Previous Law Firm Name

• Law Offices of Robert M. Cassel

Law Firm Overview

Robert M. Cassel has specialized exclusively in Labor and Employment Law representing management since 1962. He is a graduate of University of Michigan and Boalt Hall School of Law from which he received his J.D. degree. He has been a partner in major San Francisco law firms and now practices from his own law office in Marin County, adjacent to San Francisco. He is licensed to practice before California State Courts, Federal Courts, and the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Cassel's primary practice areas of management representation are: (1) National Labor Relations Board charges relating to: Union Organizational matters, Unfair Labor Practice Charges, Work Stoppages; (2) California Labor Commissioner Charges; (3) Negotiation and administration of Collective Bargaining Agreements; (4) Arbitration of labor contract grievances and disputes; (5) Employee Benefit disputes and trust fund administration, and; (6) Employer advice and guidance on Local, State and Federal labor laws.

Mr. Cassel is a frequent lecturer and writer on labor and employment matters. His writings on labor law cases in the last 20 years exceed 100 publications. His writings on the subject of labor and employment law also include: The Emporium Case: Title VII Rights and the Collective Bargaining Process, Hastings Law Journal, Labor Damages, California Attorney's Damages Guide, California Continuing Education of the Bar (updated June 20, 2007, 2008); Advising California Employers and Employees, CEB, 2008, External Law's Internal Role in Grievance Arbitration, Labor and Employment Law News, State Bar of California Labor and Employment Law Section.

Mr. Cassel has served in the following professional capacities: Member of the Management Advisory Panel of the National Labor Relations Board Advisory Committee on Agency Procedure; Program Chairman of the American Bar Association Subcommittee on Equal Employment Opportunity; Chairperson of Lawyer's Referral Service Committee of the Bar Association of San Francisco; Member of the Executive Committee of Legal Services Section, State Bar of California; Delegate to the State Bar of California Conference; Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Bar Association of San Francisco; Special Labor Counsel to the State Bar of California in Labor and Employment matters, and; Member, Editorial Review Board, California Employer Advisor.

