Spring 2017

CMCP Diversity Matters
Spring 2017 Newsletter
MINORITY
Spring 2017

Spring 2017 Newsletter
2017 eNewsletter Committee Members
Cassandra Mougin
(Co-Chair)
Shareholder
Pettit Kohn Ingrassia &
Lutz, PC
Karen A. Henry
(Co-Chair)
Counsel
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Michael Chung
Of Counsel
Willenken Wilson Loh &
Delgado LLP
Gagandeep B. Kaur
Associate
Reed Smith LLP
Sweta Patel
Partner
Klein, Hockel, Iezza & Patel P.C.
Kelly Perigoe
Associate
Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC
David A. Shimkin
Member
Cozen O’Connor
Julia Y. Trankiem
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
Jonathan M. Turner
Partner
Mitchell Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
Raffi Zerounian
Partner
Hanson Bridgett LLP
1

CMCP Diversity Matters
Table of Contents
page 3
page 6
page 9
Letter From The Executive Director:
It’s Not Just Business
Attorney Spotlight
Lindbergh Porter
Fate Of Enjoined White Collar Overtime Rule Still
Undecided
page 12
An Overview of Ban the Box Laws in California
page 16
page 18
page 20
page 22
page 24
What’s in a Name? A Battle for a Transgender
Immigrant’s Rights
The LCLD Fellows Program: Building Relationships
and Leadership Skills
Demystifying Business Development, for
Associates and Beyond
The CMCP Board Speaks:
How Connections Really Work
Diversity Calendar
Mark Your Calendars for Upcoming Diversity Events
2

Spring 2017 Newsletter
LETTER FROM
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
It’s Not Just Business
Dear CMCP Community,
Greetings! It’s spring, the sun is out, the rain has backed off, and summer
vacations are on the horizon. For CMCP it’s a period for growth and high
energy: planning for the 2017 Annual Business Conference is already
underway, we are thrilled to offer quality events and programs in each of our
regions, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orange County, San Diego and Silicon
Valley, with more on the drawing board.
Robert White
CMCP Executive Director
Get out from behind your desk and come to a CMCP program! With the
support of member firms that have offered to host programs we have a rich
offering in store including “Get Your Swagger On” in Los Angeles (presentation
and business development skills), “Getting to Helpful” in Orange County
(working with in-house counsel) and “Mind the Gap” in San Francisco (wage
disparities under California employment law). Stay tuned for more programs
in the works including one on high-stakes presentations in San Francisco
given by an acting coach, a networking mixer in San Diego, and it would be
great to see you as we greet the new CMCP Ambassadors on April 18th in Palo
Alto.
Hopefully you’ve seen the video generously produced for CMCP pro
bono by a team at Allen Matkins, available on CMCP’s website. They did
a great job interviewing attorneys across CMCP’s membership, and what
comes across more than anything is how consistent the interviewees were in
describing the sense of community they felt.
In these fractious times that sense of community and shared values in the
CMCP community is even more important. CMCP’s strength and longevity
don’t come just from its impressive list of corporate and law firm members. It
comes from the authenticity of the personal relationships that have formed
under its mantle of advancing diversity in the legal profession.
I talked with a friend, also a Golden State Warriors fan, about some news
about the team: they had traded a popular player, not a star but someone
who was liked in the locker room, and popular with fans. The players
3

CMCP Diversity Matters
interviewed were philosophical. Trades are part of business as usual for a
professional athlete. The coach expressed regret about having to make tough
decisions. All were muted, eyes downcast.
As we talked about what it must be like for the team, my friend captured it
succinctly – “the league is about business, the team is about family.” As CMCP
members go about our business of servicing our internal and external clients
and developing practices and business relationships with each other, we’ve
been remarkably successful in maintaining a culture of collaboration and
shared values on the necessity of diversity and equal opportunity. Thanks
and congratulations to all of you who make CMCP special.
In the coming months you will see and hear more about CMCP’s evolving role
in connecting and helping legal departments and law firms work together
and independently on diversifying the legal field. Some of that work will
emphasize the business advantages of involvement with CMCP and the
business case for diversity as we develop more metrics of diversity at work.
But to paraphrase the words of Mike Moye, General Counsel of Alameda
Health Systems, as we prepared for a GC panel at the 2016 Annual Business
Conference – “let’s not forget about supporting diversity simply because it’s
the right thing to do regardless of the business case.”
For many of the professionals in our community, including those who wanted
a new direction in political leadership, these are challenging times. Speaking
for myself, the last few months have been hard, mentally and emotionally,
as the communities I care about and in some cases which I’ve come from are
confronted with changes and threatened changes in law and policy affecting
immigration, education, civil rights, privacy, healthcare and support of legal
services, to name just some areas, that will have long-term and in my opinion
destructive impact. I know others feel the same because I’ve spoken with
attorneys who say so – and that they are not comfortable talking at work
about how they are impacted personally. And so they and we are silent,
which is its own burden.
I salute and thank those firms in the CMCP community that have supported
the work of the ACLU (notably Keker Van Nest), provided research for amicus
briefs to protect constitutional rights, contributed to legal services nonprofits,
and encouraged their attorneys to do increased amounts of pro bono work
to help populations at risk. Kudos to the many individuals, such as the panel
for our program on the impact of the new administration in February (Aileen
Casanave at Jiff Inc., Paul Henderson at the SF Mayor’s Office, Warrington
Parker at Orrick, and Wilson White at Google), who have found ways to talk
about both personal and professional connection to the issues and practical,
Continued on next page…
4

