Bruno W. Katz

Bruno W. Katz (Partner-San Diego, CA) was successful in obtaining dismissal of a charge of discrimination jointly filed before the EEOC and the California Civil Rights Division (CRD). The CRD took responsibility for the investigation of the claims. Our client, a multinational transportation company, was alleged to have a supervisor giving favorable treatment to French-Canadian employees over American employees at a site in Northern California. A very detailed position paper with extensive evidence was provided. The CRD closed their case for insufficient evidence. The EEOC also closed its file. These determinations are the way these agencies indicate there is no merit to the claims. 

Bruno W. Katz (Partner-San Diego, CA) and John A. Guarino (Of Counsel-San Diego, CA) secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in San Diego Superior Court on behalf of a U.S. medical device manufacturer in an employment case alleging discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination and retaliation. The plaintiff claims our client’s decision to terminate him was based on two impermissible factors: his medical condition/disability and his alleged reporting to his supervisor of his belief that the client fails to comply with FDA and California regulations. Seeking damages for lost earnings, punitive damages and attorney’s fees, the plaintiff maintains our client failed to engage in an interactive process with him about his alleged disabling medical conditions and made no reasonable accommodations for his continued employment. Bruno and John established that the plaintiff was hired by our client for a role almost exclusively connected to one medical device and that he was let go along with other workers connected to the device soon after its discontinuation. Through discovery and an extensive deposition of the plaintiff, the Wilson Elser team significantly attacked plaintiff’s credibility and showed that the his claims had no merit. As such, the plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, with no settlement costs incurred by the client. 

Bruno W. Katz (Partner-San Diego, CA) and Christina M. Heischmidt (Partner-McLean, VA) defended a nonprofit religious organization that runs a Residential Re-entry Center (RRC) in Maryland, for former prison inmates and employs Security Specialists. The International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) filed an election petition with the NLRB for a vote to recognize the SPFPA as the union for the Security Specialists. Our client opposed this petition based on lack of jurisdiction as a religious organization. At the same time, the SPFPA filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) against our client alleging the suspension and ultimate termination of some Security Specialists in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because they were exercising their rights to seek and campaign for unionization. 

Bruno and Christina provided evidence that the RCC is funded through a grant from the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which requires employees to have a BOP security clearance. The evidence showed the suspension and eventual termination of employment of the employees along with one of the supervisors was mandatory as they did not have the required security clearance. There was evidence of other non-complaining/ union supporting employees whose clearance was pulled by BOP who were also terminated. As a result of Bruno and Christina’s vigorous defense, the NLRB Regional Director ordered the ULP dismissed due to insufficient evidence to establish a violation of the NLRA. The Union also withdrew its election petition seeking recognition. The time to appeal the decision has now passed.
 

​Bruno W. Katz (Partner-San Diego, CA) prevailed on behalf of our client, a manufacturer of candles and wax products and accessories, against an election representation petition and subsequent unfair labor practice claim (ULP) filed by a union. The petition requested that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order an election to allow the employees to vote to decide if they wanted to have the union recognized to represent their interests while employed by our client. The ULP alleged that once this election petition was filed, the client employer announced it was closing the facility in retaliation. A hearing was held before the NLRB-Region 19 where Bruno argued the representation petition was improper and should be dismissed due to the imminent cessation of the client's operations in Seattle under the terms of a sale of its assets executed many months prior to the election petition to another entity located in Atlanta, Georgia, which would continue the manufacturing of beeswax candles and products in Atlanta. After the submission of evidence and testimony and post-hearing briefs, the NLRB Regional Director dismissed the election petition, a finding in favor of our client. As a result of this decision, the ULP was dismissed in August 2024.

Bruno W. Katz (Partner-San Diego, CA) defended the owner of two coffee shops in San Diego, California, in a wage-and-hour dispute. The claimant made a complaint to the Department of Industrial Relations of the California Labor Commissioner's Office as to missed rest periods, late payroll, waiting time penalties for failure to timely pay all wages due at the end of employment, and liquated damages and interest for these alleged willful pay violations. Our client denied these claims and a hearing was held before a Hearing Officer of the Labor Commissioner's Office. After testimony and evidence was taken, the Department of Industrial Relations issued its decision finding no violations and entered an order that the employee take nothing by virtue of her complaint, a finding of zero liability and $0 damages on all of the employee's claims. Per the Labor Code, the employee had the right to file a de novo appeal of this decision. The time to file the appeal has run and no appeal was filed. As a result, by operation of law and statute, a final judgment in favor of the client and against the employee was entered.

Bruno W. Katz (Partner-San Diego, CA) and John A. Guarino (Of Counsel-San Diego, CA) secured a defense verdict in the San Diego Superior Court for Wilson Elser’s clients, a luxury health spa and the facility’s executive chef. The plaintiff was an employee at the client’s spa, hired to work as the sous chef in April 2019, and reporting to the executive chef. The plaintiff commenced work in May 2019 and alleges that during her employment at the spa, she was harassed by our chef-client and another employee. The plaintiff alleges that she complained to spa management in July concerning the co-worker’s racially insensitive comments and again in late August 2019 regarding the chef’s alleged comment about her being “a feisty Latina.” Her complaint as to the chef was first reported to human resources after she received a poor performance evaluation. In September 2019,  our clients terminated the plaintiff’s employment for business-related reasons, including her ongoing poor performance in her sous chef role and an inappropriate response and comments to subordinate employees after receiving the poor performance evaluation. The plaintiff sued, alleging harassment based on race and gender, and retaliation for her complaints. The complaint alleges two counts of harassment, one against the spa and the other against the executive chef personally, plus two claims of retaliation: common law and whistleblower retaliation.

Following a five-day jury trial, Bruno and John secured a defense verdict in favor of Wilson Elser’s clients on all counts. The jury specifically found no severe and pervasive harassment by the spa or its chef in a 10–2 vote and no traditional retaliation or whistleblower retaliation in an 11–1 vote. Bruno and John’s successful defense strategies also resulted in the court’s adjudging Wilson Elser’s clients to be the prevailing parties in this matter.