John Golper, Esq. is one of the preeminent labor and employment litigators in California, bringing over 48 years of unparalleled expertise to the dispute resolution arena. Since 2019, he has spent as much time mediating employment disputes as he has as an advocate. Mr. Golper is now dedicated to fostering resolution as a full-time neutral at ADR Services, Inc. focusing on resolving all types of labor and employment law and business disputes.

Mr. Golper’s decision to become a full-time neutral was driven by his realization of the profound satisfaction derived from helping litigants and their lawyers resolve disputes. He has been incredibly active as a Mediator serving on the U.S. District Court ADR Mediator Panel since 2019 and has garnered a dedicated following from labor and employment lawyers – both plaintiff and defense – who seek his expertise as a private mediator.

What sets Mr. Golper apart is his wealth of practical employment law experience, having spent almost half a century as a legal luminary in California. A rarity among employment mediators, his background encompasses significant jury trial experience, offering a unique perspective that translates into a mediator with a strong command of employment law. His decades of hands-on experience allow him to swiftly assess the nuances of each case, providing a candid evaluation of strengths and weaknesses.

Mr. Golper embarked on his career as a labor lawyer after graduating from UCLA Law School in 1975, where he served as a Research Assistant to the esteemed Labor Law Professor, Ben Aaron. In his first three years as a lawyer, Mr. Golper worked in a well-recognized boutique litigation firm which specialized in sophisticated business litigation and represented numerous labor unions in the telecommunications and entertainment industry, in addition to individual employees. He then began his long illustrious career on the management side of labor and employment law matters.

In 1986, Mr. Golper played a pivotal role in establishing Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, a prominent 26-attorney firm specializing in labor and employment law and related litigation. Over the years, he has consistently earned individual Best Lawyer rankings every year since 2003 and has been recognized as a “Super Lawyer” in Employment Litigation every year since 2004. He has been peer-reviewed as the highest possible “AV Preeminent” rating from Martindale-Hubbell since 1987.

Mr. Golper’s practice expertise runs the gamut of every kind of matter involved in labor and employment law, from traditional labor/management issues involving union contracts and cases under the pertinent grievance and arbitration procedures to representing clients on human resource matters and in court as well as before numerous administrative agencies. He is one of only a few labor and employment lawyers who not only has expertise in traditional labor law but is also a highly experienced jury trial lawyer. His trial experience ranges from smaller wrongful termination cases to multi-week trials addressing systemic discrimination and harassment. His appellate prowess is equally impressive, contributing to major legal precedents and securing victories as lead or amicus counsel. He was inducted into the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) in 2009.

Now, having successfully mediated over 100 cases, Mr. Golper eagerly anticipates continuing his legacy of service to the legal community as a full-time neutral at ADR Services, Inc. His commitment to facilitating resolution and drawing on his wealth of legal experience positions him as a sought-after mediator in the complex landscape of labor and employment disputes.


2017-Present       Mediator
ADR Services, Inc., 2024-Present
United States District Court, ADR Panel, 2019-Present

1986-2023 Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP
Of Counsel, 2017-2023
Senior Partner, 1986-2016

1978-1986      Parker, Milliken, Clark, O’Hara & Samuelian
Partner, Labor Department, 1983-1986
Associate, Labor Department, 1978-1983

1984-1986      California Comparable Worth Task Force
Appointed by Governor Deukmejian as one of three gubernatorial appointees to eleven-member task force and wrote Minority Report to the California Legislature regarding proposed changes to Labor Code Section 1197.5.

