Neal A. Fisher, Jr. 

Neal A. Fisher Jr. moved to Perkins Coie LLP in 2020 and became a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles labor and employment group. His labor and employment practice involves representing employers in employment litigation, class action defense, wage and hour audits and alternative dispute resolution.

Over the years, he and his teams have defeated numerous class certifications in many high-stakes class actions.

They’ve also obtained dismissals of class claims by enforcing class waivers and compelling arbitration where agreements contained class, collective and representative action waivers. His clients span several industries and include businesses in banking and financial services, technology, retail and food.

Last year, he was able to achieve a successful defense of a client in a wage and hour class and Private Attorneys General Act representative action brought on behalf of the plaintiff and other allegedly aggrieved independent contractors in which the plaintiff alleged various claims in violation of the California Labor Code, including misclassification. Fuhrer v. Neutron Holdings, CGC-21-597070 (San Francisco Sup. Ct., filed Dec. 10, 2021).

By utilizing the arbitration agreement the plaintiff signed, Fisher was able to successfully move to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims, obtained dismissal of the class claims, and stay the PAGA claims brought on behalf of other independent contractors. He then negotiated a settlement of the plaintiff’s individual claims and dismissal of the remaining PAGA action.

“This represented an excellent result for our client,” Fisher said. “Misclassification cases are difficult for California employers to defend, in part because of the state’s tests for evaluating independent contractor status.”

Fisher also recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of a client in a commercial contract dispute against Airborne. Airborne brought the lawsuit against SGS North America, alleging that terminal lasers Airborne purchased had been damaged during transport from Germany to the United States. Airborne brought a negligence claim against SGS, arguing violation of its duty of care by not properly inspecting the laser terminals prior to shipment.

Fisher successfully argued that the exculpatory clause in Airborne’s agreement with SGS limited Airborne’s ability to sue his client for negligence. The court concluded that SGS met its burden as to the negligence claim and was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

—Devon Belcher