Source: http://www.paulhastings.com/professionals/details/paulcane
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:50:14+00:00

Document:
Paul Cane is a partner in the Employment Law practice of Paul Hastings and is based in the firm’s San Francisco office. Mr. Cane represents management in employment matters. His principal focus is major motions and appeals.
Mr. Cane has briefed and argued numerous cases in the state and federal courts of appeals, including the California Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court. He has a special expertise in appeals involving pre-dispute arbitration agreements. Mr. Cane is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the California Law Review. Before joining Paul Hastings in 1981, he served as law clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Argued and won a unanimous decision in the California Supreme Court for Forever 21 (Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016).) The Court enforced the company’s pre-dispute arbitration agreement and overruled several prior court of appeal cases that lower courts had used to invalidate such agreements.
Argued and won a unanimous decision in the U.S. Supreme Court for Sprint Nextel (Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn (2008).) The Supreme Court then reversed a Tenth Circuit decision that had held that trial courts must admit so-called “me, too” evidence: witnesses who would testify that they believe that they, too, were discriminated against by the defendant, but who lack a close factual nexus to the plaintiff and plaintiff’s decisionmaker. (This case was Mr. Cane’s second U.S. Supreme Court victory. The Supreme Court earlier granted review, and then ruled in favor of his client, in a disability-discrimination case, Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez (2003).) In Sprint, on remand from the Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit in 2010 unanimously reinstated a jury verdict in Sprint’s favor.
Persuaded the California Court of Appeal to overturn a $12.9 million verdict initially awarded against a Sun Microsystems subsidiary, in a case tried by another firm. The plaintiff, a commissioned technology salesman, claimed he was owed back wages and had been wrongfully terminated in retaliation for complaining about the issue. The appellate court granted judgment as a matter of law to the defendant, and the plaintiff paid $110,000 in fees and costs to the defendant. (Marx v. Storage Technology Corp. (2006)).
Achieved a post-trial verdict reduction, from $18.4 million to $2.4 million, for Safeway, in another case tried by another firm. Plaintiff was a grocery clerk who claimed harassment and retaliation. (Stevens v. Safeway, Inc. (2007)).
Argued and/or briefed many well-known precedents in the California state courts (including the California Supreme Court) and federal courts of appeals around the country, including Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Harris v. City of Santa Monica, Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co., Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc., Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, Green v. State of California, King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Dotson v. Amgen Inc., and Rhea v. General Atomics.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.