1974-1978      Bodkin, McCarthy, Sargent & Smith
Associate, Labor and General Litigation Departments, 1975-1978
Summer Law Clerk, 1974

1974      California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 3
Extern Law Clerk to Honorable Winslow Christian

1973-1974      Whittaker Corporation
Law Clerk


  • 2019-Present       United States District Court, Annual Advanced Mediator Training
  • 1975-Present       Numerous CLE, PLI, American Management Association programs
  • 2018       American Arbitration Association, 32-hour Mediator Training
  • 1977       New York University Law School Certification in Negotiating Labor Contracts
  • 1975       University of San Francisco, Labor Management School Certification in Labor Arbitration


  • Associate, American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), Since 2009
  • AV-rated, Martindale-Hubbell, Since 1986
  • Southern California “Super Lawyer” (Employment Litigation), Since 2004
  • Best Lawyers (Employment Law, Labor Law, Litigation Labor and Employment), Since 2003
  • “Top Lawyer” in Employment Law, Pasadena Magazine, 2015
  • Dean’s Circle Award, UCLA School of Law, 2014
  • “Best Lawyer” for Labor & Employment Law, California Employment Law, 2004
  • “Top 25 Attorneys of the San Fernando Valley”, San Fernando Business Journal, 2002
  • Profiled in Verdicts & Settlements, Daily Journal, May 1999 and Cover Story, January 2000
  • Listed in Who’s Who in American Law, Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in California
  • Frequent Speaker at Numerous CLE and PLI Programs on Labor and Employment Law Topics
  • Frequent Trainer/Presenter on Advanced Mediator Training Topics


  • Harassment: Race, Gender, Age, National Origin, Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Pregnancy, Disability or Perceived Disability, Religion
  • Discrimination: Race, Gender, Age, National Origin, Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Pregnancy, Disability or Perceived Disability including Failure to Accommodate, Religion
  • Sexual Harassment or Assault
  • Retaliation including Safety Complaints, Pay Disputes, Exercise of Protected Rights
  • Wrongful Termination / Constructive Discharge
  • Wage & Hour Claims,
  • Wage & Hour Class Actions / Private Attorney General Act (PAGA)
  • Breach of Employment Contracts
  • Whistleblower Wrongful Termination
  • Leaves of Absence, FMLA, CFRA
  • Equal Pay Act and other Fair Pay Claims
  • Labor Code Violations
  • Background Check Violations including FCRA, Fair Chance Act, and Use of Criminal Records
  • Breach of Union Contracts and Union Duty of Fair Representation Claims
  • ERISA Trust Fund Claims
  • WARN and CAL-WARN Claims
  • Buy-Sell Agreement Disputes, including Golden Parachute and other Severance Pay Provisions
  • Commissions / Bonuses / Benefits
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Trade Secret and Unfair Business Practice Cases
  • Partnership Disputes and Dissolutions
  • Attorney Fee Disputes and Reasonable Fee Claims
  • ADA Accessibility Cases

Representative Cases


  • Settled dozens of ADA access cases involving claims of denied accessibility relating to deficient handicapped parking, deficient store aisle ways, transaction counters and the like.


  • Resolved a case in which the Plaintiff was a Senior Research Scientist who was laid off by a biochemical company that manufactured pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff was 56 and had worked for the Company for 16 years when he was laid off. Plaintiff contended his layoff was age discrimination and that he had been denied promotions for several years due to his age. He also claimed his layoff was retaliatory because he had complained of age discrimination when he was not promoted and also because he had raised safety complaints about chemical and toxic fumes and shortly thereafter, OSHA had made a surprise inspection of the facility. Plaintiff also made claims that the full title of his corporate employer was not listed on the paystubs provided to all Company employees. The Employer contended Plaintiff had not made age discrimination complaints about his not receiving several promotions and contended each person hired for the jobs in question had the requisite special expertise. It also said that Plaintiff had not made safety complaints but instead reported in his managerial position that subordinate employees had complained to him. The Company also produced documents that it had a strong suspicion of who had made the OSHA complaint and it was not Plaintiff. Defendant employer also claimed that as a part of global restructuring of its business, it was transferring all its small-scale manufacturing of a certain product line that Plaintiff managed to the UK. The employer presented evidence that each of Plaintiff’s subordinate employees who were kept on after Plaintiff’s layoff had certain skills and experience which could be used in other departments. It further concluded that Plaintiff’s exaggerated opinion of his abilities would end up being an HR nightmare if it offered him a lower-level position at half his current salary.


  • Settled a case in which Plaintiff was a high-level executive who had a change of control provision in his employment contract setting forth certain triggers for severance pay. After his company was sold to another, he claimed the severance pay was triggered. His former employer claimed the triggers were not activated because he was offered the same position, responsibility and compensation package by the acquiring entity.
  • Resolved a case in which Plaintiff, who was the chief buyer of alcohol products for a large grocery chain, claimed breach of his employment contract which required “good cause” to terminate him, or specified damages would be owed. Defendant employer contended Plaintiff had done a poor job of maximizing the leverage the grocery chain had to effectuate purchases at such a high volume. It used economic analysis by several experts in sales to support its claim there was no contract violation because Plaintiff in his top-level position was expected to perform at a high level, not at a “mediocre” level. It argued that Plaintiff would not want the mediocre performance analytics publicized if the matter did not resolve.


  • Settled a case where a phlebotomist got hurt while assisting a person who felt ill during a blood draw and fell on her. Plaintiff had various injuries and took time off from work with physical restrictions placed on her but later returned to work and was able to do work assisted in part by help from co-workers. In her workers’ comp case, she was rated with a permanent disability but could still do her work. Defendant’s regional manager learned of the rating and then terminated Plaintiff, stating they couldn’t accommodate her. There were several different medical reports: one doctor said she could do unrestricted work, another doctor said lifting restrictions were permanent. Defendant claimed the termination was valid because the last doctor report imposed permanent restrictions preventing Plaintiff from doing the essential functions of her job. Each party disputed whether Plaintiff looked for other jobs available at the Company within her restrictions as well as whether Defendant had jobs available.
  • Resolved a case in which the Plaintiff claimed his termination was the result of his re-injuring himself and suffering pain after the Company failed to properly accommodate his disability. The Company contended it did provide accommodations to Plaintiff and his termination was because he walked off the job and clocked out without advising any of his supervisors in violation of Company rules. Plaintiff’s labor union initially filed a grievance protesting Plaintiff’s termination but then decided not to pursue the matter to arbitration.
  • Resolved a case in which Plaintiff was terminated for taking extended and unauthorized breaks. Plaintiff contended he needed additional rest and bathroom breaks because of a chronic urinary tract illness and that his supervisors failed to accommodate him. The employer argued that Plaintiff had never put the Company on notice of any kind of disability, let alone produced medical documentation. The Plaintiff also contended that his Union failed to properly represent him in the disciplinary process.
  • Resolved a case in which Plaintiff was a truck driver who developed tinnitus. Because of DOT safety regulations, he was placed off work until he could receive appropriate medical clearance that he could drive. After an extended leave, his medical doctor indicated he could drive up to 10 hours a day and on days he felt better, more than 10. The Company sent him to its own doctor for a fitness for duty exam. Plaintiff’s Union filed a grievance per the collective bargaining agreement that Plaintiff should be reinstated with full pay, based on the one doctor’s opinion. The Company contended that it needed to follow its normal safety protocol until Plaintiff passed all fitness for duty tests. Plaintiff ultimately filed a civil lawsuit for discrimination and failure to accommodate.


  • Settled two separate but companion lawsuits brought by two Plaintiff professors against the same defendant, an accredited online academic institution known for computer science and business management courses. Both professors separately raised complaints over the number of hours they were working and raised issues about their exempt status. After each professor complained, the university separately refused to offer them future teaching assignment contracts and essentially terminated them from future contracts. With one of the professors, the university president wrote that due to the professor’s clear unhappiness with the pay structure, it was best to terminate the professor’s services. The university claimed the other professor had been teaching classes no longer in demand by students and that she was not qualified to teach the intense computer science now in high demand. The professors each filed separate lawsuits that disputed their exempt status and sought damages for unpaid wages and overtime under state and federal laws and various statutory penalty provisions. They also claimed retaliatory termination in violation of public policy and statute. Both professors alleged they had well-recognized reputations and had received accolades from their students, and one had even been recognized as teacher of the year twice.


  • Resolved a case in which two female employees claimed ongoing sexual harassment by their male employee counterparts, involving sexual banter. They also claimed the work assignments were given out by the supervisors in a manner that male employees got the jobs that were most attractive from a pay and difficulty basis. The employer contended that jobs were assigned based on skill level only and claimed the female employees also engaged in sexual banter and failed to follow company protocol set forth in its sexual harassment procedures which would have alerted the Company so it could take preventative measures.


