310-396-7714|info@HelmerFriedman.com
FacebookYouTubeBlue Sky LinkedInInstagramMastodonRedditTumblrSubstack Notes

CSU to Pay $12 Million to Settle Gender Harassment and Retaliation Cases

The settlement is believed to be one of the largest employment discrimination settlements against the nation’s largest public university system.

CSU $12 Million Settlement gender harassment, discrimination.

LOS ANGELES, May 12, 2026 — California State University will pay $12 million to resolve gender harassment and retaliation claims brought by Helmer Friedman LLP on behalf of two former high-level administrators at Cal State San Bernardino. The settlement follows a landmark $6 million Los Angeles jury verdict in October 2025 that found CSU liable for retaliating against and harassing Dr. Anissa Rogers and failing to prevent that harassment. The settlement is believed to be the largest publicly reported employment discrimination settlement against the CSU system, the nation’s largest four-year public university system.

The litigation unfolded against the backdrop of broader public scrutiny involving CSU’s handling of workplace harassment complaints across multiple campuses. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued throughout the proceedings that the evidence reflected longstanding structural issues within the university system.

“Meaningful accountability only happens when organizations are willing to confront these problems directly.”

The settlement, which was recently finalized, resolves claims brought by Dr. Clare Weber, the former Vice Provost of Academic Affairs at CSU San Bernardino, and Dr. Anissa Rogers, the former Associate Dean at CSU’s Palm Desert campus. A Los Angeles jury previously awarded Rogers $6 million after finding CSU retaliated against her, subjected her to gender harassment, and failed to prevent that harassment in violation of California law.

Weber’s related claims were to be set for a second trial but ultimately resolved as part of the broader settlement agreement.

Lead trial counsel David J. deRubertis of The deRubertis Law Firm APC said the settlement marks the conclusion of years of litigation exposing systemic failures within the nation’s largest public university system.

“From the beginning, these cases were about accountability,” said deRubertis. “Dr. Weber and D. Rogers took enormous professional and personal risks in challenging conduct they believed was unlawful. The result sends a strong message about the importance of protecting employees who speak up about harassment against retaliation.”

“These cases highlighted the real human cost of retaliation in academic institutions,” added Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP. “Meaningful accountability only happens when organizations are willing to confront these problems directly.”

The lawsuits alleged that CSU leadership, including President Tomas Morales and other senior campus administrators, presided over a hostile environment for women, where complaints regarding gender inequity, harassment, and retaliation were ignored or punished. According to the plaintiffs, Weber was fired shortly after formally raising concerns regarding unequal pay between male and female administrators. At the same time, Rogers alleged she was forced out after reporting harassment and retaliation to high-level executives at the CSU and to HR. Weber is set to retire from CSU after more than 25 years of service within the university system.

“This resolution reflects the courage of two women who refused to stay silent and were punished, including being forced out of their jobs, for doing so.”

Trial testimony underscored those failures. CSU San Bernardino’s Provost, Rafik Mohamed, admitted at trial that when faculty brought him allegations of gender harassment by a senior dean, he viewed the complaints as “low-grade bias” and did not report them to Human Resources or Title IX — despite conceding he was a mandated reporter required to do so.

The second trial, which had been expected to feature testimony from several of the same senior CSU officials who testified on behalf of CSU in the Rogers trial, was resolved prior to a trial date being set.

The plaintiffs were represented by Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, Courtney Abrams of Courtney Abrams, PC, and David J. deRubertis of The deRubertis Law Firm APC.

“This resolution reflects the courage of two women who refused to stay silent and were punished, including being forced out of their jobs, for doing so,” said Abrams. “CSU’s own Provost admitted at trial that he viewed faculty complaints of gender harassment as ‘low-grade bias’ and bypassed Human Resources. That wasn’t a misunderstanding — it was a choice. CSU spent years protecting harassers instead of the women they harmed, and $12 million is the price tag on that cover-up.”

The cases are Weber and Rogers v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STCV05549.

Read more at https://www.helmerfriedman.com/calstate-university-sued-for-gender-discrimination/.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE – CSU $12 MILLION SETTLEMENT:

2026-05-26T10:53:09-08:00May 15th, 2026|Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, retaliation, Settlement, sexual harassment, wrongful termination|Comments Off on CSU to Pay $12 Million to Settle Gender Harassment and Retaliation Cases
Read More

Elevance Health Sued for Disability Discrimination

Health Insurance Giant Anthem/Elevance Fires Veteran Nurse of 17 Years Who Suffers from Debilitating Nerve Disease — After Repeatedly Refusing Her Accommodation Requests and Punishing Her for Making Them

Helmer Friedman LLP & The Carr Law Group Represent Former Elevance Health, Inc. Employee Priscilla Kamoi Accusing Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, Inc. of Illegal Employment Practices

March 16, 2026 (Los Angeles, California) – Priscilla Kamoi, a licensed Registered Nurse and a 17-year veteran of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. She alleges that the healthcare giant discriminated against her based on her disability and medical condition, refused to provide reasonable accommodations, retaliated against her for requesting those accommodations, and ultimately terminated her employment. The defendants named in the lawsuit include Elevance Health, Inc., Blue Cross of California, and other related entities, as well as several individual supervisors. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 26STCV08319). The lawsuit was announced today by the Los Angeles law firms of Helmer Friedman LLP and The Carr Law Group.

According to the complaint, Ms. Kamoi began her employment with the defendants (then known as “Wellpoint”) in August 2008 as a case management nurse in Woodland Hills, California. Throughout her 17 years with the company, her performance was exemplary—she received regular salary increases, annual bonuses, and consistently strong performance evaluations.

The law is clear: an employer cannot penalize a disabled employee for being disabled, nor can it refuse to provide simple accommodations—like a little extra time—and then use the employee’s resulting ‘performance deficiency’ as a pretext for dismissal. That is precisely what the law against disability discrimination seeks to prevent.

In her complaint, Ms. Kamoi alleges that beginning in late 2018, she developed a debilitating condition known as severe trigeminal neuralgia, which caused excruciating, electric-shock-like pain radiating into her head and face, as well as difficulties with speaking, chewing, swallowing, and sleeping. In a January 2023 email to her supervisors, she included photographs of herself during a pain episode, describing the ordeal as so severe that she could not eat dinner until after 11:00 p.m., when the pain finally subsided.

There is a cruel irony in a major health insurance company—one that profits from the healthcare system—showing such little regard for the health and dignity of a nurse who has dedicated 17 years to caring for its members.

The complaint outlines a relentless cycle spanning nearly three years: the defendants imposed stringent new hourly productivity quotas on Ms. Kamoi, then disciplined her when her disability prevented her from meeting those quotas. They subsequently refused her repeated requests for reasonable accommodations and then disciplined her again. According to the complaint, when Ms. Kamoi disclosed her limitations to a supervisor, she was told, “Then get another job.” After her physician submitted a formal accommodation request in May 2024—asking only for necessary breaks and additional time to complete assignments during pain episodes—the defendants denied the request within two weeks.

Ms. Kamoi alleges a pattern of escalating retaliation: productivity standards were increased again in January 2025; her performance was monitored on a stringent weekly basis, while other nurses were reviewed monthly; and on May 22, 2025, she was summoned to a meeting and fired. The complaint also states that Ms. Kamoi, as a Kenyan-born Black woman, experienced discrimination based on her race and national origin.

Current and former employees of Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Cross of California, or Elevance Health, Inc. who wish to report their work experiences or learn more about the lawsuit should complete a case evaluation form.

Commenting on California law, Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP stated, “The law is clear: an employer cannot penalize a disabled employee for being disabled, nor can it refuse to provide simple accommodations—like a little extra time—and then use the employee’s resulting ‘performance deficiency’ as a pretext for dismissal. That is precisely what the law against disability discrimination seeks to prevent.” James Carr added, “There is a cruel irony in a major health insurance company—one that profits from the healthcare system—showing such little regard for the health and dignity of a nurse who has dedicated 17 years to caring for its members.”

