Experience
Allegations of Wrongful Termination by Ex-Employee of Medical Device Manufacturer
When a medical device manufacturer faced allegations of wrongful termination from an ex-employee, they turned to Dinsmore. The plaintiff was an engineer who was originally hired by the client to serve as a project manager. Upon hiring the plaintiff, the terms of his employment were laid out in an employment contract, which also contained deadlines for the completion of various projects. After nearly a year of employment, it was determined that the plaintiff had not met the required deadlines, and he was terminated. The plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully terminated and filed 10 claims against the client, including alleged violation of public policy, breach of contract and age discrimination. We filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted on nine claims. For the remaining claim of violation of a public policy, we prepared the matter for trial, including managing discovery and taking depositions. On the first day of the trial, before proceedings officially began, we negotiated a settlement favorable to our client, enabling them to avoid litigation.
Christine Skidmore v. Affordable Denture Laboratories
The plaintiff claimed she was the subject of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment created by the lewd comments, dirty jokes and sexual overtures from her supervisor; that her complaints were ignored; and that she was thereafter constructively discharged. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.
Halma Acquisitions
Growing a business is challenging, even with the opportunities offered by today’s global marketplace. Expanding your product and service offerings to your customers requires a strategic vision and focused plan, as well as the resources to pull it all together.
Halma, p.l.c., is an international group of technology companies with its headquarters outside of London, England. Halma has worked with Dinsmore for nearly 25 years. In that time, Dinsmore has represented Halma through a multitude of acquisitions, both domestically and abroad, as Halma has grown to become a global leader in health and safety technology.
When the opportunity recently arose to acquire two companies to boost Halma’s Health and Analysis sector, the company again turned to Dinsmore for counsel. The acquisitions of California-based Sensorex, Inc. and Pennsylvania-based Accutome, Inc., offered myriad challenges. As the deals progressed, it appeared Halma would be able to announce the closings of both transactions to the Stock Exchange on the same day.
Our team worked to structure the asset purchase of Sensorex for $37.5 million and the stock purchase of Accutome for an initial payment of $20 million, handling everything from negotiating and drafting the documents to managing the legal due diligence for both transactions. We assisted Halma with the intellectual property, benefits and employment components of each deal and assisted with all details of closing.
On the Accutome deal, we were faced with the unique task of sequentially structuring the deal to comply with tax law related to the acquisition of Accutome’s Dutch subsidiary. Because of the tax implications of acquiring a subsidiary through one Halma affiliate, while acquiring the parent company through another affiliate, we were asked to ensure that the transaction involving the subsidiary was closed before the U.S. transaction was completed. This required that we coordinate compliance with Dutch requirements in real time, in order to complete the transaction prior to opening of the European markets.
Accutome is primarily known for designing diagnostic equipment used to identify eye conditions and for innovative surgical instruments. Sensorex, a manufacturer of electrochemical water sensors, will enable Halma to enhance its water analysis and water quality programs. Assisted by Dinsmore’s counsel, Halma continues to grow and expand its product offerings to clients and position itself as an industry leader.
Smart Answers to Complicated Questions
Running a telecommunications company responsible for everything from tablets to cell towers means Bluegrass Cellular President and CEO Ron Smith often needs correct answers to complicated questions. And for 20 years, Dinsmore has been answering Smith’s questions on topics ranging from labor and employment to government regulations to OSHA.
“Certainly over the years we’ve had top-notch services from Dinsmore and have really enjoyed the relationship,” Smith said. “I don’t know how we could do our business without them.”
Bluegrass’ services include mobile devices and accessories, talk and text plans, data plans, mobile apps, wireless Internet, and mobile Internet. Staying in business means keeping up with ever-changing government standards that affect everything from human resource issues to cell tower placement and function.
Smith said Dinsmore helps navigate these and other issues by explaining all sides of the matter and then detailing the logic of their counsel. Dinsmore’s attorneys never provide Smith an answer without an adequate explanation.
“It’s more about our education and our being able to make a good business decision,” Smith said.
Smith also appreciates that Dinsmore has multiple attorneys working to ensure the success of his business.
“You develop a really good comfort that you’re not dealing with just one individual, but you’re dealing with a firm that’s pretty deep,” Smith said.
Stepping to the Plate for “America’s Game”
Baseball is about as “American” as you can get, and USA Baseball has been the national governing body for amateur baseball since 1978, including representing the United States as a member of the U.S. Olympic Committee and internationally as a member of the World Baseball Softball Confederation.
“Our first interaction with Dinsmore was in the area of IP and trademark protection, but as our organization and needs have changed, our counsel has not,” said Paul Seiler, Executive Director/CEO of USA Baseball.
“That’s due to the fact Dinsmore is a full service team that provides for all of our legal needs, from contract work to real estate guidance to sponsor relations. This allows USA Baseball to be connected across all of our business units with a common and knowledgeable firm that understands who we are, in all facets of our operations,” he added.