Spring 2017 Newsletter
constructive ways to effect change and protect communities. Kudos to
Miriam Kim at Munger Tolles & Olson and President of Asian American Bar
Association of the Greater Bay Area for bringing Khizr Khan and wonderful
speakers at the AABA Annual Dinner to “Stand Up for Justice,” and to the
many other diversity and community leaders who have been doing great
work. I am proud to have all of them in the CMCP family.
We are faced with a real opportunity right now to find ways to continue to
effectively represent our internal and external clients without compromising
our commitment to creating a more just society. The call for making the legal
profession more inclusive and fair has become even more urgent. As counsel,
we are advisors that bring a view beyond profitability; we can point out
human consequences, positioning the client to proceed both with minimal
or well-understood risk of litigation and in alignment with principles of
corporate social responsibility.
It’s been well documented that diverse teams are more creative problemsolvers
than homogeneous teams and our efforts to build diverse legal teams
help business. Let’s go from being the least diverse profession in the country
to one that serves as a role model and a tool that makes businesses better.
Finally, counsel have more influence when they speak with the moral
authority that comes from acting fairly and with integrity in their own affairs.
There is a huge opportunity in the business and legal communities right now
for a different kind of leadership, a socially conscious and moral leadership
that transcends the business case for diversity and embraces responsibility
for our obligations as community members, professionals, and as human
beings, to work for a more just society. That leadership needs to take place
at all levels, not just at the helms of firms and legal departments; your active
involvement in community service, pro bono and diversity efforts, matters.
Let us as a community work across our political differences and keep our
eyes on the prize: a profession we can be proud of where each individual has
equal opportunity and access for growth.
I look forward to our work together,
Robert
5

CMCP Diversity Matters
ATTORNEY
SPOTLIGHT ON
LINDBERGH PORTER, Chairperson of the Board, Littler Mendelson P.C.
By: Gagandeep B. Kaur, Associate, Reed Smith LLP
Lindbergh Porter began his career at Littler
Mendelson, a premier employment and labor
law firm, as a summer associate. At that time,
he did not plan to stay at Littler for more than three
decades and become the Chairperson of Littler’s
Board of Directors. However, one tether to the
community after another kept Lindbergh at Littler
and in California.
Lindbergh grew up in rural Holmes County,
Mississippi, a small farming community of 3000
inhabitants. He attended segregated K-12 schools as
various efforts to desegregate schools only started to
reach rural Mississippi when Lindbergh was getting
ready to graduate from high school and attend the
University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana. In this
environment, Lindbergh recalls his parents were
undoubtedly his role models. He viewed his father
as someone who “could do anything, who could
fix anything, who could make anything right.” His
mother was “a real independent thinker, planned
things and thought three, four steps ahead.” Together
his parents provided him and his sibling the security
and safe environment they needed.
During his first or second year at the University of
Illinois, Lindbergh decided to go to law school.
He noted “this was 1968, close to the height
of the student movement protests regarding
Vietnam, obviously the civil rights movement, the
assassination of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy.
Those were the things that were searing to someone
who was 17 or 18 years old.” These events shifted
Lindbergh’s attention from math courses and
becoming an engineer to social science, political
science, history and economic courses and of course,
law school.
Even when Lindbergh was pursuing his
undergraduate degree, he stayed involved and in
touch with home – Mississippi. He continued to
go home during the breaks and participated in a
program promoting adult education. After graduating
from the University of Illinois, as planned, Lindbergh
returned to Mississippi to be close to his family and
attend Ole Miss Law School. However, at the last
Continued on next page…
6

Spring 2017 Newsletter
minute Lindbergh decided to move to California,
where he attended business school and got married
before attending the University of San Francisco,
School of Law.
Lindbergh approached law school with a level of
practicality – it was a means to an end. Therefore, he
did not focus on the negatives of being in law school.
He recalls “whatever occurred in law school, however
tough it got or seemed to have been, I knew it was
necessary for me to get where I wanted to go.
I didn’t have any doubt that I’d become a lawyer
and so being in law school was just part of that.”
Nevertheless, Lindbergh’s innate interest in diversity
and inclusion issues resulted in Lindbergh becoming
involved in battles with the law school administration
to do more and faster to admit minority and women
students, and hire diverse faculty. Lindbergh’s
involvement to push the needle on diversity and
inclusion continued during his tenure at Littler
through his involvement in Littler’s diversity and
inclusion program and hiring committee.
Between his second and third year of law school,
Lindbergh clerked at Littler and joined the firm as
a first-year associate after he graduated from law
school. He chose Littler because it offered immediate
opportunities to get into court, try cases, prepare
witnesses and learn pre-trial discovery. When asked
to describe his interest in Labor and Employment
law, Lindbergh notes over time, “the cases, the
people and the dynamics of human relations capture
you” and keep you engaged in the practice.
Nevertheless, the practice of law came with its
challenges for Lindbergh including dealing with
clients, opposing counsel, and judges who were not
accustomed to working with a lawyer of color and
questioned his competency. Lindbergh recalls “you
would go into a room and the client is there and the
judge assumes that the client’s the lawyer and that
you’re the client or you’re some other relationship.
Or going to a deposition and the opposing counsel
assumed that I was a paralegal. And I didn’t say
anything. I just said, ok, fine. Let’s swear the witness
in. I’ll just ask questions until the real lawyer comes.”
In addition to mastering the lawyering skills,
Lindbergh noted that as a lawyer of color you had
to be thoughtful and strategic about addressing
some of the stereotypes and presumptions that were
prevalent about minority and women attorneys, and
take charge of your own career and success.
Aside from a six to seven year break to work at Allen
Matkins, Lindbergh spent his entire career at Littler.
Lindbergh says there are a number of reasons that
kept him at Littler. He respects his colleagues and
their work and overtime, he became friends with
his colleagues and got to know their families and
children. Littler has provided him an opportunity to
design his own practice and the support he needed
for his community engagements.
Lindbergh notes “I was not expecting to be elected
Chair. But I was prepared for it and so I stepped into
the role and I become the Chair.” Lindbergh looks
forward to using this opportunity to expand Littler’s
presence on the international front and continue
his commitment to advancing lawyers of color and
women in the legal industry. As the Chair, he expects
to have more direct involvement in Littler’s diversity
and inclusion program – to look at statistics, see what
is being accomplished and make suggestions on
where Littler can make improvements.
He would like to expand and export Littler’s multiyear
Career Advocacy Program (CAP) model to other
firms. For the past five or six years, CAP has been
pairing advocates, senior attorneys who are wellregarded
in their practice area and are known for
their business acumen with protégées, attorneys who
are have been at Littler for some time and exhibited
promising potential to become shareholders. In
addition, each protégé has a champion, another
attorney at a law firm or a general counsel from
one of Littler’s clients. In addition to the annual
meeting of protégées, champions and advocates,
each champion makes time to get to know his or her
protégé and focus on a number of discussion topics
such as practice development, alternative careers,
7

