Jesse Jauregui, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, has a developed practice in matters involving employment law, telecommunications law and civil litigation.
Jesse represents corporate management in the defense of a wide variety of employment claims. Jesse also conducts workplace misconduct investigations and provides counsel to management on electronic privacy rights issues. Jesse also represents national wireless telecommunications carriers in matters ranging from litigating entitlements for wireless transmission facilities, to the defense of consumer-based, unfair business practice claims, to advice and counsel on regulatory compliance issues.
Throughout his career, Jesse has used his bilingual abilities in a variety of settings, from conducting workplace investigations in Spanish, to providing corporate clients with analysis of construction project transactions in Latin America. As a former City Attorney in Los Angeles county, Jesse also has experience litigating public entity matters, including defending lawsuits filed against police departments and individual officers.
Prior to 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 one of Southern California’s Super Lawyers by Law & Politics and Los Angeles Magazine (2004, 2006, 2010 & 2011).
- Lead trial and appellate counsel in an alleged whistleblower action. Successfully argued the matter in the California Court of Appeals, 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.
- Co-trial counsel in a U.S. District Court action successfully defending an individual police officer accused of using excessive force in a police canine case.
- Lead trial counsel in a successful administrative prosecution of employee terminations by a public entity water district.
- Lead counsel in successfully overturning a denial of permit for the siting of a wireless transmission facility in Los Angeles.
- 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.
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
“Electronic Misconduct: What Liability Exists for Employers?” Workforce Management, October 2010.
- Member of the Labor and Employment Section of the State Bar Of California.
- Former Board Trustee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association
- Board Director of the Mexican American Bar Foundation
- Past Board Director of the Mexican American Bar Association