Photo of Julia Hollreiser

Julia Hollreiser is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group.

Julia represents employers in a wide range of employment-related disputes, including defending clients against claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful discharge, and wage and hour law violations.  She has experience assisting in single-plaintiff, multi-plaintiff, and class and collective action litigations, in federal and state courts as well as before administrative agencies.  Julia represents clients across a variety of industries including sports, financial services, media and entertainment, higher education, and law firms. Julia also counsels clients on a broad range of employment issues, including investigations into sensitive employment matters, employee terminations and discipline, and employment policies and procedures.

Julia earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from Cornell Law School, where she was a member of the Order of the Coif and graduated first in her class. Julia was also the Managing Editor of the Cornell Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Board. While at Cornell, Julia worked as a student attorney in several clinical programs, representing clients in immigration matters and in employment discrimination matters before the New York State Division of Human Rights. While in law school, Julia was a judicial intern for the Honorable Ronnie Abrams in the Southern District of New York.

On March 31, 2021, the Sixth Circuit addressed an issue of first impression in the circuit, holding that the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) whistleblower protection provisions protect former employees from post-employment retaliation.  United States, ex rel. Felten v. William Beaumont Hospital, No. 20-1002.


Plaintiff was employed as a

On December 17, 2020, the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) of the U.S. Department of Labor affirmed the dismissal of a former employee’s whistleblower retaliation claim under Section 806 of SOX.  The ARB concluded that the Complainant did not engage in protected activity, noting that his complaints regarding a lack of