  • Settled a lawsuit in which Plaintiff was the health and welfare pension plan of one of the Guilds in the movie industry. Defendants were several different multinational production companies, which co-produced an acclaimed movie. The lawsuit was brought pursuant to ERISA and the LMRA alleging unpaid residual contributions based on gross receipts when the movie moved to supplemental markets (cable TV, streaming services, etc.). The amount claimed in unpaid contributions had been determined by one of the major industry forensic accounting firms. The lawsuit involved disputes over the licensing agreements and “minimum guarantees” set forth in a prior settlement agreement. The lawsuit had major implications impacting future industry-wide collective bargaining agreements.
  • Settled a case in which the Plaintiff was a Trust Fund for a construction industry labor union. The Defendant was a large utility service contractor in the construction industry that was subject to a master collective bargaining agreement. A routine audit of the defendant indicated unpaid contributions. The nature of the claim centered on a jurisdictional dispute over the kind of work being performed – whether it was within the jurisdiction of work belonging to the Plaintiff labor union or work within the jurisdiction of a different labor union whose master agreement called for contributions at a much lower rate. The case required knowledge of jurisdictional disputes among unions under the National Labor Relations Act and differentiation between different types of work in the construction industry.


  • Settled a case where the Plaintiff was an order picker in a warehouse. She was terminated after failing to return to work following a leave of absence that had been classified as personal on her leave paperwork. Plaintiff claimed that during her employment she and other Hispanic employees had been denied certain benefits and other opportunities than had been given to all non-Hispanic employees. She also claimed she was required to work seven days per week. She claimed she suffered injuries at work and Defendant failed to accommodate her with available light duty assignments. Plaintiff further claimed that the employer knew she asked for a leave to take care of her ailing mother and therefore the leave was protected under the FMLA, and she was entitled to a longer leave before she was terminated. Defendant denied all the claims of differential treatment, and failure to accommodate and said it simply classified the leave as personal based on what Plaintiff herself had stated to the Company why she needed time off – needing to find childcare. Plaintiff argued the Company had an affirmative obligation to notify her she was entitled to an FMLA leave.
  • Settled a case where an employee was terminated while out on medical leave for a hip injury. The employee had been continually updating the employer on his injury and recovery status. Due to a mix-up with the Defendant’s recordkeeping department, the Company had him listed on a personal leave and terminated him, thinking he had over-stayed his “personal” leave. When the mistake was discovered, the Company had no available jobs.


  • Resolved a partnership dispute in which the Plaintiff contended he was wrongfully evicted from a law firm partnership that focused on employee wage/hour class actions and consumer rights class actions. Plaintiff claimed breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duties, quantum meruit, and requested an accounting. Defendant contended that plaintiff had quit the law firm abruptly without notice and had not done the work on cases he felt entitled to money on. The dispute required analysis under Jewel v. Boxer of profit sharing on contingency fee cases involving departing partners.


  • Settled a case where Plaintiff was an Administrative Assistant assigned by a staffing company to a hospital. Plaintiff claimed she had been told she was doing such a good job and that she would be brought in as a regular full-time employee within a few months. Plaintiff became pregnant and within a short time after advising the employer, the employer notified the staffing agency that due to operational changes, it would no longer need someone in Plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff sued both the hospital and staffing agency for pregnancy discrimination. The staffing agency stated it was unable to find another client to send Plaintiff to. The hospital claimed it did not have any open positions and the job it had talked to her about initially no longer existed due to a major restructuring.
  • Resolved a case in which the Plaintiff alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy and not because of performance issues. She further alleged that the owner of the defendant company had numerous times told her she should get an abortion and would not be a good mother. She alleged harassing and discriminatory comments were made to her when the owner said her abusive behavior and rude treatment of subordinate employees were due to her “hormones” because of her pregnancy. The employer contended that its termination of Plaintiff was due entirely to numerous subordinate employee complaints about her management style and she had been properly counseled and failed a specific Performance Improvement Plan.


