Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Report Abuse   |   Sign In   |   Register
Community Search
Miller Law Group
Profile Pages More
Profile Pages
Firm Members (19)
Files & Links (1)
Last updated: 8/30/2016
Miller Law Group
Law Firm Member
 
Profile Link: http://www.namwolf.org/member/millerlawgroup
Professional Information
Miller Law Group
111 Sutter Street
Suite 700
San Francisco
California
94104  United States
 [ Map ]
415 464-4300 (Phone)
415 464-4336 (Fax)
Visit Website »
  Since 1998, Miller Law Group has devoted its practice exclusively to representing business in all aspects of California employment law and related litigation. With offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Miller Law Group provides employment law services for clients with employees throughout California.

San Francisco Office
111 Sutter Street
Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 464-4300

Los Angeles Office
11845 West Olympic Blvd.
Suite 910W
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 943-8500
Directory Listing Information
 
Miller Law Group
 
CALIFORNIA:Los Angeles
CALIFORNIA:San Francisco
 
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:ADA (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:ADA (compliance)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Advising on Employee Matters
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Agency Investigations
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Arbitration
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Class Actions
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Counseling
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:DOL Audits
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Drafting Employee Handbooks / Policies / Documents
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:ERISA (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:FLSA (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:FLSA (non-litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:FMLA (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:FMLA (compliance)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Harassment / Discrimination / Retaliation
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:I-9 Compliance
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Internal Investigations
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Labor
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Multidistrict Litigation
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:NLRB
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:OFCCP
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:OWBPA
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Sarbanes-Oxley
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Title VII
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Trade Secret
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Training
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Union Campaigns
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Union Negotiations
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Wage & Hour (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Wage & Hour (compliance)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Whistle Blowing
 
WBE
 
20-50
 
11-20
 
In November 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment granted by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in a case alleging
sexual harassment and retaliation. Miller Law Group handled the summary
judgment and the appeal.

In October 2012, we obtained summary judgment in Alameda County Superior
Court in a race, retaliation, and failure to accommodate case.

In February 2012, we obtained summary judgment in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California in a case wherein an employee sued a
consultant engaged by the Company for defamation alleging the consultant
untruthfully criticized the employee’s professionalism and work performance.
The Court ruled that all of the allegedly defamatory statements were true,
matters of opinion, and/or privileged.

In early 2012, we won a complete summary judgment in Sonoma County
Superior Court on behalf of a large telecommunications company, and
individual defendants, on claims of racial harassment and discrimination,
disability harassment and discrimination, failure to accommodate and violation
of the Ralph and Bane Civil Rights Acts.

In late 2011, we obtained summary judgment in Santa Clara Superior Court in
a suit alleging, among other things, age and gender discrimination, retaliation,
and assault.

In the spring of 2011, we obtained summary judgment in Napa County Superior
Court on behalf of our client, a prestigious culinary school that operates an oncampus
restaurant, in a lawsuit brought by a former employee. The plaintiff,
whose restaurant manager position had been eliminated as a result of the
economic downturn, alleged, among other things, wrongful termination, age
discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to
accommodate. Miller Law Group handled the appeal. In April 2012, after
full briefing and arguments of counsel, the appellate court affirmed summary
judgment in favor of our client.

In early 2011, we obtained summary judgment in an ERISA case in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, in which the plaintiff sought
disability benefits under the defendant’s welfare benefit plan. The Court
concluded that the Plan properly denied plaintiff’s claim for continued short
term disability benefits.

In late 2010, after eliminating multiple causes of action through summary
adjudication and bringing a successful motion for separate trials, we obtained
a complete defense victory after two trials for a Silicon Valley semiconductor
equipment manufacturer in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The first trial,
which involved a claim for sexual harassment, resulted in a complete defense
jury verdict. The second trial involved claims for age, gender, and disability
discrimination, retaliation and failure to accommodate disability. The jury
returned a defense verdict on the discrimination and retaliation claims and a
plaintiff’s verdict for failure to accommodate disability, awarding only nominal
damages. The Court then granted our Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding
the Verdict on the only claim on which plaintiff prevailed at trial.

In mid 2010, Shareholder Janine Simerly was brought in on the eve of trial
as lead trial counsel in a high-profile pregnancy discrimination case in Marin
County Superior Court. Plaintiff’s settlement demand, before and during trial,
was in the high seven figures. After a three-week jury trial, plaintiff prevailed on
only one of several claims and the jury awarded $113,000. In December 2012,
the California Court of Appeal reversed based on instructional error.

We represented a major restaurant chain in a wage and hour class action and
reached settlement of less than $350,000 for 3,000 employees.

We provide ongoing wage and hour compliance advice to a large national
retailer. Our services have included drafting wage and hour policies and forms,
working with human resources to reclassify large numbers of employees in
certain job positions to nonexempt status, training store managers on store
level compliance issues, and advising human resources and management on
day-to-day wage and hour issues.

We recently conducted an extensive audit for a client to determine whether
employees were properly classified as exempt or nonexempt for overtime
purposes. The audit involved approximately 60 job positions across multiple
departments.
 
Appellate Practice
 
Chinese
English
 
California
 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
U.S. Supreme Court

NAMWOLF
150 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 800
Chicago, IL 60601
312.733.7780

Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal