Emma Leheny, Esq. to be CTA Chief Council
April 2010
At the April Board meeting
Emma Leheny was hired to be our
new Associate Executive Director/
Chief Counsel replacing Alice
O’Brien who is has gone to NEA.
Ms. Leheny is currently a Partner at
Rothner, Segall, Greenstone & Leheny,
one of our Group Legal Services
firms. She has represented CTA
members in dismissal and layoff proceedings,
filed writs and complaints
to enforce Education Code provisions,
regularly advised teachers, and pursued
labor board charges for CTA
chapters. Ms. Leheny has also prepared
draft legislation for various
public sector unions and provided
legal trainings for CTA staff and leaders
as well as presentations at UCLA
School of Law and Colorado Law
School on legal ethics and labor law.
April 2010
At the April Board meeting
Emma Leheny was hired to be our
new Associate Executive Director/
Chief Counsel replacing Alice
O’Brien who is has gone to NEA.
Ms. Leheny is currently a Partner at
Rothner, Segall, Greenstone & Leheny,
one of our Group Legal Services
firms. She has represented CTA
members in dismissal and layoff proceedings,
filed writs and complaints
to enforce Education Code provisions,
regularly advised teachers, and pursued
labor board charges for CTA
chapters. Ms. Leheny has also prepared
draft legislation for various
public sector unions and provided
legal trainings for CTA staff and leaders
as well as presentations at UCLA
School of Law and Colorado Law
School on legal ethics and labor law.
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Emma Leheny Chief Counsel
Legal Services, Summer
program UCLA
Legal Services, Summer
program UCLA
Chief Counsel Alice O’Brien
aobrien@cta.org replaced by
Emma Leheny in 2010 (served
briefly after Beverly Tucker
retired).
aobrien@cta.org replaced by
Emma Leheny in 2010 (served
briefly after Beverly Tucker
retired).
Emma Leheny supported Elizabeth
Schulman in suit regarding Maura
Larkins' case
Schulman in suit regarding Maura
Larkins' case
Settlements reached in reality TV labor suits
By Steve Gorman
Jan 21, 2009
(Reuters) - Several major U.S. TV networks and the producers of such reality
shows as "Trading Spouses" and "The Bachelor" have agreed to pay over $4
million to settle two lawsuits claiming violations of California wage rules.
The settlement will benefit more than 400 workers who were part of the 3-
year-old class-action cases, and some of those individuals stand to reap tens
of thousands of dollars, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Emma Leheny, said on
Wednesday.
In addition to "Trading Spouses" and "The Bachelor," the shows covered by
the suits included "The Will," "Are You Hot?", "Joe Millionaire" and "My Big
Fat Obnoxious Fiance."
The litigation coincided with a broader ongoing effort by the Writers Guild of
America to obtain a labor contract for the creative workers behind unscripted
TV productions as a whole, such as "American Idol" and "Survivor."
Some of those programs rank among the biggest hits on U.S. television and
are far cheaper to produce than traditional prime-time dramas and sitcoms.
The suits claimed reality show employees routinely put in as much as
80 hours a week without overtime, were denied work breaks for
meals and were forced to falsify their time cards, all in violation of
state wage and hour laws.
"We really found pervasive violations," Leheny told Reuters. "It seems to be a
system based on the underpayment of workers in an industry where
employers are looking to save money and speed up production, create very
profitable shows, and the people who are shortchanged are these
employees."
A spokeswoman for lawyers representing the defendant companies declined
comment. Defendants included the networks CBS, ABC and Fox, and the
production companies Rocket Science Laboratories and Next Entertainment.
A Writers Guild spokesman, Jeff Hermanson, said the violations cited in the
two class-action cases "were just the tip of the iceberg."
"There are literally thousands of people suffering the same abuses," he said.
"Not only do they not receive overtime and meal breaks, they don't have
health insurance or pensions, credits or residuals."
In addition to the legal settlement, some reality TV workers have collected
hundreds of thousands of dollars through separate complaints filed with the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Hermanson said.
The Writers Guild sought to gain union jurisdiction over reality shows in its
last round of contract negotiations but dropped that demand in settling its 14-
week strike against major studios.
The WGA says roughly 1,000 reality TV "story-tellers" have signed
authorization cards asking for union representation.
Industry executives deny those employees act as writers because they do
not, for the most part, pen conventional scripts or dialogue.
But the union says they serve the functional equivalent of writers by working
to create dramatic tension -- and the artifice of spontaneity -- by helping to
stage interactions of contestants and editing hundreds of hours of tape into
coherent, compelling story lines.
(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Cynthia Osterman)
Guild Lawyers Can Represent Writers in ‘Reality’
TV Suits—C.A.
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
May 30, 2008
A Pasadena law firm does not have a disqualifying conflict in representing
non-union television writers who are suing for labor law violations, while also
representing the union that is trying to organize those writers, this district’s
Court of Appeal has ruled.
Div. Three Wednesday affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Conrad
R. Aragon’s denial of a motion to disqualify the firm of Rothner, Segall &
Greenstone from representing 21 writers who have brought a class action
against producers of “reality” television shows. The plaintiffs claim that
producers failed to pay wages and overtime, and to provide meal and rest
breaks, among other things.
The plaintiffs’ lead counsel is Emma Leheny of the Rothner firm. A name
partner in the firm, Anthony Segall, also serves as general counsel for the
Writers Guild of America.
In 2005, Segall and Leheny began discussions with writers about the
possibility of wage-and-hour suits against producers and networks, which the
guild would finance. Each of the writers who agreed to become class action
plaintiffs acknowledged in writing that the guild would be paying their legal
costs and that the attorneys representing them also represented the guild.
Motion to Disqualify
In moving to disqualify the Rothner firm, the defendants argued that they had
an irreconcilable conflict because the writers, in particular those who were not
named as plaintiffs, had an interest in resolving their differences with the
defendants that was incompatible with the guild’s interest in unionizing them.
The firm responded that all plaintiffs had signed waivers; that the guild had
acknowledged that the plaintiffs controlled the litigation and that for purposes
of suit, the plaintiffs and not the guild were the firm’s clients; that Segall was
not involved in the litigation and had not discussed it with the attorneys
handling it; and that independent co-counsel, who would not be paid by the
guild, had been associated.
In addition, all counsel working on the suits declared in writing that they would
not do guild work while the litigation was pending.
Aragon ruled that as long as ethical walls were maintained, the firm could
continue to work on the case. He also denied the defendants’ related motion
to disqualify the plaintiffs from representing the class.
Justice Richard Aldrich, writing for the Court of Appeal, said Aragon was
correct as a matter of law.
Consistent With Rule
The measures taken to avoid conflicts were consistent with Rule 3-310 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct, and the waivers signed by the plaintiffs were
sufficient, Aldrich said.
He wrote:
“The motion to disqualify here is not brought by one of the parties who may
suffer because of a purported conflict, but by opposition parties who are not
directly touched by the purported conflict. Disqualification of the Rothner firm
may impose a significant hardship on plaintiffs, who will bear the burden on
finding replacement counsel with the skills and knowledge of the Rothner
firm, a firm that already has expended more than 1,000 hours on the case,
including the review of more than 8,000 pages of documents over seven
months...As such, we must be skeptical of the impetus and purpose of
defendants’ motion to disqualify the Rothner firm because it poses the very
threat to the integrity of the judicial process that it purports to prevent.”
As for whether the named plaintiffs can effectively represent the absent class
members, the justice went on to say, that issue must be resolved in
connection with a motion for class certification, not by a preemptive motion to
disqualify.
The case is Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc., B194374.
By Steve Gorman
Jan 21, 2009
(Reuters) - Several major U.S. TV networks and the producers of such reality
shows as "Trading Spouses" and "The Bachelor" have agreed to pay over $4
million to settle two lawsuits claiming violations of California wage rules.
The settlement will benefit more than 400 workers who were part of the 3-
year-old class-action cases, and some of those individuals stand to reap tens
of thousands of dollars, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Emma Leheny, said on
Wednesday.
In addition to "Trading Spouses" and "The Bachelor," the shows covered by
the suits included "The Will," "Are You Hot?", "Joe Millionaire" and "My Big
Fat Obnoxious Fiance."
The litigation coincided with a broader ongoing effort by the Writers Guild of
America to obtain a labor contract for the creative workers behind unscripted
TV productions as a whole, such as "American Idol" and "Survivor."
Some of those programs rank among the biggest hits on U.S. television and
are far cheaper to produce than traditional prime-time dramas and sitcoms.
The suits claimed reality show employees routinely put in as much as
80 hours a week without overtime, were denied work breaks for
meals and were forced to falsify their time cards, all in violation of
state wage and hour laws.
"We really found pervasive violations," Leheny told Reuters. "It seems to be a
system based on the underpayment of workers in an industry where
employers are looking to save money and speed up production, create very
profitable shows, and the people who are shortchanged are these
employees."
A spokeswoman for lawyers representing the defendant companies declined
comment. Defendants included the networks CBS, ABC and Fox, and the
production companies Rocket Science Laboratories and Next Entertainment.
A Writers Guild spokesman, Jeff Hermanson, said the violations cited in the
two class-action cases "were just the tip of the iceberg."
"There are literally thousands of people suffering the same abuses," he said.
"Not only do they not receive overtime and meal breaks, they don't have
health insurance or pensions, credits or residuals."
In addition to the legal settlement, some reality TV workers have collected
hundreds of thousands of dollars through separate complaints filed with the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Hermanson said.
The Writers Guild sought to gain union jurisdiction over reality shows in its
last round of contract negotiations but dropped that demand in settling its 14-
week strike against major studios.
The WGA says roughly 1,000 reality TV "story-tellers" have signed
authorization cards asking for union representation.
Industry executives deny those employees act as writers because they do
not, for the most part, pen conventional scripts or dialogue.
But the union says they serve the functional equivalent of writers by working
to create dramatic tension -- and the artifice of spontaneity -- by helping to
stage interactions of contestants and editing hundreds of hours of tape into
coherent, compelling story lines.
(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Cynthia Osterman)
Guild Lawyers Can Represent Writers in ‘Reality’
TV Suits—C.A.
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
May 30, 2008
A Pasadena law firm does not have a disqualifying conflict in representing
non-union television writers who are suing for labor law violations, while also
representing the union that is trying to organize those writers, this district’s
Court of Appeal has ruled.
Div. Three Wednesday affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Conrad
R. Aragon’s denial of a motion to disqualify the firm of Rothner, Segall &
Greenstone from representing 21 writers who have brought a class action
against producers of “reality” television shows. The plaintiffs claim that
producers failed to pay wages and overtime, and to provide meal and rest
breaks, among other things.
The plaintiffs’ lead counsel is Emma Leheny of the Rothner firm. A name
partner in the firm, Anthony Segall, also serves as general counsel for the
Writers Guild of America.
In 2005, Segall and Leheny began discussions with writers about the
possibility of wage-and-hour suits against producers and networks, which the
guild would finance. Each of the writers who agreed to become class action
plaintiffs acknowledged in writing that the guild would be paying their legal
costs and that the attorneys representing them also represented the guild.
Motion to Disqualify
In moving to disqualify the Rothner firm, the defendants argued that they had
an irreconcilable conflict because the writers, in particular those who were not
named as plaintiffs, had an interest in resolving their differences with the
defendants that was incompatible with the guild’s interest in unionizing them.
The firm responded that all plaintiffs had signed waivers; that the guild had
acknowledged that the plaintiffs controlled the litigation and that for purposes
of suit, the plaintiffs and not the guild were the firm’s clients; that Segall was
not involved in the litigation and had not discussed it with the attorneys
handling it; and that independent co-counsel, who would not be paid by the
guild, had been associated.
In addition, all counsel working on the suits declared in writing that they would
not do guild work while the litigation was pending.
Aragon ruled that as long as ethical walls were maintained, the firm could
continue to work on the case. He also denied the defendants’ related motion
to disqualify the plaintiffs from representing the class.
Justice Richard Aldrich, writing for the Court of Appeal, said Aragon was
correct as a matter of law.
