Tamara S. Freeze

Freeze founded her all-female four-lawyer shop in 2013 to represent plaintiffs in employment cases. "We've just hired two law clerks. There's so much work now that we're expanding," she said.

She said a lot of people call after having had job offers rescinded due to Covid-19 concerns. "Those are sad cases, but there's not often a lot we can do there." She started her career at a noted defense firm. "I am a refugee from Littler," she said, referring to Littler Mendelson PC. "They taught me how to practice employment defense, but I realized I was on the wrong side. I have a plaintiff's heart."

Freeze recently settled for seven figures a case for a client who was an executive of a medical device company. The man claimed whistleblower retaliation under the Sarbanes Oxley Act after reporting financial mismanagement. Freeze declined to name the parties, citing the confidential nature of the settlement agreement.

"His supervisor wanted to cheat on corporate taxes, and my client objected," Freeze said. "He got fired. We filed a complaint with OSHA [the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration] and they investigated and said they'd pursue charges. That brought the defendants to mediation and led to the settlement."

Freeze is currently prepping for a September 8 trial in the wrongful termination case of a former government loan officer, her client, who was fired after he voiced concerns over misuse of public funds, fraudulent loans and improper loan procedures by the Los Angeles County Development Authority. The client also complained that his supervisor was sexually harassing women in the agency. Quiroz v. Los Angeles County Development Authority, 19SFCV00308 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 3, 2019).

The complaint cites claims for harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent retaliation and harassment, slander, libel and whistleblower retaliation. It alleges that when the client, Rodolfo Quiroz, complained to the human resources officer about the supervisor's demeaning comments regarding women, the officer, a woman, giggled and took no effective action. Complaints about fraudulent loans went nowhere, his harassers falsely accused him of marijuana use on the job, and refused his request to take a drug test. He was fired in 2018.

"So far we've taken 12 depositions," Freeze said. "The government claimed they fired him for violating their substance abuse policy, though they did not test him. So the termination was based on rumor."

Freeze said it can be tricky to present jurors with mixed complaints such as in the Quiroz case, where claims of fraudulent loans are mixed with those alleging sexual harassment. "You need a single narrative if possible. Having too much material can be a blessing and a curse, but in most cases you can trust the jury to sort it out."

-- John Roemer