintiff was awarded $45,000, which was approximately one-third of the amount Defendant offered as settlement prior to the commencement of trial. 1999.

In addition to the foregoing cases, Lafayette & Kumagai has been instrumental in settling numerous employment discrimination lawsuits filed against such clients as Shell Oil Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sutter Health and GlaxoSmithKline.