Areas of Practice

• Employment Law -- Employer
• Labor Law

Published Works

• Advising Employers Who Have Persons With AIDS in Their Workforce, Volume VII, No.8, May, 1986
• Employer Has Duty of Reasonably Accommodating Employee Who Has Cancer Condition, Volume VIII, No. 1, July, 1986
• Employers and Employees, Volume XX, No. 5, March, 1999
• The California Employer's Duty of Accommodating for Handicapped Employees, Volume VIII, No. 2, August, 1986
• Recent Employment Law Development, Volume VIII, No. 3, October, 1986
• To Be or Not to Be (An Employee) - That is The Question (For the Jury), Volume VIII, No. 4, December, 1986
• Recent Decisions Try to Clarify Bad Faith Discharge Standards for California Employers, Volume VIII, No. 6, March, 1987
• Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - All - Employers Are Covered, Volume VIII, No. 7, April, 1987
• The New Look of Voluntary Affirmative Action, Volume VIII, No. 8, May, 1987
• Personal Language Preference in Employment and the "Plus" Factor, Volume IX, No. 1, July, 1987
• Ninth Circuit Reviews California Wrongful Termination Law, Volume IX, No. 3, October, 1987
• Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing - Does It Apply to Management Issues Other Than Termination, Volume IX, No. 4, December, 1987
• California Supreme Court Holds that FEHC May Not Award Punitive Damages, Volume IX, No. 5, January, 1988
• Court Holds That Employer's Insurance Policy Does Not Cover Wrongful Termination Suit, Volume IX, No. 6, March, 1988
• Is There a Trend Toward Judicial Conservation in California Wrongful Termination Law?, Volume IX, No. 7, April, 1988
• Urine Tests, Sniffer Dogs, and Random Drug and Alcohol Screening on the Railroad: Employee Privacy Meets Public Safety, Volume IX, No. 8, May, 1988
• Recent Wrongful Termination & Age Discrimination Developments, Volume X, No. 1, July, 1988
• Recent Wrongful Termination Cases Address Federal and State Preemption, Volume X, No. 2, September, 1988
• Pugh II: The Bitter-Sweet Conclusion of Pugh v. See's Candies, Volume X, No. 3, October, 1988
• Ninth Circuit Reviews Qualified Immunity of Supervisors Against Bivens Claims of Whistleblower, Volume X, No. 4, December, 1988
• NLRB's Proposed Bargaining Unit Rules for Hospitals, Volume X, No. 5, January, 1989
• Comments on the Employment Law Aspects of Foley, Volume X, No. 6, March, 1989
• Protecting an Individual's Right Not to Strike: U.S. Supreme Court Approves a Major New Employer Strike Weapon, Volume X, No. 8, June, 1989
• The California Supreme Court' s New Test for Independent-Contractor Status, Volume XI, No. 1, July, 1989
• Six Recent Landmark Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court Basing Employers' Burdens in Discrimination Suit, Volume XI, No. 3, December, 1989
• Court Upholds Private Employer' s Pre-Employment Urinalysis Testing for Drugs and Alcohol, Volume XI, No. 4, December, 1989
• Ninth Circuit Reviews Policy Exception to Finality of Labor Arbitrators' Awards, Volume XI, No. 5, January, 1990
• Environmental Sexual Harassment - Court Announces Tests for Establishing This Cause of Action, Volume XI, No. 6, March, 1990
• Does an Employee' s Right to Privacy in Connection with Drug Testing Indicate Policy for Tameny Purposes - Jar Wars in the Courts of Appeal, Volume XI, No. 7, April, 1990
• Arbitration of Discrimination Claims - California Spin on the Federal Rule, Volume XII, No.1, July, 1990
• Mixed News for Wrongful Termination Plaintiffs: Ninth Circuit Casts Damper on Use of Statistics in Age Discrimination Suits, But Intimates a Post-Foley Strategy in Bad Faith Cases, Volume XII, No. 2, September, 1990
• California' s Right to Privacy Beats NCAA' s Drug Testing Program in Judicial Playoffs Implications for Private Sector Drug Testing, Volume XII, No. 4, December, 1990
• The Supreme Court Rules - FEHC May Not Award Compensatory Damages; Workers' Comp. Exclusivity Re: Termination Damages; FEHA Exhaustion and Employment Discrimination, Volume XII, No. 6, March, 1991
• New Judicial Standard in Sexual Harassment Cases: The Reasonable Woman, Volume XII, No. 8, June, 1991
• America' s Drug War Hits the Road - Mandatory Drug Testing for Truck Drivers; California' s Tough Rules on Accident Prevention Programs, Volume XIII, No.2, September, 1991
• California' s Family Rights Act Unpaid Leave for Employees with newborn Children and Other Qualified Persons; The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1991, Volume XIII, No. 5, January, 1992
• "Use-It-Or-Lose-It" Vacation Policy Loses in California, California Business Law Reporter, Volume 14, No.3, October, 1992
• Workplace Injury and Illness Prevention Programs, A Practical Guide for Employers, Continuing Education of the Bar, 1992
• Health Insurance Help for Small Employers, and other Recent Legislation, Volume 14, No. 7, April, 1993
• : Employers and Employees: Federal and California Family Leave Laws: Will AB 1460 End the Confusion?, Volume 15, No.1, July, 1993
• Ninth Circuit Allows Employer to Enforce English Only Workplace Rule, Volume 15, No. 4, December, 1993
• Finally, One Family Leave Act for California Employers as California Conforms to Federal Law - Almost, Volume 15, No. 5, January, 1994
