Michael Nunez

Michael Nunez is senior counsel at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP. He works on complex litigation and prelitigation matters, including class actions, with a particular focus on ensuring that people with disabilities obtain equal access to government services, technology, transportation, and public accommodations.  Mr. Nunez also has experience representing clients in employment discrimination and white collar criminal defense matters.

Mr. Nunez is a graduate of Stanford Law School and earned his B.A. at Stanford University. Prior to joining RBGG, he was a Staff Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates, a national non-profit impact litigation center.

Mr. Nunez received a California Lawyer of the Year (“CLAY”) Award in 2018, and was named a Northern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers from 2016-2020. Mr. Nunez is a member of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California General Order 56 Advisory Committee. He is also a member of the Board of Directors for the Disability Rights Bar Association (DRBA) and for the LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired in San Francisco.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

• Structured Negotiations with Airbnb:  RBGG’s clients, California Council of the Blind and California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, and Airbnb announced on November 20, 2017, that they had reach an agreement to work together to expand Airbnb’s efforts to improve access to its platform for guests with disabilities.  Under the voluntary agreement, Airbnb will continue to implement a series of initiatives including improvements to its nondiscrimination policy, making its website easier for guests with disabilities to search for listings that accommodate them, providing greater assistance to those who use animal support, increasing anti-bias training for Airbnb team members, and ensuring that anyone who is discriminated against because of a disability is promptly rebooked at no additional cost.  RBGG continues to monitor Airbnb’s progress in complying with the voluntary agreement.
• Amici Curiae Brief in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476:  In August 2022, RBGG filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of former U.S. Representative Tony Coelho, a principal author of the ADA, and a coalition of ten disability rights organizations.  The question on which the Court granted review is “Whether applying a public accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  RBGG’s brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide that the Colorado’s Antidiscrimination law does not violate the First Amendment right to free speech of  website designer who refused to design a wedding website because she disapproves of same sex marriages.  RBGG’s brief urges the Court to hold that the website designer and her company are a public accommodation that should be subject to the anti-discrimination constraints of the Colorado law.  We marshalled examples of cases in which discriminators asserted or could assert the same defense to applying the ADA and similar state and local disability rights laws to a range of arguably artistic and other public accommodations.
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of LGBT Bar Associations in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No. 19-123:  In August 2020, RBGG filed an amicus brief on behalf of eight LGBT bar associations. The case is a challenge by Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) and several foster parents to Philadelphia’s decision to cut off referrals of foster children to CSS for placement and payment of public funds for such services.  The City did this because CSS had refused to comply with its contract with the City—mandated by the City’s general antidiscrimination law—requiring that CSS,  like all other private agencies that contract with the City, to certify or use same-sex couples as foster parents.  
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of LGBT Bar Associations in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-168; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., No., 18-107: In July 2019, RBGG filed an amicus brief in three cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status.  The brief, which was filed on behalf of the National LGBT Bar Association, the National Trans Bar Association, the LGBT Bar Association of New York, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, and the LGBT Bar Association of Los Angeles, urges the Court to recognize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status as forms of impermissible sex discrimination.  The brief also urges the Court to reaffirm that employers may not discriminate on the basis of sex to appease customer prejudice.   
• National Federation of the Blind v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.:  RBGG represented the National Federation of the Blind and blind individuals in a class action in the Northern District of California challenging Greyhound Lines’ failure to ensure that its website and mobile software applications are accessible to blind individuals who use screen-access technology to access content on websites and mobile applications.  RBGG and co-counsel TRE Legal Practice successfully negotiated a settlement of this action wherein Greyhound committed to improve accessibility to blind persons of its website and mobile app.
• Lyft, Inc.:  RBGG represents the National Federation of the Blind and blind individuals in structured negotiations with Lyft, Inc. concerning access to Lyft transportation services for riders with service animals, which resulted in a comprehensive nationwide agreement in January 2017 subject to RBGG and co-counsel’s ongoing compliance monitoring.
• National Federation of the Blind of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc.:  RBGG represents the National Federation of the Blind and its California affiliate as well as several individuals in an action challenging denials of service and other discrimination that blind and low-vision riders with guide dogs face when attempting to use transportation arranged through the popular Uber mobile app.  On December 6, 2016, the Court granted final approval to a comprehensive nationwide class settlement, which is subject to RBGG and co-counsel’s ongoing compliance monitoring.
• California Council of the Blind v. County of San Mateo: The firm represents an association of blind and low-vision persons and two blind individuals in an action challenging the State and San Mateo County’s failure to provide voters with vision impairments the opportunity to equally participate in the County’s absentee voting program, which relies on inaccessible paper ballots.  Plaintiffs seek to vote using software allowing them to read and mark their absentee ballots privately and independently using screen access software on their personal computers.  In September 2016, the parties stipulated to and the Court ordered a framework for certifying and implementing an accessible absentee voting system in San Mateo County.  In October 2017, plaintiffs secured for the first time the opportunity to vote using an accessible absentee voting system in the November 2017 election.
• Amici Curiae Brief on Behalf of Former Representative Tony Coelho in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 16-111:  In October 2017, RBGG filed an amicus brief on behalf of former U.S. Representative Tony Coelho, a principal author of the ADA, and a coalition of ten disability rights organizations.  The brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is not subject to federal constitutional religious or free speech exceptions which would allow places of public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  The brief urged the Court to consider the implications of such exceptions on enforcement of the ADA and similar state and local disability rights laws, marshalling examples of cases in which discriminators asserted these defenses. 
• Blanks v. AMC Entertainment, Inc.:  RBGG represents the Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the California Council of the Blind, and five blind individuals in a class action challenging AMC’s failure to provide reliable and effective access to audio description services at its theaters nationwide.  Audio description is a verbal description of key visual aspects of a film during pauses in dialogue provided through an audio track synchronized with playback of the movie.  The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement in April 2017.
• Sierra Club v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission:  After President Donald Trump took office, the SEC increasingly allowed companies to exclude shareholder proposals aimed at curbing global warming and adopting environmental standards.  On behalf of the Sierra Club, RBGG filed a FOIA lawsuit against the SEC to obtain previously-withheld communications between the agency and external parties related to climate-focused shareholder proposals as well as records related to the SEC’s processes for rejecting or approving a company’s decision to exclude shareholder proposals related to climate change.  Through litigation, Sierra Club obtained responsive documents that the SEC had initially refused to produce.
• Sierra Club v. United States Department of the Interior et al.:  RBGG sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to obtain records related to the protection of threatened and endangered species at risk of harm by coal mining operations.  Prior to litigation, the federal agencies ignored their FOIA obligations and failed to identify or produce responsive records to Sierra Club.  After filing the lawsuit, the federal agencies promptly produced responsive records.   
• Coleman v. Brown: RBGG represents a class of the more than 30,000 men and women in California’s prison system with serious mental illness. After a contested trial, the district court held that the prison mental health delivery system violates the Eighth Amendment and ordered systemwide injunctive relief. See Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995). The court determined that the constitutional violations remain ongoing in 2013 after the State attempted to terminate the injunction. See Coleman v. Brown, 938 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Through hard-fought litigation over the last two decades, RBGG has secured a number of significant systemic changes on behalf of the class, including, most recently, reforms to policies and practices regarding the use of force against prisoners with mental illness, as well as the overuse and misuse of solitary confinement. See Coleman v. Brown, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2014). RBGG also recently secured an order requiring the State to provide emergency access to inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, which was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished decision.  For more information see Coleman v. Brown: Court Orders, Reports, Photos, Expert Declarations and Media Coverage.