Jeff Dinkin advocates for employers. Whether he’s helping a startup company develop its personnel policies and employee handbooks, counseling an established company expanding into California, or litigating a wage and hour class action, his advice is rooted in helping employers achieve their long-term goals. Jeff’s more than 30 years of experience spans all aspects of labor and employment law in the private and public sectors. His proactive approach ensures companies have the policies in place to minimize their liability exposure and the resources of a deeply experienced team to secure favorable resolutions when litigation arises.
Jeff has litigated harassment and discrimination cases, as well as wage-and-hour class actions, in state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels. He has handled contractual and disciplinary matters in administrative proceedings before arbitrators and governmental agencies and has decades of experience negotiating collective bargaining agreements.
Jeff recognizes that plowing ahead with litigation with its attendant fees and costs does not always align with a client’s business goals. After conducting his initial investigation, Jeff speaks candidly with clients about the issues in the case, the potential exposure, and the fees that could be incurred in the various stages of the litigation. When appropriate, he works to development a strategy geared toward early resolution, often using the services of mediator. For example, when a publicly-traded medical device company faced a wage and hour class action alleging failure to pay overtime wages, provide breaks, maintain accurate payroll records and issue accurate wage statements, the client’s assessment was that an early settlement would be the best resolution, Jeff developed an effective strategy that resulted in the case settling on favorable terms for his client while keeping fees and costs in check.
Some highlights of Jeff’s career include the following cases:
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton. (139 S.Ct. 1881) When a plaintiff-side firm brought lawsuits against numerous companies with off-shore operations, Jeff’s client, ExxonMobil, as well as other entities operating offshore oil platforms were subjected to lawsuits claiming the offshore workers were governed by California wage and hour laws. Jeff helped put together a coalition of 4 companies fighting this battle and the case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found in favor of the companies, determining that under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act only federal labor law governed the overtime and minimum wage requirements for offshore workers.
Vranish v. ExxonMobil Corp. (223 Cal.App.4th 103) In this appellate court decision it was determined the definition of overtime in Labor Code section 510 did not apply to employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement providing for overtime pay. This case was the first to examine the scope of the collective bargaining exemption in Labor Code section 514, confirming that the employer has no obligation to pay daily overtime but is required only to pay the premium specified in the collective bargaining agreement.
Choate v. Celite Corp. (215 Cal.App.4th 1460) This case was the first published appellate court decision to consider when collective bargaining agreements could alter the right of terminated employees to the immediate payment for vested vacation time under Labor Code section 227.3. While the appellate court held that the collective bargaining agreement did not contain a sufficiently clear and unmistakable wavier of this right, the law was not clear and therefore the failure to pay the vested vacation time upon termination was not willful and the employer did not have to pay any penalties or damages as a result. This case is often cited where the issue of willfulness under section 227.3 is litigated.
Cifuentes v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (238 Cal.App.4th 65) The appellate court ruled in favor of Jeff’s client, Costco, holding that both back pay and front pay paid to former employees, whether as part of a judgment or settlement, is subject to payroll tax withholding. This case reversed the only published case to have previously address this issue, a precedent that has been in place for more than 12 years.
Jeff and his team successfully defeated class certification on behalf of an agricultural employer in a lawsuit that alleged wage and hours claims for unpaid overtime, non-compliant meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse for business expenses and related claims.
In a wage and hour class action challenging the independent contractor status of employees working in a nightclub, Jeff was successful in reaching a nuisance value settlement for the individual plaintiff after taking her deposition for about 6 hours, avoiding a class action settlement as a result.
As part of Jeff’s thorough approach to litigation, in an individual discrimination lawsuit it was discovered that the plaintiff had lied about his college degree on his job application. When confronted with this information during his deposition the plaintiff called for a break and when he came back announced he was dropping his lawsuit.
Jeff and his team defeated class certification in class action brought on behalf of employees of a global environmental consulting firm. After an extensive deposition of the lead plaintiff and interviews of employees at various locations in California, not only did the court deny class certification but the lead plaintiff was determined to not be an adequate class representative.
Jeff has litigated harassment and discrimination cases, as well as wage-and-hour class actions, in state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels. He has handled contractual and disciplinary matters in administrative proceedings before arbitrators and governmental agencies and has decades of experience negotiating collective bargaining agreements.
Jeff recognizes that plowing ahead with litigation with its attendant fees and costs does not always align with a client’s business goals. After conducting his initial investigation, Jeff speaks candidly with clients about the issues in the case, the potential exposure, and the fees that could be incurred in the various stages of the litigation. When appropriate, he works to development a strategy geared toward early resolution, often using the services of mediator. For example, when a publicly-traded medical device company faced a wage and hour class action alleging failure to pay overtime wages, provide breaks, maintain accurate payroll records and issue accurate wage statements, the client’s assessment was that an early settlement would be the best resolution, Jeff developed an effective strategy that resulted in the case settling on favorable terms for his client while keeping fees and costs in check.
Some highlights of Jeff’s career include the following cases:
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton. (139 S.Ct. 1881) When a plaintiff-side firm brought lawsuits against numerous companies with off-shore operations, Jeff’s client, ExxonMobil, as well as other entities operating offshore oil platforms were subjected to lawsuits claiming the offshore workers were governed by California wage and hour laws. Jeff helped put together a coalition of 4 companies fighting this battle and the case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found in favor of the companies, determining that under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act only federal labor law governed the overtime and minimum wage requirements for offshore workers.
Vranish v. ExxonMobil Corp. (223 Cal.App.4th 103) In this appellate court decision it was determined the definition of overtime in Labor Code section 510 did not apply to employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement providing for overtime pay. This case was the first to examine the scope of the collective bargaining exemption in Labor Code section 514, confirming that the employer has no obligation to pay daily overtime but is required only to pay the premium specified in the collective bargaining agreement.
Choate v. Celite Corp. (215 Cal.App.4th 1460) This case was the first published appellate court decision to consider when collective bargaining agreements could alter the right of terminated employees to the immediate payment for vested vacation time under Labor Code section 227.3. While the appellate court held that the collective bargaining agreement did not contain a sufficiently clear and unmistakable wavier of this right, the law was not clear and therefore the failure to pay the vested vacation time upon termination was not willful and the employer did not have to pay any penalties or damages as a result. This case is often cited where the issue of willfulness under section 227.3 is litigated.
Cifuentes v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (238 Cal.App.4th 65) The appellate court ruled in favor of Jeff’s client, Costco, holding that both back pay and front pay paid to former employees, whether as part of a judgment or settlement, is subject to payroll tax withholding. This case reversed the only published case to have previously address this issue, a precedent that has been in place for more than 12 years.
Jeff and his team successfully defeated class certification on behalf of an agricultural employer in a lawsuit that alleged wage and hours claims for unpaid overtime, non-compliant meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse for business expenses and related claims.
In a wage and hour class action challenging the independent contractor status of employees working in a nightclub, Jeff was successful in reaching a nuisance value settlement for the individual plaintiff after taking her deposition for about 6 hours, avoiding a class action settlement as a result.
As part of Jeff’s thorough approach to litigation, in an individual discrimination lawsuit it was discovered that the plaintiff had lied about his college degree on his job application. When confronted with this information during his deposition the plaintiff called for a break and when he came back announced he was dropping his lawsuit.
Jeff and his team defeated class certification in class action brought on behalf of employees of a global environmental consulting firm. After an extensive deposition of the lead plaintiff and interviews of employees at various locations in California, not only did the court deny class certification but the lead plaintiff was determined to not be an adequate class representative.