  • Settled a case where Plaintiff was terminated after complaining of overhearing racial epithets and words uttered by supervisors about different races. Plaintiff was terminated shortly after he made the complaints. Defendant claimed the termination was based on prior performance. The poor performance ratings had little documentation and were prepared after Plaintiff had made his complaints about his supervisors.
  • Resolved a case in which Plaintiff was an aerospace engineer laid off by a large aerospace company as part of a layoff that affected nearly 10% of its work force. Plaintiff claimed he had been denied promotions and called various racial and ethnic slurs like “camel jockey,” “Pakistani pig,” etc., and ultimately laid off because of his Pakistani national origin. Defendant claimed the promotion denials and the layoff were all unrelated to the Plaintiff’s national origin and based simply on his performance ratings and ability to perform “the remaining work” relative to others. It denied the racial/ethnic slurs. Plaintiff presented documented evidence that during an interview by a DFEH/CRD investigator, Plaintiff’s immediate Supervisor made a comment in jest about Plaintiff being “my favorite camel jockey” and Defendant Company was ordered by the DFEH to require the Supervisor to attend sensitivity training.
  • Resolved a case which the Plaintiff alleged he was the victim of continuous anti-Muslim/Arab discrimination and harassment and was terminated from his executive position because of that. Defendant claimed there was no discrimination or harassment and that Plaintiff was terminated for business improprieties. Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff after he started a competing company and engaged in unfair business practices, including use of confidential proprietary information he obtained from his former employer.
  • Resolved a case in which a Plaintiff sued his aerospace corporation employer alleging his selection for layoff was based on his age, race and in retaliation for having filed three EEOC complaints after being laid off three earlier times and being brought back to work as part of a settlement with the EEOC. The Company contended that the division in which Plaintiff worked as a first level supervisor was discontinuing its product lines and 78% of the employees had already been laid off and the criteria used for ranking employees for layoff was based strictly on “ability to perform” the remaining work. It claimed the evaluations of Plaintiff were done by totally unbiased supervisors.
  • Resolved a case in which Plaintiff claimed his layoff from an aerospace defense industry company was discriminatory based on race and age discrimination. Plaintiff contended that the employer’s use of peer evaluations to determine the rankings of employee ability and performance was tainted by the fact many of Plaintiff’s peers had made racial comments to him demonstrating racism. He also claimed at least one of his peers had made age-related remarks to him such as “you’re close to retirement age anyway, why don’t you just take an early retirement package and leave your spot for a younger employee with a family.” Defendant contended the layoff was legitimate and the peer group was multi-racial, and many employees joked with each other and no one but Plaintiff complained any of the rankings were the result of racism. Defendant also argued that the one age related comment was not even made by any of the peer reviewers, but by someone who was also laid off.
  • Resolved a case where Plaintiff sued his employer for race discrimination when he was terminated for attendance issues. Plaintiff claimed that his supervisor assessed him points for absences and tardies until they totaled the requisite number to justify termination under the Company’s attendance policy that was approved by his Union. Plaintiff argued his supervisor was racist, called him “boy,” a “thug,” and made other comments that are typically construed as racist. Plaintiff argued his supervisor had discretion on when to assess attendance “points” and discriminatorily used a harsher standard against Plaintiff than other employees. The Defendant contended the supervisor was not the person who made the decision to assess points, but it was solely the province of the attendance control personnel and there were no complaints against them by Plaintiff and they all testified they applied the point system without bias. The Defendant also presented testimony from the Union’s Business Agent that at no time when he interacted with Plaintiff over numerous grievances he filed did he ever claim to be the victim of racial harassment, only that Plaintiff thought his supervisor was rude and abusive to his employees. The supervisor had resigned from the Company because of reprimands over his abusive management style but there was nothing in his file to reflect racism. In fact, the supervisor testified his spouse was Black and his kids were bi-racial and denied he ever made racial comments to Plaintiff or any other employee.

