Photo of Kristalyn Lee

Kristalyn represents businesses in employment disputes and litigation before various governmental agencies, in state and federal court, arbitration, and pre-litigation resolution. Her employment practice focuses on defending employers in disputes involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wage and hour claims (including the Private Attorney General Act). Kristalyn also provides preventive advice and counseling to employers regarding all employment practices, including drafting and auditing employee policies, preparing employment and severance agreements, conducting workplace investigations, and evaluating personnel decisions. Kristalyn has assumed an active role in advising California clients on COVID-19-related employment practices and issues, including workplace safety (Cal/OSHA), family and sick leave management, and quarantine and shelter-in-place orders.

Beginning January 1, 2020, California law (known as AB 51) makes it a criminal misdemeanor for employers to require arbitration as a condition of employment. The law specifically prohibits mandatory arbitration of claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (such as for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation) and claims

On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into effect the much-anticipated AB-5 Bill, which imposes heightened standards when assessing whether to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. AB-5 will drastically affect California employers with workforces heavily reliant on independent contractors by forcing them to re-classify

On September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an aggrieved employee bringing a representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cannot recover unpaid wages. In ZB N.A. v. Superior Court, the plaintiff, Kalethia Lawson, brought a lawsuit alleging a sole cause of action under PAGA.

In a 2-1 ruling on February 4, 2019, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals expanded requirements for reporting time pay by ruling that a California employer would owe reporting time pay if it requires an employee to call in to confirm a scheduled on-call shift, even