Thursday, February 11, 2016

Monday, November 23, 2015

Slate v. Contra Costa County Dept. of Agriculture

One of our cases was written about in the Contra Costa Times! Here's a link to the article which quotes Laura Mazza, the lead attorney on the case:

Katie Debski Published in Plaintiff's Magazine!

We are so pleased that partner Katie Debski's article, The Equal Opportunity Bully, was published in Plaintiff's Magazine!  Bullying is such a huge issue in the workplace and unfortunately, there are few legal protections to assist employees in such situations.  Read more about the state of the law on bullying in the article here: 

Friday, July 11, 2014

We Have a New Partner!

Landman & Mazza LLP is excited to announce that we have a new Partner, Katie Debski, who joined us on June 2, 2014!! As a result we have changed our name to Bain Mazza & Debski LLP, to include our new Partner and update Katie Landman Bain's name in the firm title to her married name.

Monday, August 12, 2013

We made the SuperLawyers' Rising Stars List!

Landman & Mazza is proud to announce that both of our partners have made the Super Lawyers Northern California 2013 Rising Stars List!

Check Out the List by Clicking Here

Friday, April 13, 2012

Brinker v. Superior Court Decision Is In

The California Supreme Court issued it's decision in the Brinker case (Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum)) yesterday.  The court held that employers are required to make a good faith effort to authorize and permit rest breaks in the middle of each work period, but that they may deviate from that where practically necessary.   The court also held that employers must relieve employees of all duty during meal periods, but need not ensure that the employee does no work.

Read the whole case here:

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Supreme Court Says No Class Action for Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Claims

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, decided on June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court found that the sex discrimination suit was not appropriate for class treatment. In the case, current and former Wal-Mart employees alleged disparate treatment and disparate impact because the company gave local managers discretion over pay and promotions, and the employees claimed that discretion was exercised disproportionately in favor of men. The Court found that because the employees failed to show that Wal-Mart had a general policy of discrimination, there was no commonality, which is required for class action suits.