Regina Silva - Senior Counsel

Regina Silva is the Director of Employment Practices in the firm’s San Diego and Los Angeles offices. Ms. Silva defends employment litigation matters such as sexual harassment, employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, retaliation, wage/hour claims including DLSE claims, class actions and PAGA representative actions. She has appeared before various state and federal agencies and courts and defended matters in arbitration. Ms. Silva provides clients with employment advice, litigation prevention, mandatory sexual harassment training, and assistance with policies and handbooks. Ms. Silva represents employers in traditional law labor matters such as collective bargaining negotiations, grievances, and unfair labor practices. Ms. Silva represents employers of all sizes, in industries such as manufacturing, retail, private schools, and universities, medical, government, hospitality, non-profits, and construction.

Ms. Silva successfully defended (as first chair) a large corporation in a harassment/discrimination lawsuit brought by two former employees before a Los Angeles County jury. In addition, she prevailed on a motion for attorney’s fees/costs against the plaintiffs. Ms. Silva also prevailed on a motion for summary judgment before state court in an age discrimination case, which was appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Court sustained dismissal of the case by the state court. Ms. Silva has negotiated favorable settlements in multiple wage and hour multi-million-dollar class actions filed in both state and federal courts. She has prevailed on multiple demurrers in sexual harassment and discrimination cases in state court. Ms. Silva has further reached favorable resolutions, after protracted litigation, in large exposure matters against Los Angeles’ most prolific Plaintiff’s attorneys. Ms. Silva obtained early dismissal of a high-profile employment litigation case filed in Los Angeles Federal Court by a former actress. Ms. Silva has successfully forced wage/hour actions into arbitration, and enforced class action waivers, resulting in nuisance value settlement on individual wage claims.

Ms. Silva earned her B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley. She earned her J.D. from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law during which she served as an intern to the US Attorney’s Office. Ms. Silva is licensed to practice law in California state courts, federal courts, and the 9th Circuit Court. Ms. Silva is a member of the California Minority Counsel Program, National Employment Law Council, and Claims and Litigation Management Alliance.

During her downtime, Ms. Silva spends time with her family, including her two dogs, and enjoys spending time outside on long walks or runs. Time permitting, Ms. Silva also likes to travel.

Recent Posts

New California Employment Laws to Look Out for in 2021

As 2020 comes to an end, we wanted to highlight and summarize some of the new employment laws which have already taken effect or are taking effect in 2021.

New California Employment Laws to Look Out for in 2021

As 2020 comes to an end, we wanted to highlight and summarize some of the new employment laws which have already taken effect or are taking effect in 2021.

Recent California Arbitration Decisions Provide Cautionary Tale for Employers

While California still awaits to find out the status of AB 51, which banned mandatory arbitration agreements effective January 1, 2020, but was enjoined by a federal district court in February (and is on appeal), our Courts are still providing guidance with respect to arbitration agreements in place prior to 2020.  More recent decisions suggest the Courts are scrutinizing agreements allegedly signed electronically, as well as conducting strict reviews of the language of agreements.

New Emergency Law Passed by California Governor Which Provides for Worker’s Compensation Liability When Workers Get COVID-19

On May 6, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-62-20 which provides that any COVID-19-related illness of a worker shall be PRESUMED to arise out of and in the “course of the employment for purposes of awarding worker’s compensation benefits” if specific requirements have been met.

Reminder of New Laws Effective January 1, 2020

As the new year has already commenced, we thought it important to remind our readers of the more significant legislation that went into effect.  Last year, we covered AB 51 – which bans mandatory arbitration agreement, the passage of AB 5 – which codified the Dynamex ABC test, and the CROWN Act – which protects employees from discrimination based on their natural hair and hairstyles associated with their race.

De Minimis Rule Rejected by California Supreme Court

In a surprising decision for employers in the State of California, the California Supreme Court in Troester, held the de minimis doctrine, which was adopted under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) did not apply to California employers. Troester v. Starbucks 2018 WL 3582702 (July 26, 2018.)

United States Supreme Court Rules that Class Action Waivers Contained in Arbitration Agreements are Enforceable

To employers’ delight, and disappointment to class action plaintiff attorneys, the United States Supreme Court finally issued its decision on the hotly debated issue of whether or not a class action waiver contained in an Arbitration Agreement violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Short answer: it does not!

Department Of Labor Issues Final Rule To Double The Minimum Salary Floor For Federal Overtime Exemptions, Effective December 1, 2016

On May 18, 2016, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its final rule updating the overtime regulations, defining and delimiting the exemptions for the executive, administrative, professional, and outside computer employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DFEH Regulations Added & Amended, Effective April 1, 2016

The California Fair Employment & Housing Council (“FEHC”) made a number of changes to the Department of Fair Employment & Housing (“DFEH”) regulations, codified in Title Two of the California Code of Regulations.

Employer Does Not Need To Have “Discriminatory Intent” To Found Liable For Disability Discrimination

In Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 462, a sheriff’s deputy brought a disability discrimination case against a County based on the County’s removing the sheriff’s deputy from his job as a bailiff, and placing him on an unpaid leave of absence based on an assessment the sheriff’s deputy could not safely perform his job duties as a bailiff. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision to issue a jury instruction defining discriminatory animus in the context of an employer’s intent to discriminate against a disabled employee, finding it was not necessary to prove intent to discriminate.

Copyright © 2021 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.