CMCP Diversity Matters eNewsletter – Spring 2017 Issue CMCP Diversity Matters
career advocacy and business development. While
CAP is time-consuming and requires resources,
Lindbergh states it very important for the firm and
the profession. To that end, Littler makes an effort to
recognize those who contribute to CAP.
When it comes to advancing diversity and inclusion
efforts, Lindbergh notes that it takes a “menu of
things” on the part of a law firm. It includes diversity
and inclusion programs; the leadership’s involvement
in the hiring committee and diversity programs;
accountability for recruiting; hiring and retaining
diverse talent; funding for programs; involvement
by everyone in diversity and women's leadership
programs; and recognition of those who are
contributing to the firm’s efforts.
Lindbergh notes that CMCP is a great resource for
law firms and institutions interested in advancing
diversity. It is a one-stop shop for learning about
programs, initiatives, and connecting with minority,
women and LGBQT attorneys.
For clients interested in promoting diversity and
inclusion, Lindbergh’s advice is to have minority
and women attorneys interact with law firms, hire
and evaluate law firms based on the firm’s efforts
to promote diversity, require regular reporting on
attorneys who are working on the client’s matters,
systematically follow-up with the attorneys working
on the matters, and ultimately vote with your feet.
His advice to young attorneys is to do good work and
seize whatever opportunity that comes your way. He
is firm believer that if you decide what you want to do
and go for it, regardless of what somebody says, then
people will help you reach your goal.
Gagandeep B. Kaur is an associate at Reed Smith
LLP in San Francisco. She works on a variety of
transactional and litigation matters involving real
estate, energy and natural resources, healthcare,
and financial services. For more info about Gagan,
click here.
8

Spring 2017 Newsletter
Fate Of Enjoined White Collar
Overtime Rule Still Undecided:
Unlikely To Defend Obama
Administration Rule, The Trump
Administration Stalls
By: Jonathan M. Turner and Stephen A. Rossi, Attorneys, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”),
minimum wage and overtime requirements
do not apply to any employee covered by
the “white collar” exemption. To be considered a
white collar worker under that exemption, the FLSA
requires the employee to be employed in a bona fide
executive, administrative, or professional capacity.
Although the FLSA does not set a minimum white
collar salary level, the Department of Labor (“DOL”)
previously issued regulations requiring, among other
things, that an employee meet a minimum salary
threshold to qualify for the exemption.
In a well-publicized move designed to boost
employee earnings, the Obama administration
promulgated a new regulation, which would have
increased the minimum salary threshold from
$23,660 to $47,892, effective December 1, 2016.
The new regulation also would have increased the
minimum annual salary for “highly compensated
employees,” from $100,000 to $134,000, and would
have increased both salary thresholds every 3 years
beginning in January 2020.
The new rule was expected to have a significant
impact on businesses across the county.
Approximately 4 million workers would have become
eligible for overtime overnight. As such, many
companies increased the salaries paid to white collar
employees prior to the December 1st effective date .
For example, Walmart increased manager salaries to
$48,500 across the country.
In a case that was closely followed by employers
across the nation, several states joined together
and filed suit to block the rule. Just days before
the effective date of the new rule, on November 22,
2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas preliminarily enjoined the new rule, reasoning
that the FLSA clearly and unambiguously exempts
workers employed in an executive, administrative,
or professional capacity regardless of their salary.
In other words, Congress defined the white collar
exemption with regard to the duties performed by
the workers, not their salary level. Accordingly, the
Court held that the FLSA did not empower the DOL
to create the new salary requirement. The Court
9

CMCP Diversity Matters
issued a preliminary nationwide injunction against
the rule.
Following the Court’s decision, the Obama
administration’s DOL appealed to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeal. The DOL requested and received
an expedited briefing schedule, but it ran out of time
to get a ruling before Donald Trump’s inauguration.
The DOL’s reply brief was still outstanding at the time
of Trump’s inauguration.
Since taking power, the Trump administration
has stalled while it considers its options. First,
on inauguration day, the President issued a
memorandum ordering the heads of all agencies to
delay the effective date of regulations that had not
yet taken effect for sixty days. Five days later, the
DOL requested and later received an extension to file
its reply brief. It later received another extension, so
its brief is currently due on May 1, 2017.
1 See State of Nevada, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al., Case
No. 4:16-CV-00731 (E.D. Tex., November 22, 2016)
Although the Trump administration has not
announced its intentions, the general consensus
seems to be that the new administration will not
defend the regulation as written. Beyond that is
anyone’s guess, especially since there is no DOL
Secretary to date. President Trump’s first nominee
for DOL Secretary, Andrew Puzder, a fast-food
executive who had spoken out against the new
rule, withdrew from consideration after he lost
Republican support. The President’s new nominee,
Alexander Acosta, is a former member of the
National Labor Relations Board and U.S. attorney
for the Southern District of Florida. Unlike Puzder,
Acosta has support from both the industry and labor
communities, so he likely has a better chance of
confirmation. He appeared before the Senate on
March 22, 2017, which is scheduled to vote on his
confirmation soon (most likely before this article is
published).
Continued on next page…
10

