Attorney Profile
Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
Mr. Hoyer has practiced litigation since 1990, since 1993 focusing almost exclusively on employment disputes.
Trained at two of the largest and most prestigious firms in the nation, Mr. Hoyer now devotes his time to making a difference to the lives of individual clients and small businesses.
Mr. Hoyer believes that each of his clients deserves aggressive and cost-effective advocacy, and uses any means necessary to achieve the best result in a timely way.
Mr. Hoyer has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Northwestern University (1987) and a Law Degree from Georgetown (1990).
Ryan L. Hicks, Esq.
Mr. Hicks is a 2008 graduate of The University of California Hastings College of the Law and holds a B.A. in Business Administration from The University of Washington. While a law student, Mr. Hicks served on the Board of Directors for the Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal; participated in the Hastings Criminal Practice Clinic and worked at the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, representing the people of California.
David C. Lipps, Esq.
Mr. Lipps earned a law degree and Masters degree in Philosophy from Duke University in 2009. Prior to that, Mr. Lipps earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Florida, with a double major in Philosophy and Political Theory.
Recent Cases
The firm represents employees in a wide variety of discrimination, wrongful termination and wage cases. Below is a representative sampling:
Employment Discrimination
In Ling, et al. vs. Regents of the University of California, No. Dist. Ca. Case No. 2001-035654, we represented representatives in a class action for race discrimination at the Lawrence Livermore Lab. The case settled after class certification.
We represented victims of national origin discrimination in Taylor, et al vs. Canal Plus Technologies, Santa Clara Superior Case No. 1-03-CV-000675. The case settled after statistics proved that it was virtually impossible that discrimination was not involved in the lay-off.
In Manion vs. Barclays Global Investors, San Francisco Superior Case No. CGC-02-405583, we represented an employee in a case of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The case settled at mediation after her supervisor was forced to admit he had destroyed evidence.
We represented the victim of pregnancy discrimination in Smith vs, CU Funding Group, Alameda County Superior Case No. RG 04176367. The case settled after the discovery of incriminating emails from her supervisor.
In Glick vs. Stationary Engineers Local 39, San Francisco Superior Case No. 318531, we sued for age discrimination on behalf of a union executive. The case settled before trial.
We represented victims of sex discrimination in Nguyen vs. BTR Capital Management, San Francisco Case No. 03-421699. The case settled after witnesses corroborated discriminatory statements by management.
In Scott Company vs. City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara Superior Case No. CV 787323, we sued the City to enjoin further discrimination in public contracting. The case was settled and the City changed its bid process.
We represented a pharmaceutical sales representative in Ngo vs. Bristol Myers Squibb, Santa Clara Superior Case No. 107CV099700, in a case of race discrimination and retaliation. The client had some of the best sales numbers nationwide, and yet was counseled for “poor communications skills”–code words for a strong accent. When he objected to the discrimination, he was fired. The case settled before trial.
In Aubry vs. Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation, we arbitrated a case on behalf of a longtime teacher who was forced to resign due to age discrimination. After obtaining evidence of age discrimination against other teachers, the case settled favorably.
In Cube vs. Regents of the University of California, San Francisco Superior Case No. CGC 09 485484, we represented an employee whose serious medical condition was exacerbated by the defendant’s failure to accommodate. As a result of the disability discrimination, plaintiff was rendered unable to work permanently. The case was settled during litigation.
In De Souza vs. Regents of the University of California, No. Dist. Cal. Case No. CV-09-2726, we sued the university affirmative action office on behalf of an employee for race discrimination and retaliation for the employee’s complaints about discrimination. The case settled before trial and the employee now works in a different department with higher pay.
Whistleblower Retaliation Cases
In August 2003 an Alameda Superior Court jury awarded substantial damages to our client, a Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) employee who suffered illegal retaliation for reporting waste and misuse of government funds. Tolchin v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al., Case No. C-833314-4.
In Diaz vs. County of Kern, Kern Superior Case No. 1500-CV-265776, we sued a county medical center after our client, the Chief Financial Officer, was wrongfully terminated as the result of his complaints that the CEO was engaged in financial improprieties. The case settled before trial.
In Fung vs. VVVC, San Francisco Case No. 09-495059, we represented an accountant who was demoted after he complained that the defendant was committing fraud in public contracts. The case settled before trial.
In Siudzinski vs. PG&E, San Francisco Superior Case No. CGC-09-487576, we represent an employee who was demoted after he complained that the company’s practices were putting low income customers at risk of brain damage and other injury from carbon monoxide poisoning. The case is scheduled for trial in January 2011.
Wage and Hour Class Actions
In Drolet, et al. vs. Williams, San Francisco Superior Case No. 413025, we sued on behalf of employees of an internet start-up for failure to pay wages. The case settled without the need for class certification with payment in full to the employees.
In Kuhlmann vs. Pechiney Plastic Packaging, No. Dist. Cal. Case No. C-02-02065, we sued on behalf of commission salesmen for failure to pay wages due. The case settled at mediation.
In Wahid and Saavedra vs. Nations, Alameda County Superior Court Nos. RG 05246866 and RG 08421015,we represented restaurant managers who had been misclassified as exempt and denied overtime as well as rest and meal breaks and thereby achieved a substantial settlement. We won the case at trial.
In Neu-Helms, et al. vs. UHS Delaware, Inc., Alameda Superior Court No. RGO 8425516, we represent a group of special education assistants who were compelled to waive their right to a lunch break allegedly by the nature of their work. We will be moving to certify a class in the near future.
In Kauffman, et al. vs. Bank of America, No. Dist. Cal. Case No. CV 09-04114 we represent personal bankers throughout California who were forced to work overtime in order to meet sales quotas but were not allowed to record the overtime and were not paid for it. The case was coordinated as part of a multi-district litigation in the District of Kansas, where we continue to pursue class claims on behalf of nonexempt Bank of America employees across the United States.
In Engle, et al. vs. Sanofi-Aventis, No. Dist. Cal. No. 3:10-cv-04141, we represent pharmaceutical sales people across California who were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay wrongfully. The case was recently filed.
Spareroom Studios | © 2011 Hoyer & Associates