Jesse Jauregui, a partner in Alston & Bird’s Los Angeles office, has a developed a practice in employment law, and civil litigation.
Jesse represents corporate management in the defense of a wide variety of employment claims, from single plaintiff claims to wage and hour class actions. Jesse also conducts workplace misconduct investigations and provides counsel to management on electronic privacy rights issues and reduction in force issues. Jesse has also represented national wireless telecommunications carriers in matters ranging from the defense of consumer-based unfair business practice claims to the enforcement of arbitration agreements with class action waivers. Jesse has also represented or represents national financial institutions, franchisors, real estate development companies, colleges, healthcare companies and media/entertainment companies.
Throughout his career, Jesse has used his bilingual abilities in a variety of settings, from conducting workplace investigations in Spanish, to conducting the defense of class action claims involving Spanish speaking employees, to providing corporate clients with analysis of transactions in Latin America. As a former city attorney for cities located in Los Angeles County, Jesse also has experience litigating public entity matters, including defending lawsuits filed against police departments.
Before entering private practice, Jesse served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Jesse has been named to Southern California Super Lawyers on several occasions by Law & Politics and Los Angeles Magazine.
- Lead trial and appellate counsel in an alleged whistleblower action, resulting in a published decision addressing the scope of discovery rights of employers in California whistleblower cases. Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 896 (1995).
- Lead investigator in a sensitive sexual harassment investigation for a major entertainment conglomerate involving a nationally known film and television actor.
- Lead trial counsel representing a national bank in the defense and resolution of a wrongful termination/sexual harassment matter.
- Co-trial counsel representing an international financial services company in a wage and hour class action involving alleged state and national class members.
- Co-trial counsel in a U.S. District Court action involving claims of trade secrets misappropriation, employee solicitation against our client, where we prevailed at the trial court level in a motion for summary judgment.
- Co-trial counsel in a U.S. District Court action defending an individual police officer accused of using excessive force in a police canine case.
- Lead trial counsel in an administrative prosecution of employee terminations by a public entity water district.
- Lead counsel in overturning a denial of permit for the siting of a wireless transmission facility in Los Angeles.
- Co-trial counsel for a real estate development company as plaintiff in an action involving claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Prevailed at both the trial and appellate court.
- City Attorney for two cities in Los Angeles County and special counsel to various police departments in Southern California.
- Lead investigator in various workplace misconduct investigations, including investigations involving allegations against in-house security and H.R. personnel.
California Supreme Court limits employment claims against franchisors.
3 November 2014
In an acknowledgment of the modern reality of the franchise business model in California, and indeed in the United States, the California Supreme Court provided franchisors with a significant victory by reaffirming the contractual benefits that both parties to a franchise relationship receive, while further defining the limits of liability for employment claims brought by employees of franchisees who seek to name the franchisor as a defendant.
29 August 2014
Labor & Employment Advisory
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California state rule invalidating class arbitration waivers. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation LLC answered the question of whether the California Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Gentry v. Superior Court was still good law. (Cal. Supreme Court S24032, Filed 6/23/14.)
25 June 2014
Labor & Employment Advisory
July 17, 2012
In this case with far-reaching and favorable implications for California employers, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District upheld an underlying trial court’s decision to compel individual arbitration pursuant to an employment agreement that contains class and representative action waivers. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (June 4, 2012) (B235158). Despite the waiver clauses, the plaintiff had sought to bring his claims as an individual, as a putative class representative and in a representative capacity under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). In upholding the decision, the appellate court specifically held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC. v. Concepcion (2011) 131 S. Ct 1740 is binding authority with respect to the enforceability of the employment agreement at issue and reiterated the Concepcion holding that “requiring the availability of class wide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent with the FAA.”
June 7, 2012
- State Bar Of California, Labor and Employment Section
- Los Angeles County Bar Association, former board trustee
- Mexican American Bar Foundation, board director
- Mexican American Bar Association, past board director