Our deep experience and capabilaities in labor and employment law and the excellence of the Firm's Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group result in Gibson Dunn being hired frequently to assist with major cases on appeal or in post-trial briefing.  The American Lawyer cited Gibson Dunn's "powerhouse appellate practice" in naming our litigation department one of the top five in the country in 2002.  "Because of its appellate strength, the firm is often called in as a corporate fire brigade," the magazine said.  We are accustomed to being brought into cases in the late stages, and working collegially alongside the lawyers who tried the case to identify issues to preserve for appeal or to craft appeals briefs that capture the attention of the appellate judges.  We also are skilled at helping in-house counsel review pending litigation to identify cases that present particularly high stakes or precedent-setting issues for the company, and that accordingly warrant special attention in the pre-trial and trial stages.

Recent representative matters include:

• Persuading the U.S. Supreme Court that a Washington State statute automatically revoking a spouse's life insurance beneficiary designation upon divorce is pre-empted by ERISA.  Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001);
• Arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that the determination whether an employee with high blood pressure is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act must be made with reference to mitigating measures such as medication.  Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999);
• Representing the employer in a "same-sex" sexual harassment suit in which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated a $4.8 million punitive damage award. In its December, 2003 decision, the court ruled that the verdict was unconstitutional and remanded the case to the trial court for a "sizable downward redetermination" in light of the Supreme Court's decisions governing excessive punitive damage awards. State Farm v. Campbell. Daka, Inc. v. McCrae, Nos. 00-CV-1270 & 01-CV-227;
• Obtaining review by the Michigan Supreme Court of the largest single-plaintiff sexual harassment verdict--over $30 million with interest--ever affirmed in the United States.  In July 2004, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the verdict.  Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Mich.) (No. 122457);
• Filing amicus brief supplying the rationale the U.S. Supreme Court used to invalidate presumption for claimants seeking black lung and longshore benefits.  Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994);
• Obtaining a favorable Ninth Circuit opinion regarding the ADA claims of monocular employees seeking positions as delivery vehicle drivers.  EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 306 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002);
• Securing affirmance of summary judgment for the employer, with the Fifth Circuit holding that the plaintiff's assertions of disability when seeking disability benefits preclude recovery under the ADA or for retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or ERISA.  Holtzclaw v. DSC Communications Corp., 255 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2001);
• Successfully challenging OSHA's "Cooperative Compliance Program," one of the largest enforcement programs in the agency's history.  U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. United States Dep't of Labor, 174 F.3d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1999); and
• Filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Employers Group in an important wage-hour case in which a profit-based bonus for employees was challenged as containing impermissible deductions under the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order.  The Employers Group position was partially adopted by the Appellate Court which found that for exempt employees, all expense items other than workers' compensation expenses are permissible; however, for non-exempt employees, both workers' compensation and other expenses, such as cash shortages, breakages and losses, are impermissible.  Ralph's Grocery Company v. Superior Court (Swanson), Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, Civil Case No. B168257 (brief filed Oct. 2003).

Our appellate practice has had a significant impact on labor and employment law nationally.  We have represented clients successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court, and we have filed numerous amicus curiae briefs in Supreme Court cases presenting important employment law issues.  For example, in 1996, we filed an amicus brief in Lockheed Corp. v. Spink addressing whether an employer violates ERISA by establishing an early retirement incentive program that pays benefits to retirees in exchange for a release of claims against the employer.  Our lawyers frequently litigate state employment issues at the appellate level as well.  We supplied the rationale, through an amicus brief, for an important California Supreme Court decision holding that wrongful termination will not support a cause of action for fraud.  Other appellate victories include obtaining outright reversal of a $40 million judgment (including substantial punitive damages) in a wrongful termination action against a hotel corporation, Brooks v. Hilton Casinos, Inc., 959 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1992), and securing dismissal of a defamation suit brought by former employees against their employer based on statements about the employees' alleged wrongdoing.

Gibson Dunn's combined capabilities and experience in labor and employment law and appellate matters provides an unmatched level of sophisticated advice and nuanced advocacy with respect to all aspects of labor and employment law.  Our lawyers closely follow jurisprudential trends in state and federal courts throughout the nation, and our experience allows us to provide clients with the most effective appellate challenges to lower court rulings, as well as the most cogent appellate defenses of judgments in our clients' favor.