Spring 2017 Newsletter
Unfortunately for employers and their advisors,
it is difficult to predict how Acosta would handle
the preliminary injunction on the new salary
requirement. Neither he nor President Trump have
made any definitive public statements regarding the
issue. When Acosta appeared before the Senate, he
was noncommittal about the white collar overtime
rule. He opined that it was “unfortunate” that the
rule has not been updated in over a decade, but his
reasoning suggested he thought it was unfortunate
because failing to update dollar amounts in a
rule can place “stress on the system” when they
are belatedly updated. It is hard to read between
the lines, but Acosta’s comments suggest that he
recognizes an increase in the minimum salary level is
at least logically, if not legally, appropriate.
Jonathan M. Turner is a partner through his professional
corporation at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP in
Los Angeles. Jonathan represents management in
all aspects of labor and employment law. For more
information about Jonathan, click here.
Stephen A. Rossi is an associate at Mitchell Silberberg &
Knupp LLP in Los Angeles. Stephen represents employers
in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has
extensive experience in drafting summary judgment
briefs, appellate briefs and settlement agreements. For
more information about Stephen, click here.
Assuming the Trump administration chooses not to
fully defend the Obama administration’s new rule, it
could withdraw its appeal and let the District Court’s
ruling stand. Alternatively, the DOL may settle with
the state plaintiffs and attempt to promulgate a new
rule with a lower salary requirement. However, if the
District Court’s reasoning is correct, then any DOL
white collar overtime regulation containing a salary
threshold is subject to challenge.
Although some employers, like Walmart, have
announced that they are keeping their higher salary
levels despite the current injunction, others are likely
still trying to decide what to pay their white collar
workers given the uncertainty around this issue.
Interested parties should continue to follow Acosta’s
confirmation process to hopefully get a better
glimpse into his plans for the white collar overtime
rule.
The legal information provided in this article is
general in nature and should not be construed
as advice applicable to any particular individual,
entity or situation. Except as otherwise noted,
the views expressed in this article are those of
the author(s). This article may be considered a
solicitation for certain purposes.
11

CMCP Diversity Matters eNewsletter – Spring 2017 Issue CMCP Diversity Matters
AN OVERVIEW OF
BAN THE
BOX LAWS
IN CALIFORNIA
By: Sonya D. Goodwin, Associate, and Julia Y. Trankiem,
Partner, Reed Smith LLP
Individuals with criminal records unquestionably
have a more difficult time obtaining gainful
employment than individuals without criminal
records. In fact, in a 2007 study, only approximately
40 percent of employers in four major metropolitan
areas reported that they would “definitely” or
“probably” hire applicants with a criminal history.1
In the same study, which also looked at the rates of
“call backs” or job offers for applicants with different
demographics, job offers for whites with criminal
records fall by about half, and are reduced by that
much or more for black ex-convicts.2
As a result, an increasing number of states, cities, and
counties across the country are enacting what is widely
known as “Ban the Box” laws, which are intended to
provide a fair chance to job applicants with criminal
histories so that their qualifications for a position are
considered first and without the stigma of their criminal
records. This has the effect of easing hiring barriers and
creating a more level playing field in competing for jobs.
Indeed, proponents and opponents of “Ban the Box”
legislation have hotly debated whether prospective
employers’ consideration of applicants’ criminal histories
disparately impacts applicants in certain demographics.
While the scope of “Ban the Box” laws vary, at a
bare minimum, these laws prohibit employers from
inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history until
after the initial interview (and sometimes delay this
inquiry until even later in the hiring process).
Continued on next page…
12

