729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
(617) 994-5800 | info@llrlaw.com
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
(617) 994-5800 | info@llrlaw.com
Shannon Liss-Riordan is widely recognized as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ class action employment lawyers. She has reshaped industries through her pioneering successes representing tipped workers, employees misclassified as independent contractors, and low wage workers who have been denied overtime, minimum wage, and other wage protections. Forbes recently named her to its inaugural list of America’s Top 200 Lawyers (2024). Best Lawyers in America has called her “the reigning plaintiffs’ champion” (2013) and has said she is “probably the best known wage class action lawyer on the plaintiff side in this area, if not the entire country” (2015). Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly described her on its “Power List” (2009) as a “Tenacious class-action plaintiffs’ lawyer [who] strikes fear in big-firm employment attorneys throughout Boston with her multi-million-dollar victories on behalf of strippers, waiters, skycaps and other non-exempt employees.” Politico named her to its guide to the “Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics in 2016”. San Francisco Magazine has said that “Liss-Riordan has achieved a kind of celebrity unseen in the legal world since Ralph Nader sued General Motors.”
For more than 25 years, Ms. Liss-Riordan has brought and won groundbreaking lawsuits that have shaped the law protecting workers in the food service, cleaning, adult entertainment, trucking, and other industries. More than a decade ago, she pioneered litigation representing workers in a number of cases against “gig economy” companies that save on labor costs by misclassifying employees as independent contractors. She represents employees nationally, at the trial court and appellate levels, including seven landmark victories at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Some of her most notable cases include victories against Starbucks, FedEx, and American Airlines. Fifteen years ago, she began the legal strategy of filing mass arbitrations against employers who use arbitration agreements to protect themselves from class actions. The Boston Globe has profiled her work twice as a “legal champion” fighting for the rights of low wage workers, and she has also been profiled in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, Mother Jones, and the LA Times.
A graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard College, Ms. Liss-Riordan co-founded Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. in 2009. Previously she was a partner at a plaintiff-side employment and union law firm in Boston where she worked for more than 10 years after clerking for a federal court judge for two years following law school. In 2019, Ms. Liss-Riordan ran for the U.S. Senate in the Democratic primary for Massachusetts. In 2022, she ran to be Massachusetts Attorney General, a campaign in which she was endorsed by the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, and many other elected officials and labor unions.
Trailblazing Women In Labor Law – Shannon Liss-Riordan
Law360 | March, 2022
Worker Rights Atty Blazes Trail With Whole Foods, Uber Cases
Law360 | July, 2020
Labor Litigator
Harvard Magazine | March – April, 2017
Uber’s Worst Nightmare
San Francisco Magazine | May, 2016
Meet the attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen California tech firms
LA Times | January, 2016
Meet “Sledgehammer Shannon,” the Lawyer Who Is Uber’s Worst Nightmare
Mother Jones | December, 2015
Meet the Boston Lawyer Who’s Putting Uber on Trial
Wall Street Journal | November, 2015
‘Sledgehammer Shannon:’ The attorney taking on Uber and others in the sharing economy
Bizwomen | September, 2015
What Strippers Can Teach Uber
Medium | April, 2015
Lawyer fights for low-wage workers’ rights
Boston Globe | December, 2012
Skycaps and waiters find a legal champion
Boston Globe | April, 2008
America’s Top 200 Lawyers, Forbes (2024) (one of 5 plaintiffs’ employment attorneys)
Top Women of Law, Circle of Excellence, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (2021)
Employee Attorney of the Year (national), Benchmark Litigation (2020)
Robert Morris, Sr. Award for Courage in Litigation, American Board of Trial Advocates, Massachusetts Chapter (2020)
“Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics”, Politico (2016)
Top Women of Law, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (2014)
Best Lawyers in America (each year since 2008)
Massachusetts Super Lawyers (each year since 2005)
Lawyer of the Year, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (2002)
Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 489 Mass. 356 (2022) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that franchisees may be employees for purposes of the Wage Act, overturning district court decision that held federal law to preempt Massachusetts law)
