Tao Leung

Hogan Lovells • Los Angeles


Tao Leung leads Hogan Lovell's labor and employment practice in California, with topics of discussion ranging from the evolving landscape of federal and state laws concerning non-competes, such as the FTC's Final Rule and California's S.B. 699 and A.B. 1076, to the intricacies of internal investigations, wage and hour issues, and the implementation of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.


"I started my career as a general commercial litigator, but my wife, who I met in law school, began her career as an employment attorney and the type of cases she litigated always sounded more interesting than mine," Leung said. "I loved the fact that employment law required not only a mastery of constantly changing laws, but a nuanced approach and interpersonal skills were equally critical."


One such instance is the resolution of a wage and hour class action/PAGA action, which was settled within two months of the complaint's filing. This case involved allegations of unpaid wages and wage statement violations, Leung said. By effectuating a PAGA cure regarding the wage statements and transferring the matter to federal court, Leung's team was able to persuade the plaintiff to settle the case individually for a nominal amount, thereby relinquishing their class and representative claims, he added.


Another accomplishment Leung holds in high regard is the resolution of four separate EEOC charges in California and Illinois. These charges were brought forth by three female employees and their male supervisor against their client, alleging Equal Pay Act violations, discrimination and retaliation, Leung said. 


"One of the main challenges we had to overcome with respect to the four EEOC charges was the fact that, because the matters had been pending so long and the client had undergone multiple corporate restructurings and acquisitions during that period, many of the relevant witnesses and documentation were no longer accessible to us by the time we substituted in," Leung said.


He referred to the recent PAGA amendment as a game changer.


"First, the PAGA amendment significantly limits the opportunity for plaintiffs' counsel to leverage PAGA to make outsized and unrealistic demands, given the cure and significant reduction in potential penalties provisions," he said. "Second, it provides much needed clarity on issues that are often a source of significant disagreement between plaintiff and defense counsel, such as the concept of whether a plaintiff is an 'aggrieved employee' and when penalties for 'subsequent violations' should be awarded." 


And, most importantly, Leung said the amendment expressly "reinstates the manageability defense, which was often one of the most crucial defenses available to employers in defending against PAGA claims (which are not subject to typical class certification requirements), a defense which was severely undermined after the California Supreme Court's decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc."