Print to PDF

Laurie DeYoung, Esq.

Case Manager: Ella Fishman

Fee Schedule

Profile

Mediator • Arbitrator • Discovery Referee

Los Angeles, California  |  Statewide Practice

Laurie DeYoung is a seasoned employment and commercial neutral with more than 35 years of litigation experience handling high-stakes disputes throughout California. Over the course of her career, she has helped resolve hundreds of employment, commercial, and workplace-related disputes involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, whistleblower claims, wage and hour issues, executive contracts, and emotionally charged workplace conflicts.

A longtime labor and employment defense attorney, Laurie is known for her ability to accurately assess case value early, identify practical paths to resolution, and facilitate candid negotiations that move difficult cases toward settlement. Clients and opposing counsel alike value her direct communication style, credibility, and pragmatic approach to resolving disputes efficiently and realistically. Throughout her career, she has saved clients millions of dollars in litigation costs and exposure by developing streamlined litigation and resolution strategies designed to preserve flexibility while positioning matters for early settlement whenever possible.

Laurie most recently served as Of Counsel at Jackson Lewis P.C., where she managed more than 60 active employment matters spanning litigation, arbitration, administrative proceedings, and pre-litigation disputes. Her former litigation practice gives her insight into how judges, arbitrators, plaintiffs, employers, insurers, and counsel evaluate risk in today’s employment litigation environment.

Prior to joining Jackson Lewis, Laurie served as Senior Partner at Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, where she led and managed a labor and employment litigation team of more than 30 attorneys. In that role, she directed litigation strategy from intake through resolution, conducted early neutral evaluations, prepared matters for mediation, and resolved hundreds of disputes through negotiated settlement and mediation. Her reputation for professionalism, integrity, and candid communication helped establish strong credibility with opposing counsel across the employment bar.

Laurie also co-founded Davis DeYoung LLP, a boutique litigation firm focused on labor and employment litigation, executive contract disputes, and commercial litigation. Earlier in her career, she practiced at firms including Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Fonda & Hilberman, and Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols.

Laurie’s path to becoming a mediator was shaped by decades spent negotiating and resolving complex disputes. After transitioning into employment litigation, she participated in mediations as often as five times per week for nearly fifteen years, gaining extraordinary exposure to the strategies, dynamics, and psychology that drive successful settlements. Under the mentorship of a highly respected litigator and mediator, she developed a deep interest in negotiation, studying not only legal advocacy and case valuation, but also the human factors that influence decision-making and resolution.

As her experience evolved, Laurie learned to view disputes from multiple perspectives simultaneously—including those of the parties, counsel, and mediator. She came to recognize that parties who appear far apart are often motivated by similar underlying concerns, whether those involve certainty, financial security, accountability, reputation, or closure. That understanding informs her mediation style today, helping parties move beyond positions and toward practical, durable resolutions.

Laurie brings especially strong experience in workplace disputes involving reputational concerns, executive employees, sensitive personnel allegations, and high-profile parties. Her practice has included representation in coordinated clergy abuse litigation, public figure disputes involving entertainment and political figures, complex wage and hour matters, executive contract disputes, and high-exposure harassment and retaliation claims.

Laurie believes effective dispute resolution requires both strategic analysis and practical realism. She remains actively involved in post-mediation follow-up efforts and continues working with parties after mediation sessions conclude when necessary to help bridge remaining gaps and achieve final resolution.

Areas of Specialization

Employment Litigation & Workplace Disputes

  • Wrongful Termination & Constructive Termination
  • Workplace Discrimination (Race, Gender, Age, Religion, National Origin)
  • Sexual Harassment & Workplace Harassment
  • Retaliation & Whistleblower Claims
  • Disability Accommodation & Interactive Process Disputes
  • State and Federal Protected Leave Claims (CFRA, FMLA, PDL)
  • Wage and Hour Disputes (Class Actions & Individual Claims)
  • Executive Employment Agreements & Contract Disputes
  • Workplace Investigations

Commercial & Complex Civil Litigation

  • Commercial Litigation & Business Disputes
  • Public Figure & Entertainment Industry Disputes
  • Political Figure Litigation
  • Attorney Fee Disputes
  • Coordinated & Complex Multi-Party Litigation

Why Attorneys Select Laurie DeYoung

Attorneys select Laurie DeYoung for her:

  • More than 35 years of California litigation experience
  • Extensive labor and employment litigation background
  • Experience managing 60+ active employment matters
  • Leadership of a 30+ attorney employment litigation team
  • Strong defense-side risk assessment perspective
  • Ability to accurately evaluate settlement value early
  • Extensive experience resolving high-conflict disputes
  • Direct and candid communication style
  • Credibility with both plaintiffs’ and defense counsel
  • Persistent post-mediation follow-up efforts
  • Ability to navigate emotionally charged workplace disputes
  • Practical understanding of litigation economics and business realities

MEDIATION APPROACH

Laurie approaches mediation with the belief that every case can resolve under the right circumstances and with the right strategy. She tailors her approach to the needs of the parties, recognizing that some litigants need the opportunity to feel heard while others require direct and candid analysis of litigation risk and settlement dynamics.

She believes successful mediation requires flexibility, preparation, persistence, and credibility. Laurie works to identify practical areas of alignment between parties, maintain productive negotiations, and continue settlement efforts beyond the mediation session whenever necessary.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Jackson Lewis P.C.
Of Counsel | 2023 – 2026

Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Senior Partner | 2017 – 2023

Lindahl Beck LLP
Senior Attorney | 2015 – 2016

Independent Contract Attorney
Employment & Commercial Litigation | 2010 – 2015

Davis DeYoung LLP
Founding Partner | 2005 – 2010

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Senior Associate | 2003 – 2005

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Senior Associate | 2001 – 2003

Fonda & Hilberman
Senior Associate | 1994 – 2001

Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols
Associate | 1991 – 1994

EDUCATION

Pepperdine University School of Law
J.D., cum laude

New York University
B.A.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What types of employment cases does Laurie DeYoung mediate?
Laurie DeYoung mediates a wide range of employment disputes in Los Angeles and throughout California, including wrongful termination, constructive termination, workplace discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment claims, retaliation, whistleblower claims, disability accommodation and interactive process disputes, CFRA/FMLA protected leave claims, wage and hour matters, executive employment agreements, and workplace investigations. She also handles emotionally charged disputes involving senior executives, public figures, and high-profile parties.

What is Laurie DeYoung’s mediation style?
Laurie is known for being direct, pragmatic, and settlement-focused. She adapts her approach to the dynamics and personalities of each case—providing candid case evaluation and litigation risk analysis for parties who need clear-eyed perspective, while also creating space for parties who need to feel heard before they can move toward resolution. She remains actively involved in post-mediation follow-up efforts, often continuing to work with counsel after the session to close remaining gaps.

Does Laurie DeYoung handle emotionally charged workplace disputes?
Yes. Laurie has extensive experience mediating high-conflict, emotionally sensitive workplace disputes, including sexual harassment allegations, executive-level disputes, retaliation and whistleblower matters, disability accommodation conflicts, and cases involving reputational concerns or high-profile parties. Her background as a defense attorney gives her credibility with both plaintiff and defense counsel in navigating these complex dynamics.

Where does Laurie DeYoung offer mediation services?
Laurie DeYoung is based in Los Angeles and serves clients throughout Los Angeles County and across California. She mediates employment and commercial disputes in person and via video conference.

How does Laurie DeYoung’s litigation background benefit parties in mediation?
With more than 35 years of California employment litigation experience—including managing 60+ active employment matters and leading a 30+ attorney litigation team—Laurie brings a ground-level understanding of how judges, arbitrators, plaintiff attorneys, employers, and insurance carriers evaluate litigation risk. This allows her to provide realistic, credible case assessments that help parties make informed settlement decisions and avoid unnecessary litigation costs.

