Skip to main content

Natalie C. Young

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1768

Share:

Natalie counsels clients and litigates employment disputes on a wide variety of employment and labor matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. Her litigation practice includes non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and wage and hour compliance. She also counsels clients on various employment and labor issues, including employment and separation agreements, terminations and reductions in force, internal workplace investigations, workplace health and safety, independent contractor and employee classifications, employee handbooks, and company policies, such as sick time and other leaves of absence. 

Prior to joining Mintz as an Associate, Natalie was a Mintz 2014 Summer Associate. She also worked at Mintz as a Project Analyst from 2010-2012, rotating among several practice areas and working with the firm’s Pro Bono program.

Natalie’s additional legal experience includes internships with the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in Boston. At Georgetown, Natalie worked as a research assistant for the Center for Research on Adolescents, Women, and the Law in Washington, DC.

At Mintz, Natalie serves as a member of both the Pro Bono Committee and the Firm Associates Committee, and is an Associate Editor of the Employment Matters blog. Outside the firm, Natalie serves as a member of the Associate Leadership Board of the Phoenix Charter Academy Network.

Education

  • University of California - Los Angeles (JD)
  • Georgetown University (BA, cum laude)

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint
Our sister Privacy & Cybersecurity blog discusses a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling on the collection of Biometric Data. This decision will significantly impact litigation under the state’s unique Biometric Information Privacy Act, creating a potential boon for plaintiffs.
Viewpoint
A work-from-home arrangement can be a productive means to attract and retain talent. Effective work-from-home policies allow companies to provide flexibility and support to employees, while maintaining productivity and meeting other work requirements. Offering this voluntary benefit, however, can create headaches and legal risk for employers.  Here are six key considerations for employers to think about in offering such arrangements to their workforces.

The Bubbler

The Bubbler - October 2018

October 22, 2018| Blog

This month’s Bubbler highlights our upcoming Boston Employment Law Summit. On November 7, 2018, Mintz will bring together thought leaders to discuss a wide spectrum of timely issues impacting employers.
It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy.
In our sister blog, ADR: Advice from the Trenches, Don Davis explores back-to-back decisions by New York’s intermediate appellate court that applied very narrow state law principles permitting vacatur of an arbitration award on public policy grounds to vacate an arbitrator’s award that had reduced the employer-posed penalty of termination to a brief suspension.
“Ban the Box” laws prohibit or limit an employer’s ability to ask a job applicant about his or her criminal record. States, counties and cities have enacted this legislation to help applicants with criminal records combat additional barriers to securing employment. We’ve written about these laws as enacted in New Jersey, Washington, D.C., New York City, and California.

The Bubbler - June 2018

June 6, 2018| Blog

With the summer kicking off, it is a good opportunity for employers to review and refresh their employment practices to ensure compliance with developments on the federal, state and legal landscape.This Bubbler Post will review our earlier guidance and (hopefully!) prompt you to review your employment practices:
As reported by our sister blog, ADR: Advice from the Trenches, the Northern District of Illinois recently issued an unusual decision. After finding that both plaintiffs were bound by arbitration agreements with the defendant and after finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration clauses, it denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
In a March 30, 2018 Bloomberg BNA article, Mintz Levin Employment, Labor and Benefits attorney Gauri Punjabi discusses Massachusetts’ new protections for pregnant workers and compares them with the existing federal requirements. This is an important development in Massachusetts, and one that we expect to expand to other jurisdictions.
In a March 15, 2018 Law360 article, Mintz Levin Employment, Labor and Benefits practice leader Michael Arnold discusses the intersection between March Madness and employment law.

News & Press

Mintz Associate Natalie Young is quoted in this Turnarounds & Workouts article explaining a bankruptcy court’s decision to allow Trump Entertainment to reject expired collective bargaining agreements and the impact of the court’s decision on debtor-employers.

Events

Speaker
Nov
7
2018

Boston Employment Law Summit

One Financial Center, Boston, MA