Dinsmore serves as USA Baseball’s outside general counsel and handles all legal issues for the organization, including intellectual property, data protection, corporate, litigation, employment and finance. Among recent work, Dinsmore provided legal support to USA Baseball’s efforts to develop and implement a performance standard for non-wood bats used in youth baseball. This work began several years ago and, ultimately, reached a variety of legal areas including intellectual property, corporate, licensing, insurance and agreement work. The performance standard was announced on August 7, 2015, and on January 1, 2018, USA Baseball’s National Member Organizations will require non-wood youth bats meet the performance standard, which will be indicated by the USA Baseball trademark on bats that have passed performance testing.
“One of our former board members had a saying, ‘You do business with your friends.’ And while perhaps not always literal or possible in business, in this case it is,” Seiler said. “Our decision to have Dinsmore represent USA Baseball is based on the relationship we have, as well as for the quality counsel provided on a daily basis.”
As the national governing body of amateur baseball, USA Baseball engages with nearly every major national amateur baseball organization in America, which equates to millions of amateur players in ballparks and playgrounds across the country. The organization also promotes and develops the game on a grassroots level nationally and internationally. Dinsmore attorneys have assisted the organization with finance and real estate work related to further development of USA Baseball’s National Training Complex in Cary, North Carolina.
“The great thing about our relationship with Dinsmore is that we know our best interests are always being looked out for. We never feel like we are just a client. For that matter, I don’t think we even use that word (client) when referencing our partnership,” Seiler said. “Dinsmore is an impactful brand in the legal world, yet it would be hard to argue that we have a more personal relationship with anyone we do business with.”
"One Source" for Shared Success
Growing, nurturing and providing fresh produce is not without challenges, from accounting for the weather to managing transportation to ensuring quality and safety. However, when those challenges cross over into the legal realm, Castellini Group of Companies knows they have a trusted partner in Dinsmore.
“Coordination is very important in our business because we have so many different facets that need to come together for success,” said Bill Schuler, President and CEO of Castellini. “Dinsmore understands that, and they work with us in a number of areas to make sure our business continues to thrive.”
Having started as a small fruits and vegetables supplier more than 100 years ago, Castellini has grown to become one of the largest produce suppliers in the country. Through it all, Schuler says Dinsmore has been by their side, advising on everything from real estate transactions and complex financings to corporate structure and supply chain matters to labor and employment issues. Drawing on a wealth of institutional knowledge, Dinsmore attorneys have provided the targeted counsel and insight Castellini has needed to continue to grow and evolve over the years.
Castellini’s success has been fueled by their motto of “One Source,” as they have become a one-stop-shop for their customers’ complete produce needs. Similarly, Dinsmore has become Castellini’s one source legal adviser and collectively we’ve been able to share success.
Abels v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. et al., (S.D. W.Va. 1993)
Affirmative Action Matters
Allegations of Employment Discrimination Relating To FMLA
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Health Care Facility
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Transportation Management Services Company
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Transportation Management Services Company
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Tobacco Company
Appellate Experience
1) Nord v. The Black & Decker Disability Plan, 538 U.S. 822 (2003): Employee sued employer-sponsored disability plan alleging that the plan wrongfully denied his claim for benefits by failing to give proper weight to his treating physician's opinion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether ERISA's requirement for a full and fair consideration of the employee's claim included giving deference to the treating physician's opinion. The Court held in favor of the benefit plan and reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, a position advocated by the National Association of Manufacturers' amicus brief.
2) Chambers v. Trettco, 463 Mich. 297, 614 N.W.2d 910 (2000): Employee sued employer under Michigan's Civil Rights Act alleging sexual harassment by a supervisory employee. The employer argued that it was not vicariously liable under the Michigan Civil Rights Act, citing key differences in the Michigan statute and Title VII. The Michigan Court of Appeals applied an analysis consistent with Title VII and held the employer liable. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, following position advocated by the Michigan Manufacturers' Association's amicus brief, relying on differences in the text of the state law to hold that the principles stated in the federal civil rights cases did not control.
3) Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich. 124, 666 N.W.2d 186 (2002): Employee sued employer under Michigan's Civil Rights Act alleging pregnancy discrimination. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary disposition and the matter was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and reversed and remanded, following position advocated by the Michigan Manufacturers' Association's amicus, with direction to enter a finding of no cause of action as a matter of law.
Lira has also represented appellants in federal and state courts. Representative cases include:
4) Taunt v. General Retirement Sys. of the City of Detroit (In Re: Wilcox), 233 F.3d 899 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 929 (June 2001): Bankruptcy trustee sought access to debtor's retirement benefits on behalf of creditors, and debtor's municipal retirement plan sought to protect the benefits under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). The bankruptcy court held that the plan's anti-assignment provision was not enforceable under § 541(c)(2), and the district court agreed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the anti-assignment provision satisfied § 541(c)(2) and that the benefits could not be reached by creditors.
5) Preston v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48260 (S. Dist. Ohio 2006): Former employee sued his employer and insurance company administrating the employer's disability benefit plan, contending that he was wrongfully denied benefits. The insurer and employer moved for judgment as a matter of law on the basis that ERISA preempted the employee's claims and that the employee failed to state an actionable claim. The court ruled in favor of defendants and granted summary judgment.
6) Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. v. Delfield Co. Group Health Plan, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18708 (Sixth Circuit 1999): Plaintiff insurance carrier sued defendant self-funded employee benefit plan, contending that the employee benefit plan was primarily responsible for medical expenses incurred by its insured in an automobile accident. The employee benefit plan sought to require the insurer to pursue its claim administratively before resorting to litigation. The district court ruled in favor of the benefits plan, but the appeals court reversed on the basis that it was bound to follow a prior panel's ruling and allow litigation, although the concurrence pointed out that the prior ruling was inconsistent with subsequent case law.
7) Alstork v. AIG Life Ins. Co. et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 08-4339 (2008): Plaintiff beneficiary of employee's life insurance policy sued defendant employer, employee benefit plan, and insurer, contending that Plaintiff should have been paid accidental death benefits when employee died following an automobile accident. Defendants denied benefits based on the terms of the benefit plan and results of post-accident medical review. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio upheld denial of benefits, and Plaintiff appealed. Case successfully settled on appeal.
8) Hodges v. American Heritage Life Ins. Co., United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 08-5777 (2008) (pending): Plaintiff former employee sued defendant employer, employee benefit plan, and insurer, contending that Plaintiff should have been paid disability benefits for chronic condition characterized by subjective complaints of pain. Defendants denied benefits based on the terms of the benefit plan and results of independent medical reviews. The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky upheld denial of benefits, and Plaintiff appealed. Case is pending.
AT&T Corp. Deliberate Intent Litigation (Kanawha, County, WV 2008)
Baldwin v. General Electric Co.
Baron v. Watson Pharms., Inc.
Basinger, et al. v. Pilarczyk. et al.
Bell v. Ashland Oil, Inc.(S.D. W.Va. 1998)
Beverly Coda v. Thorntons, Inc.
Bond v. General Motors
Booker v. Garden Manor
Carla Cornicelli v. Large National Insurance Company
Cornell v. General Electric Plastics, 853 F. Supp. 221 (S.D. W. Va. 1994)
Defended against claims of wrongful discharge and defamation stemming from sexual harassment investigation
Defended an employer who faced claims of gender discrimination and retaliation from a former employee
Defended Jewish Hospital against allegations of wrongful discharge
Defense Verdict in Race Hostile Work Environment Claim
Following discovery, the company filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that he had been terminated due to his race or in retaliation for complaining about race discrimination inasmuch as he was unable to rebut the employer's legitimate business reason for his termination. In addition, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims that he and other minority employees had been forced to work in unsafe working conditions as barred due to his failure to pursue his administrative remedy and because he lacked evidence that minority employees were singled out.
In February 2012, the case was tried in Jefferson Circuit Court on the plaintiff’s remaining claim that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The Company presented proof that nearly 20% of its workforce is African-American and that almost half of those employees had worked for the Company for over 15 years. The manufacturer also put on evidence of its zero tolerance for harassment of any kind. Following a two-day trial which included testimony of seven witnesses, the 12-person jury found unanimously in favor of the company on the plaintiff’s claim that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment due to the presence of rope nooses and racial graffiti. After the trial court denied a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed the jury verdict to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, but voluntarily dismissed his appeal before filing his brief, concluding this matter.
Developed Entire Workforce Governance Framework for New Company
The success of any business is directly tied to its employees. From their tangible contributions to the company to the mindset and culture they instill, a good workforce can be the tool that takes a company to the next level.
Tri-Arrows Aluminum embraces a “gold standard” approach to doing business, challenging its employees to go above the call of duty and push the company to new heights while also maintaining an atmosphere of conducting business the “right way.” Formerly a subsidiary of BP Company North America that was known as ARCO Aluminum, Tri-Arrows turned to Dinsmore for counsel when it became clear it would soon be an independent company. Recognizing the opportunity to start anew, Tri-Arrows enlisted Dinsmore to begin drafting new policies and procedures, including a new payroll structure and performance review system, as well as providing guidance on which employment laws the new company was, or was not, required to comply with in its new form with a smaller workforce. Integrating ourselves in the culture of the new company, we drafted a new employee handbook, modifying the legacy policies to fit the new regime, but also constructing a unique framework that reflected the objectives of Tri-Arrows.
Once the basic framework for their employment procedures was established, we continued to offer guidance on business ethics, including conducting on-site Code of Ethics training for employees. Understanding the potential for concern caused by Tri-Arrows unique joint venture agreement, in which they have shared manufacturing facilities with a competitor for over a quarter of a century, our team worked with Tri-Arrows’ employees to address issues of confidentiality and the handling of business-sensitive information, arming the employees with the knowledge they needed to uphold the company’s mission without compromising proprietary information.
As Tri-Arrows continues to grow, its employment needs grow as well. Our attorneys have teamed with the company to provide a variety of services, including reviewing compensation plans, detailing job descriptions and employee classifications, and formally instituting a performance evaluation process. Our detail-oriented approach to employment counseling has fallen in step with Tri-Arrows’ professional culture, and we’ve helped this newly-formed company build a solid foundation that will enable it to reach the next level.
Development of Urgent Care Business
- Page 1 of 4