ATTORNEYS
Attorney Manolo Olaso
Mr. Olaso's focus is civil litigation and civil rights, particularly hard-fought and controversial sexual harassment cases and police misconduct cases. In addition to civil litigation, Mr. Olaso also represents clients in licensing hearings, including driver's license suspension hearings. He is also responsible for the office's appellate practice. He has argued and prevailed in front of California's Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento and the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Mr. Olaso is authorized to practice in the Supreme Court of California, all California Courts of Appeal, and all Superior Courts of California. In addition, he is admitted to practice in the following Courts: United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States District Courts for the Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Central District of California, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The following is a small sample of Mr. Olaso's noteworthy cases:
Eastern District of California: Litigated large settlement for former Sheriff’s Department correctional officer who sued the County of Yolo for sexual harassment after she alleged that the elected Sheriff (Edward G. Prieto) repeatedly hugged and kissed her over many years despite her complaint to supervisors about his unwelcome behavior and his penchant for hugging women in the workplace. (Zetwick v. County of Yolo; settled 2018).
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal: Filed appeal of dismissal of sexual harassment case, fully briefed case, and argued in front of three-judge panel. Result: won unanimous reversal of district court’s ruling in favor of County of Yolo’s and Sheriff Edward G. Prieto’s motion for summary judgment, thereby fortifying protection for women in the workplace. In its reversal, the Ninth Circuit (1) gave explicit expression to a previously tacit rule that pervasive, unwelcome hugging and kissing in the workplace is illegal sexual harassment, (2) flatly rejected defense's contention that the hugs were the same type of non-sexual, innocuous greetings that you would give to a friend or family member, (3) re-emphasized that harassment by a high-ranking workplace member (supervisor) can be more severe than harassment by a low-ranking workplace member (non-supervisor), and (4) fortified the rule that a harasser’s harassment of multiple women in the workplace is directly relevant to the issue of whether a plaintiff's work environment is hostile. Won reversal and publication despite the Ninth Circuit’s historically low rate of reversal and publication. Because it is a published opinion, it is binding precedent in all federal district courts of the nine western States within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdictional boundary, and may be used as persuasive authority in all American courts. This case has caught the attention and scrutiny of human resources advisors nationwide. (Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 2017)).
Eastern District of California: Litigated large settlement for woman who once worked in the accounting department for a large hospital system in Sacramento, who alleged she was repeatedly sexually harassed by her supervisor, and that management and Human Resources knew about her allegations but did little to protect her. (2022)
Eastern District of California: Litigated favorable settlement for woman who alleged she was falsely arrested and subjected to unreasonable, excessive force (tasered and punched) by police officer in Northern California (resulting in black eye). The woman alleged that the police officer then lied about the encounter, and that the police department had an official policy or practice of keeping officers on the force despite knowing officers had a history of/propensity for using unreasonable, excessive force against the public, and then falsifying police reports to cover it up. (2020)
Eastern District of California (agreed-upon district for potential private arbitration): Negotiated large settlement for two women, formerly employed at Sacramento-area automobile dealership, who claimed sexual harassment and retaliatory termination after they said management ignored their complaints that a salesman was repeatedly making sexually suggestive comments and sexual advances. (2017)
Eastern District of California: Litigated favorable settlement for computer engineering college student/Folsom Intel Corporation intern who claimed false arrest and excessive force (taser) by law enforcement officers from the City of Rancho Cordova/County of Sacramento. (2014)
Northern District of California: Litigated favorable settlement for California correctional officer who claimed racial discrimination by his supervisors at San Quentin prison when he said they engaged in a sustained campaign of unwarranted discipline and disparagement of his work in an effort to deny him promotion and get him to quit his career. (2014)
Northern District of California: Litigated large settlement for former desk clerk at well-known San Jose/Silicon Valley hotel who claimed sexual harassment when she said her supervisors repeatedly stared at her in a sexual manner, made sexual comments, criticized her work because she had rejected sexual advances, and attempted to kiss her. (2012)
Yolo County Superior Court: Litigated large settlement in parents' wrongful death claim after their adult son, who was suffering a mental health crisis, died in the custody of City of Woodland police officers who had tasered and tackled him. (2009)
Los Angeles Superior Court: Litigated large settlement in woman's personal injury case in which she alleged a protruding bolt on a world-famous California pier caused a trip and fall that resulted in a severe knee injury. (2021)
Department of Motor Vehicles: Set aside driver's license suspension for motorist who allegedly drove with 0.20% blood alcohol level (legal limit is less than 0.08%) and was parked on shoulder of freeway between Lincoln and Roseville. (2023)
Department of Motor Vehicles: Set aside driver's license suspension for minor age motorist who was involved in a solo vehicle crash and was allegedly driving with detectable amount of alcohol in his bloodstream (blood alcohol limit for minors is 0.0%). (2022)
Department of Motor Vehicles: Set aside driver's license suspension for motorist who allegedly drove with a 0.25% blood alcohol level (almost four times legal limit). (2019)