Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

Gay Grunfeld is the managing partner of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP in San Francisco where she focuses her practice on complex civil litigation, with an emphasis on business, civil rights, and employment litigation. She has over 25 years of experience practicing before trial and appellate courts at both the state and federal levels, and has been repeatedly named one of the Top 100 Lawyers in California by the Daily Journal.

AV-rated, Ms. Grunfeld maintains an active and diverse litigation practice, successfully representing clients in a variety of employment, malpractice, attorneys’ fees, trade secrets and commercial disputes. She has successfully negotiated several high-profile employment and business disputes, including obtaining confidential settlements in excess of $6 million. Ms. Grunfeld has led teams establishing precedent under the ADA and other statutes and has served as lead counsel in litigation resulting in multi-million dollar settlements and attorneys’ fee awards.

Ms. Grunfeld served as a Lawyer Representative to the Northern District of California Judicial Conference for three years before service for six years an at-large representative to the Conference Executive Committee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For six years she served as a member of the Board of Directors of Equal Rights Advocates (and as Vice-Chair for three years); she is also a Past President and Board Member of the San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance. Ms. Grunfeld received a CLAY award in 2012 and 2015, was named one of The Recorder’s 20 Attorneys of the Year for 2012, and was the 1995 recipient of the Fay Stender Award from California Women Lawyers for her work in establishing children’s waiting rooms in San Francisco Bay Area courthouses. She has also served on a number of boards and committees for community organizations.

Ms. Grunfeld received a J.D. in 1984 from Columbia Law School where she was an Articles Editor of the Columbia Law Review and a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar from 1982 to 1984. She received a B.A. in Philosophy in 1981 from Wellesley College where she graduated Phi Beta Kappa and with highest honors. After completing law school, Ms. Grunfeld clerked for the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

• Armstrong v. Newsom: RBGG proved in federal court that California’s prison and parole systems violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by discriminating against prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning, mental and kidney disabilities. We secured systemwide injunctive relief to end the discrimination, which was upheld on appeal.  See Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F. Supp. 1252 (N.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997). We also established that the State is responsible for taking steps to ensure the rights of prisoners and parolees with disabilities are accommodated when it chooses to house them in third-party county jail facilities. See Armstrong v. Brown, 857 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Cal. 2012), aff’d 732 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2013), cert denied, 134 S. Ct. 2725 (2014); and 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010).   The Armstrong litigation has resulted in a series of ground-breaking precedents, including rulings that the ADA does not permit state government agencies to avoid compliance by delegating responsibilities to local governments, and that incarcerated people cannot be held in solitary confinement solely on account of disability. We are currently working to stop staff misconduct targeting people with disabilities at CDCR.  On September 8, 2020 and March 11, 2021 respectively, Judge Claudia Wilken granted in part our February 2020 and June 2020 motions to stop staff misconduct at six prisons in CDCR.  The Court found that the systemic abuses against incarcerated people with disabilities at—R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (San Diego, CA)), CSP – Los Angeles County (Lancaster, CA), CSP -Corcoran (Corcoran, CA), Kern Valley State Prison (Delano, CA), Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (Corcoran, CA), and California Institution for Women (Corona, CA) —violate the ADA and prior court orders.  As a remedy, the Court required Defendants to develop plans to install security cameras and use body worn-cameras (BWCs) throughout the six prisons, reform the staff investigation and disciplinary process, and increase supervisory staffing on all yards at the six prisons.  Currently, BWCs and fixed security cameras are in use at all six prisons.  The Court also appointed an expert to oversee implementation of the mandated reforms.  Armstrong v. Newsom, 484 F.Supp.3d 808 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Armstrong v. Newsom, 2021 WL 933106 (N.D. Cal. 2021).  On February 2, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the September 8, 2020 RJD Order in full and the majority of the March 11, 2021 Five Prisons Order (except provisions regarding increased supervisory staffing and pepper-spray policies, which were vacated.)  Armstrong v. Newsom, 58 F.4th 1283 (9th Cir. 2023).  Relatedly, on July 30, 2020, the Court ordered that CDCR transfer  two witnesses from the prison where they had faced assault, threats and other retaliation for their participation in the litigation.  Armstrong v. Newsom, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2020).  
• Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.: RBGG and co-counsel filed a federal class action lawsuit in July 2017 accusing Brookdale Senior Living, the largest provider of assisted living for senior citizens and persons with disabilities in the U.S., of financial abuse and widespread violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.  More than 5,000 residents live in Brookdale’s 89 California assisted living facilities.  On January 25, 2019 the district court denied Brookdale’s motion to dismiss, finding the ADA applies to assisted living facilities.  Stiner et al., v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. et al.,  354 F.Supp.3d 1046  (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019).  On March 30, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  In the Order, the Court reaffirmed its prior judgment that the ADA applies to Brookdale’s assisted living facilities, and certified a class of residents who use wheelchairs and scooters under the theory that Brookdale’s Fleet Safety Policy violates Title III of the ADA by requiring residents to transfer out of their scooters or power wheelchairs in order to ride on Brookdale’s vans or buses, denying them an equal access to Brookdale’s transportation services because of their disabilities.  On October 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint.  The trial in the case will begin on September 9, 2024 in federal district court in Oakland, California, and is expected to last several weeks.
• Salvation Army National Cases.   RBGG together with co-counsel represents participants in Salvation Army adult rehabilitation centers and adult rehabilitation programs (“ARC workers”), who perform labor in support of the organization as a condition of their enrollment, in three lawsuits alleging that The Salvation Army violated federal law and many states’ laws when it failed to pay minimum wage to ARC workers. These lawsuits seek to hold The Salvation Army liable for these wages as the ARC workers’ employer.  The cases were filed on March 9, 2022: Michael Clancy,  et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:22-cv-00979-LMM, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Raymon Alvear, et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:22-cv-01250, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia; and Robert Geiser, et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:22-cv-01968, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
• Spilman v. Salvation Army:  RBGG, along with co-counsel, filed this class action in San Francisco Superior Court in May 2021 against the Salvation Army alleging that it violates a host of California labor laws protecting patient-workers and fails to  properly compensate its employees.  The case seeks to hold  the Salvation Army accountable for its California adult drug and rehabilitation centers that unlawfully require thousands of people  to work long hours for essentially no compensation.  The case is Spilman et al. v. The Salvation Army, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-21-591364.
• Hernandez Gomez v. The GEO Group, Inc.: In July 2022, RBGG, along with co-counsel, sued GEO Group, Inc., a private prison corporation, in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California for unlawfully forcing detained immigrants to work for $1 a day or less.  GEO’s business model and profitability rely on this unlawful pay scheme, whereby the people it civilly detains earn far less than California’s $15 hourly minimum wage and are forced to perform basic janitorial, sanitation, and other services or be punished, placed in segregation, and deprived of basic necessities like adequate food, water, hygiene supplies, exercise time, and contact with loved ones.  The lawsuit seeks to end GEO’s unlawful business practices, which rely on the exploitation and forced labor of the immigrants in its custody.
• Jay Brome v. California Highway Patrol:  RBGG secured a unanimous reversal in the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals of a summary judgment order dismissing on statute of limitations grounds retired CHP Officer Jay Brome’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims, which arose out of the severe and pervasive discrimination and harassment he faced during his nearly twenty-year career because he is gay.  The opinion affirms the importance of applying equitable doctrines— equitable tolling, the continuing violation doctrine, and constructive discharge—to allow employment discrimination and harassment claims to be heard on the merits by a jury.  See Brome v. California Highway Patrol, 44 Cal.App.5th 786 (2020).
• Olabi v. Neutron Holdings, Inc. dba Lime: RBGG and co-counsel filed an action in the San Francisco Superior Court under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) against Lime, a startup that rents dockless motorized scooters throughout the United States.  Lime classified all of its “Juicers”–who pickup scooters off the street in the evening, charge them at their homes overnight, and redistribute them in the morning and without whom Lime could not operate—as independent contractors.  Plaintiff alleged that under California law, including the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, all Juicers are actually employees.  Plaintiff further claimed that Lime, by misclassifying Juicers as independent contractors, violated various provisions of California’s Labor Code regarding the payment of minimum wage, reimbursement for necessary business expenditures, and the provision of accurate wage statements.  Plaintiff sought to recover civil penalties available under PAGA on behalf of all Lime Juicers in California. On September 9, 2019 the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to coordinate all four statewide misclassification cases against Lime in San Francisco Superior Court. In July 2021, the Court granted approval of a $8.5 million settlement of all four cases against Lime.
• Moore et al. v. California Department of State Hospitals:  Together with co-counsel, RBGG sued the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) in Los Angeles Superior Court in 2019 for blatant wage and hour violations.  DSH paid patients at its hospitals as little as one dollar per hour to perform work essential to the functioning of the hospitals, including janitorial, dining, laundry, plumbing, clerical, library, and landscaping services.  On March 18, 2021, the Honorable Elihu M. Berle granted preliminary approval to a $2 million settlement on behalf of 2276 patient workers.  On December 14, 2021,  the Court approved the $2 million settlement, including $5000 to each Named Plaintiff.  Payments will be sent to class members shortly.
• Leaseholder v. Guarantor:  RBGG secured a favorable settlement of a San Francisco Superior Court lawsuit filed against a local restauranteur, who along with other investors, jointly and severally executed a personal guaranty of a restaurant lease that was subsequently breached.
• CEO v. Board Member:  We obtained a complete dismissal of a San Francisco Superior Court case as to all causes of action on behalf of a corporate board member who was sued by a former CEO seeking reimbursement for unpaid corporate liabilities.
• Tech. Entrepreneur v. Corporation:  RBGG successfully resolved a breach of contract dispute on behalf of an entrepreneur who entered an agreement to sell his technology company to a large corporation, and was promised employment and stock incentives as part of the deal.  After the deal was executed, the corporation failed to provide the entrepreneur with meaningful work or stock vesting opportunities while nevertheless reaping profits from the acquired technology.  We obtained a quick and favorable settlement on behalf of the entrepreneur.
• Executive v. Technology Company:  We obtained a substantial confidential settlement for a female Chief Financial Officer who had claims against her former employer, a Bay Area technology startup, for whistleblower retaliation, unequal pay, discrimination, and harassment. 
• Structured Negotiations with Lyft:  RBGG’s clients, Kevin Seaman, an interdisciplinary artist, cultural worker, and drag queen whose drag persona is LOL McFiercen, and The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a leading-edge Order of queer and trans nuns devoted to community service, reached a collaborative agreement with Lyft on June 28, 2019 to ensure individuals in the queer and drag communities are not discriminated against by drivers using Lyft’s platform. Under the Agreement, Lyft will develop new content to educate drivers about issues affecting the LGBTQ community; maintain a readily available method for riders to report discrimination via the Lyft App; re-train employees who handle complaints on LGBTQ issues; and develop an appropriate process to ensure that complaints are handled in a sensitive and appropriate manner. RBGG and co-counsel National Center for Lesbian Rights continue to monitor Lyft’s progress in complying with the Agreement.
• Hospitality Company v. Law Firm:  The firm obtained a confidential settlement on behalf of highly regarded hospitality company whose former counsel failed to disclose conflicts and breached fiduciary duties owed to its client in a series of complex corporate transactions.
• Ex-Spouse v. Spouse’s Business et al.:  Our clients, two businesswomen and the small business they own, had been sued in superior court by one of the women’s ex-husband for allegedly interfering with his interests in a joint commercial lease. RBGG argued that defendant’s statement to the landlord, informing the landlord of the ex-husband’s threat to evict the women’s business from the office space, was protected pre-litigation speech.  The court agreed and granted a motion RBGG filed under the California Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”).  The court also found that defendants’ claims, which included intentional interference with contract and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, had no probability of success.  As a result, the case was dismissed and defendants recovered significant attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the motion.
• Lyft, Inc.:  RBGG represents the National Federation of the Blind and blind individuals in structured negotiations with Lyft, Inc. concerning access to Lyft transportation services for riders with service animals, which resulted in a comprehensive nationwide agreement in January 2017 subject to RBGG and co-counsel’s ongoing compliance monitoring.
• Structured Negotiations with Airbnb:  RBGG’s clients, California Council of the Blind and California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, and Airbnb announced on November 20, 2017, that they had reach an agreement to work together to expand Airbnb’s efforts to improve access to its platform for guests with disabilities.  Under the voluntary agreement, Airbnb will continue to implement a series of initiatives including improvements to its nondiscrimination policy, making its website easier for guests with disabilities to search for listings that accommodate them, providing greater assistance to those who use animal support, increasing anti-bias training for Airbnb team members, and ensuring that anyone who is discriminated against because of a disability is promptly rebooked at no additional cost.  RBGG continues to monitor Airbnb’s progress in complying with the voluntary agreement.
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of Advocacy Groups in NIFLA v. Becerra, 16-1140:  In February 2018, RBGG filed an amicus brief on behalf of several California and national advocacy organizations in the U.S. Surpreme Court in an important reproductive rights and First Amendment case challenging California’s Reproductive FACT Act.  The Act requires “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (CPCs) to disclose whether they are licensed to provide medical care and to non-intrusively notify women who enter their facilities of comprehensive family planning services available through state-funded clinics. The brief supports California’s law by marshaling abundant facts about the epidemic of deceptive and plainly false information pushed by CPCs. 
• Employee v. Technology Company: We successfully represented a female engineer in pre-litigation resolution of sexual harassment claims against a major technology company, achieving a substantial confidential settlement.
• Software Company v. Software Company:  We represented a small software company whose trademark was infringed by a well-known local company.  We achieved a successful pre-litigation settlement for our client.
• Internal Investigation:  RBGG conducted a confidential investigation on behalf of a local labor union into the allegations of a complainant to advise the union of any potential liability arising under contract, tort, employment, and/or labor law.  As part of our investigation, we reviewed pertinent documents, interviewed percipient witnesses, and provided findings and recommendations.
• Junior Bondholder v. Non-Profit:  The firm represented a non-profit provider of high quality eldercare and its management company in litigation by the holder of a subordinated tax exempt bond in San Francisco Superior Court.  Defendants twice successfully demurred to the complaint and later obtained a stay of the litigation; the case was later settled and dismissed.
• Shareholders and Directors v. Company:  We represented shareholders and directors of a software company who sued in Marin Superior Court for breach of contract and fraud to recover over $1.5 million invested in the company.
• Employee v. Financial Institution: We represented a whistleblower fired by a major financial institution for objecting to the company’s practice of making loans without sufficient underwriting. Shortly after we took the deposition of the Fortune 500 corporation’s former chief executive officer, the company favorably settled our client’s claims on a confidential basis.
• Former Shareholders v. Corporation: The firm represented a corporation that managed elder care communities in the Bay Area in a dispute over the value of various business holdings upon the departure of two shareholders.  After extensive motion practice (including partial summary adjudication in our client’s favor) and a bench trial in San Francisco Superior Court, the case ended on terms favorable to the corporation.
• Quinby v. ULTA: We achieved final approval of a $3.65 million settlement in a class action on behalf of 263 current and former store managers of ULTA Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (“ULTA”) stores in California.  We contended that ULTA misclassifies its store managers as exempt from overtime pay, even though they spend the majority of their time performing non-managerial tasks such as stocking shelves, working the cash register, and greeting customers.  Judge Orrick of the Northern District of California granted final approval of the class action settlement in January 2017.
• Security Guards v. Theater Company: The Superior Court approved a settlement of this wage and hour class action filed in 2016 on behalf of security guards responsible for customer safety at local theaters.  These guards endure late nights in an area with a high crime rate, yet the highly successful employer refused to comply with a number of wage and hour laws.  The settlement provided significant pay-outs to current and former security guards.  As a result of the lawsuit, the company stopped its unlawful practices.
• Physician v. Medical Technology Company:  We successfully concluded an action filed in 2018 on behalf of a physician alleging that a medical technology company violated California’s wage and hour laws and California public policy.  The plaintiff worked as a telemedicine provider.  The action sought unpaid compensations for all of the hours worked, mandatory lactation breaks, and expense reimbursements.
• Sunner v. Kenneth R. Turnage II General Contractor, Inc., d/b/a K2GC, Inc.: We obtained final approval of a settlement that included injunctive relief and payment of $297,000 in this class action in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of 60 laborers for a Bay Area construction company and its owner.  The alleged violations included requiring class members to perform hours of uncompensated work each week and forcing class members to drive their own vehicles to perform company business without mileage reimbursement. Judge Hernandez granted final approval of the settlement in February 2017.
• Founder v. High-Tech Company: RBGG assisted a company founder in obtaining a confidential settlement with her former company, the maker of a high-tech corporate communications program.
• Corporation v. Law Firm:  The firm obtained a confidential settlement on behalf of a Bay Area corporation in claims that its long-time counsel failed to disclose conflicts of interest and to offer proper advice concerning a complex series of real estate investment transactions.
• Consulting Firm v. Former Employee:  RBGG successfully represented a small biotech consulting firm that made cutting edge battery products and medical device parts in a dispute with a shareholder and former executive officer who stole company customer lists and other trade secrets. We obtained a temporary restraining order in Santa Clara Superior Court and later a stipulated confidential injunction protecting the company’s intellectual property.
• Former CEO v. Software Company: We successfully obtained a favorable confidential settlement on behalf of a former chief executive and major shareholder of a software company after hard-fought litigation including a cross-complaint in Alameda Superior Court.
• Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros.: In this complex class action on behalf of laborers alleging wage and hour violations against a major construction company, we obtained final approval of a $950,000 settlement with injunctive relief for the class. We also defeated company supervisors’ claims that they should share in the settlement, even though they had perpetrated the alleged wage and hour violations against class members. Before the settlement was reached, we obtained a conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act claims and a published decision striking all of the defendant’s affirmative defenses. See Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros., Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
• Employee v. Financial Institution: We represented a whistleblower fired by a major financial institution for objecting to the company’s practice of making loans without sufficient underwriting. Shortly after we took the deposition of the Fortune 500 corporation’s former chief executive officer, the company favorably settled our client’s claims on a confidential basis.