view all


  • Resolved a case in which an employee who worked for an aerospace defense contractor alleged it was discrimination against his Quaker religion to force him to install parts on an airplane that was then sold to the US military. The Company contended the parts that Plaintiff installed were installed on both military and civilian airplanes and at the stage of assembly where Plaintiff worked, the planes were interchangeable. It was only weeks later in the assembly process where the plans were separated into military and civilian aircraft assembly lines. Defendant offered to allow Plaintiff to take a different assembly line position, but one that called for a lower pay rate than the specialized function he was currently on.
  • Resolved a class action case where numerous employees claimed they were unable to work on the sabbath because of their religion and therefore they lost weekend premium pay. They requested the employer to allow them to have preferential hiring for Saturday work where premium pay was granted. The Defendant argued that Sunday was the day where it needed employees most and therefore it offered the highest premium pay that day.


  • Settled a case in which the Plaintiff was employed as a Store Manager for a chain of appliance stores. He contended he was fired in violation of health and safety public policy after he suspended an employee who insisted on coming to work after she tested positive for Covid-19. The employee he suspended protested to HR and claimed he made sexually and racially insensitive remarks to her. The Company investigated her claims and learned of other employees also claiming racial and sexually offensive remarks and abusive behavior by the Store Manager. It terminated the Store Manager and argued it had supported him in his suspension of the employee who violated Covid-19 rules, but his termination was prompted by the abusive and hostile environment he created for his subordinate employees.
  • Settled a case in which the Plaintiff was a salesman for a medical laser technology company. During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, he complained it was unsafe for him to be ordered to make on-site sales calls and product demonstrations. He also complained to HR about bullying tactics by his new Manager. HR investigated and concluded his complaint about his manager had no merit. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff complained it was in retaliation for his health and safety complaints. The employer contended it was a layoff based on declining Company sales during the pandemic.
  • Settled a case where Plaintiff was also a salesman who complained about being forced to do on-site sales calls despite “stay-at-home” and safety rules. He further complained about lack of meal and rest breaks. He claimed his termination was retaliatory for his safety complaints and not because of low sales. He also alleged his supervisor bullied him and when he complained to HR, his supervisor responded by saying he was a “a tall-white guy so why are you going to HR.” The defendant employer contended his termination was part of a bigger layoff prompted by declining company sales and Plaintiff was a relatively new hire with poor sales numbers.


