Search form

Robert M. Pattison

San Francisco

P 415-394-9400
F 415-394-9401


Robert M. Pattison is a Principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He represents employers in employment litigation, fair employment, wage and hour, labor relations and human resources matters.

Mr. Pattison has represented employers in a variety of labor and employment matters in state and federal courts – including wage-hour class action lawsuits – and before government agencies throughout the western United States for over 30 years. Notably, Mr. Pattison argued successfully before the California Supreme Court in the landmark case Ross v. Raging Wire Communications (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920, where the Court found employers have no duty to accommodate medical marijuana use. The decision was significant for California employers as it upheld their right to drug test job applicants and subsequently to decline employment to applicants who fail the test; reaffirmed an employer's right to establish and maintain a drug free workplace policy; and clarified that employers have no duty to accommodate an employee's use of illegal drugs.

During his third year of law school, Mr. Pattison clerked for the Division of Judges of the National Labor Relations Board.

Honors and Recognitions

Professional Associations and Activities

  • State Bar of California

Published Works

  • Lowest Responsible Bidder: A Guide to Merit Shop Construction. NY: Executive Enterprises Publications Co., 1985. [Co-Editor]
  • "Have Your Meal and Time to Eat It, Too! California Courts and the Law on Meal and Rest Breaks," Jackson Lewis publication (2009) [Author]
  • "Aggressive Defense of Employment Litigation," Jackson Lewis Corporate Counsel Conference (1995) [Co-Author]
  • "The Secret Truth About Inspection of Personnel Files," Labor and Employment Law News, California Bar Labor Section 5.5 (1987) [Co-Author]
  • "Collective Bargaining: Management's Opportunity to Improve Labor Economics," Employee Relations Law Journal 11.1 (1985) [Co-Author]

See AllPublications

Advanced Filtering
Showing 1-3 of 12
Most Read
May 7, 2018

California Supreme Court Broadens Definition of Employee in Independent Contractor Analysis

May 7, 2018

Diverging from decades-old precedent, the California Supreme Court has broadened the definition of “employee” in the context of the State’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 Cal.... Read More

May 1, 2018

Class Action Trends Report Spring 2018

May 1, 2018

Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims. This issue covers the following topics: Computer-age class action traps #MeToo: A viral movement, a wave of claims The ADA applies in cyberspace, too Online job assessments... Read More

January 22, 2018

Class Action Trends Report Winter 2018

January 22, 2018

Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims. This issue covers the following topics: Minimum wage: Tip traps The legislation Regulatory roundup Prevention pointer Meanwhile, in the states … Jackson Lewis advocates... Read More

Showing 1-3 of 12

See AllBlog Posts by Robert M. Pattison

The “Pick Off” of Prospective Plaintiffs in Federal Practice
May 19, 2015

Does an offer of complete relief moot out a plaintiff’s claims such that there can be no case under the federal court’s judicial power under the Constitution? That question left unanswered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Read More

Security Screening Time Need Not Be Paid, SCOTUS Rules – Expect California Law to Differ
December 9, 2014

Waiting to go through a security screening and then being screened is not compensable time under federal wage-hour law, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a case issued today (December 9).  But don’t expect California courts to interpret California law in the same way. Read More

Court Easily Finds Sufficient Allegations of Willful FLSA Violations, Denies Dismissal Motion
June 11, 2014

We’ve seen the claim often in class action wage hour disputes over proper classification of workers: the plaintiff and those similarly situated could not have been exempt managers because the employer didn’t provide adequate staffing, and so plaintiff had to spend more of her time as a worker bee than as a manager because the … Read More