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP at (310-396-7714 or ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com) or James Carr of The Carr Law Group at (310-919-8057 or james@carrlawgrp.com).

Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Ms. Kamoi, please contact Mr. Helmer and/or Mr. Carr.

 

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE

2026-03-18T08:26:58-08:00March 16th, 2026|Case Update, disability discrimination, employment law, Failure to Pay Wages, Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, national origin discrimination, race discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations, retaliation, wage theft, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Elevance Health Sued for Disability Discrimination
Read More

$6,000,000 Jury Award in CSU Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Dr. Anissa Rogers Awarded $6 Million in CSU Gender Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Lawsuit

Andrew H. Friedman, Anissa Rogers after $6 Million jury verdict in gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation lawsuit against CSU. In a precedent setting victory against California State University, Andrew H. Friedman and Courtney Abrams, in partnership with renowned lead trial attorney David M. deRubertis, obtained a $6 Million jury verdict on behalf of a former California State University, San Bernardino Associate Dean Anissa Rogers in a lawsuit entitled Clare Weber & Anissa Rogers v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (the State of California acting in its higher education capacity); Tomás Morales, an individual; and Jake Zhu, an individual (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV05549).
Dr. Rogers alleged in her lawsuit that, despite repeated reports by her and other employees (including both men and women) to multiple CSU officials that Defendant Jake Zhu (Dean of CSU, San Bernardino’s Palm Desert campus) was harassing and discriminating against female employees on account of their gender, CSU took no action whatsoever to remedy the situation. Instead, CSU constructively fired Dr. Rogers from her Associate Dean position.

The jury’s $6 million award is entirely for noneconomic damages, including compensation for emotional distress and the personal toll suffered by Dr. Rogers on account of workplace gender discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Dr. Rogers’ claims highlighted how the nation’s largest public university system, employing more than 56,000 people across 23 campuses, failed to enforce its own anti-harassment policies despite repeated internal warnings and public scandals.

“This case exposed what women inside Cal State have been saying for years: the mistreatment of women within the Cal State system is not just a series of one-off incidents; the problem is systemic and structural,” said Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman, LLP who represented Dr. Rogers. This verdict should serve as a loud message to CSU to clean up its act and take complaints of employment violations seriously,” Friedman added. “Cal State can no longer ignore the systemic twin problems of gender-based mistreatment and retaliation that is endemic. The jury saw the importance of holding this institution to account, and we’re very appreciative of that.”

Dr. Rogers’ lead trial lawyer, David M. deRubertis of The deRubertis Law Firm APC, argued the gender-based mistreatment of Dr. Rogers was an inevitable result after CSU San Bernardino ignored a 2015 “climate survey” that suggested a culture of fear, intimidation, gender-based mistreatment and bullying at Cal State San Bernardino and recommended adoption of an anti-bullying policy and an audit of HR practices and policies. At trial, CSU San Bernardino President Tomas Morales admitted that neither recommendation was implemented.

Courtney Abrams of Courtney Abrams, PC, who also represented Dr. Rogers, announced Monday following a multiweek trial overseen by LA County Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter, that the jury verdict “represents a resounding rejection of CSU’s long-running denials of gender bias within its ranks. Dr. Rogers stood up not only for herself, but also the other women who have been subjected to gender-based double-standards within the Cal State system.”

Together, Friedman, Abrams, and deRubertis also represent Clare Weber, the former Vice Provost of Academic Affairs of CSU San Bernardino whose claims of gender pay equity, harassment based on gender and retaliation are expected to go to trial next year.

Read more at https://www.helmerfriedman.com/calstate-university-sued-for-gender-discrimination/

2026-05-19T08:07:03-08:00October 21st, 2025|Case Update, Front Page News, gender discrimination, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Jury Award|Comments Off on $6,000,000 Jury Award in CSU Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Read More

Superior Court Success: Compel Arbitration Defeated

Courtney Abrams, Erin Kelly, Andrew Friedman, Superior Court Victory defeating compel arbitration.