Representative Cases

DISCRIMINATION

  • Equal Pay: Plaintiff alleged equal pay violations since she was not paid the same as registered, licensed sports agents who performed the same tasks including coordinating travel, managing expenses, securing living arrangements and acting as a liaison with the team. One session of mediation at the pre-litigation stage failed but the parties scheduled a private settlement conference and worked through the night, striking a deal at 5:00 am after the attorneys creatively introduced non-monetary terms into the negotiated agreement that were otherwise not recoverable in a lawsuit.
  • Equal Pay: Plaintiff, who served as interim CEO while management recruited for a full-time CEO, alleged equal pay violations because she was not paid the same as the full-time CEO despite performing identical job functions. Notably, the full-time CEO, who was recruited emergently, was paid 5x what Plaintiff was paid. Employer argued that Plaintiff, who specialized in marketing and had no experience as a CEO, did not coordinate with all departments of the company as a CEO normally would, and that the full-time CEO had decades of experience in the role.
  • Sexual Orientation Discrimination: Plaintiff, a female transgender person who worked in a restaurant, alleged harassment and touching by numerous coworkers and management. She claimed she was teased and groped and that management ignored her complaints, and that because of the abuse she was constructively terminated. Management’s defense was that her complaints were investigated and discipline was handed out when substantiated but for the complaints that were not confirmed, there was no discipline.
  • Age Discrimination: Plaintiff, aged 50, applied for a job in sales. During his interview, he was told that the company was looking for some young, fresh blood. He was not hired. Employer acknowledged that the words were used but that the decision to not hire Plaintiff was not related to his age, and that others in Plaintiff’s age group were hired.
  • Gender Discrimination: Female Plaintiff, who worked in a predominantly male field, alleged she was discriminated against in terms of sales territory and that her male coworkers received more favorable sales locations, which in turn resulted in higher sales commissions. Management denied favoritism and cited a longstanding practice that salespeople generally were given the territory where they lived and that such a determination was gender neutral.

    HARASSMENT

    • Sexual Harassment: Male Plaintiff was employed by management company as an administrative assistant and claimed he was forced into relationships with male executives, which included physical sex acts and later description of the acts to other members of management. The company denied the allegations entirely. The matter settled to all parties’ satisfaction, but the matter would have attracted media attention if publicly filed. The parties negotiated mutual destruction of emails, text messages, photographs and recordings relating to the conduct alleged.
    • Sexual Harassment: Female Plaintiff, who worked on a television series, alleged that the main actor sexually harassed her by asking her questions about her sex life with her boyfriend and touching her inappropriately. The actor admitted to flirting. Intense surveillance was conducted which showed Plaintiff attending industry parties, drinking and frolicking at the beach with friends, and seemingly positive relationships with many of her former coworkers.
    • Sexual Harassment: Female office manager, who worked in a plastic surgeon’s office for more than 20 years, alleged that the surgeon had numerous romantic relationships with subordinates and suggested that some of the conduct was “forced.” She claims she was terminated after she rejected his advances and complained about his relationships. The doctor denied the allegations in their entirety. Plaintiff attended mediation with three filing cabinets full of documents and declarations to support her allegations.
    • National Origin Harassment: Plaintiff, who was from Brazil, worked in a car dealership. One of his coworkers would ask Google Translate to interpret every conversation he had with Plaintiff, claiming that he could not understand him. After Plaintiff complained of the harassment, he claimed his coworker retaliated against him and tried to get him fired. This case was brought before published decisions widely recognized accents and language as a protected class.
    • Racial and National Origin Harassment: Plaintiff, an African-American male, worked with a predominantly Latino workforce. He alleged his coworkers excluded him from all social activities including meals, breaks, and other get-togethers. He described the use of highly charged racial slurs and other comments made by his coworkers behind his back, but which he often overheard.

