For over 40 years, Paul L. Bressan focused his practice on labor and employment law, and representing management. Preceding his retirement in 2020, Mr. Bressan practiced before federal and state courts and the National Labor Relations Board, and represented clients in proceedings before various agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state employment agencies throughout the United States.

Mr. Bressan has defended cases involving race, national origin, disability, sex and age discrimination, compensation claims, sexual harassment and wrongful termination matters. He has advised both large and small companies on policies and procedures to follow to avoid these types of litigation and that provide a solid defense in the event that litigation does ensue. He also represented clients in negotiating collective bargaining agreements and arbitrations, and advised clients on the preparation of personnel policies and strategies.

Mr. Bressan is AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubbell and selected as a 2013 Top Rated Lawyer in Labor & Employment by American Lawyer Media in conjunction with Martindale Hubbell.

Bar Admissions

• California
• New York

Education

• Columbia Law School
• Fordham University

Significant Accomplishments
<p>Mr. Bressan’s published opinions include:</p><ul><li><em>Californians for Population Stabilization v. Tata Sons Limited, et al</em>., 58 Cal. App. 4th 273 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 1997)</li><li><em>Fortino, et al. v. Quasar Co</em>., 950 F.2d 389 (7th Cir. 1991)</li><li><em>Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co</em>., 586 F. Supp. 1341 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)</li><li><em>Donovan v. Burger King Corp</em>., 675 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1982) (Second Chair)</li><li><em>Donovan v. Burger King Corp</em>., 672 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1982) (Second Chair)</li></ul>

• Buchalter COVID-19 Client Alert: San Francisco Moves to Lowest COVID Tier in California, Begins Process of Reopening Non-Essential Offices; Other Bay Area Counties Slower to Follow

  By Paul L. Bressan |November 2020

Additional Articles

• Ninth Circuit Changes Course and Asks the California Supreme Court to Decide Whether the Dynamex Decision is Retroactive
• California Becomes the First State to Ban Employment Discrimination Based on Hairstyle
• Your “On-Call” Scheduling Policy May Trigger Reporting Time Pay For Employees In California, Buchalter Client Alert, February 25 2019
• California Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Doctrine for Off-The-Clock Work Claims
• Employers, Take Notice: New Employment Laws May Affect Your Business, Buchalter Client Alert, December 13 2017
• Another Year, Another Set of Laws: What California Employers Should Know
• Federal Judge Blocks Department of Labor’s Overtime Rule
• Time to Act – Employers Have Fewer than Six Months to Comply With New Federal Overtime Exemption Rule
• U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Department of Labor’s Interpretation on Overtime Pay for Mortgage Loan Officers
• Anti-Money Laundering and Bank Secrecy Act: Are You in Compliance?
• Attention California Employers: New Employment Laws Affecting Your Business Take Effect on January 1, 2016
• Preparing for 2016: The Fair Pay Act
• Who Are My Employees?
• Brinker: Meal and Rest Periods Clarified, But…
• Amended Disability Regulations: The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission Clarifies “Interactive Process” for Disabled Employees
• Amended Pregnancy Regulations Expand Protections for Employees Disabled by Pregnancy or Perceived as Pregnant
• Attention California Employers: New Employment Laws Affecting Your Business Take Effect on January 1, 2013, Buchalter Nemer Client Alert; California Apparel News, November 2012