Consistent With Rule
The measures taken to avoid conflicts were consistent with Rule 3-310 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct, and the waivers signed by the plaintiffs were
sufficient, Aldrich said.
He wrote:
“The motion to disqualify here is not brought by one of the parties who may
suffer because of a purported conflict, but by opposition parties who are not
directly touched by the purported conflict. Disqualification of the Rothner firm
may impose a significant hardship on plaintiffs, who will bear the burden on
finding replacement counsel with the skills and knowledge of the Rothner
firm, a firm that already has expended more than 1,000 hours on the case,
including the review of more than 8,000 pages of documents over seven
months...As such, we must be skeptical of the impetus and purpose of
defendants’ motion to disqualify the Rothner firm because it poses the very
threat to the integrity of the judicial process that it purports to prevent.”
As for whether the named plaintiffs can effectively represent the absent class
members, the justice went on to say, that issue must be resolved in
connection with a motion for class certification, not by a preemptive motion to
disqualify.
The case is Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc., B194374.
Northeastern University School of
Law
400 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
Summer 2005 issue
Class of 1997
Emma Leheny has been named a
partner at the Pasadena, Calif.,
office of Rothner, Segall &
Greenstone. The firm specializes
in representing public and private
sector labor unions and plaintiffs
in civil rights and employment
litigation.
Law
400 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
Summer 2005 issue
Class of 1997
Emma Leheny has been named a
partner at the Pasadena, Calif.,
office of Rothner, Segall &
Greenstone. The firm specializes
in representing public and private
sector labor unions and plaintiffs
in civil rights and employment
litigation.
Emma Leheny
Rothner Segall Greenstone & Leheny
History
B.A. with honors, Brown University,
1992
Extern, Hon. Thelton Henderson,
(then) Chief Judge, N.D. Cal., 1995
J.D., Northeastern University School
of Law, 1997
Judicial Clerk, Hon. Warren Ferguson,
(then) Senior Judge, 9th Circuit,
1997-98
Skadden Fellow, Western Center on
Law and Poverty, 1998-2000
Associate, Rothner, Segall &
Greenstone, 2000-2004
Partner, Rothner, Segall &
Greenstone, 2005-2008
Partner, Rothner, Segall, Greenstone
& Leheny, 2009
Memberships
Member, Labor & Employment Exec.
Comm'ee, L.A. County Bar Ass'n,
2007-Present
Presenter, ABA Labor & Employment
Section (2009), California Teachers
Association (2008), California Public
Employment Relations (2007),
AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating
Committee (2006), and California
Labor & Employment Section (2004)
Featured as subject of book chapter
in Beyond the Big Firm: Profiles of
Lawyers Who Want Something More,
ed. Stanford Law School professors
Alan Morrison and Diane Chin (2007)
Contributor, Labor & Employment
Journal (2003-2007)
Contributor, Developing Labor Law
(2002)
Rothner Segall Greenstone & Leheny
History
B.A. with honors, Brown University,
1992
Extern, Hon. Thelton Henderson,
(then) Chief Judge, N.D. Cal., 1995
J.D., Northeastern University School
of Law, 1997
Judicial Clerk, Hon. Warren Ferguson,
(then) Senior Judge, 9th Circuit,
1997-98
Skadden Fellow, Western Center on
Law and Poverty, 1998-2000
Associate, Rothner, Segall &
Greenstone, 2000-2004
Partner, Rothner, Segall &
Greenstone, 2005-2008
Partner, Rothner, Segall, Greenstone
& Leheny, 2009
Memberships
Member, Labor & Employment Exec.
Comm'ee, L.A. County Bar Ass'n,
2007-Present
Presenter, ABA Labor & Employment
Section (2009), California Teachers
Association (2008), California Public
Employment Relations (2007),
AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating
Committee (2006), and California
Labor & Employment Section (2004)
Featured as subject of book chapter
in Beyond the Big Firm: Profiles of
Lawyers Who Want Something More,
ed. Stanford Law School professors
Alan Morrison and Diane Chin (2007)
Contributor, Labor & Employment
Journal (2003-2007)
Contributor, Developing Labor Law
(2002)