13
Spring 2017 Newsletter
I. California
California enacted its first “Ban the Box” law in 2010,
when then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered
certain questions regarding conviction history removed
from the State of California’s employment application.
Effective July 1, 2014, California Labor Code Section
432.9 extended the prohibition to all state and local
agencies, with an exception for those agencies
required by law to conduct a criminal history
background check. Under Labor Code Section 432.9,
state and local agencies are permitted to inquire
about criminal conviction history after “determin[ing]
the applicant meets the minimum employment
qualifications” – thereby affecting only when – and
not whether – public employers may consider
criminal conviction history in making employment
decisions. Notably, this language leaves the door
open for employers to decide, after the application is
submitted, when this qualification is met.
Labor Code Section 432.7 goes further to preclude
both public and private employers from seeking
information, or basing a condition of employment
on: (1) any arrests that did not result in a criminal
conviction; (2) information concerning a referral to
or participation in a pretrial or post-trial diversion
program; (3) information concerning a conviction
that has been dismissed or sealed; or (4) information
concerning any type of juvenile proceeding. Section
432.7 does, however, allow employers to seek
information concerning arrests that are still pending
(“unresolved arrests”).
And San Francisco and Los Angeles have gone even
further than California state law to prohibit private
employers from including questions about criminal
history on job applications.
II. San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance
The San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance (enacted
in 2014) prohibits all public and private employers
with applicants or employees for positions within the
City and County of San Francisco and with at least
20 employees, regardless of location, from seeking
information from job applicants or employees at
any time concerning (1) an arrest not leading to a
conviction; (2) participation in a diversion or deferral
of judgment program; (3) a conviction that has been
dismissed; (4) information concerning any type of
juvenile proceeding; (5) a conviction that is more
than seven years old; or (6) anything other than a
felony or misdemeanor. Additionally, employers
are not allowed to conduct a background check
or ask an applicant for their conviction history or
information regarding unresolved arrests until after
the first interview. And when making a decision
based on an applicant’s or employee’s conviction
history, an employer may only consider convictions
that are directly and specifically related to the job,
and must take into account how much time has
passed since the conviction or unresolved arrest,
as well as evidence of inaccuracy, rehabilitation,
or other mitigating factors. The ordinance
requires all employers to include the following
language in all job postings: “The Employer will
consider for employment qualified applicants with
criminal histories in a manner consistent with the
requirements of this Article.” Employers also must
post a notice at the workplace with a description of
the prohibitions and requirements set forth in the
ordinance, which can be obtained from the Office of
Labor Standards Enforcement.
III. Los Angeles’ Fair Chance Initiative for
Hiring (Ban the Box)
The “Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring
(Ban the Box)” went into effect on January 22, 2017.
This law is more expansive than its California and
San Francisco counterparts insofar as it applies to
all private employers with 10 or more employees
who are located in or perform work in the City of Los
Angeles. However, Los Angeles’s Ban the Box law
does not apply to public employers and only extends
the protection to applicants (broadly construed to
include any individual who submits an application or
other documentation for employment, whether for
full-time work, part-time work, temporary or seasonal

CMCP Diversity Matters
work, work through a temporary agency, etc.) and not
to employees.
The Los Angeles ordinance also differs from the San
Francisco ordinance in that it requires employers
to wait until after it makes a conditional offer of
employment before inquiring into the applicant’s
criminal history. “Criminal History” is more narrowly
defined under the Los Angeles ordinance as
compared to the San Francisco ordinance, as it is
limited to a conviction of a felony or misdemeanor
that has led to probation, fine, imprisonment, or
parole. This means that under Los Angeles’s Fair
Chance Initiative for Hiring, employers generally
may not ask any question on a job application
about an applicant’s criminal history, ask about an
applicant’s criminal history during a job interview,
or independently search for criminal conviction
information or run a criminal background check
before making a conditional employment offer – but
still may ask applicants about unresolved arrests.
There are some limited exceptions to the prohibition
on asking about criminal history, including when
an employer is required by law to run a criminal
background check, when the position sought
requires the possession or use of a gun, when the
law prohibits a person who has been convicted of
a crime from holding the position sought, or when
the employer is prohibited by law from hiring an
applicant who has been convicted of a crime.
IV. Conclusion
While these laws are well-intended, recent studies
confirm that there have been negative impacts
on minorities, namely black and Hispanic men,
when applying for jobs since the Ban the Box laws
went into effect. In one of the studies, for example,
thousands of fake job applications were submitted
before and after the laws went into effect in New York
and New Jersey, randomly assigning race (black or
white) and criminal history to each application. The
study found that before the Ban the Box laws went
into effect, white applicants received seven percent
more callbacks than similar black applicants, but
after the laws went into effect that gap increased to
45 percent.4 In another study, the authors found that
Ban the Box laws decreased the probability of being
employed by 5.1% for young, low-skilled black men,
and by 2.9% for young, low-skilled Hispanic men.5
Although these studies are not conclusive, they may
cause lawmakers to rethink how to make the Ban the
Box laws more effective in the future. But one thing
is certain, these laws are here to stay, and there are
more like them to come. As such, employers should
exercise caution in relying upon information about
convictions when making any employment decisions,
Continued on next page…
Similar to the San Francisco ordinance, the Los
Angeles ordinance requires all employers who
withdraw a conditional offer of employment on the
basis of the applicant’s criminal history to perform
a written assessment linking the specific aspects of
the applicant’s criminal history with the job duties of
the position being sought. The written assessment
should also take into account the factors established
by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (including conducting an individualized
assessment), among others.3
14

