Andrea Gold, a two-time graduate of the University of Michigan, has spent her legal career advocating for consumers, employees, and whistleblowers. Ms. Gold has deftly litigated numerous complex cases, including through trial. Her extensive litigation experience benefits the firm’s clients in both national class action cases as well as in qui tam whistleblower litigation.
She has served as trial counsel in two lengthy jury trials. First, she was second-chair in a four month civil jury trial in state court in California. She more recently served as second-chair in a multi-week jury trial in Maryland.
In her class action practice, Ms. Gold has successfully defended dispositive motions, navigated complex discovery, worked closely with leading experts, and obtained contested class certification. Her class action cases have involved, amongst other things, unlawful bank fees, product defects, violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and deceptive advertising and sales practices. Ms. Gold’s tireless efforts have resulted in millions of dollars in recovery for consumers.
Ms. Gold also has significant civil rights experience. She has represented individuals and groups of employees in employment litigation, obtaining substantial recoveries for employees who have faced discrimination, harassment, and other wrongful conduct. In addition, Ms. Gold has appellate experience in both state and federal court.
Prior to joining Tycko & Zavareei, Ms. Gold was a Skadden fellow. The Skadden Fellowship Foundation was created by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, one of the nation’s top law firms, to support the work of new attorneys at public interest organizations around the country. The Skadden Fellowship Foundation receives hundreds of applications each year, but only a very small number of Skadden fellows are selected. Ms. Gold was awarded this prestigious fellowship in 2004 and, for two years, she represented survivors of domestic violence in family law and employment matters. Ms. Gold also provided legal counsel to clients, members of the legal community, and social service providers regarding the Illinois Victim’s Safety and Security Act (VESSA), a state law protecting survivors of abuse from employment discrimination and providing for unpaid leave.
Ms. Gold earned her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where she was an associate editor of the Journal of Law Reform, co-President of the Law Students for Reproductive Choice, and a student attorney at the Family Law Project clinical program. Ms. Gold graduated with high distinction from the University of Michigan Ross School of Business in 2001, concentrating her studies in Finance and Marketing.
Ms. Gold is admitted to practice before the courts of the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Maryland, as well as numerous federal courts including the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Obtained contested class certification and named Class Counsel in case challenging bank fee assessment practice, followed by $15.975 million class settlement.
Class Counsel in $20 million nationwide TCPA settlement against Uber.
Class Counsel in $24.5 million nationwide settlement in case challenging credit union fee assessment practice.
Class Counsel in litigation challenging Farmers Insurance Company’s practice of charging its most loyal policyholders more than justified by the risk they present, based on their lack of price sensitivity; obtained $15 million settlement for California policyholders.
Class Counsel in litigation alleging that Sharp’s microwave oven drawers were dangerously defective; obtained nationwide class settlement valued at over $103 million.
Class Counsel in wage theft litigation against UPS, resulting in a $995,000 settlement for Massachusetts workers.
Obtained reversal of district court’s ruling where Eleventh Circuit held that the issue of class arbitrability was clearly and unmistakably delegated to arbitrator.
Obtained contested class certification in trial court and appeal of that decision by Defendant was rejected by both the Ohio Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court.
Defeated dismissal bid largely based on Allstate’s argument that challenge to insurance company’s alleged use of price optimization was barred by filed rate doctrine and primary jurisdiction doctrine; trial court decision upheld by Appellate Court of Illinois and petition for leave to appeal to Illinois Supreme Court denied.
Ruling that client-whistleblower in a False Claims Act case was entitled to a significant share of a $350 million settlement.