• Employer Victories on Employee Termination and Drug Testing, Volume 15, No. 7, April, 1994
• Injury and Illness Prevention in the Workplace, California Business Law Practitioner, Fall, 1996
• High Salary Discrimination is Not Age Discrimination in California - Despite its Disparate Impact on Older Workers, California Business Law Reporter, November, 1997
• Employers and Employees, California Business Law Reporter, May, 1999
• Employers and Employees, California Business Law Reporter, November, 1999
• Arbitration, California Business Law Reporter, July, 1999
• The ADA Hits the Wall: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That ADA Does Not Apply When Employee Has a Correctable Impairment, California Business Law Reporter, September, 1999
• Nonsupervisory Coworker Cannot Be Held Personally Liable For Sexual Harassment Under FEHA, California Business Law Reporter, March, 2000
• California Supreme Court clarifies at-will Employment Status, California Business Law Reporter, November, 2000
• Employer not required to violate seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreement to accommodate disabled employee, California Business Law Reporter, March, 2001
• Employers and Employees, Facilitating the sale of a corporate division isn' t "just cause" for terminating employee and preventing his stock options from vesting, California Business Law Reporter, July, 2001
• Employers and Employees, Employer must communicate which of four FMLA leave calculation methods it has adopted, California Business Law Reporter, November, 2001
• Employers and Employees, Here' s lookin' at you - Employee' s persistent and repeated acts of staring at co-employee can constitute actionable sexual harassment under the FEHA, California Business Law Reporter, January, 2002
• Employers and Employees, ADA Developments - U.S. Supreme Court decides requirements for demonstrating substantial limitation in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, California Business Law Reporter, March, 2002
• Employers and Employees, Privacy rights and computers - Court rules that employees had no expectation of privacy in files on company-owned computer, California Business Law Reporter, May, 2002
• Employers and Employees, Seniority system trumps ADA - U.S. Supreme Court leaves an out for employees who can prove "special circumstances", California Business Law Reporter, July, 2002
• Employer and Employees, FEHA's prohibition against age discrimination does not extend to the furnishing of employee benefits such as educational assistance - Employers still need to be cautious about what they promise employees, California Business Law Reporter, September, 2002
• Employers and Employees, Supervisor may be held liable individually for retaliation in violation of FEHA - The shield against liability for discrimination doesn't apply, California Business Law Reporter, November, 2002
• Employers and Employees, The limits of sexual harassment liability under FEHA - Employer isn' t liable for sexual harassment of an employee by a non-employee client or customer, California Business Law Reporter, January, 2003
• Employers and Employees, Supervisor' s promotion of plaintiff' s co-workers with whom he had affairs didn' t constitute hostile work environment - Discrimination against plaintiff was based on amorous preferences, not gender, California Business Law Reporter, March, 2003
• Employer may recover for tortuous interference with employment contracts of its at-will employees - Plaintiff must show that defendant used improper methods to obtain the breach, California Business Law Reporter, May, 2003
• California Family Rights Act - Employee must effectively notify employer that leave falls within scope of act, California Business Law Reporter, July, 2003
• Employer could terminate employee who fought with coworker when retreat was possible - Employer' s policy in favor of nonviolent workplace trumps employee' s right to self-defense, California Business Law Reporter, September, 2003
• If you' re eating your employer' s lunch, don' t send him a bill for it - Former employees initiate their own misery by bringing motion for unpaid overtime to be met with action for breach of duty of loyalty, California Business Law Reporter, November, 2003
• Under FEHA, Employer Is Strictly Liable For Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment By Supervisor - But Ellerth/Faragher-Type Defense Is Available To Employer Under Rubric of Avoidable Consequences Doctrine, California Business Law Reporter, January, 2004
• California Attorney' s Guide to Damages - Second Edition, Continuing Education of the Bar, May, 2004
• Interference with contract requires intentional acts by defendant to induce breach or disruption of contractual relationship - Merely hiring competitor' s employees is not enough, absent unfair methods, California Business Law Reporter, July, 2004
• Mere budgetary control over subsidiary does not support tort action against parent corporation based on job-related death of subsidiary's employee Liability would require proof of separate and independent culpable parental action unrelated to the parent's formal and normal oversight of its subsidiary's expenditures., California Business Law Reporter, September, 2004
