John J. Manier

Open for Business
John J. Manier: Attorney with Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt LLP

Biography

For more than 30 years, John’s practice has focused primarily on labor and employment law, and related litigation, on behalf of management, in trial and appellate courts. He has participated in multiple full trials and dozens of mediations, prepared numerous motions for summary judgment and other pre-and-post-trial motions, and briefed cases before the National Labor Relations Board. John also has handled several dozen appellate matters, including direct appeals, writ petitions, amicus briefs, and cases before the United States and California Supreme Courts. He has drafted briefs and given oral arguments in several cases resulting in published appellate opinions.

In addition, John provides employment law advice and counseling and has drafted employment contracts, personnel policies, arbitration agreements, and settlement agreements. He has written and co-written numerous articles that have been published in Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine, the Los Angeles Daily Journal, and other publications.

Experience

John served as a law clerk to the late United States District Court Senior Judge Irving Hill, and then became an associate with the labor and employment law department at O’Melveny & Myers. More recently, John spent five years as a principal with the litigation boutique Nassiri & Jung LLP.

Professional Activities & Recognition

Honors

•UCLA Law Review
•UCLA Law Review Editor
•Publication: Comment,The Attorney-Client Privilege and its Availability to Insured Persons, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 977
•American Jurisprudence Award, Constitutional Law I
•American Jurisprudence Award, Property

Areas of Practice (6)

  • Employment litigation
  • Appeals and Writs
  • Employer advice and problem solving
  • Government agency investigations
  • Trade secret and unfair competition law
  • Wage and hour law

Education & Credentials

University Attended:
University of Notre Dame, B.A., Teaching Assistant, Legal Research & Writing, 1987-1988, 1986
Law School Attended:
University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, J.D., UCLA Law Review, 1987-1989, Editor, 1988-1989, Publication: Comment, The Attorney-Client Privilege and its Availability to Insured Persons, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 977, Class of 1989, Teaching Assistant, Criminal Procedure, Class of 1988, American Jurisprudence Award, Constitutional Law I Class of 1989, American Jurisprudence Award, Property, Class of 1986, 1989
Year of First Admission:
1989
Admission:
1989, California; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; United States District Court for the Central District of California; United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; United States District Court for the Northern District of California; United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Supreme Court of the United States
Memberships:
Los Angeles County Bar Association (Member, Labor and Employment Law Section) State Bar of California.
Birth Information:
South Bend, Indiana, June 20, 1963
Reported Cases:
Published Decisions: Supreme Court of the United States: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020) (employment discrimination claims of Catholic elementary school teachers were barred by the ministerial exception ); United States Court of Appeals: Windsor Redding Care Center, LLC v. NLRB, 944 F.3d 294 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (granting employer's petition for review and denying National Labor Relations Board's petition for enforcement because NLRB ignored crucial evidence in trial before an ALJ; the court of appeals set forth standards of review NLRB must follow if it overturns an ALJ decision); Venetian Casino Resort LLC v. NLRB, 793 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (employer's request that police issue criminal citations to demonstrators and block them from employer-owned sidewalk because of alleged trespass was protected under First Amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ); Venetian Casino Resort LLC v. EEOC, 530 F.3d 925 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (EEOC must give advance notice to employer and follow other requirements of Freedom of Information Act before disclosing employer-submitted confidential information to third parties); Venetian Casino Resort LLC v. EEOC, 409 F.3d 359 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (lawsuit challenging EEOC's regulations on handling employer-submitted confidential information was ripe for judicial review); United States District Court: Moore v. County of Los Angeles, 194 LRRM 2279 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (granting summary judgment for employer on First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983); Eng v. County of Los Angeles, 737 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (granting summary judgment for employer on First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983); Ochiai v. Regents of University of Cal, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 115912 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (granting judgment on the pleadings for employer and individual defendants on various causes of action); Supreme Court of California: Reeves v. Hanlon (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (affirms a judgment in our client's favor on claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, misappropriation of trade secrets and sets standards for claims of tortious interference with at-will employment contracts); Turner v. Anheuser-Busch (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1238 (establishes the law in California on what is a constructive discharge); Court of Appeal of California: Bruni v. The Edward Thomas Hospitality Company (2021) 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 402* (affirming judgment on demurrer in favor of hotel because the Santa Monica City Ordinance granting recall rights to certain laid off employees in a specific geographic area of Santa Monica did not apply to plaintiff because he had not been employed at the hotel for six months or more at the time of his layoff); Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel (2019) 40 Cal. App. 5th 1239 (hotel's policy and practice of automatically rounding employee time up or down to the nearest quarter hour complies with California law; review granted by California Supreme Court on whether meal break payment should include all earnings or just the employee's established hourly rate); AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 1014 (upholds employer time clock rounding policy); GAB Business Services v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 409 (court reversed jury verdict against our client, a company that provides independent insurance adjusting services, on claims against a former corporate officer and a competitor company for breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition); Saret-Cook v. Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 1211 (upholds defense sexual harassment verdict, judgment on employer cross-complaint for emotional distress and $1 million attorneys' fees award to employer improperly sued for sex harassment); Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 494 (upholds right of employer to give accurate references to inquiring third party reference seekers); Kirmse v. Hotel Nikko of San Francisco (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 311 (summary judgment upheld; at-will employment)
ISLN:
905206446

Peer Reviews

This lawyer does not have peer reviews.

Client Reviews Write a Review

Location

Contact John J. Manier

Contact Information:

213-284-3900  Fax

www.brgslaw.com

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.