Gregory W. Knopp

Recently named partner in charge of Akin Gump’s Los Angeles office, Knopp is involved in the defense of numerous employment law class actions and collective disputes involving California’s Private Attorneys General Act.

He represented accounting giant Ernst & Young LLP in a series of district court cases challenging its treatment of its junior professionals as exempt under California law. A chief issue was whether the company could enforce employment contract agreements compelling arbitration. Knopp’s arguments prevailed at the trial court level; a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed; and Knopp remained on the team that took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, 16-300.

There, the Ernst & Young case was consolidated for argument with Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and a third arbitration case and decided in the petitioners’ favor in May.

Whether that positive outcome will aid employers’ defense against PAGA claims remains an open question, Knopp said. “The PAGA statute is unaffected so far by Epic. PAGA remains a plaintiffs’ alternative, and because few states have such a statute, it may not attract the Supreme Court’s attention. Plenty about that statute remains troubling to defendants, so I expect creative challenges to arise.”

For client Starbucks Corp., Knopp was lead counsel in a rare trial involving $68 million in PAGA claims. Plaintiffs contended the coffeehouse chain has a policy of failing to provide premium pay to workers on certain shifts. The policy allegedly covered statewide violations that merited a $68 million award. In a bench trial, the judge ruled that the violations were minimal at best and awarded the plaintiffs $150,000. Dueling appeals are pending. Carrington v. Starbucks Corp., 37-2014-00018637 (San Diego Super. Ct., filed June 10, 2014) and D072392 and D073927 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., filed June 1, 2017).

“Our primary argument was that the plaintiffs’ claims were individualized and it was unfair to require the defendant to answer the experiences of thousands of employees in a single trial,” Knopp said. Another Starbucks case is currently before the state Supreme Court, and Knopp called it one of the most closely watched cases in California.

The issue in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., S234969, is whether brief periods of workers’ time, amounting to minutes in some cases, can be the basis for court claims.

A trial judge said no; they were de minimis. A 9th Circuit panel referred the question to the state high court, which has heard argument and is expected to rule in July.

“If the court agrees there is no de minimis defense,” Knopp said, “then claims focusing on fleeting moments of time could go forward.”

— John Roemer