      SEXUAL ABUSE / BATTERY

      • Female restaurant worker alleged that her manager stole topless photos from her phone and that he touched her breasts and buttocks in a storage room. Manager admitted taking the photos but denied the rest of the allegations.
      • Female party guest alleged a public figure and his entourage drugged and engaged in sex with her, although she had no memory of the night. Defendants denied all allegations except that Plaintiff was a party guest.
      • Numerous male and female plaintiffs sued religious orders, archdioceses and schools alleging childhood sexual abuse after the statute of limitations was reopened in 2020.
      • Plaintiff alleged her decades older male manager intentionally brushed up against her while she was working as a bartender, and that the physical contact included touching of her genitalia and breasts. Management stated any physical contact was inadvertent due to the close quarters they were in while carrying out their nightly duties.

      RETALIATION

      • Plaintiff, a professional licensed by the state, was misclassified as an independent contractor and paid hourly but was not provided meal or rest breaks, nor was she paid for overtime. She brought the misclassification to her employer’s attention but did not ask for back pay, and simply asked to be reclassified. She was terminated due to “lack of work” one week later. This case presented potential exposure for Plaintiff’s claims, but also for the other 12 employees over a four-year period, as it could be a PAGA or class action.
      • Plaintiff was a nurse at an eye surgery clinic. She believed she observed one of the doctors switch the product insert information for one product with the insert belonging to another product after a failed procedure involving the first product. She reported the event to the governing authorities and told the doctors in her practice about her report. She was terminated within 10 days of her report.
      • Female Plaintiff complained about a coworker’s post on social media. She was accommodated with a full-time work from home format. Employer monitored Plaintiff’s production while on her assignment and terminated her for failure to put in the requisite hours. Plaintiff alleged that she worked full-time and that the company was unable to accurately track her time by simply monitoring her computer, and that the only reason she was monitored at all was because she complained about her coworker.
      • Plaintiff worked for a healthcare provider with two coworkers in the recruiting department. When one of her coworkers returned from her own maternity leave, Plaintiff reported her own pregnancy. Within two months of her pregnancy disclosure, she and the coworker who returned from maternity leave were laid off due to an alleged slowdown in business. The only employee retained in the recruiting department was the one who was not pregnant and who had not recently taken maternity leave.
      • Plaintiff worked for a leasing company and complained of racial discrimination by her coworkers. The company undertook an investigation which was inconclusive. At the conclusion of the investigation, Plaintiff took an unprotected leave of absence. During her leave, Plaintiff’s replacement discovered that she failed to pay months of invoices which threatened the utilities on several rental properties. Upon her return to work, Plaintiff was terminated.

        WHISTLEBLOWER

        • Plaintiff worked for a manufacturing company in an administrative position. He discovered chemicals that were stored in a closet and undertook research into the proper storage of such chemicals and any restrictions on possession of them by his company. Upon collecting that information, he disclosed the existence and improper storage and possession of the chemicals to management. Within 30 days he was terminated.
        • Plaintiff was employed by a government contractor and reported what he believed were violations of federal law regarding spending and accounting. Within three months of his disclosure, he was given a poor performance evaluation and placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), which included a mentor to help him pass the PIP. During the PIP, he disclosed the same violations to the watchdog agency, which undertook an investigation. Plaintiff was terminated for poor performance at the end of his PIP, which coincided with the conclusion of the investigation that uncovered no wrongdoing. This matter involved issues relating to national security and top-secret government communications.
        • Plaintiff worked for a brokerage company as an analyst. He believed management was making illegal trades to benefit an unrelated business using his company’s credentials. He made disclosures to numerous management representatives and was promptly demoted, replaced with a less experienced analyst and eventually terminated for his “refusal” to accept his demotion permanently.
        • Plaintiff, the new principal at a charter school, reported to her superiors that the superintendent had a criminal record, including for inappropriate conduct with minors, and that he hired several of his friends who were also suspected of inappropriate encounters with minors, one of whom was responsible for driving students home after school sports activities. The superintendent “killed” her complaint and terminated her for alleged poor performance. Pursuant to regulations, the school carried insurance up to $50 million.

