This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Donna M. Mezias

| Jul. 19, 2017

Jul. 19, 2017

Donna M. Mezias

See more on Donna M. Mezias

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Mezias represents some of the nation’s most recognized businesses in complex legal matters that affect employers nationwide. In addition to litigation, a large component of her practice involves counseling clients on compliance with labor laws, reorganizations and reductions in workforce and trade secrets.

Clients include Home Depot Inc., Marvell Technology Group Ltd., Climate Corp. and its parent company Monsanto Co., AT&T Inc. and the San Francisco 49ers.

In the last 18 months, Mezias handled several matters on behalf of Home Depot, including joint employment litigation. She successfully defended the home improvement retailer, obtaining summary judgment on four cases.

In another case representing Home Depot, Mezias eliminated five of the plaintiffs’ six liability theories in a complex wage and hour matter. Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., 2:12-cv-02499 (E.D. Cal. April 2016).

The plaintiffs alleged multiple California law violations for a potential class of thousands of Home Depot department supervisors. Mezias obtained summary judgment on three claims and defeated class certification on two. There is one remaining claim.

“Taking a very broad, complicated wage and hour case and getting it down to just one theory — that’s a good result for the client,” she said.

Mezias said the biggest challenge for California employers is staying ahead of potential litigation issues, which means keeping up with and even anticipating changing employment law. An area causing some consternation among employers is Private Attorneys General Act representative actions. PAGA allows employees to bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others on any violation of the labor code, including causes of action previously off-limits to private plaintiffs, such as California’s “suitable seating” requirement.

“There’s very little law defining any sort of procedures or guidelines as to when those actions can be appropriately tried as representative actions, because PAGA is still relatively new,” Mezias said.

Employers will continue to grapple with the uncertainties of PAGA for the next few years, Mezias said, as cases work their way through the system and issues are resolved at the appellate level and California Supreme Court.

— Jennifer Chung Klam

#342303

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com