Experience
Richard Rector, et al. v. Lincoln Electric Company, et al., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Plaintiff brought class action intentional tort claims and product liability claims. Successfully negotiated dismissal of claims against client without payment by client.
Sandra Hodges v. Psychiatric Professional Services, Inc.
Received summary judgment on plaintiff's age discrimination, gender discrimination, FMLA retaliation, promissory estoppel, and violation of public policy claims. Granted summary judgement on all claims by S.D. Ohio, affirmed by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare LLC
Won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The 7th Circuit upheld summary judgment in Defendant’s favor against claims for sex, disability, and retaliation under the Pregnancy discrimination Act, Title VII, and Americans with Disabilities Act
Shepherd v. Rite Aid of West Virginia, Inc.
We obtained summary judgment in a case involving the Plaintiff, who claimed that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender, race, and that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy after failing a drug test. She alleged that the drug test itself was against public policy concerning drug testing of current employees. The circuit court granted our client summary judgment on the wrongful termination issues. The Plaintiff then filed a writ of mandamus, requesting that the Supreme Court of Appeals in West Virginia accept the appeal. the Court, 5-0, rejected the Plaintiff's request. Because the gender and race claims hinged on the wrongful termination claim, the Plaintiff dismissed those claims.
Smith v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 6521 (4th Cir. 1999)
Lead counsel for Columbia in a case alleging race discrimination and racial harassment in the workplace. After successful mediation efforts, a settlement agreement was drafted between the parties. The plaintiff thereafter alleged that he had not agreed to the terms of the agreement, and fired his counsel after he took a contradictory position on the issue. Testimony was elicited at a hearing from Columbia’s in-house counsel and the plaintiff's original trial counsel, each of whom testified that the written agreement comported with a verbal agreement reached between the parties. The district court held, therefore, that the agreement accurately reflected the settlement terms, and that the plaintiff had authorized his original counsel to reach agreement on each term. Enforcement of the agreement was ordered, and was affirmed on appeal by the Fourth Circuit.
Sue Spencer v. Feather, Inc.
Our firm won a defense verdict at a jury trial on behalf of our client, Feather, Inc., who had been sued by the plaintiff on Title VII claims for same sex harassment and retaliation.
The Estate of Sarah Howard v. Large National Insurance Company
Our firm defended a large national insurance company on claims that it unfairly violated Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) and otherwise disciplined Howard in retaliation for complaints about her workload as a P&C adjuster, about her supervisor and the Market Claim Manager and/or because she had a disability in violation of the ADA. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.
Walsh v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, S.D. Ohio
Plaintiff, who was a pilot for Emery World wide Airlines, alleged he was terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The total amount at issue was in excess of $100,000. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a defense verdict dismissing the entire case.
Wheatley v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, (Kanawha County WV, 02-C-2460 (2004))
Lead counsel for Speedway in defense of same-sex harassment claims by a former male employee who alleged that he was harassed on the basis of his sexual orientation and failure to conform with gender stereotypes in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The plaintiff also alleged that the harassment resulted in the constructive discharge from his employment in violation of the Act, and asserted common law claims for the tort of outrage and negligent hiring and supervision. When it became clear that summary judgment in Speedway’s favor was a near certainty, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss his claims in exchange for a nominal settlement.
- Page 2 of 2