Donna M. Mezias 

Donna M. Mezias is a partner in the management-side labor and employment litigation practice at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. She joined the firm in 2011; she’s been in practice since 1983.

“Over a long period, my practice mirrors what employers in California are confronting,” she said. “Discrimination cases and wage-and-hour matters. PAGA became a big thing about 20 years ago. Then the novel issues from the pandemic: shutdowns and remote work and the variety of county ordinances. Now it’s back-to-work and hybrid schedules and requests for remote accommodations — it’s all to say my practice remains robust and busy as issues change.”

Mezias has served as lead or co-lead wage and hour counsel for Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. for the past 12 years. A current significant matter before the state Supreme Court regards the justices’ first-ever look at the legality under California law of the long-standing practice of time rounding in calculating workers’ pay. Home Depot’s practice rounds up or down to the nearest quarter hour, which is the time shown when workers punch in and out.

Home Depot hourly employees alleged claims for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages based on the theory that the company’s rounding policy is unlawful. Two lead plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former nonexempt employees in the state since 2015 who were paid less than the work time recorded by the company’s electronic timekeeping system. Camp et al. v Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., S277518 (Ca. S. Ct., filed Nov. 29, 2022).

“Neutral time rounding policies have been an accepted legal practice in California for decades, as they are under federal law,” Mezias said. The leading state appellate opinion on the issue, See’s Candy Shops Inc v. Superior Court, gave time rounding the green light in 2012.

In Camp, a Santa Clara County Superior Court trial judge granted summary judgment to Home Depot; a 6th DCA panel reversed. Mezias and Akin Gump appellate partner Aileen M. McGrath successfully petitioned for high court review and filed their opening brief on June 1.

Mezias said she expects the case to attract numerous friend of the court briefs, with oral argument to follow in 2024.

She has a trial set for June 2024 in another Home Depot case, this one over complex wage and hour issues. Mezias won summary judgment on many elements of the complaint, eliminating more than $60 million in alleged liability. The jury trial will be over the remaining class claim: an employer-defined workday issue. Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., 2:12-cv-02499 (E.D. Cal., filed Oct. 4, 2012).

“We’ve got some fun issues to litigate,” Mezias said. “This practice is intellectually engaging.”

—John Roemer