• Resmex Partners LLC v. Kimomex Santa Clara LLC: The firm represented a San Jose restaurateur and his group of restaurants in a dispute over the sale of two popular restaurants to a third party. We obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of the clients in the main action and in a related real estate action.
• Executives v. Hotel Chain: We represented three terminated executives over the age of 40 against a major hotel chain, achieving a highly favorable settlement of our clients’ age discrimination claims.
• Employees v. National Retailer: We represented three individuals against a major national retailer in federal court. The employees alleged age and disability discrimination, as well as violations of federal and state medical leave laws. We obtained a favorable settlement for the clients early in the litigation.
• Hedrick, et al. v. Grant, et. al:  RBGG and the UC Davis Civil Rights Clinic represent a class of pre-trial detainees, convicted prisoners, and immigration detainees challenging conditions of confinement at California’s Yuba County Jail. In 2013, the federal district court denied Yuba’s attempt to terminate a long-standing consent decree requiring the County to maintain certain minimum standards for those incarcerated at the Jail, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision in 2016. In the fall of 2016, RBGG filed an enforcement motion, seeking to require the County to improve its policies regarding safety cells, suicide screening, out of cell time, intake, and other critical issues, as well as a motion to add claims under the ADA.  After extensive court-supervised settlement negotiations, the parties signed an amended Consent Decree in August 2018. The court approved the Amended Consent Decree and awarded attorneys’ fees to class counsel in early 2019. Since then, RBGG has been closely monitoring the County’s compliance with the Amended Consent Decree. 
• Berman v. Brown:  RBGG brought two Equal Protection Clause challenges to California’s Alternative Custody Program (ACP), a voluntary program that allows certain female low-level prisoners to serve up to the last 24 months of their sentences in the community in lieu of confinement in state prison.  RBGG demonstrated that allowing qualified male inmates to also participate in the ACP is not only required by the Fourteenth Amendment, but will also benefit children and families, reduce recidivism, and save the State money.  In 2014, the court found it likely that California illegally discriminates on the basis of gender by excluding males from the ACP.  See 73 F.Supp.3d 1241 (E.D. Cal. 2014).  In ruling for RBGG’s client on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court in 2015 permanently enjoined the State from enforcing the female-only provisions of California Penal Code § 1170.05(a) and ordered Defendants to immediately accept male applicants if they are otherwise eligible.  RBGG’s client and a number of other male former prisoners are now free and participating in the ACP.  See 99 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 
• Gonzales v. City of Compton: We represented three Latina women in a challenge to the City of Compton’s at-large method of elections under the California Voting Rights Act. We obtained a settlement in which the City agreed to place a measure on the ballot to change the city’s method of elections from at-large to district elections. The ballot initiative passed and, in the next election, Compton residents voted in the first Latino member of the City Council in the City’s history. We also obtained a highly favorable confidential attorneys’ fees settlement.
• L.H. v. Schwarzenegger: RBGG secured the rights of all juvenile parolees in California to fair hearings when they are accused of violating the terms of their parole. As a result of our lawsuit, the State agreed to provide attorneys to all juvenile parolees accused of parole violations, as well notice of the charges and evidence against them, the right to confront their accusers in a hearing, assistance for those parolees with disabilities, and the right to be considered for community-based alternative sanctions instead of return to the juvenile prison system. See L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (2007).
• Hernandez v. County of Monterey: We sued the County of Monterey and its private medical provider, California Forensic Medical Group, challenging dangerous and unconstitutional conditions in the County’s Jail, a system plagued by severe overcrowding, outdated facilities, and chronic understaffing.  In 2014, we defeated the defendants’ motions to dismiss and obtained a unique ruling holding that our clients could assert ADA Title III claims against the Jail’s private medical provider.  See Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 70 F.Supp.3d 963 (N.D. Cal. 2014).  The federal court subsequently certified a class of the approximately 950 prisoners in the Jail, along with a sub-class of prisoners with disabilities.  See Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132 (N.D. Cal. 2015).  On April 14, 2015, the court granted a sweeping preliminary injunction on behalf of the class and sub-class, finding rampant violations of the Constitution and federal law.  See Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929 (N.D. Cal. 2015).  The court approved the parties’ settlement on August 18, 2015, which requires defendants to comply with the requirements of the preliminary injunction and to develop and implement a comprehensive set of plans to enhance services at the Jail.  In November 2015, the Court approved a $4.8 million dollar award of fees and costs to counsel for the plaintiff class.