  • Settled two related lawsuits, the first of which involved Plaintiff who worked as a technician for a well-known disaster relief organization. She claimed she had been sexually harassed (touching as well as verbal and leers) by a frequent donor who often came to the facility at which she worked to make his blood donations. She had alerted her supervisors to the claimed misconduct and alleged nothing was done to counsel the donor or prevent its recurrence. She alleged significant emotional distress damages and claimed she was traumatized by the experiences, which caused long-term injuries. Plaintiff brought suit against the organization and also against the individual donor defendant. The organization was represented at the mediation by a major law firm. The individual defendant donor was represented by a law firm hired by his homeowner insurance company which was defending under a reservation of rights. The carrier had also brought a separate lawsuit against its insured for declaratory relief arguing intentional torts were not covered. The settlement of the harassment lawsuit required engaging the individual donor defendant and the insurance company to also separately settle the declaratory relief lawsuit which was filed in a different court.
  • Resolved a case in which the Plaintiff sales employee sued her employer, claiming she had been raped by a co-worker at a national sales meeting. The co-worker had been sued but settled earlier by paying the policy limits of his homeowner’s policy which had tendered a defense for him. Plaintiff contended that the Company had encouraged a sexually provocative atmosphere among its young sales force employees by serving unlimited alcohol and encouraged parties after the meetings concluded. She also produced evidence that the CEO of the Fortune 500 company had fostered the climate by hosting parties with extramarital affairs at his private residence and frequently made risqué comments about female employees at award ceremonies and the like. Plaintiff sued the alleged rapist (her co-worker), as well as the Company. The co-worker claimed Plaintiff had consented to their sexual encounter and willingly accompanied him to change into her bikini in his hotel room. The employer contended it did not foster a sexually charged atmosphere among its sales force. It further contended it had no knowledge of the sexual proclivity of the alleged co-worker perpetrator and that Plaintiff had months before complained to her fellow employees she was offended by her married co-worker’s advances to her and other females at previous sales meetings. Defendant employer further contended if Plaintiff had no expectation of the co-employee’s aggressive sexual tendencies such that she willingly accepted his invitation to go to a late night jacuzzi party, and to change into her bikini in his hotel room, then the employer could hardly be accused of knowing of the male employee’s priorities or be charged with failing to prevent harassment. Plaintiff claimed she had been a virgin and offered psychiatric testimony of her emotional distress damages.
  • Settled a case where an employee claimed he was constructively discharged because he had been continuously sexually harassed by co-workers and a supervisor had witnessed some of the hazing/harassment. The company contended the employee had told the HR Department he was resigning because he didn’t like the work he was assigned to and believed it was different than described in his job interviews.
  • Resolved a case in which Plaintiff contended she was terminated after witnessing and complaining about rampant sexual comments in the workplace resulting in a hostile environment. Defendant contended it investigated her complaints and found no corroborating evidence, and the termination was based on Plaintiff’s unexcused failing to attend mandatory sales meeting.
  • Resolved a case in which Plaintiff was a temporary employee assigned by a staffing agency to a food distribution company. She claimed she was the victim of ongoing sexual harassment by her Supervisor at the Company, who constantly asked her for dates and would inappropriately touch her. She claimed he threatened her that he would get her fired if she refused his requests to go out with him and when she rebuffed his advances, she was terminated. She sued the Company and the staffing agency for the sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment and wrongful discharge. The distribution company’s supervisor denied all the allegations against him, and both the Company and the staffing agency claimed no knowledge of any harassment or of any complaints whatsoever by Plaintiff. They each insisted Plaintiff was terminated when the temporary job Plaintiff was hired for ran out of work.


    • Resolved a case brought by Plaintiff who worked as a mailroom clerk at a large law firm. He claimed that he was the victim of open and ongoing sexual orientation discrimination and harassment for many years by numerous employees, including partners. He claimed significant emotional distress damages supported by psychiatric records. Defendant claimed Plaintiff had been openly “gay” for years at the Firm and engaged in frequent gay jokes and banter with co-employees and his supervisors and the atmosphere was consensual in all respects even to the extent Plaintiff invited co-workers and Firm Partners to gay pride parades. The Defendant employer argued it was only after Plaintiff met a new partner, who advised Plaintiff to stop joking and instead complain about gay bantering. Defendant also asserted that it responded quickly to Plaintiff’s complaints and engaged in sexual harassment training for all affected employees.


    • Settled a case where a business analyst for a financial services company left and went to a competitor and used at his new company financial information he acquired on clients of his former employee. When the former employer threatened to file a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief and damages, the employee threatened a counter claim for violation of non-compete laws.
    • Resolved a dispute in which a former Vice-President of Sales had a falling out with upper management and negotiated a lucrative severance pay agreement as part of a resignation/ termination package. The agreement contained a non-compete provision for the duration of the monthly pay received pursuant to the resignation-severance pay agreement. When the Plaintiff started up a competing company entity, Defendant stopped the severance payments and then Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant.


    • Settled a case where an employee was allowed to start work during the pandemic, subject to passing his background check which was delayed because the pandemic had caused delays in getting court records. The Company terminated the employee once it received the background report weeks after the employee had started working. The Company failed to comply with the pre-adverse action notice provisions of California’s Fair Chance Act. The Plaintiff had turned down other employment offers to work for defendant and those other jobs were filled by the time Plaintiff was notified of his termination.


    • Resolved a class action case where non-exempt nursing and medical staff claimed “off the clock” work when they would clock out and then have to do patient medical charting and other small assignments afterwards. The employer argued it had no knowledge the employees were finishing their chart work after they had already clocked out and, in any event, the amount of time was “de minimus” and not actionable.
    • Resolved several major wage/hour class actions in which the Plaintiffs claimed various violations of California meal and rest break laws, unpaid sick leave, inadequate wage statement and off the clock work.


