Go to Content
This site is best viewed with javascript turned on.
This site uses features not supported by Internet Explorer.
B r g s john manier gifjyq

John J. Manier Senior Counsel

15760 Ventura Boulevard, 18th Floor
Encino, CA 91436

For more than 30 years, John’s practice has focused primarily on labor and employment law, and related litigation, on behalf of management, in trial and appellate courts. He has participated in multiple full trials and dozens of mediations, prepared numerous motions for summary judgment and other pre-and-post-trial motions, and briefed cases before the National Labor Relations Board. John also has handled several dozen appellate matters, including direct appeals, writ petitions, amicus briefs, and cases before the United States and California Supreme Courts. He has drafted briefs and given oral arguments in several cases resulting in published appellate opinions.

In addition, John provides employment law advice and counseling and has drafted employment contracts, personnel policies, arbitration agreements, and settlement agreements. He has written and co-written numerous articles that have been published in Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine, the Los Angeles Daily Journal, and other publications.

John served as a law clerk to the late United States District Court Senior Judge Irving Hill, and then became an associate with the labor and employment law department at O’Melveny & Myers. More recently, John spent five years as a principal with the litigation boutique Nassiri & Jung LLP.

Admitted to Practice

  • California

Court Admissions

Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of California
United States Courts of Appeals

  • D.C. Circuit
  • Third Circuit
  • Ninth Circuit
  • Tenth Circuit

United States District Courts

  • Central District of California
  • Eastern District of California
  • Northern District of California
  • Southern District of California
  • B.A., University of Notre Dame
  • J.D., UCLA School of Law
  • Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020) (United States Supreme Court holds the employment discrimination claims of two teachers at Catholic elementary schools were barred by the “ministerial exception,” because the schools relied on these teachers for the religious education and formation of students, so the selection and supervision of these teachers lies at the core of the schools’ mission, and the First Amendment’s religion clauses do not tolerate interference in how religious schools discharge these responsibilities)
  • Windsor Redding Care Center v. NLRB, 944 F.3d 294 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (National Labor Relations Board lacked substantial evidence to find that our client’s suspension and discharge of an employee was because she engaged in activity protected by federal labor law)
  • Venetian Casino Resort LLC v. NLRB, 793 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (employer’s request that police issue criminal citations to demonstrators and block them from employer-owned sidewalk because of alleged trespass was protected under First Amendment right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”)
  • Venetian Casino Resort LLC v. EEOC, 530 F.3d 925 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (EEOC must give advance notice to employer and follow other requirements of Freedom of Information Act before disclosing employer-submitted confidential information to third parties)
  • Venetian Casino Resort LLC v. EEOC, 409 F.3d 359 (D.C. Cir. 2005): (court held that lawsuit, which challenged EEOC’s regulations on handling employer-submitted confidential information, was “ripe” for judicial review)
  • Reeves v. Hanlon (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (affirms a judgment in our client’s favor on claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, and misappropriation of trade secrets and sets standards for claims of tortious interference with at-will employment contracts)
  • Turner v. Anheuser-Busch (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1238 (establishes the law in California on what is a constructive discharge)
  • Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel (2019) 40 Cal. App. 5th 1239 (holds that one hour of premium pay for failure to provide meal or rest breaks need not be calculated at the overtime premium rate, and that a hotel’s policy and practice of automatically rounding employee time up or down to the nearest quarter hour complies with California law; review granted by California Supreme Court)
  • AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 1014 (holds that our clients’ use of a payroll system that automatically rounds employee time up or down to the nearest quarter hour complies with California law)
  • GAB Business Services v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 409 (court reversed jury verdict against our client, a company that provides independent insurance adjusting services, on claims against a former corporate officer and a competitor company for breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition)
  • Saret-Cook v. Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 1211 (upholds defense sexual harassment verdict, judgment on cross-complaint and $1 million attorneys’ fees award to employer improperly sued for sex harassment)
  • Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 494 (upholds right of employer to give accurate references)
  • Kirmse v. Hotel Nikko of San Francisco (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 311 (summary judgment upheld; at-will employment)
  • Eng v. County of Los Angeles, 737 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (granting summary judgment for employer on First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)


  • UCLA Law Review
  • UCLA Law Review Editor
  • Publication: Comment,The Attorney-Client Privilege and its Availability to Insured Persons, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 977
  • American Jurisprudence Award, Constitutional Law I
  • American Jurisprudence Award, Property