Lohnn v. International Business Machines, Inc. (IBM), C.A. No. 21-cv-6379 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2022), motion to stay denied, No. 22-32 (2d Cir. Feb. 8, 2022) (ordering the unsealing of documents in age discrimination case that IBM attempted to keep hidden through arbitration confidentiality agreement, including highly incriminating emails in which executives disparaged older workers as “dinobabies” and plotted how to make them “an extinct species”)
Lawson v. GrubHub, No. 18-15386 (9th Cir. 2021) (reinstating case challenging GrubHub’s misclassification of drivers in first and only case to date to go to trial against “gig economy” company)
Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, 10 Cal.5th 944 (2021) (California Supreme Court decided that landmark Dynamex ABC test applies retroactively); 986 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2021), 923 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2019) (in a now 14-year-old case, holding that landmark Dynamex decision applies to misclassification claims against “cleaning franchisor”and applies to top-tier company in multi-tier “fissured employment” scheme; providing guidance on strength of ABC test for employment misclassification; and reinstating wage claims on behalf of janitors who challenged paying for their jobs and other wage violations)
Medina v. Equilon Enterprises, Inc., 68 Cal.App.5th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Shell, holding that it could be liable for wage violations committed by intermediary entity)
Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020 WL 4814142 (9th Cir. 2020) (in nationwide case challenging driver misclassification, affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration, holding Amazon drivers to be exempt from Federal Arbitration Act under transportation worker exemption)
O’Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc., 41 Cal.App.5th 771 (2019) (holding that mandatory service charges may be gratuities under California Labor Code) Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 18-55462, (9th Cir. 2019) (reinstating wage claims against 7-Eleven and reversing district court’s denial of injunction for plaintiffs and potential class members facing choice of pursuing wage claims or keeping their jobs) Maplebear dba Instacart v. Busick, 26 Cal.App.5th 394 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (rejecting attempt to vacate arbitrator award certifying wage class action on behalf of Instacart drivers) Khanal v. San Francisco Hilton, Inc., No. 15-15493 (9th Cir. 2017) (banquet employees could bring claim for service charges not distributed to them, reversing order holding wage claims brought by union employees preempted by LMRA) Williams v. Jani–King, 837 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming class certification in case challenging cleaning workers’ classification as independent contractor “franchisees” under Pennsylvania law) Marzuq v. Cadete Enterprises, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21301 (1st Cir. 2015) (Dunkin Donuts general managers could be eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay by proving management was not their primary duty, distinguishing 1982 Burger King precedent, which had held fast food managers to be overtime-exempt) Travers v. Flight Systems & Services, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21671 (1st Cir. 2015) (affirming jury verdict in favor of skycap who was terminated in retaliation for leading class action wage complaint challenging policy affecting skycaps’ tips and reinstating claim for front pay) Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, 465 Mass. 607 (2013) (Supreme Judicial Court held that national cleaning company could be liable for misclassifying cleaning workers, notwithstanding that contracts were with intermediary companies) Taylor v. Eastern Connection, 465 Mass. 191 (2013) (Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts law could apply to work performed outside of the state, due to choice-of-law provision in workers’ contracts) Villon v. Marriott, Hawaii Supreme Court No. 11-747 (2013) (waitstaff could sue to recover service charges retained by employers under state service charge statute, leading to resolution of multiple cases and payments to thousands of Hawaii service employees) Matamoros v. Starbucks, 699 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012) (Starbucks violated Massachusetts tips law by allowing supervisors to share in tip pool, resulting in $23.5 million settlement, removal of supervisors from tip pool, and $3/hour pay raise for supervisors) Awuah v. Coverall North America, 460 Mass. 484 (2011) (Mass. SJC ruled that selling a job is illegal in Massachusetts; “franchisee” cleaning workers who were misclassified as independent contractors could recover refund of “franchisee fees”, insurance, and other deductions from their pay; ruling led to resolution of a number of cases against “cleaning franchise” companies in Massachusetts, reimbursement to thousands of workers, and transfer of cleaning accounts from companies to workers) DiFiore v. American Airlines, 454 Mass. 486 (2009) (affirming verdict in favor of skycaps, holding that non-employer airline could be liable under Massachusetts tips law) Chaves v. King Arthur’s Lounge (Mass. Super. 