Howard M. Knee
|Los Angeles, CA||v. +1.424.239.3439||f. +1.424.239.3414|
Mr. Knee, a partner in Los Angeles, has more than 40 years of experience in labor and employment law. He advises employers in all aspects of labor and employment matters in both the private and public sectors, including for both large and small clients.
He has a broad range of federal and state trial and appellate court experience defending clients in employment discrimination and wrongful termination disputes; defending wage and hour class action lawsuits; and handling trade secret, unfair competition, and ERISA litigation.
Mr. Knee also represents management in traditional labor work, including proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, union organizing campaigns and collective bargaining negotiations.
He has handled cases before the U.S. and California Supreme Courts.
Mr. Knee has interned for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Los Angeles, was a Ford Foundation Fellow at The Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington, D.C., and served as a legislative assistant in the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Knee was elected as a Fellow of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers in 2015 and was recognized by The Daily Journal as one of California's top 75 labor and employment lawyers for 2014. He has also been a Super Lawyer for the past ten years.
*Manhart v. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Water and Power, 435 U.S. 702 (1978) (holding in class action sex discrimination lawsuit that Los Angeles Department of Water and Power violated Title VII by requiring female employees to contribute more to its pension plan than male employees, even though females as a class live longer than males as a class).
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Hoffman v. Construction Protective Services, Inc., 541 F.3d 1175 (9 Cir. 2008) (in collective action brought pursuant to the FSLA, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of damages of 66 opt-in plaintiffs for failing to comply with the voluntary disclosure provisions of Rule 26).
Sanchez v. Minson Corp., 96 Fed. Appx. 492, 2004 WL 886908 (9 Cir. 2004) (denying employee’s petition for writ of certiorari seeking to overturn trial court’s dismissal of discrimination action for failure to complete service of process).
N.L.R.B. v. HMO Intern./California Medical Group Health Plan, Inc., 678 Fd.2d 806 (9 Cir. 1982) (employer’s petition for review granted, and NLRB’s petition to enforce order denied, on ground that it was serious administrative error by NLRB to decline to evaluate employer’s non-proliferation argument in support of its request for joint licensed vocational nurse-registered nurse bargaining unit).
*Manhart v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 652 F.2d 904 (1981) (upholding award of $165,000 in attorney’s fees for litigating U. S. Supreme Court case and for time spent litigating fee issue itself in district court and on appeal).
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Barnes, 571 F.2d 502, 1 Employee Benefits Cas. 1471 (9 Cir. 1978) (holding that action by California Commissioner of Corporations requiring employee benefit plans to comply with state law was pre-empted by ERISA).
U. S. District Court
Clopton v. Global Computer Associates, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp. 1995 WL 419831, 4 A.D.Cases 360, 6 NDLR P 275, C.D. Cal., March 27, 1995 (No. Cv-94-4819 DT (AJWX) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment on ground that employer was not subject to Fair Employment and Housing Act because it did not regularly employ 5 or more persons in California, even though it employed 5 or more persons nationwide).
California Court of Appeal
Lockhart v. MVM, Inc., 175 Cal.App.4th 1452 (2009) (affirming summary judgment in favor of employer in action for discrimination and retaliation brought by former employee of federal contractor that provided staffing for Immigration and Naturalization Service on ground that barred by federal enclave doctrine).
Ross v. Wesco Aircraft, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 2002 WL 31546497, Not Officially Published, Cal.App.2 Dist., November 18, 2002 (No. B154200) (
In Royal Creations, Inc., and International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, Local 1010, Furniture Workers Division, 94 L.A. 48 (1989) (arbitration decision holding that union was stopped from challenging financially troubled employer’s plan to lay off all but better workers in order to run plant more efficiently and avoid closing plant, where union was consulted about plan, employer would not have agreed to keep plant open absent union’s agreement to the plan, and union’s approval of employee retention and layoff list led employer to believe that it had accepted that layoffs on selected basis were preferable to closing plant).
*Represented Plaintiff Class
COMMUNITY SERVICE & AFFILIATIONS
In 2015, Mr. Knee was elected as a Fellow of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers.