Ruth M. Bond

Ruth Bond’s practice focuses on representing public entities in labor and employment matters as well as other areas of public law. Her labor and employment matters include litigation in state and federal court, workplace investigations, arbitrations, labor relations, day-to-day advice regarding compliance with relevant statutes and regulation, handling charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the California Office of Civil Rights and the Public Employment Relations Board and more.

Before joining AALRR, Ms. Bond was a Partner at a boutique law firm where she represented a variety of non-profits and public agencies, including cities, counties and special districts, primarily in labor and employment matters.  Ms. Bond oversaw the firm’s litigation and investigations practices.  Before that, Ms. Bond spent nearly 14 years as a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Francisco, under the leadership of City Attorney Dennis Herrera.  As a member of the Labor team, Ms. Bond represented the City of San Francisco in every aspect of labor and employment law.  Ms. Bond gained extensive experience in employment litigation in state and federal court. This included appellate work in the California Court of Appeal, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and successfully opposing a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court. Ms. Bond also has a great deal of experience with grievance arbitrations and labor negotiations.

While at the Office of the City Attorney, Ms. Bond advised several city departments including Juvenile Probation, Adult Probation, Recreation and Parks, and the City Attorney’s Office. These departments relied on Ms. Bond to provide insight and guidance on compliance with federal, state and local employment laws such as Title VII, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and San Francisco’s Civil Service Rules. Ms. Bond also served as a member of the City Attorney’s Affirmative Litigation Task Force from 2015 to 2017.

Before the Office of the City Attorney, Ms. Bond was a litigation associate for another firm, and a judicial clerk for the Hon. Barrington D. Parker Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Prior to attending law school, Ms. Bond was an award-winning journalist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and other publications. She applied these journalism skills in law school as an Articles Editor on the New York University Law Review.

Honors & Recognitions

• Recipient of International Municipal Lawyers Association 2024 Amicus Service Award

• Top Women Lawyer, Daily Journal, 2020 and 2021

• Top 100 Lawyer, Daily Journal, 2021

Davis, et al. v. County of Napa, USDC Northern District of California, Case No. 21-cv-04603-JCS.  Served as lead defense counsel in collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) against the County of Napa by correctional officers who asserted claims for wages and overtime pay related to uncompensated pre-shift activities.  The County engaged an economic expert who demonstrated that overtime paid to correctional officers under their Memorandum of Understanding with the County significantly offset any FLSA liability and parties reached a very reasonable settlement before engaging in expensive discovery and motion practice.  (See 2023 WL 5723675)

Rodriguez, et al. v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, USDC Northern District of California, Case No. 23-cv-01379-HSG:  Serve as lead counsel for Defendant Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”) in twelve plaintiff case alleging claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for religious discrimination, retaliation and violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in connection with VTA’s denial of Plaintiffs’ applications for religious exemption from VTA’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.  The case is in discovery and set for trial on December 9, 2024.  

Minassian v. City of Berkeley, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 22CV008801:  Served as lead defense counsel in case brought by former Berkeley police officer who sued the City for retaliation under Labor Code Section 1102.5 and disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA. Plaintiff’s claims arose from the Police Department’s decision to terminate him for misconduct. He was terminated while on medical leave for a hand injury. On April 4, 2024, the Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, finding that the City terminated Plaintiff for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, namely, documented misconduct and complaints from several supervisors about his work performance, all of which occurred before his injury. 

Stafsberg, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-560370: Served as lead counsel for Defendants in this case brought by two plaintiffs, employees of San Francisco’s Department of Public Health, alleging claims for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5 and other causes of action against the City and County of San Francisco and one individual defendant. Following summary judgment proceedings in which the Court dismissed some claims, the whistleblower retaliation claims proceeded to trial. The City obtained a complete defense verdict against both plaintiffs . 

Danner, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-501981: Served as lead defense counsel in case brought by fifteen firefighters alleging claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for age discrimination based on failure to promote to Lieutenant and retaliation for engaging in protected activity. The case proceeded to trial on the disparate impact age discrimination claim that challenged the validity of the Lieutenant promotional exam. The jury rendered a 9-3 verdict against the City. However, the City filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) which the trial court granted, throwing out the jury verdict.  Plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed the JNOV ruling. (2017 WL 4385927—unpublished.)  Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought review in the California Supreme Court. 

Dinslage v. City and County of San Francisco(2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 368 (partially published)

Practice Areas

Community & Professional

• The Bar Association of San Francisco, Member
• Friends of The Children – SF Bay Area, Board of Directors