        WRONGFUL TERMINATION / CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION

        • Plaintiff worked for a public entity for 30 years and applied for a promotion but was not selected. He then retired. Plaintiff claimed that he was passed over for promotion because the decisionmakers believed he was going to retire in the coming years and would not remain in the position long term.
        • Plaintiff was the girlfriend of a jewelry designer and came to work for him as an assistant. While she was employed, the designer broke up with her and started dating another woman. Plaintiff was fired and the other woman took her job. Plaintiff claimed several theories of wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
        • Plaintiff worked as a dental assistant to dental practice owner. When the dentist remarried, his wife had Plaintiff fired because she did not want her working closely with her new husband. The dental practice denied the termination was influenced by the dentist’s wife but admitted that there was no documentary support for Plaintiff’s termination.
        • Plaintiff alleged he was terminated as an aircraft supply expeditor because of his race, age, and his complaints about working conditions. Employer argued that the non-discriminatory reasons for his termination were his mistakes which did not improve over six months, and his admitted illegal recording of a meeting in which he was being counseled for his poor performance.
        • Plaintiff worked in customer service at a call center. During a scheduled break, she suffered a diabetic seizure in the restroom and was taken to the hospital. When she returned to work, she was given accommodations including a larger work area and the ability to take as many breaks as she needed. Within a month of her seizure, she was terminated for poor performance. Plaintiff alleged disability discrimination and retaliation. Defense counsel secured 95 hours of recorded calls during which Plaintiff bad mouthed the company, gossiped for hours with customers, and told customers how to get around certain roadblocks in securing reductions in their bills or refunds for service to support her for cause termination.

          EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS

          • Plaintiff was the co-founder of a lingerie company. She and the other co-founder had a falling out and she was removed. She had a written employment contract which stated she was an “at will” employee and spelled out her rights and remedies if she was removed from her position pursuant to the processes set forth in the agreement. Plaintiff argued the parties had other unwritten agreements that conferred greater benefits to her than the written agreement and claimed an ownership in the company post termination.
          • Plaintiff worked for a production company and was laid off during COVID. He claimed that his part written, part oral and part implied in fact contract governed his working conditions and guaranteed his pay, whether the company had work for him or not.
          • Plaintiff was an actor whose contract included a “pay or play” provision. The studio eventually contracted with a different actor and filmed the project. Plaintiff sued and argued he was due fees for the work contemplated by the contract. Employer argued that the pay or play was invalidated by Plaintiff’s violation of the morality clause in the existing and prior contracts.
          • Plaintiff, one of the company’s first employees, claimed the right to stock options upon her termination for cause. Plaintiff was given stock options as part of her compensation over the years and when she was terminated attempted to exercise the options or otherwise recover their value. Employer claimed that the termination for cause relieved the employer from its obligation to otherwise pay out the value of the stock options.
          • Physician with medical group had an employment contract that was renewed annually by amendment. One of the early contracts provided for a $500,000 payout in the event the doctor was terminated before the conclusion of the annual contract. The amendments did not specifically include reference to the payout provision in later versions. Upon the doctor’s termination for cause (he employed practices that were prohibited by the group), he claimed the right to the $500,000 payout.

            DISABILITY, FAILURE TO ENGAGE, FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE

            • Plaintiff worked for company for 40 years. At age 62, she underwent a knee replacement. She was instructed by her employer that she could not schedule physical therapy during work hours. When she complained that the instruction was illegal, she was fired. Employer did not deny any of the factual allegations but denied she was terminated because of her physical disability.
            • Plaintiff suffered a psychiatric episode at work, including claiming to have brought a gun to work because he was afraid his coworker was going to kill him. He was sent home for a week and told to return to work after securing a note from his doctor clearing him psychologically for work. Plaintiff never returned to work because he did not have a psychiatrist to write his note.
            • 30-year-old male employee with Multiple Sclerosis sought and was given work accommodations for his physical limitations. Before and after his diagnosis, he exhibited performance problems for which he was eventually terminated. Plaintiff claimed he was terminated only after he disclosed his diagnosis and argued the lack of documentation supported his theory.
            • Plaintiff was involved in a car accident during an off-site work inspection. She reported the accident to her employer and sought accommodations, including the ability to work from home four days a week and on site one day per week, with four hours worked on-site that day and the remaining time working remotely. Employer offered other accommodations which Plaintiff refused, and she was placed on an unpaid leave until she could return to work under the offered accommodations or otherwise work full-time on site.
            • Plaintiff worked in customer service at a medical provider. Before she took her job with Defendant, she was assaulted at home and suffered significant physical injuries. During her employment, these physical injuries required treatment and she took a leave of absence. During her leave, there was a change in disability providers and communications were lost. Plaintiff was terminated for failure to provide ongoing medical certifications for her continued leave; however, Plaintiff had provided the certification which was not provided by the disability company to the employer. Once the discrepancy was discovered, the parties found a path towards beneficial resolution.

              STATE AND FEDERAL PROTECTED LEAVES

              • Plaintiff sought FMLA leave for alleged family stress. She continued to keep her company apprised of her condition and her anticipated return to work. Plaintiff was provided FMLA paperwork but never returned it. She was terminated for being absent without medical certification and she sued for wrongful termination.
              • Plaintiff informed his employer that he was going to take paternity leave when his wife delivered their baby six months later. He was congratulated by his supervisors, and they continually spoke about the impending birth in the months that followed. Plaintiff was terminated one month before his anticipated leave due to numerous instances of unprofessional conduct, including a profanity laden interaction with his boss over Zoom in front of his entire department. Plaintiff contended he was terminated for his upcoming leave of absence.
              • Plaintiff worked as an operations manager. She took maternity leave and upon her return sought Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL) to care for her child. She did not have a medical condition caused by her pregnancy and her child was not disabled such that he required her to care for him. The company tried to accommodate her with either a baby bonding or unpaid leave; however, Plaintiff quit and sued for constructive termination.
              • Plaintiff took several medical leaves for cancer treatment. She attempted to return to work but was eventually forced to take further leaves of absence. Plaintiff was terminated because there was no end in sight to her leaves and the company wanted to find a permanent replacement since her work was being performed by a temp that was costing the company additional fees for her service. Plaintiff argued the company should have continued her leave, unpaid, and that such a leave did not unduly burden the company.

              PUBLIC FIGURE (ENTERTAINMENT, POLITICS, CORPORATE) LITIGATION

              • Harassment and Stalking: Male Plaintiff alleged that his male supervisor promised to promote him if he accompanied him on extravagant worldwide trips, persistently told him he loved him, told him he was the love of his life, and when Plaintiff rejected him, he was stalked by the supervisor which resulted in his constructive termination.
              • Multiple domestic workers alleged harassment and wage claims against their reality television star employer. The allegations included harassment, defamation, battery and other inappropriate comments made to and about them. While employer denied allegations, proper documents were not maintained.
              • Action by former television studio employee against several talent members ranging from sexual assault, sexual harassment and national origin harassment and discrimination. The defendants denied the allegations against them. Resolution was reached after multiple sessions of mediation and dedication by attorneys on both sides.
              • Plaintiff underwent plastic surgery at a clinic in Beverly Hills. She claimed that one of the doctors made joking but sexual comments to her before her surgery and that she felt “violated” after her surgery. Defendants used medical experts and studies to show that patients frequently have sexual delirium post anesthesia. They also cited the medical record that showed Plaintiff was given pain management by suppository which explained her feelings of being violated.
              • Plaintiff was the chef for a renowned musician. She was terminated for poor performance and signed a release. She claimed the ADEA waiver was insufficient because another person in a different location who also worked for the musician was terminated within 30 days of her termination.

                Fee Schedule