Helmer Friedman LLP is thrilled to extend our heartfelt congratulations to our co-counsel, Erin Kelly, for her remarkable oral argument before the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Together, we achieved a significant victory at the Superior Court level, successfully defeating an employer’s motion to compel arbitration—a decision the employer has since appealed. Erin, alongside our talented team members, Courtney Abrams and Andrew H. Friedman, diligently prepared our opposition to this appeal, and we are feeling optimistic that the Second Appellate District will uphold the Superior Court’s ruling. If our hopes materialize, it will mark our fifth consecutive triumph in overcoming motions to compel arbitration, demonstrating our commitment to justice.

We are also excited by the momentum surrounding the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which empowers employees to opt out of enforced arbitration in cases of harassment and assault. We strongly encourage Congress to support the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act. This critical legislation would prevent predispute arbitration agreements from being valid or enforceable in employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes, paving the way for fairer outcomes. Let’s continue to advocate for justice together!

2025-06-25T09:01:15-08:00June 25th, 2025|Arbitration Agreement, Erin Kelly, Front Page News|Comments Off on Superior Court Success: Compel Arbitration Defeated
Read More

Super Lawyers Names Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman as 2025 Super Lawyers

Andrew Friedman, Greg Helmer named Super Lawyer Top 100 2025.February 20, 2025 – Los Angeles – Helmer Friedman LLP is very pleased to announce that the lawyer rating service Super Lawyers has named founding partners Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman as 2025 Super Lawyers. Using its patented multiphase selection process (U.S. Pat. No. 8,412,564), Super Lawyers annually creates a comprehensive and diverse listing of the top 5% of attorneys in various practice areas, such as employment law. “It is a tremendous honor to have been once again named by Super Lawyers to its list of the top 5% of all of the labor and employment law attorneys in Southern California,” Gregory D. Helmer commented, “Super Lawyers has been recognizing us since 2006 and we couldn’t be prouder of this accomplishment.” “We are also very proud that two of our amazing co-counsel – Charles T. Mathews and Courtney Abrams – have also been recognized as 2025 Super Lawyers,” Andrew H. Friedman added.

2025-10-23T10:55:19-08:00February 25th, 2025|employment law, Front Page News|Comments Off on Super Lawyers Names Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman as 2025 Super Lawyers
Read More

Court of Appeal Rules Against Anthem/Elevance Health Attempt to Force Arbitration

Helmer Friedman LLP Defeats Anthem/Elevance Health’s Effort to Force Employee to Arbitrate

October 25, 2023 (Los Angeles, CA) – In a significant legal development, the California Court of Appeal has determined that Anthem Health, now operating as Elevance Health, cannot compel arbitration in the case involving long-term employee Mr. Gregory Antoniono. This ruling (Case B327595) from the Second Appellate District, Division 3, paves the way for the proceedings to continue in the Los Angeles County Superior Court before a judge and jury instead of an arbitrator.

“After litigating this issue for the better part of two years, we are pleased that the Court of Appeal reached what we believe to be the correct decision. When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny.”

Following nearly two years of legal proceedings, the Los Angeles County Superior Court rejected Anthem/Elevance’s motion to enforce arbitration in March 2023 (Case No. 22STCV26362). The court ruled that the company failed to demonstrate that Mr. Antoniono agreed to arbitrate his claims, as he had not been provided the opportunity to review the arbitration policy terms when he signed his offer letter. Furthermore, the company’s intranet, where the policy was purportedly accessible, explicitly stated that the policies were not intended to form a legally binding contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the court’s decision, emphasizing that Anthem/Elevance did not meet the “minimum” requirements for establishing an implied agreement to arbitrate. According to the Court, employers must “clearly communicate to the employee both that assenting to arbitration is a condition of employment and what the terms of the employer’s policy are.”

