Ashley M. Farrell Pickett

Pickett was elevated to shareholder this year at age 34, among the youngest at Greenberg Traurig LLP to attain that status. Her litigation practice focuses on employment and general business law.

For a Fortune 50 retailer client whom she declined to name, Farrell Pickett was co-lead counsel in a successful defense of a potential class action challenging the company's drug testing policies following a workplace injury.

"I've been very lucky to play a significant role in bet the company litigation and in creating legal precedent," she said.

Plaintiffs sued on a class basis on 12 counts, including for unlawful medical inquiry in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act, invasion of privacy in violation of Article I of the California Constitution and disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA.

She and a colleague took the matter to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year after U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real of Los Angeles on his own motion removed the matter to state court.

To reverse Real--who died in June 2019--Farrell Pickett argued that an earlier 9th Circuit opinion she had helped obtain required the case remain in federal court. That earlier opinion, Roth v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, 720 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir., 2013), was later adopted by the 1st, 2nd and 6th circuits to give class action defendants more flexibility in deciding when to seek removal. The circuit panel in the current case held that Roth applied and that Real exceeded his authority in making a sua sponte remand. The panel sent the case back to Real, who then granted Farrell Pickett's motion to dismiss the matter.

"I was an associate back when we litigated Roth," Farrell Pickett said. "The case emphasized for me the importance of pleading challenges. Cases can be won at that stage, and I have focused on removal issues in my practice."

Farrell Pickett was also co-lead counsel for Kentucky Fried Chicken's parent, Great American Chicken Corp., in a high stakes potential wage and hour class action involving Class Action Fairness Act jurisdictional issues. Again at the 9th Circuit, Farrell Pickett and colleagues argued that the plaintiff failed to establish the "local controversy" exception to CAFA by showing that more than two-thirds of the potential class were "residents" of California. Instead, Farrell Pickett's team successfully contended, the legal standard is whether most of the class were "citizens" of the U.S. and "citizens" of California.

The circuit panel reversed U.S. District Judge George H. Wu of Los Angeles in a major win for employers. King v. Great American Chicken Corp., 18-55911 (9th Cir., 2018). If Wu had been affirmed, effectively no employment class action could be removed to federal court under CAFA because employment class actions are universally defined to include all persons who worked and resided in the forum state, Farrell Pickett said.

"King has since been relied on by numerous district courts since it was published in September 2018," Farrell Pickett said.

-- John Roemer