Tony Oncidi

Photo of Tony Oncidi

Anthony J. Oncidi heads the Labor & Employment Law Group in the Los Angeles office.

Tony represents employers and management in all aspects of labor relations and employment law, including litigation and preventive counseling, wage and hour matters, including class actions, wrongful termination, employee discipline, Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, executive employment contract disputes, sexual harassment training and investigations, workplace violence, drug testing and privacy issues, Sarbanes-Oxley claims and employee raiding and trade secret protection. A substantial portion of Tony’s practice involves the defense of employers in large class actions, employment discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination litigation in state and federal court as well as arbitration proceedings, including FINRA matters.

Latest Articles

We have reported before about the huge jury verdicts that get handed out in California with alarming regularity and California’s sustained #1 ranking as the “Top Judicial Hellhole” in the nation. A corollary problem continues unabated: The prevalence of class actions and lawsuits under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Though California accounts for 12% of the population of the United States (yes, one in eight Americans lives in the Golden State), currently more than…
The California Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of a former freelancer’s defamation and employment-related claims against the Times. Frederick Theodore Rall III, a political cartoonist and blogger for the paper, brought claims for defamation, wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotion distress, and retaliation, among others, stemming from the Times’ decision to disassociate itself with Rall and issue a “note to readers,” questioning the accuracy of a blog post in which Rall described an interaction with…
We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2019 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include: School Teacher’s ADA Claim Against Catholic School Was Not Barred By “Ministerial Exception” City Attorney Should Not Have Been Disqualified From Representing City Prevailing Employer Should Not Have Been Awarded CCP § 998 Costs Employer May Be Liable For Accident Caused By On-Call Employee Employer’s Rounding Policy Complied
Biel v. St. James School, 2018 WL 6597221 (9th Cir. 2018) Kristen Biel was fired from her fifth grade teaching position at St. James Catholic School after she told the school that she had breast cancer and would need to miss work to undergo chemotherapy. Following her termination, Biel alleged that the school had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The district court dismissed Biel’s lawsuit on the ground that it was barred…
City of San Diego v. Superior Court, 2018 WL 6629322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) As part of an internal affairs investigation regarding the unauthorized disclosure of a confidential police report, the San Diego Police Department questioned detective Dana Hoover regarding communications she had had with an attorney who was representing her in an employment-related lawsuit against the city. Although Hoover invoked the attorney-client privilege, the Department directed her to answer the questions or face…
Huerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc., 29 Cal. App. 5th 74 (2018) Felix Huerta sued Kava Holdings dba Hotel Bel-Air after the hotel terminated him and another restaurant server who was involved in an altercation during work. The trial court granted Kava’s motion for nonsuit as to Huerta’s claim for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and the jury returned a verdict against Huerta on the remaining FEHA claims. The trial court…
Moreno v. Visser Ranch, Inc., 2018 WL 6696021 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) Ray David Moreno, a passenger riding in a truck that his father (Ernesto Moreno) was driving, was injured when the truck left the roadway, hit an embankment and rolled over. Ray sued his father, the corporation that employed his father and an affiliated corporation that owned the vehicle. The employer required Ernesto to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days…
Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC, 2018 WL 6445360 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) AMN used a computer-based timekeeping system for all nonexempt employees, including plaintiffs/nurse recruiters. The timekeeping system rounded recruiters’ punch times (both punch in and punch out) to the nearest 10-minute increment. To establish the proper hourly compensation, AMN converted each 10-minute increment to a decimal (to the nearest hundredth of a minute), totaled the number of hours (to the hundredth of a…
Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem. Med. Ctr., 2018 WL 6442036 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018) Plaintiff health care workers formerly employed by Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center alleged that they usually worked shifts of 12 hours or more. A hospital policy allowed employees who worked shifts longer than 10 hours to voluntarily waive one of their two meal periods, even if their shifts lasted more than 12 hours. Plaintiffs asserted putative class actions and claims…
Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Tel. Co., 29 Cal. App. 5th 131 (2018) Employees of Pacific Bell who install and repair video and internet services in customers’ homes asserted a putative class action against the company for allegedly unpaid compensation for time they spent traveling in an employer-provided vehicle (loaded with equipment and tools) between their homes and a customer’s residence under an optional and voluntary Home Dispatch Program (“HDP”). Pacific Bell argued that commuting…