Spring 2017 Newsletter
including hiring, promotion, or termination.
In addition, employers must remain vigilant about
staying apprised of the ever-changing laws and
keeping their managers and Human Resources
personnel up-to-date on applicable laws to ensure
appropriate compliance – not least of which because
a violation of any of these laws comes with a
monetary fine (ranging from $50 to $2,000, depending
on the jurisdiction and occurrences).
** If you have any questions or would like the most
up-to-date information regarding the status of the
Ban the Box laws in cities and states where you do
business, you may contact the authors of this post,
Julia Y. Trankiem at jtrankiem@reedsmith.com and
Sonya D. Goodwin at sgoodwin@reedsmith.com.
Sonya D. Goodwin is an associate at Reed Smith LLP
in Los Angeles. Sonya counsels clients on a wide range
of labor and employment matters, including, but not
limited to, wage and hour class actions, FEHA claims,
and whistleblower claims in federal and state court, as
well as arbitration. For more information about Sonya,
click here.
Julia Y. Trankiem is a partner at Reed Smith LLP in Los
Angeles. Julia's practice focuses on the representation
of management in a broad range of labor, employment,
and employee benefits matters under state and federal
law. For more information about Julia, click here.
1 Harry J. Holzer, Collateral Costs: The Effects of Incarceration on the Employment and Earnings of Young Workers, Georgetown Univ.,
Urban Institute and IZA, DP No. 3118, 14 (Oct. 2007).
2 Ibid.
3 The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, updated in April 2012, provides guidance on proper and improper disqualification of an employee or
applicant based on his or her criminal record. The different factors that the EEOC sets forth in its guideline to assess whether a criminal
exclusion is “job related and consistent with business necessity” include: (1) “the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct”; (2) “the
time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence”; (3) “the nature of the job held or sought”; and
(4) an individualized assessment to allow the individual to explain why he should not be excluded based on his criminal history. The
EEOC provides further guidance on the individualized assessment, namely, (1) “[t]he facts or circumstances surrounding the offense
or conduct,” (2) “[t]he number of offenses for which the individual was convicted,” (3) “[o]lder age at the time of conviction,” (4) “[e]
vidence that the individual performed the same type of work, post conviction, with the same or a different employer, with no known
incidents of criminal conduct,” (5) “[t]he length and consistency of employment history before and after the offense or conduct,” (6) “
[r]ehabilitation efforts, e.g., education/training,” (7) “[e]mployment or character references and any other information regarding fitness
for the particular position,” and (8) “[w]hether the individual is bonded under a federal, state, or local bonding program.”
4 Amanda Agan and Sonja Starr, Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment, U. of Mich. Law &
Econ Research Paper No. 16-012, at 4 (June 14, 2016).
5 Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen, Does ‘Ban the Box’ Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers? Statistical Discrimination and
Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories Are Hidden, 62 Research Briefs in Economic Policy, Oct. 2016, at 2.
15

CMCP Diversity Matters eNewsletter – Spring 2017 Issue CMCP Diversity Matters
What’s in
a name?
A battle for a
transgender
immigrant’s
rights
By: Noah Perez-Silverman, Associate, Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC
While the United States continues to grapple
with transgender rights—including the
right to restroom access—transgender
individuals across the globe often face severe
persecution and torture on account of their gender
identity. One difficulty transgender people encounter
both domestically and abroad concerns the ability
to ensure that their official documents bear the
chosen names that match their gender. When trans
immigrants seek to have their cases heard in U.S.
immigration courts, it is important—but not always
easy—to ensure that orders affecting their rights
include both the name they were given at birth and
the name that corresponds with their gender.
The significance of this issue is exemplified by a
case recently handled by Albert Giang, Noah Pérez-
Silverman, and FeiFei Jiang, of CMCP member firm
Caldwell Leslie & Proctor. Their client, Elena,* is a
transgender woman who immigrated from Mexico
after facing horrific abuse on account of her gender
16

Spring 2017 Newsletter
identity—she was brutally gang-raped, beaten, thrown
over a cliff, and left for dead by local police officers in
Mexico. After fleeing Mexico to the United States, she
applied for deferral of removal under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). At the merits hearing, however,
the immigration judge showed little regard for the
plight of transgender individuals, going so far as
refusing to let the Caldwell Leslie team refer to their
own client using feminine pronouns. In addition,
the judge refused to correct the client’s name on the
official file to either Elena’s true birth name (Elena,
like many immigrants detained by authorities, initially
gave a made-up name) or to Elena’s preferred female
name. Not surprisingly, the immigration judge denied
relief, holding that although the treatment Elena
endured in Mexico rose to the level of torture, she
was not entitled to relief because the torture was not
state-sponsored. The immigration judge incorrectly
assumed that although Elena’s abuse occurred at the
hands of the police, these were simply rogue police
officers, and the treatment was not condoned by the
entire Mexican government.
After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed
this erroneous decision, the Caldwell Leslie team
appealed Elena’s case to the Ninth Circuit. There,
after receiving a powerful opening brief explaining
the various errors below, the government voluntarily
agreed to a stipulated remand and acknowledged
that a CAT applicant need show only that “a public
official”—and not the entire foreign government—
inflicted or acquiesced in torture. On remand, Caldwell
Leslie persuaded the BIA to reverse its earlier decision,
hold that Elena was entitled to CAT relief, and remand
to the immigration court to effectuate the order.
U.S. contained only a made-up name, then she would
have no way to prove to any future immigration
officials that she was a legal resident. Before the
immigration court—and a different immigration
judge—the Caldwell Leslie team argued successfully
that the order should include not only Elena’s true
birth name, but also her preferred female name.
Obtaining an official name change remains a
challenge even for U.S.-born trans people, depending
on what government authority has the ability to grant
or withhold that relief. But for critical documents
for trans clients—whether immigration papers or
a bankruptcy discharge—it is always worthwhile
to attempt to obtain an order reflecting both the
client’s birth name and the client’s chosen name of
preference, even if the client has not yet effectuated a
legal name change.
*Not the client’s real name.
Noah Pérez-Silverman is an attorney at Caldwell Leslie’s
Los Angeles office. Noah has handled complex privilege
issues, supervised voluminous electronic discovery
projects, and helped obtain terminating sanctions
against an adversary for litigation misconduct. For more
information about Noah, click here.
The battle was won, but not yet the war. For
immigrants who receive deferral of removal under the
CAT, the court order granting them relief is the only
official documentation they get indicating that they
are legally authorized to remain in the country. Unless
Elena’s legal team could get the immigration judge
to correct the name on the file (and on the resulting
order), the years of work would have yielded a pyrrhic
victory. If Elena’s order permitting her to remain in the
17

