Employment Litigation

Increasing regulation and oversight in employment law issues make employers more vulnerable to employment lawsuits. Facing a lawsuit, or even the threat of a lawsuit, is often a daunting process for an employer, and an effective litigation team is an essential resource for all employers in combatting these concerns.

You need an attorney with a proven record in the courtroom.

The firm has litigated cases in federal and state courts across the U.S. and has experience in defending employers against a wide range of employment law claims, including wage and hour violations, harassment, discrimination, employee leave, retaliation, non-competition and trade secrets, among others. Our attorneys work to resolve matters quickly and efficiently by presenting a vigorous defense and act as advocates for their clients in all stages of litigation, including, when necessary, in the courtroom.

In addition to pursuing claims against an employer or former employer under federal, state or local statutes, employees, or other individuals such as customers, may also seek to pursue a common law claim that has been established through court precedent. The firm defends against these claims, including assault, battery, defamation, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and vicarious liability based on conduct of an employee, as well as negligent hiring, training, retention or supervision practices. In addition to the above referenced claims, the firm has experience defending against breach of contract claims that may arise out of an employment relationship or business relationship.

Our attorneys understand that compliance with statutes and regulations is not, in and of itself, enough to minimize risk and respond effectively to common law claims; rather, court decisions and rulings must also be taken into account. We keep employers informed of the latest court decisions and developments in the law, and work with clients to develop strategies for responding to common law claims and for reducing the potential for such claims to arise.

In addition to its traditional litigation practice, the firm has the expertise and personnel required to handle complex electronic discovery projects. In managing e-discovery issues, our attorneys focus on record retention obligations and efficient data review and production. The firm’s approach to e-discovery issues reduces risk and costs to employers.

The firm’s employment litigation practice encompasses individual and class action matters (see Class Actions & Complex Litigation practice area for more information). In addition, our firm has addressed administrative charges at the state and federal levels, performed independent investigations, and pursued action against employees for theft, fraud, misconduct and theft of trade secrets. The firm is also a vigorous advocate on appeal, whether defending a hard-won victory in the trial court or being brought in after a devastating loss to try and curtail the damage.

Representative Experience:

In an important opinion later cited by the California Supreme Court, the firm obtained a written summary judgment opinion in a wage and hour case. The case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code alleging that our client was a joint employer with its franchisee. The court rejected this claim, upholding the independent contractor relationship. Singh v. 7-Eleven, Inc. [PDF – 117 KB], 2007 WL 715488

The firm was successful in prosecuting an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court from an adverse jury verdict on a breach of contract claim before the Circuit Court for Henrico County, Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims were barred by the statute of limitations and reversed.

In a case alleging negligent hiring, negligent retention and assault in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, the firm prevailed on a plea in bar arguing that the claims were precluded by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

In an unpublished decision, the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District affirmed the summary judgment and dismissal the firm obtained on behalf of its client in a lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The former employee alleged discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination on the basis of his race and religion. Page v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. [PDF – 160 KB], No. B251359, 2015 WL 6736857 (2nd CA Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2015).

The firm obtained summary judgment for our client in an age discrimination reduction in force matter. Rosenblatt v. 7-Eleven, Inc. [PDF – 148 KB], 2007 WL 2187252 (N.D. Tex. 2009).

In a case alleging national origin, race, and sex discrimination, the firm was granted its motion for sanctions and the action against our client was dismissed. Gohe v. Seven Eleven [PDF – 77 KB], 2006 WL 1154778 (N.D.Tex. 2006), approving Gohe v. Seven Eleven, 2006 WL 1152682 (N.D.Tex. 2006).

The firm obtained summary judgment for a retail client in a Title VII case alleging national origin discrimination and harassment. The summary judgment was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Getachew v. 7-Eleven [PDF – 76 KB], 151 Fed. Appx. 626 (10th Cir. Sept. 27, 2005).

The firm obtained summary judgment for the client in a case alleging Title VII race discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. summary judgment was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Sheikh v. 7-Eleven [PDF – 122 KB], 2004 WL 3584088 (D.Md. 2004), aff’d 142 Fed. Appx. 785, 2005 WL 2211662 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied 126 S.Ct. 1587 (2006).

In a case alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, negligence, discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the firm obtained summary judgment for our client, and four claims were dismissed. Polk v. 7-Eleven, Inc. [PDF – 88 KB], 2002 WL 122519 (N.D.Tex. 2002).