Regina Silva is 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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
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.
Increase to California Minimum Wage
Assembly Bill 1506 (amendments to Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”)
Senate Bill 358- California Fair Pay Act
Senate Bill 432: Removal of “Alien” from the California Labor Code
Senate Bill 501: Modification to Wage Garnishment Restrictions
Assembly Bill 304: Clarification to Sick Leave Law
Assembly Bill 1509: Anti-Retaliation Provision against Family Members of Employee Whistleblowers; Joint Liability Exclusion
Assembly Bill 1513: Piece Rate Compensation Relief
Assembly Bill 970-Expansion of Labor Commissioner’s Powers
Senate Bill 588-Enforcement of Judgments by Labor Commissioner
Assembly Bill 622- E-Verify Misuse
Assembly Bill 987: Accommodation Request=Protected Activity
Senate Bill 579: Time Off for School Activities
Assembly Bill 583: Employment Protections for National Guard Members
Changes to California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”)
In a wave of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the NLRB has rejected company’s arbitration agreements which contain class action waivers finding these class action waivers violate the employee’s statutory rights to engage in concerted activity with other employees.
In Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC v. James Alan Clark (Case No. 13-16527, 9th Cir. Nov. 2015), the Ninth Circuit vacated the lower’s district court’s ruling denying an Anti-SLAPP motion brought by Defendant Clark (“Clark”).
Over the last few weeks, Governor Jerry Brown has passed important legislation affecting employers in the State of California and has vetoed a bill that would have had a substantial impact on Employer’s arbitration agreements in this state.
Earlier this year, we issued several articles discussing the impact of Iskanian and federal district court’s continued rejection of Iskanian’s holding that PAGA waivers in arbitration agreements are not enforceable. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348.) The Ninth Circuit has now ruled on this issue.