    “John served as our mediator in a multi-defendant discrimination case.  The parties were fairly far apart after a day’s mediation, but John continued working the phones and pushing the parties to compromise.  Almost two months after the initial mediation, John eventually settled the case.  His perseverance and case evaluation were critical in achieving the settlement.  John zeroes right in on the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions.”

    “Mr. Golper was very effective in helping get resolved a very contentious matter. His calm knowledge of the law, extensive litigation experience as a trial attorney, as well as his demeanor and persistence were essential in gaining my clients’ trust and getting our case settled.”

    “John is as good of a mediator as I have come across in 35 years of practice. In my opinion what sets John apart from other mediators is his wealth of actual employment law experience. As a lawyer he practiced nearly 50 years and was one of California’s preeminent lawyers. It is rare to find an employment mediator with John’s experience which includes significant jury trial experience. This experience translates into a mediator who has a command of employment law and the ability based on decades of practical experience to quickly get a good handle on the matter he is mediating and shoot straight on the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Mr. Golper gets my highest recommendation as a mediator and I have mediated at least 500 cases. He settled all my cases he mediated.”

    “Mr. Golper had the perfect demeanor and patience for our case, and he was instrumental in settling it.  He helped make it more understandable to my clients, and showed them respect they appreciated. I think the resolution was fair for both sides.  I would definitely use John Golper as a mediator in another case, where his broad knowledge, patience and subtle strategic control would be assets to point us toward resolution.”

    “I had the pleasure to have Mr. Golper mediate two of my cases and in both, I was very happy and impressed with the way he handled them. He is an excellent mediator; he went above and beyond to achieve a workable and reasonable result for both parties.  When the mediation was over, he made sure that he was available for further questions and concerns and if we did not call him, he would take the time to call to make sure we were not needing any more assistance from him.  I felt that he was truly caring about my clients and that meant a lot to me because that is exactly what they need, someone that hears them with compassion regardless of the outcome of the case. I would recommend Mr. Golper to anyone that needs a caring and hardworking mediator.”

    “John successfully negotiated settlement in a sexual assault and sexual harassment case. There were multiple plaintiff’s counsel and multiple defense counsel as the individual defendant was represented through his homeowner’s policy and both his counsel and the carrier’s counsel were not familiar with employment law issues. In addition, the plaintiff’s counsel were personal injury and workers’ comp attorneys, and they were also not very familiar with employment law. John patiently worked through the employment, PI, workers’ comp, and insurance issues to weave together a comprehensive settlement that was fair and reasonable to all. It was my second mediation with John, having used him a prior time from the federal court panel, and I’m thrilled he is now available for private mediation. Can’t recommend him enough.”

    “It was a great pleasure to mediate the case with John. Both my client and I much appreciate his professional help in exploring the possibility of settlement. Thank you!”

    “John did a great job on these mediations. My client and I appreciate his tenacity and attention. I hope we can work with him in the future.”

    “John’s calm demeanor and litigation experience helped my client come to the right conclusion. I will be sure to have him on my short list of mediators moving forward.”

    “I’ve known John Golper for many years.  He came to mediation after developing a wide breadth of experience as a practicing labor and employment law attorney in Southern California.  I’ve had occasion to work with Mr. Golper as a mediator on multiple occasions arising from federal court litigation.  While on their face the matters were lawsuits involving two parties, the underlying facts in each were far more complicated, with construction businesses, multiple unions, multiple fringe benefit trust funds, and interested businesses all having conflicting positions and goals to be considered.  There were related matters pending with grievance/arbitration machinery and administrative agency proceedings.  In each situation, Mr. Golper took time to listen to the parties.  He studied and developed an understanding of the facts, issues, and goals of the parties, as well as to determine how best to work with the parties on proposals toward constructive resolution.  In these situations resolution required not just finding a mutually agreeable dollar amount but also an understanding giving the parties a viable path forward.  Mr. Golper was pleasant and effective, but firm when necessary, in helping the parties navigate through the weeds to resolve these complex and multi-layered disputes.  I would be happy to work with him again as a mediator in future cases.”