Photo of Adam Y. Siegel

Adam Y. Siegel

Subscribe to Adam Y. Siegel's Posts

Adam Y. Siegel is a principal in the Los Angeles, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. His practice focuses on employment litigation, as well as on advising employers regarding daily workplace issues.

Adam has litigated cases in both state and federal court. Adam’s litigation experience includes handling a wide range of employment-related issues including discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, whistleblower claims, and wage and hour claims. Adam has litigated numerous wage and hour class and multi-plaintiff actions and has trial experience. Adam has also conducted and prepared workplace Investigation Reports. He conducts training seminars and speaks on a multitude of employment law topics.

Contact:Read more about Adam Y. Siegel

Denying an employer’s motion to compel individual arbitration of a wage and hour class action, a California federal court ruled that the employer’s dispute resolution program violated its employees’ right to engage in concerted action under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC. Notably, this ruling departs from the established trend of federal courts declining to follow the precedent set in In re D.R. Horton, Inc. (“Horton I”) and has significant implications for employers contemplating whether to remove a class action involving the enforcement of arbitration agreements to federal court.

Kellogg Brown & Root LLC’s (“KBR”) hired David Totten (“Totten”) in 2012. During his new hire orientation, Totten signed an agreement to participate in KBR’s Dispute Resolution Program (“DRP”) as a condition of his employment. The DRP required employees to arbitrate any claims against KBR that related to, or arose out of, their employment. The DRP also prohibited “KBR, employees and applicants from pursuing claims on a class, collective, or representative basis…” KBR terminated Totten’s employment in June 2014. Approximately one month later, Totten filed a class action against KBR for alleged wage and hour violations and unfair business practices.
Continue Reading Arbitration Agreements

Waiting time penalties imposed under Section 203 of the California Labor Code are not “wages” for purposes of federal income or employment taxes, according to a Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum issued by the Internal Revenue Service. Although the Memorandum is not precedential, it provides guidance regarding the IRS’s current views on the taxability of such payments. The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has long taken the position that waiting time penalties are not wages.
Continue Reading Waiting Time Penalties Under California Labor Code Not Wages for Federal Tax Purposes

Employers’ risk of liability for the misclassification of workers continues to grow, as employee misclassification remains a top enforcement priority for the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), and class actions asserting misclassification claims are filed almost daily in federal and California state courts. Employers regularly using independent contractors should examine those relationships periodically to ensure that the classification remains defensible.
Continue Reading Worker Misclassification Risk? Top 10 Questions to Ask about Your Independent Contractors

The California Court of Appeal reversed a $1 million judgment against the City of Los Angeles in a racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation case brought by a firefighter under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles. After 12 years of litigation and two jury trials, the Court ruled that the firefighter’s claims occurred outside the one-year statute of limitations period and that the “continuing violation” exception to the statute of limitations did not apply.
Continue Reading Reversing $1 Million Judgment against Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeals Ruled Continuing Violation Doctrine did not apply to Firefighter’s Decades-Old Race Discrimination and Harassment Claims

Effective January 1, 2016, an employee’s request for an accommodation for a disability or for religious reasons is considered to be “protected activity” for a retaliation claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
Continue Reading An Employee’s Request for a Disability or Religious Accommodation Is Considered Protected Activity Under Change to the Fair Employment and Housing Act

On October 26, 2015, a California Court of Appeal held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not apply to interstate truck drivers, and as a result, it ruled that an employer’s class action waiver was unenforceable as a matter of public policy under the California Gentry rule. Garrido v. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP, No. B254490 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2015). This case is significant because it expands the scope of the “transportation worker” exemption under the FAA. Practically, numerous employers who physically distribute their own goods interstate will now be prevented from compelling individual arbitration of class action lawsuits.
Continue Reading Employer Cannot Enforce Class Action Waiver Because Court of Appeal Rules Interstate Truck Drivers Not Subject to FAA

On August 24, 2015, the California Senate passed measure AB-465 which prevents employers from requiring employees to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. The Senate approved this measure by a vote of 22-15. In support of this measure, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez stated, “No worker should be forced to choose between a job and giving up core labor rights and procedures.” 
Continue Reading The California Senate Passes a Bill That May Abolish Arbitration Agreements

A California federal judge dismissed a putative employment collective action last week, brought by individuals who wrote reviews on Yelp, a popular online business rating website predicated on user-reviews, holding that an individual who acts for personal pleasure without a promise of pay does not have a claim for wages under federal labor law. Jeung, et al., v. Yelp, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-02228-RS, U.S.Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Continue Reading Common Sense Prevails as Court Knocks Out Yelp Reviewers’ Class Action Seeking Pay for Voluntary Online Reviews

Four drivers who transported cargo from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles were misclassified as independent contractors and subjected to illegal paycheck deductions, a California Court of Appeal has held.  Garcia et al. v. Seacon Logix, Inc., No. B248227 (July 16, 2015) (unpublished).  This case reiterates a simple, yet important principle of employment law: notwithstanding the express language in an “Independent Contractor Agreement,” workers are employees—and not independent contractors—if the business controls the manner and means of their work. 
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Affirms Expense Reimbursement Award to Misclassified Employees

A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). This decision is notable because the applicable dispute resolution policy, outlining the terms of arbitration, was contained within the company’s policy manual and detached from the employee’s signed acknowledgment of receipt of the manual. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on the grounds the language of the employer’s dispute resolution policy, separately outlined within the company’s policy manual, expressly indicated a waiver of the right to a judicial forum for civil rights claims such that the employee “knowingly” agreed to arbitrate his Title VII claim. Michael Ashbey v. Archstone Property Management, Inc., No. 12-55912 (9th Cir., May 12, 2015).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Finds Plaintiff Knowingly Agreed to Arbitration of Title VII Claims