2007) (exotic dancers were misclassified as independent contractors; ruling led to series of successful cases against adult entertainment establishments in Massachusetts and nationally) Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corporation, Inc., 508 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2007) (class action waiver in employer’s mandatory arbitration policy was unenforceable) Cooney v. Compass Group Foodservice, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 632 (2007) (Appeals Court held that servers were entitled as a matter of law to receive proceeds of service charges added to function bills) Smith v. Winter Place LLC d/b/a Locke-Ober Co., Inc., 447 Mass. 363 (2006) (Supreme Judicial Court held that employees are engaged in protected activity, and cannot be retaliated against, when they raise internal complaints about alleged wage violations) Gasior v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 446 Mass. 645 (2006) (Supreme Judicial Court held that discrimination claim survives the death of the plaintiff, including claim for punitive damages)
Nnebe v. Daus, No. 06-cv-4991-RJS (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 16, 2023) (test case trial for 10 plaintiff New York taxi drivers in certified class action who suffered due process violations based on not being able to challenge their license suspension due to an arrest)
Ordono v. Marriott International, Inc., No. CGC-16-550454 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 2023) ($12 million judgment awarded to class of hotel waitstaff, in the first case to go to trial in California challenging employer’s failure to pay employees the total proceeds of “service charges”, which court held that reasonable customers believed were gratuities)
Lawson v. GrubHub, No. 15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2023) (in the first trial ever addressing whether a gig worker was misclassified as an independent contractor, court held that GrubHub driver should have been classified as an employee)
Norrell v. Spring Valley Country Club (Mass. Super. 2017) (class action jury verdict for waitstaff)
Travers v. Flight Systems & Services (D. Mass. 2014) (close to $1 million jury verdict in favor of skycap who was terminated in retaliation for bringing wage complaint about policy affecting skycaps’ tips)
DiFiore v. American Airlines (D. Mass. 2008) (jury verdict in favor of skycaps, finding that airline violated state tips law and interfered with skycaps’ relationship with passengers by charging $2 per bag and not allowing skycaps to keep the proceeds of the charge; verdict led to airline dropping charge nationwide) (damages award reversed on federal preemption grounds)
Benoit v. The Federalist, Inc. (Mass. Super. 2007) (class action jury verdict in favor of waitstaff who did not receive total proceeds of service charges added to function bills)
Bradley v. City of Lynn, 443 F.Supp.2d 145 (D.Mass. 2006) (class action verdict finding state civil service exam had disparate impact on minorities, resulting in statewide hiring of more than 60 minority firefighters and police officers)
Calcagno v. High Country Investor, Inc. d/b/a Hilltop Steakhouse (Mass. Super. 2006) (class action jury verdict finding management illegally skimmed servers’ gratuities)
Sprague v. United Airlines, Inc., 2002 WL 1803733 (D. Mass 2002) (judgment of $1.1 million in a discrimination case brought by deaf airline mechanic who had been denied employment based on disability)
Dahill v. Boston Police Department, 434 Mass. 233 (2001) (Supreme Judicial Court decided that Massachusetts law would diverge from federal law in prohibiting discrimination against individuals with correctable disabilities, resulting in hiring of hearing-impaired police officer candidate and jury verdict of nearly $1 million)
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1996
Harvard College, A.B., 1990
Member, State Bar of Massachusetts, 1999
Member, State Bar of New York, 1999
Member, State Bar of California, 2016
Admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits.
Lichten & Liss-Riordan is a plaintiffs’-side employment and union-side labor law firm, whose attorneys have achieved national recognition for their work representing employees and unions in wage and hour, discrimination, and other employment-related litigation. We have tried many cases before juries and judges in federal and state courts, and we pride ourselves on our innovative and creative approaches to advancing workers’ rights.
Lichten & Liss-Riordan attorneys have successfully argued many cases before trial and appellate courts, federal and state administrative agencies and at arbitration and have frequently achieved substantial verdicts for their clients. Our attorneys have won landmark cases in the labor and employment area and have had a number of million dollar plus verdicts and settlements in recent years.
Lichten & Liss-Riordan attorneys have successfully argued many cases before trial and appellate courts, federal and state administrative agencies and at arbitration and have frequently achieved substantial verdicts for their clients. Our attorneys have won landmark cases in the labor and employment area and have had a number of million dollar plus verdicts and settlements in recent years.