Orlando Arellano is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ Los Angeles office, and works in the Employment Practices group. Mr. Arellano handles a broad range of employment law matters such as harassment/discrimination claims, wrongful termination claims, and wage and hour claims including claims under the California Private Attorney General’s Act. He is also extremely well versed in the complex nuances of class action litigation, and just recently, preemptively de-certified a class action before the plaintiff was able to obtain the list of putative class members, saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars and avoiding the disruptive class notice procedure. He has further drafted numerous arbitration agreements helping his clients avoid the court system, and preventing class action litigation before it starts.
Mr. Arellano has extensive experience in state, federal, and appellate courts throughout California, and has represented both small and large clients in various industries. Some of the appellate cases Mr. Arellano has worked on led to landscape-changing decisions regarding California employment law.
Mr. Arellano is an experienced and aggressive litigator, and well-liked by his clients. Having represented both sides of the bar, he excels at finding his opponents’ weaknesses and strengthening his clients’ positions.
Mr. Arellano obtained his J.D. from Southwestern University in Los Angeles in 2004. He was admitted to the California Bar in 2004 and is a member of the Los Angeles and Orange County Bar Associations.
During his free time, Mr. Arellano enjoys spending time with his family. He also follows Manchester United, the Los Angeles Kings, and enjoys traveling and auto racing.
In a recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court upheld a trial court order denying class certification on the basis that although common issues existed, they did not “predominate.” It is basically the class action equivalent of having your home run caught just over the wall, but it is also a good lesson for class action litigators that predominance matters, at least when the plaintiff only seeks to certify via 23b(3).
In a recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a trial court order denying class certification was upheld on the basis that although common issues existed, they did not “predominate.” It is basically the class action equivalent of having your home run caught just over the wall. But it is also a good lesson for class action litigators that predominance matters; at least when the plaintiff only seeks to certify via 23b(3).
Being an employer these days can be a real minefield. Some employers are downright paranoid about discrimination and harassment lawsuits. So much so that they often have a no-tolerance policy about any type of comments about a person’s age, race, sexual preference, etc. Arnold v. Dignity Health (Cal. Ct. App., July 17, 2020, No. C087465) presents the question of whether routine comments about a person’s protected status (whether it be age, race, or sexual preference, etc.) are sufficient evidence…
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, was killed (some would say murdered) while in police custody. This was obviously not the first act of police misconduct against a person of color that received national attention. Many other incidents can be recalled including those involving Rodney King in 1991, Tamir Rice and Michael Brown in 2014, Freddie Gray in 2015, and Philando Castile in 2016.
One characteristic of employment law that employers understandably feel is unfair are one-way attorney’s fees provisions. They only allow a Plaintiff to recover his or her attorney’s fees should they prevail on certain claims. Although there are some two-way attorney’s fees provisions, they often require more than just prevailing against a Plaintiff, but showing that Plaintiff acted in “bad faith” or that Plaintiff’s claim was “frivolous.” Those are very…
In a now-famous decision, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, the California Supreme Court clarified an employer’s meal break duty as follows: To summarize: An employer’s duty with respect to meal breaks under both section 512, subdivision (a) and Wage Order No. 5 is an obligation to provide a meal period to its employees. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes…
Arizona does not have specific overtime laws. Instead, Arizona adheres to Federal law with respect to overtime pay requirements. Recently, the Department of Labor issued a new ruling on the requirements to qualify as an “overtime exempt” worker. On September 24, 2019, the DOL issued a ruling increasing the minimum salary required to qualify as an exempt worker from $455 weekly (or $23,660 annually) to $684 weekly (or $35,568).
For many years wage and hour class actions were commonplace in California. Plaintiffs’ lawyers could conjure up class action complaints from virtually nothing – sometimes completely nothing. One claim that was often added was a claim under the California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Since the statute of limitations on a PAGA claim is one year, and the other class action claims often reached back…
A recently decided appeal in the 9th Circuit held the correct causation standard to apply in discrimination cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is the “but for” standard rather than the “motivating factor” standard. While not exactly a sea change in employment law, this decision is a welcome relief from the tidal wave of anti-employer statutes and case law in California.
In most employment-based arbitration scenarios, the employee signs an arbitration agreement before starting work — or at some point during his or her employment. The employee then sues the employer for wage claims or some form of wrongful termination claim.