• To recover for interference with an at-will employment relationship, plaintiff must plead and wove that defendant engaged in independently wrongful act Destruction of computer records, cultivation of employee discontent, and misuse of confidential information in soliciting employees satisfy the test., California Business Law Reporter, November, 2004
• Employer's requirement that female employees wear make-up does not constitute sex discrimination under Title VII - Women and men are different and this can create legal problems when such differences collide with the requirements of equal treatment under the law, California Business Law Reporter, March, 2005
• Both the FEHA and the ADA prohibit medical examinations (in the case, a blood test for AIDS) until the employer has extended a job offer premised on completion of all nonmedical components of its evaluation of an applicant, unless the employer can show that it cannot reasonably do so., California Business Law Reporter, May, 2005
• The United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) authorizes recovery in disparate-impact cases. However, the ADEA may permit an action disparately impacting older workers when the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age., California Business Law Reporter, July, 2005
• What does it mean to care for a family member under the Family and Medical Leave Act? Tellis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit concluded that one man's journey to retrieve automobile for the use of his pregnant wife did not qualify., California Business Law Reporter, September, 2005
• Corporate directors and officers are breathing a sigh of relief after the California Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds v. Bement, which held that directors and officers are not personally liable for a corporation's failure to pay overtime compensation., California Business Law Reporter, November, 2005
• In JBP, Inc. v Alvarez, the United States Supreme Court held that time spent walking between a protective gear changing area and the production area and time spent waiting to doff (but not to don) gear is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act., California Business Law Reporter, January, 2006
• When an employer has to compensate an employee for missed meal and break periods, should those payments be considered wages or penalties? The California Supreme Court has agreed to consider this issue in the case of Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions., California Business Law Reporter, March, 2006
• Michael v. Denbeste Transp. Inc., presents an issue of first impression: Whether the Privette doctrine extends to an injured independent contractor hired by another jobsite contractor. The answer is not surprising. Also: The Ralph Act and the Bane Act may provide causes of action in wrongful termination and employment discrimination cases., California Business Law Reporter, May, 2006
• In Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd., the court speaks to the primary employer's responsibility to establish and maintain an injury prevention program for employees leased to secondary employers., California Business Law Reporter, September, 2006
• Ever wonder who is going to pay the medical bills if the neighborhood handyman you hired to repair your roof falls off the ladder? Answer: see Mendoza v. Brodeur. Also, in Syverson v. IBM, an employer-supplied waiver of ADEA right and claims in connection with a severance package was unenforceable, because it was too confusing., California Business Law Reporter, November, 2006
• In Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods Inc., the California Supreme Court settled an issue that has recently divided the courts: whether payments authorized by Lab C 226.7(b) for missed meal and rest periods are wages or penalties., California Business Law Reporter, May, 2007
• In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Rubber co., the Supreme Court held that only the employer's initial pay decision triggered the right to file a Title VII claim for pay discrimination with the EEOC; the claim cannot be based on subsequent paychecks., California Business Law Reporter, July, 2007
• In Prachasaisoradej v. Ralph's Grocery, the California Supreme Court held that an employer may take workers' compensation claims and store losses into account in calculating employees' bonus pay., California Business Law Reporter, November, 2007
• Employers should become familiar with how the USERRA affects their personnel decisions with respect to returning veterans seeking their former jobs. Perez v. Uline explores the issue of releases and the USERRA., California Business Law Reporter, January, 2008
• Another chapter in UPS litigation with a class of hearing impaired employees seeking to be package-truck drivers who challenge the DOT standards voluntarily adopted by UPS as a business necessity under the ADA. Bates v. United Parcel Service., California Business Law Reporter, March, 2008

West Practice Categories

Employment Law -- Employer, Labor Law