• Print
  • |
  • |
  • PDF

Contact Iván

3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower
111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
T: 503.205.2377

Iván Resendiz Gutierrez

Associate

Iván (pronounced "ee-v-AA-n") is a litigation and appellate attorney on the firm’s appellate, education, and employment and labor relations practice teams. Iván is known for handling complex cases and situations, providing practical advice, and finding creative solutions for clients from such diverse industries as education, energy, and manufacturing.

Iván advises employers, including higher education institutions, on knotty employment-related issues including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, unemployment insurance benefits (including shared work benefits), and wage-and-hour compliance, and on preparing employment documents such as employment agreements, handbooks, and other workplace policies. Iván also helps higher education institutions navigate the federal and state antitrust laws and works with them to establish safeguards to minimize risk of antitrust scrutiny.

Iván also defends public and private employers on a wide range of employment and commercial matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies, including appeals, breaches of contract, class actions, employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination (as well as other tort claims), and ERISA litigation.

Iván is a regular speaker and author on employment law, diversity, and litigation topics. He has been recognized by national, state, and local organizations, including the Hispanic National Bar Association’s “Top Lawyers Under 40” Award, Oregon Super Lawyers Rising Stars, Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, and the Oregon State Bar President’s Diversity & Inclusion Award. 

Before joining Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, Iván clerked for the Honorable Lynn R. Nakamoto at the Supreme Court of Oregon and the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Representative Experience

A member of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn's appellate specialty team, Iván has handled high-stakes appeals in diverse subject areas, including commercial disputes, constitutional law issues, criminal justice issues, education law issues, ERISA disputes, insurance issues, tort claims, and securities claims in Oregon and federal courts. His experience includes appellate motions, merits and amicus briefing, and oral argument, as well as petitions for writ of mandamus and petitions for review to the Oregon Supreme Court.
  • C. Q. R. v. Wafula, 305 Or App 344 (2020)
    Secured affirmance of a permanent stalking protective order under Oregon’s civil stalking statute (ORS 30.866) in a case involving a respondent who initiated a series of contacts with the petitioner over several months.
  • Barr v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co., 788 F App’x 556 (9th Cir 2019)
    Successfully defended company at the district court level (after the successful removal from a state circuit court) and on appeal—including handling the oral argument—regarding multimillion-dollar claims for failure to remit withholdings, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and intentional interference with economic relations brought by current and former employees.
  • Bentley v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, 297 Or App 609 (2019)
    Secured reversal of a trial court decision denying an Oregonian's petition for the relief from the prohibition of possessing or receiving a firearm. This was a pro bono matter taken through the Oregon Appellate Pro Bono Program. 
  • Bighorn Logging Corp. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 295 Or App 819 (2019)
    Assisted with briefing and oral argument preparation on a major insurance coverage dispute. 
     
Defended various employers (including education service districts) in connection with charges filed with the Bureau of Labor and Industries and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Researched and contributed to briefing on a class-action challenge to the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, relating to the immigration and travel ban of individuals from predominantly Muslim countries to the United States. This was a pro-bono matter.
Successfully resolved claims against nonprofit board members accused of defamation, misappropriation of funds, and improper removal of board member.
Successfully defended public university at the district court level and on appeal regarding claims for Title VI discrimination and Section 1983 due process violations brought by former undergraduate student.