CMCP Diversity Matters eNewsletter – Spring 2017 Issue CMCP Diversity Matters
THE LCLD FELLOWS PROGRAM:
BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS AND
LEADERSHIP SKILLS
By: David A. Shimkin, Member, Cozen O’Connor
I
finished my term as Cozen O’Connor’s Fellow in
the Leadership Counsel on Legal Diversity in March
of 2017. The mission of this prestige program is to
unite attorneys who work in firms and in corporate
counsel offices for the purposes of networking,
personal and career development, and the
promotion of diversity within our profession.
Firms and corporations that are members of LCLD
select one fellow per year to represent them in the
program, and the selection process within those
organizations is often very competitive.
The LCLD Fellows Program affords its participants
key opportunities for networking and creative
development. Various sponsor organizations host
events at their corporate headquarters to allow
fellows to meet their staff and attorneys, and
observe how the businesses are run. Among the
choices offered to fellows was the opportunity
to visit Walmart in Bentonville, Arkansas, PNC in
Pittsburgh, Honeywell in New Jersey, and The Home
Depot in Atlanta. I chose Home Depot, and was
impressed by the integration between the legal and
non-legal staff at this home furnishings giant. For
example, all lawyers at Home Depot, which we
visited at its Georgia plant, are required to spend a
certain amount of time per year as a sales associate
in a store. They also wear the aprons. Home Depot
emphasized that their sales associates are the
most important people in the company, and Home
Depot’s actions seemed to back this up. As you might
imagine, the opportunity to meet with attorneys
from the biggest and most respected companies in
the country is invaluable. But I also found the career
development aspect of the program to be just as
fulfilling. Fellows attend a total of three meetings
where they interact with each other and attend
personal and career development group sessions.
One session I found particularly interesting was on
how to become more resilient and resourceful. Using
18

Spring 2017 Newsletter
the analogy of Mars from the movie “The Martian”,
the speaker expertly emphasized the importance
of adapting to challenges and not panicking when
events don’t unfold as we expect them, and they
rarely do. But what also stuck with me was a speaker
who talked about bringing one’s true self to work,
and how that can be a sticky issue for diverse
attorneys. For example, when and under what
circumstances is it acceptable to bring in photos
of your family to work? What if you are gay and you
want to post a picture on your desk of your significant
other? Similarly, many of us come at the law, and at
life, from different perspectives, depending on our
life experiences. To the extent that those experiences
and viewpoints are different than our colleagues, and
can often be a delicate dance when we want to be
ourselves yet not be seen as “the other.”
Participating in the Fellowship Program was a
truly fulfilling experience. I now graduate to being
a Fellowship alumnus, and will participate in the
various alumni conferences and events, including
one that is coming in June in New York City.
David A. Shimkin practices in the Commercial Litigation
Group at Cozen O’Connor in Los Angeles. His litigation
practice includes complex commercial matters, with a
focus on representing clients in the hospitality, health
care, construction, and real estate fields. For more
information about David, click here.
One of the best things about the Fellows Program
is the Accountability Partner. Each fellow is coupled
with an accountability partner to participate with
during the three fellowship meetings. Even more
important, in my view, was the opportunity to meet
and share experiences with my accountability partner
who is with a major social media company.
19

CMCP Diversity Matters
Business Development Series:
Demystifying Business Development,
for Associates and Beyond
By: Martha Sullivan, Principal, Thornton Marketing
Every year, I have the opportunity to meet new
associates, either at networking events or
when I present workshops at law firms or bar
associations. Not surprisingly, each new class of
associates has similar questions about business
development. Even though many law firms provide
some level of training on business development,
many associates aren’t convinced that they have
the necessary skills to succeed and they don’t have
confidence that their peers will ever be able to send
matters to them. From my perspective, the fact
that you completed law school and passed the bar
indicates that you are perfectly capable of mastering
the skills you need to build your own book of business.
Below are the most common questions I’m asked and
brief answers to them.
I’m not like my firm’s managing partner.
Is it okay to be myself?
Yes. In fact, it’s critically important for you to be fully
yourself. Clients and colleagues can tell when you
are not being authentic. Ultimately, clients hire you
because they have a relationship with you and they
20

Spring 2017 Newsletter
trust you. When you take the time to discover
common interests with anyone you meet, you will
have a much stronger connection, and a better
long-term working relationship.
with potential clients and referral sources, one of your
priorities, now and throughout your career, should
be to continually expand your network and maintain
those relationships.
How can I find time for business
development?
I’ll quote David Maister on this topic. “What you do
with your billable hours determines your current
compensation, but what you do with your nonbillable
time determines your future.” It may be difficult to
imagine that future if your only focus is making your
hours. It’s important to get out of your office, meet
new people, and develop interests outside of work.
I highly recommend that you find an association
that is meaningful to you and become an active
participant. CMCP is a particularly good model for an
association that sponsors relevant programs, provides
opportunities for associates to join committees, and
offers frequent networking events.
What’s the best use of my time as
an associate?
First, become the best lawyer you can be. Ask for
feedback and take advantage of whatever training
your firm offers. Second, understand that you can
use the same business development skills internally
that you will eventually use externally. The partners
in your firm are your potential clients right now. Do
your research and identify the partners who are doing
the kind of work that interests you. Attend events at
your firm or find a way to introduce yourself to those
partners and express your interest in working for them.
I don’t know any clients who can hire
me now.
Your current network probably consists of your college
and law school friends, and associates who work for
other law firms. All of you are at the beginning of long
careers that will be full of changes. I can safely predict
that you will be amazed to see where your friends end
up ten or twenty years from now. In order to connect
Are there any shortcuts to being
successful at business development?
If only it were that simple. Persistence and patience
are both required, as well as a well thought out
marketing plan. It will take time for you to develop
the relationships that will lead to work, and to
build a network of contacts that can connect you to
opportunities. You will also need to increase your
visibility in the communities that are important to
your practice.
Practice, practice, practice
As with any skill, it takes a lot of practice to achieve a
level of competence. Whether you are learning to play
tennis or play the piano, it is more effective to practice
for 15 minutes a day, rather than three hours once a
week. You will be more likely to find time to schedule
follow up calls or tasks if you only have to commit to
15 minutes at a time.
Where can I find more information?
Many of these topics are covered in more depth in my
previous blawgs. You can find them at
http://www.cmcp.org/?blawg_bizdev or at my
website: www.thorntonmarketing.com.
Martha Sullivan is a business development coach for
attorneys and other professional service providers.
She is certified as a professional coach and has more
than 25 years of experience in marketing and business
development. For more info about Martha, click here.
21

CMCP Diversity Matters
THE CMCP BOARD SPEAKS:
HOW CONNECTIONS
REALLY WORK
By: Gagandeep B. Kaur, Associate, Reed Smith LLP
On March 9, 2017, CMCP presented an interactive program on networking and relationship – the CMCP
Board Speaks. The formal program started with networking and was followed by more networking to
practice the tips learned during the event.
The program provided an opportunity for attendees to hear from CMCP’s distinguished board members about
networking and building relationships, participate in small groups and hear about best practices, and eventually
practice those networking skills.
Each small group, consisting of at least one CMCP board member and 2-3 attendees, shared the networking and
relationship building tips and best practices they discussed with the large group including:
22

23
Spring 2017 Newsletter
• Bring business cards. Bring your business
cards to a networking event to exchange with
other participants. For future follow-up, on the
back of the business card jot down something
specific and memorable about the person
whose business card you receive.
• Set a goal for each networking event. At
each networking event do not just spend time
with your friends and colleagues. Set a goal of
meeting at least 2 to 3 new people.
• Network with other attorneys. Some of
your best referrals will likely come from your
colleagues and other attorneys who have clients
with a range of needs.
• Know your networking style. Your time
is limited so participate in networking and
business development activities that you
enjoy and are passionate about – one-onone
meetings, conferences, small gatherings,
fundraising for an organization, etc.
• Know your client and its business. You
are building a network to not only grow your
book of business but also to have a network
of attorneys and other professionals who
you can rely on to assist your client with all
of its business needs. To that end, create and
maintain a diverse and comprehensive network.
• Don’t sell yourself or your firm short. Keep
in mind that you are an expert in your practice
area but your firm has other experts, so learn
what your firm and colleagues do to accurately
speak about your and your firm’s capabilities.
This will allow you to maintain your credibility
while promoting your firm and colleagues.
• Be patient. Allow each relationship time to
build and grow organically. It takes multiple
meetings and sometimes years for a relationship
to become a long lasting one.
Thank you to Littler Mendelson P.C. and Greenberg
Traurig, LLP for sponsoring The CMCP Board Speaks
event.
Gagandeep B. Kaur is an associate at Reed Smith
LLP in San Francisco. She works on a variety of
transactional and litigation matters involving real
estate, energy and natural resources, healthcare,
and financial services. For more info about Gagan,
click here.

CMCP Diversity Matters eNewsletter – Spring 2017 Issue CMCP Diversity Matters
DIVERSITY CALENDAR
April 19, 2017
6:00pm
April 20, 2017
6:00pm - 8:00pm
April 21, 2017
6:00pm - 10:00pm
April 25, 2017
5:30pm - 7:30pm
OCAABA - Annual
Installation Dinner-
Celebrating Service
Orange County Asian
American Bar Association
Hilton Orange County -
Costa Mesa
San Francisco Out
& Proud Corporate
Counsel Award
Reception
The National LGBT Bar
Association
Slide - San Francisco
Annual Banquet &
Awards Reception -
AALASC
Arab American Lawyers
Association of Southern
California
The Millennium Biltmore
Hotel - Los Angeles
Women Judges
Reception
Orange County Women
Lawyers Association
Whittier Law School (Room 1)
- Costa Mesa
April 26, 2017
6:00pm - 7:30pm
April 27, 2017
6:00pm - 8:00pm
April 27, 2017
6:00pm - 8:00pm
April 27-30, 2017
All Day
Roadmap to Victory:
Lessons from
Winning at Trial
Orange County Korean
American Bar Association
UCI School of Law - Irvine
Cocktails & Couture
Queen's Bench Bar
Association
Weston Wear - San Francisco
Fireside Chat with
Honorable Rupa
Goswami
South Asian Bar Association
of Northern California
Cooley - San Francisco
2017 CABL
Conference &
40th Anniversary
Celebration
California Association of Black
Lawyers
Marina Del Rey Marriott -
Marina Del Rey
May 4, 2017
5:30am - 7:30pm
May 11, 2017
6:00pm - 8:00pm
May 13, 2017
5:30 pm - 10:00pm
May 16, 2017
5:30pm - 7:30pm
OCHBA: Cinco De
Mayo Mixer
The Hispanic Bar Association
of Orange County
TBD
CHBA Judicial
Reception
Charles Houston Bar
Association
TBD
IABA-OC Seventh
Annual Fundraiser
& Gala
Iranian American Bar
Association - Orange County
Pacific Avalon Yacht Charters -
Newport Beach
Lessons of the WWII
Mass Incarceration
of Japanese
Americans
Asian American Bar
Association of the Greater Bay
Area
Ceremonial Courtroom,
Phillip Burton Federal
Building - San Francisco
24

CMCP Diversity Matters
Spring 2017 Newsletter
Spring 2017 Newsletter
MINORITY
Spring 2017
© Copyright 2017
California Minority Counsel Program
465 California Street, Suite 635
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: 415-782-8990
Email: newsletter@cmcp.org
Web: http://www.cmcp.org
16