Employment Law Firm California | Employment Lawyer California | Attorney in California
Employment Law Firm in Los Angeles
Northern California: 415-402-0084
Southern California: 310-806-9560

Notable Defendant Changes

Cooper v. United Airlines, Inc., ND CA Case No. 13-02870: United Airlines hires an African-American Security Supervisor after Smith Patten files lawsuit.
Johnson et al., v. United Airlines, Inc., ND CA Case No. 12-02730: After Smith Patten files a race discrimination in promotion case on behalf of 21 African-American pilots and 2 African American Operations Supervisors, United Airlines implements new promotions practices. Plaintiffs alleged that United refused to post management positions to preclude African Americans from participating in management opportunities. Plaintiffs alleged that this resulted in less qualified non-African Americans getting management positions. After the filing of the lawsuit United is now posting management positions.
Cooper v. United Airlines, Inc., ND CA Case No. 13-02870: Caucasian supervisor illegally hired to replace African American Plaintiff resigns after Smith Patten files lawsuit.
Bonillas v. United Airlines, Inc., ND CA Case No. 12-06574: Plaintiff who was demoted from his Supervisor position is promoted to Supervisor of Airframe Overhaul after Smith Patten files lawsuit on his behalf.

Favorable Changes In The Law

Weingand v. Harland Financial Solutions: The California Legislature amended the California Labor Code effective January 1, 2014 regarding whistleblower protections consistent with the position advocated by Smith Patten in federal litigation to protect workers who disclose violations of the California Labor Code to their employers.
Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., ND CA Case No. 12-03482: In January 2014 Legislature enacts Labor Section 244 after Court rules that Smith Patten's client was required to exhaust whistleblower claims before Labor Commissioner. This new section provides that it is not necessary for an employee to exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring a civil action for violation of any provision of the Labor Code unless the section under which the action is brought expressly requires exhaustion of an administrative remedy. This will make it easier for lawsuits to be filed against employers.

Smith Patten is a preeminent California employment law firm with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco


Smith Patten is an employment law firm with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco formed by experienced trial attorneys as an employment law and business litigation boutique. Founding attorneys Spencer Smith and Dow Patten have tried cases in State and Federal Courts in California and throughout the United States.

When faced with an adverse employment action, such as termination, sexual harassment, or being passed over for a promotion, it is important to seek legal counsel immediately. Smith Patten can provide you with a candid assessment of your situation and your options with no cost consultations. Often we are able to negotiate a resolution to your situation prior to any complaints being filed in court or with administrative agencies. If litigation is necessary, we will represent you aggressively and vigorously. In addition to handling cases on behalf of individuals, we also handle multi-plaintiff and employment class actions.

In forming Smith Patten, Mr. Smith and Mr. Patten assembled a team of employment lawyers that offer clients the best of both worlds: big firm legal talent with small firm flexibility and innovation.
Employment Law Firm California
California Employment Law

Contact the Law Offices of SMITH PATTEN

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please sign me up for the Law Offices of Spencer Smith Patten E-mail Consumer Law Newsletter


Latest News

May 6, 2015: Smith v. United Airlines: Smith Patten files appeal of District Court's dismissal of class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Ramp Agents at San Francisco International Airport regarding United's failure to pay Ramp Agents for performing supervisor duties.
April 30, 2015: Montgomery v. United Airlines: After District Court takes three years to decide if Plaintiff has stated claims of discrimination, Plaintiff files Opposition To Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue.
April 2015: Pryor v. United Airlines: Listen to Attorney Spencer Smith's argument in front of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals involving African American Flight attendant who received racist death threats while working at Washington Dulles Airport.
April 17, 2015: Cabacungan v. Apple: Plaintiff prevails on Summary Judgement on claims of Failure to Accommodate and Failure To Engage In Interactive Process.
April 13, 2015: Ingram v. PG&E: District Court refuses to allow jurors to decide if race played a factor in disciplines, wherein supervisor refused to give African-American employees positive recognitions and reserved the harshest disciplines for African-American employees. The supervisor faced multiple complaints of race discrimination and disavowed knowledge of what race was during his deposition.
February 20, 2015: Wilson. v. United Airlines: In the severed case of Johnson v. United Airlines, almost three years after the filing of the lawsuit, the Court Orders United Airlines to turn over information regarding where they store electronic information related to promotions.
February 5, 2015: Cooper v. United Airlines: Former Police Officer hired at United as Security Officer and promoted to Supervisor of Security Officer after the tragic events of September 11, 2001 sued United Airlines for discrimination in pay and retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that during her time as a Security Officer she was paid less than her male counterparts for similar work. After Plaintiff complained of unfair pay she was quickly demoted from her Supervisor position after over a decade in the position. Plaintiff opposes United's request to preclude a jury from considering her claims.
January 23, 2015: Henry v. UCSF: Smith Patten files Reply brief in Appeal involving case wherein a UCSF supervisor hung a noose in the workplace after his African American subordinate blew the whistle regarding illegal conduct of supervisors. An appeal was filed because the District Court found that a jury should not be allowed to decide if UCSF is liable for race harassment and retaliation.

Case Updates

Molex v. MUNI
Brown v. FPI Management, Inc.
Hoze v. FPI Management, Inc.
Evans v. FedEx

Latest Results

Perkins v. SMUD
Tinsley v. PG&E
Paul v. PG&E
Favorable Settlement in Multi-Plaintiff
Confidential Executive
Spears v. Contra Costa County
Khristina Hunter v. California