Tyler T. Rasmussen 

Tyler T. Rasmussen represents employers at Fisher & Phillips LLP in aspects of labor and employment law, including discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims, wage and hour violations, trade secret protection and administrative proceedings.

He joined the firm in 2010 and made partner in 2016, making him one of the youngest attorneys elevated to partner status in Fisher Phillips history.

A mock trial in middle school spurred Rasmussen’s wish to be a lawyer. “We had this great coach, Judge Andrews, and I just fell in love with everything about the arguments and the procedures,” Rasmussen said, referring to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bradford L. Andrews, who sat in Long Beach and retired in 2008.

Rasmussen said that labor and employment law appealed to him. “I love the fact that you’re dealing with real-life issues on a daily basis. Clients’ livelihoods are on the line, and I’m on the ground invested in their success.”

The vexed issue of trials versus arbitration in California employment law became the subject of one of Rasmussen’s cases — and has now been elevated to a matter before the state Supreme Court.

When Rasmussen’s auto dealership client fired a worker and she sued for discrimination and wrongful termination, a trial court rejected the dealership’s arbitration agreement as unconscionable and denied its motion to compel arbitration.

“It started out as a routine employment case, but we appealed the ruling. Appeals are always an uphill battle,” Rasmussen said. Even so, he and his client prevailed when a panel in a 2-1 decision reversed the trial court in a published opinion that distinguished between procedural and substantive unconscionability in employment contracts. The dealership’s form employment contract, despite its tiny type and near-illegibility, was substantially fair, the majority held.

In August, the Supreme Court granted review. Fuentes v. Empire Nissan Inc., S280256 (Ca. S. Ct., rev. granted Aug. 9, 2023).

The outcome could affect the employment contract forms used by many auto dealerships throughout the state. “The court could decide what steps the contracting parties have to take to achieve enforceability,” Rasmussen said. “We’re excited to have a case before the Supreme Court. This is a first for me.”

In a different case, Rasmussen represented an employment outsourcing client that was alleged to be a joint employer for wage and hour class and PAGA claims. After the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Viking Rivers case, he successfully compelled arbitration and strike all class claims and gut the PAGA claims, leading to a nuisance value settlement for his client. Smigelski et al. v. PennyMac Financial Services Inc. et al., 34-2015-00186855 (Sacramento Co. Super. Ct., filed Nov. 17, 2015).

“I do enjoy this work and the great team of litigators I work with,” Rasmussen said.

–John Roemer