Anthem/Elevance’s argument that Mr. Antoniono implicitly agreed by signing an offer letter referencing the arbitration policy was dismissed due to the policy’s lack of attachment or accessible link. The Court highlighted that the arbitration policy was buried among numerous other non-contractual policies on the intranet.

Commenting on the decision, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP, representing Mr. Antoniono, remarked, “After litigating this issue for the better part of two years, we are pleased that the Court of Appeal reached what we believe to be the correct decision. When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny.”

Helmer Friedman LLP advocates for employees’ rights in matters involving discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination and provides aggressive and innovative representation to safeguard clients’ rights.

Read more about the case Luis Ortiz vs Anthem Blue Cross, Elevence Health

Contact Information

Gregory D. Helmer
Helmer Friedman LLP
Phone: 310-396-7714
Email: ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com

2025-11-05T11:18:14-08:00October 24th, 2024|Case Update, employment law, Front Page News, Greg Helmer|Comments Off on Court of Appeal Rules Against Anthem/Elevance Health Attempt to Force Arbitration
Read More

Lawsuit Alleges Grindr Sold User Info Including Sexual Orientation and Location

Grindr allegedly sold a prominent Catholic priest’s sensitive personal information, causing him to lose his position as the general secretariat for the National Conference of U.S. bishops.

July 18, 2024 (Los Angeles) – Jeffrey Burrill subscribed to the Grindr app, which collected his sensitive personal data, including information about sexual orientation and location. Grindr failed to protect Burrill’s sensitive information and knowingly allowed it to be sold to third parties, according to a lawsuit filed by Helmer Friedman LLP and The Carr Law Group (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV17896).

Grindr’s failure to protect sensitive personal data and its subsequent sale to third parties has caused immeasurable harm. Consumers deserve transparency and security,
especially when dealing with such private information.

Grindr, based in California, owns and operates a social networking application under federal trademark registration number 3873295. The application provides online chat rooms for social networking on the Internet and mobile devices, as well as computer dating services through adult personal advertisements and social networking on the Internet and mobile devices. Described as the “largest social networking app for gay, bi, trans, and queer people,” Grindr claims to have created a safe space to connect with the queer community.

In 2017, Mr. Burrill subscribed to Grindr, a gay social networking application. Grindr collected sensitive personal data from Mr. Burrill, including information about his sexual orientation and physical location. Between 2017 and 2021, the Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal (CLCR), a private foundation, purchased Mr. Burrill’s Grindr personal data and shared it with a publication called The Pillar.

In July 2021, The Pillar published an article using the Grindr data purchased from CLCR, outing Mr. Burrill and making false and lurid claims about him. This resulted in significant damage to Mr. Burrill’s reputation, leading to his resignation from the position of General Secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and causing him significant financial and emotional distress.

Despite Grindr’s assurance of protecting customers’ personal data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure, they failed to disclose the steps taken to protect sensitive personal data. This was aggravated by the former Chief Privacy Officer’s revelations that Grindr was aware of its failure to protect sensitive personal data but chose not to address the issue due to a lack of resources. When the former Chief Privacy Officer raised concerns about privacy violations, they were met with pushback and disdain from Grindr.

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact Gregory D. Helmer (at 310-396-7714 ext. 102  or ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com). James C.D. Carr (at 310-919-8057 or james@carrlawgrp.com)

Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Mr. Burrill, please contact Mr. Helmer and/or Mr. Carr.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2025-05-20T07:40:33-08:00July 22nd, 2024|California's Unfair Competition Law, Case Update, Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), fraud, Front Page News, Greg Helmer|Comments Off on Lawsuit Alleges Grindr Sold User Info Including Sexual Orientation and Location
Read More

Disability Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Anthem Blue Cross

19-Year Veteran Employee of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health Alleges that Healthcare Companies Fired Him During His Painful Recovery from Life-Threatening Heart Bypass Surgery

June 27, 2024 (BEVERLY HILLS, California) – Mr. Luis Ortiz, a long-term employee in the underwriting department of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was discriminated against and harassed based on his medical condition and disability when the company fired him during his difficult recovery from open-heart surgery. Elevance Health, Inc., Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Blue Cross of California, the Elevance Health Companies of California, and several other related entities are named as defendants. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV15952). The Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP announced the filing today.

