Susan Pangborn litigates employment disputes and counsels clients on a variety of employment-related issues. Ms. Pangborn has represented employers in class and collective actions, as well as multi-plaintiff and single-plaintiff litigation. She has successfully defended discrimination and wage-hour claims under federal and state statutes in more than 100 cases before both administrative agencies and courts across the United States. She has won jury trials and numerous cases brought in federal and state courts on summary judgment. Ms. Pangborn also represents employers in arbitrations brought under both collective bargaining agreements and alternative dispute resolution provisions.
In addition, Ms. Pangborn provides practical guidance to employers on employment-related issues, including wage-hour compliance, discrimination issues arising under federal and state statutes, and strategies for handling employee complaints, performance issues, and terminations. She partners with clients to ensure they understand how changes in applicable state and federal laws affect their policies and practices. She has assisted clients in structuring and implementing reorganizations and force reductions affecting employees across several states, and in exploring cost-saving alternatives to reductions-in-force. Ms. Pangborn also assists clients in conducting effective workplace investigations of harassment complaints and provides appropriate follow-up training.
Ms. Pangborn also focuses her practice on executive agreements and the area of restrictive covenants. She regularly helps employers protect their investment in their people and intellectual property by ensuring that confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation agreements comply with applicable state laws. Similarly, she advises clients on the enforceability of such provisions and litigates issues arising from restrictive covenants.
Ms. Pangborn is listed in the 2018 and the seven years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA for Labor & Employment. She was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Management Employment Law and Labor and Employment Litigation in 2018 and 2019. Ms. Pangborn was named a Northern California "Super Lawyer" in 2017 and 2018 for Employment & Labor and a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in the area of Employment Litigation: Defense in 2016 and the four years prior by Super Lawyers magazine.
Represented company in a large California employment class action in California Superior Court, defending claims of unpaid meal breaks, improper rounding, waiting time penalties, failure to pay minimum wages, and wage statement violations under the California Labor Code and Private Attorneys General Act. By strategically using an expert to undermine class certification and minimize potential damages, we were able to reach a very favorable settlement and limit litigation expenses.
Represented manufacturing company in California employment class/representative actions filed in California Superior Courts alleging claims brought under the California Labor Code and Private Attorneys’ General Act. We were able to successfully resolve these matters through mediation and assist client in implementing compliant policies and practices.
Represented Emory University, Inc. in an action brought by a former employee who claimed she was discharged for engaging in protected activity under the False Claims Act. Summary judgment was granted. Waters v. Emory University, Inc., No. 11-103 (N.D. Ga.) (Mar. 20, 2013).
Represented a consumer products manufacturer in a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by a former long-term employee whose employment had been terminated. The employee asserted claims of age discrimination under state and federal law, wrongful termination and breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment.
Represented office products company in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff claimed that our client breached an employment contract and was unjustly enriched by his efforts. The Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment as to all counts. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision.
Represented a California employer in action brought by our client against a former employee and competitor alleging the improper use of confidential information and solicitation of employees. After we aggressively pursued litigation and injunctive relief, the competitor agreed to a settlement which included providing 10 days’ notice of intent to hire any current employees.
Represented Nestlé Waters North America Inc. in a lawsuit brought in California by one of its production workers alleging that she was discriminated against because of a disability in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Patterson v. Nestlé Waters, et al., California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case No. RCV 096524.
Represented a California-based company in litigation filed in the Middle District of Tennessee by a former employee who claimed that he was terminated because of his age. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the company in May 2014.
Represented one of the largest U.S. forest products manufacturers in litigation brought by an 18-year employee who claimed that she was terminated because of her age, race and in retaliation for protected activity in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. In March 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to the employer on all of the plaintiff’s claims. In March 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Represented UnumProvident Corporation, a leading benefits provider worldwide, in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff claimed that he was discriminated against because of a disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case was tried to a jury, which awarded a verdict for our client. Rose v. UnumProvident Corp., No. 05-0526 (N.D. Ga. filed Feb. 23, 2005).
Represented The Boeing Company in a case that involved allegations brought by a current human resources professional of discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We obtained summary judgment, which was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Linda Simmons v. The Boeing Company, Case No. 5:05-CV-28 (WDO).
Represented The Boeing Company in a lawsuit in which an employee claimed that he failed to receive certain promotions or job transfers because of his race or in retaliation for protected activity and that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. We obtained summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims, which was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jerry Lamb v. The Boeing Company, Case No. 8:03-CV-03128-AW (D. MD) (4th Cir.).
Co-counsel for nationally recognized bedding manufacturer in successfully defending and resolving through mediation a class action filed in California state court (San Francisco area) on behalf of all nonexempt workers at its manufacturing locations in California. The complaint asserted a long list of alleged labor code violations, including unpaid minimum wage and overtime due to improper rounding of clock times, off the clock work, missed meal breaks, improper wage statements, and failure to pay all wages at termination.
The firm served as lead counsel for American Speech-Language-Hearing Association in a disability discrimination lawsuit and obtained dismissal of all the plaintiff’s claims. Our client prevailed on summary judgment on its cross-claim against the plaintiff for defamation, violation of the Lanham Act, and invasion of privacy. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Insights View All
University of Georgia School of Law, J.D. (1987) with honors
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, B.S., Political Science
magna cum laude
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.