Plaintiff Luis Ortiz, a California resident, alleges that on February 17, 2022, after having undergone a coronary angiogram, he was immediately admitted to the hospital and underwent triple bypass surgery. His post-surgery recovery, he alleges, was difficult and rife with complications, including debilitating pain in his chest and back and radiating throughout his entire body.

It is illegal to discriminate against employees who are recovering from surgery, and it is disappointing to see these allegations arise in the healthcare industry – the very industry that people rely on for their health and well-being.

Mr. Ortiz alleges that he dutifully kept his employers updated and consistently submitted medical authorization to support his leave of absence. In August 2022, his doctors authorized an extension of his leave for six months. But, in an email of October 7, 2022, he was told by his supervisor, Ms. Millet-Riley, that his leave was unapproved. According to the complaint, she threatened that he would be terminated for “abandoning his job” if he did not contact her within three business days. Mr. Ortiz alleges that he contacted her immediately on the same day and told her that he was not abandoning his job and intended to return to work as soon as his doctors authorized him to do so. Nonetheless, on October 10, 2022, the complaint asserts that the defendants fired Mr. Ortiz for “job abandonment,” an explanation that Mr. Ortiz contends is a pretext for discrimination and unlawful conduct.

Mr. Ortiz further alleges that, after being fired, he applied for a vacant position in underwriting with Anthem Blue Cross of California (for which he was eminently qualified) but was denied that position. Mr. Ortiz alleges that such conduct was discriminatory and retaliatory. Commenting on California law, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP said, “It is illegal to discriminate against employees who are recovering from surgery, and it is disappointing to see these allegations arise in the healthcare industry – the very industry that people rely on for their health and well-being.”

For more information, contact Gregory D Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, (310) 396-7714 x102, ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2025-11-05T11:27:15-08:00June 27th, 2024|Case Update, disability discrimination, Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Disability Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Anthem Blue Cross
Read More

Labor & Employment Law Review Article Co-Authored by Andrew Friedman

Andrew H. Friedman, Ramit Mizrahi, Anthony J. Oncidi Author Article For the California Labor & Employment Law Review.

Andrew H. Friedman, Ramit Mizrahi, Anthony J. Oncidi Author Article For the California Labor & Employment Law Review

January 2024 – Andrew H. Friedman, Ramit Mizrahi (an employment law mediator with The Mizrahi Law Firm), and Anthony “Tony” J. Oncidi (a partner in and Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Department of Proskauer Rose LLP – a defense-side employment law firm) have once again co-authored an article – THE TOP EMPLOYMENT CASES OF 2023 – for the California Lawyers Association and the California Labor & Employment Law Review. The article can be viewed here.

 

2025-07-30T10:40:10-08:00January 16th, 2024|Andrew Friedman, employment law, Front Page News, law review articles|Comments Off on Labor & Employment Law Review Article Co-Authored by Andrew Friedman
Read More

Best Lawyers Recognizes Gregory D. Helmer in Employment Law

Gregory D. Helmer founding partner Helmer Friedman LLP.We at Helmer Friedman LLP are thrilled to announce that Gregory D. Helmer has been recognized for his exceptional work in Employment Law in The Best Lawyers in America® 2023 edition.

For over 40 years, Best Lawyers has been widely regarded by lawyers and the public as the most reliable measure of legal integrity and distinction in the United States. Being recognized by Best Lawyers is a true testament to the excellence of one’s practice.

Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® is based on a comprehensive peer-review survey that includes more than 13.7 million confidential evaluations of peers this year. Lawyers are not allowed to pay any fee to participate in or be recognized by Best Lawyers.

2023-11-01T08:37:50-08:00August 18th, 2023|Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Labor & Employment Law|Comments Off on Best Lawyers Recognizes Gregory D. Helmer in Employment Law
Read More
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top